Back in 1964, heavyweight boxing champion Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali to reflect his affiliation with the Nation of Islam, and later more mainstream Sunni Islam. Many in the sports media of the day initially resisted referring to the boxer as Ali, with the notable exception of the late Howard Cosell. It was only after the lead that Cosell and a handful of others took that the rest of the sporting world began to follow suit.
Cosell’s gesture was an admirable and important one, and reflected his conviction that an individual had the right to choose his or her own name based on his or her beliefs. On that same token, I believe we should respect the right of the former Melvin Richardson, a Letha farmer and conservative activist, to change his name to Pro-Life.
If you follow Idaho politics at all you know Pro-Life, a former Constitution Party member turned independent, is one of the 13 candidates for our open United States Senate seat. As reported by both NewWest and Ridenbaugh Press, the Idaho State Senate unanimously passed legislation stating that any candidate who had “changed their name and has changed their name to words that convey or attempt to convey a political message” may at the discretion of the secretary of state have his name appended on the ballot with something to the effect of “A person, formerly known as …”. The bill is widely expected to become law in very short order.
This is oddly reminiscent of the 1979 San Francisco mayoral election, which featured candidates named Sister Boom Boom and Jello Biafra - the latter of Dead Kennedys fame - who finished third and fourth respectively out of 10 contenders. In response, the City of San Fransisco passed a resolution that candidates could only run in municipal elections under their legal names. This I think is reasonable, since neither Sister Boom Boom (a.k.a. Jack Fertig) nor Jello Biafra (a.k.a. Eric Reed Boucher) legally changed their names, and their campaigns were largely pranks, especially Biafra’s.
This situation, however, is a little different. Pro-Life did legally change his name, and while I question his campaign strategy overall, I don’t believe he’s doing this as a prank. I certainly don’t have a problem with measures designed to provide objective facts to voters. I generally agree with Randy Stapilus’ assessment that, “If ballots should be clear and simple, and they should be, the added bit of information (Secretary of State Ben) Ysursa calls for ought to help.”
But my support of this is guarded. Rumblings that this is politically motivated, lest Republicans split the vote with one-issue independents, aren’t without merit. It is my hope that this doesn’t go any further. Pro-Life has the right to appear on the November ballot as Pro-Life, either with or without the clarification. Like Howard Cosell did for Muhammad Ali, for the sake of individual rights - and not because of anything else Pro-Life stands for - we should support him on this matter.
My own take on this issue is: it just goes to show how dumb the elitist Republican leadership beleives their own constituancy to be. How true or not this may be, I won’t comment on here. I will say, though, that every ballot I’ve ever read clearly states “Vote for one,” and the blessing of literacy is not confined to those of us with a public education. It insults the intelligence of the Idaho Voter to imply that if we were to see a “position” we agree with as a name on a list of candidates’ names, we would unknowingly spoil our ballots. No, the real motive here is using their position of power to make it difficult for someone else to freely express themselves and to dare to run for office against them. For the record, I completely disagree with Mr. Pro-Life, and do personaly think it is a pretty silly thing to change one’s name to a position. But it isn’t the State’s job to regulate names.
As far as this particular piece of legislation goes, I could take it or leave it. It passes the legitimacy test by the absolute slimmest of margins.
Whether or not you’re pro-life yourself is immaterial here (I happen to not only be pro-choice, but pro-choice, adopted and born after Roe v. Wade). If someone wants to rename themselves Pro-Life, and goes through the legal process necessary to do it, that person should be called Pro-Life. If Pro-Life runs for office, that name should be the primary identifier on the ballot. It appears that’s what’s happening here, just with the “formerly known as” disclaimer appended to it.