It’s (still) just a bill
Wednesday, Jun 19, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* I didn’t realize this was a thing anymore, either…
Stephanie’s last name is Johnson. Though she no longer wants it to be, she said it’s too much work to change.
But a new law, awaiting Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s signature, is designed to remedy that for divorced individuals (usually women) looking to revert to their maiden names, eliminating the legal requirement of publishing a notice in a newspaper in that circumstance.
“Is that even a thing anymore? It’s completely intrusive and ridiculous that I have to publicly announce this in a newspaper,” said Johnson, a 36-year-old Aurora mother of two who has been divorced for about six years. She said she looked into changing her name a few years ago but her efforts stalled after learning the process was more labor intensive than when she changed to her married name.
After hearing a similar complaint from a divorced friend, state Sen. Cristina Castro, D-Elgin, said she was inspired to sponsor legislation to eliminate the newspaper publication requirement for divorced women so it’s more in line with changing a name with a marriage certificate in hand.
As the law stands now, a person must pay for a legal notice in a newspaper as part of the court process for changing a name. There’s an exception if the person has a court-issued marriage certificate. Castro’s legislation would also add a divorce judgment to that.
Good riddance.
But it isn’t a law until it’s signed.
* Another one…
Legislation which would have mandated diversity on Illinois’ publicly traded corporate boards quietly passed the Senate before adjournment and recently went to Gov. J.B. Pritzker for his signature. Significantly altered from its original version, which would have imposed fines on violators, the law now mandates only that companies report on their websites the demographics of their board and executive team and how they are promoting diversity in the workplace. The state will also issue an annual report card.
Throughout the debate leading up to passage, one point was consistently overlooked. Corporate boards will still have the right to choose their members. The law may open doors for women and minorities, but it won’t guarantee a seat at the table. That leaves the responsibility up to the individual.
Again, it hasn’t been signed into law yet.
* Nope. Not yet…
Legalization advocates scored their biggest win of the year in Illinois, where Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) signed a recreational marijuana bill into law earlier this month.
* Related…
* Reeder: With job screening, human intelligence better than AI
* Pharmacies back bill instituting state oversight of pharmacy benefit managers
- anon2 - Wednesday, Jun 19, 19 @ 1:48 pm:
The kind of diversity that corporate boards need is to have some rank-and-file workers on them. Germany and some other EU countries have that requirement. That’s why CEO salaries are not as disproportionate to the workforce in Germany as they are here where workers aren’t on boards.
- InTheKnow - Wednesday, Jun 19, 19 @ 1:51 pm:
This is just another example of being behind the time forcing items to be published in the paper that no one reads. Just like school districts having to publish in a local newspaper about their budget, tax levy, and annual financial report, its a way for newspapers to justify their existence.
- Amalia - Wednesday, Jun 19, 19 @ 1:54 pm:
really? never heard about that law before. thought the rule was you can use a name if there is no intent to defraud. of course, easiest to just not change it in the first place. btw, can those writing/talking about the name issue please use the term “birth name” for women and men. the whole “maiden name” thing is ridiculous. unless you use another such term for men.
- Wonderful World - Wednesday, Jun 19, 19 @ 2:07 pm:
And can we change the law so that the voting record stays with the person - even through a name change? Please?
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Jun 19, 19 @ 2:13 pm:
Bad reporting by The Hill, on Pritzker signing the marijuana bill.
Too bad that New York won’t legalize marijuana this year. It makes us look very good on that front, how we threaded the needle just right and worked very hard to get enough votes.
- Still Waiting - Wednesday, Jun 19, 19 @ 2:26 pm:
When the name change bill went through, I noticed my rep and other eastern bloc members voted no. Why on earth? Disgraceful.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 19, 19 @ 2:30 pm:
===Why on earth?===
They got into a groove of voting against just about everything for a while.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 19, 19 @ 2:46 pm:
We can argue about newspaper publication requirement but it is a public notice and does serve s purpose. Any number of name changes must currently be published, things like adoption and using a business name are just two that come to mind off the top of my head. As is the requirement to publish estate claim notices.
If there was an easily searchable source for publishing such changes / filings not involving a newspaper, then I could possibly see dropping the newspaper requirement. I believe some of the counties allow searches of all court filings, but others don’t have the capability.
- Amalia - Wednesday, Jun 19, 19 @ 3:14 pm:
how does one change their name to the name of a person to whom they are married? don’t you just start using another name? so you have to go to court to change something that you did not formally do in the first place?
- Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Jun 19, 19 @ 3:34 pm:
Amalia,
No, you just don’t start using a new name. There are a lot of ridiculous hoops people — mostly women — have to jump through.
There are companies that will do a lot of it for you because it’s such an annoying pain.
Here’s a good summary:
https://www.theknot.com/content/name-change-101
- WineTrailHero - Wednesday, Jun 19, 19 @ 4:15 pm:
I can’t find the bill number on the maiden name change requirements for the life of me. Anyone know what it is?
- Johnnie F. - Wednesday, Jun 19, 19 @ 4:52 pm:
Migraine today, waiting for medical expansion of cannabis. Hopefully some time soon.
- Penny - Thursday, Jun 20, 19 @ 12:29 pm:
Diversity reporting requirements are an unreasonable intrusion into the operations and decision-making of a company. It will also inhibit companies’ ability to hire the best candidate for a position, lest they face scrutiny because of numbers reported. If we should let women choose what to do with their babies why can’t we let businesses make their own choices as well? How far does “pro-choice” go?
I would fight this if I owned a business and it became law.