State Rep. Tex Fischer, whose eligibility as a candidate in 2024 was decided by the Ohio secretary of state because of a name change, introduced legislation that would not require candidates to use their former names on future ballots.

Fischer, R-Canfield, said he hopes the state Legislature could pass the bill after the Nov. 3 election.

“I’m not sure of its prospects,” Fischer said of the bill. “But it’s something that should be addressed.”

Fischer changed his name May 19, 2020, from Austin James Fischer to Austin James Texford Fischer.

Under state law, “If any person desiring to become a candidate for public office has had a change of name within five years immediately preceding the filing of his statement of candidacy, both his statement and nominating petition must contain, immediately following the person’s present name, the person’s former name.”

That law doesn’t apply to those who change their name through marriage or to a candidate who has once before complied with the section.

The Mahoning County Board of Elections voted 2-2 with Republicans voting to certify Fischer and Democrats to not on Aug. 15, 2024, three days after county Democratic Party Chairman Chris Anderson objected to Fischer’s eligibility. Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, broke the tie Sept. 6, 2024, in favor of Fischer.

Fischer’s argument was he was appointed to a vacant seat in the Ohio House on June 23, 2024, after the Republican primary, and ran after filling out a “Certification of Selection of Candidates to Fill Vacancy in Party Nomination” form so the law didn’t apply to him as he never filed a statement of candidacy or nominating petitions.

However, the name-change law garnered national attention when Republicans sought to block three Democratic transgender candidates in state legislative races because they didn’t include their former names on paperwork seeking to get on the ballot. Two were permitted to run by boards of elections and one wasn’t.

Fischer’s bill would require statements of candidacy and nominating petitions to have a space for people to list their former names during the last five years, if they have any, and would eliminate the requirement that their previous names not be on ballots.

Fischer said: “People would still need to have their former names on paperwork kept at the board of elections, but not on the ballot. You could still dig up dirt on someone if they change their name. It’s very reasonable if it’s a convicted felon or someone changed their name to Donald Trump to get elected. There’s no reason to have a former name appear on the ballot.”

Fischer said: “I might get pushback (because of) the trans issue though I’ve yet to get any. But it makes sense. I don’t see the need to put former names on the ballot – trans or not – if it’s on the other forms.”

Fischer said putting a space on the forms for former names during the past five years is fair, particularly because hardly anyone running for office knows about the requirement.

“People who got kicked off didn’t even know,” Fischer said. “It’s silly. The penalty is disqualification when there isn’t a space on the form. People just don’t know about it. It’s not malicious. It’s more of a technicality.”

LaRose has previously said he doesn’t favor changing the name-change law.

But after the issues with the transgender candidates, the secretary of state’s office in December 2024 included a larger space for candidates’ names so former names, if required, could be included on statements of candidacy and nominating petitions. Also, the secretary of state’s candidates’ guide includes information about the former name requirement, which was signed into law Aug. 22, 1995.