[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

ex rel. Imposters, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-4588.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2024-OHIO-4588

THE STATE EX REL. IMPOSTERS, LTD. v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF 

ELECTIONS.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State ex rel. Imposters, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 

Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-4588.]

Elections—Mandamus—Writ sought to compel board of elections to certify local 

liquor option for general-election ballot—Board of elections did not abuse 

its discretion or act in clear disregard of applicable law in rejecting 

relator’s petition and declining to certify local liquor option for generalelection ballot—Writ denied.

(No. 2024-1248—Submitted September 17, 2024—Decided September 19, 2024.)

IN MANDAMUS.

__________________

The per curiam opinion below was joined by KENNEDY, C.J., and DEWINE,

DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, and DETERS, JJ. FISCHER, J., concurred in 

judgment only.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Relator, Imposters, Ltd., seeks a writ of mandamus ordering 

respondent, the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, to certify a local liquor 

option for placement on the November 5, 2024 general-election ballot. The board 

declined to place the question on the ballot because it found that Imposters’ localliquor-option petition did not strictly comply with statutory requirements. We deny 

the writ because the board did not abuse its discretion or act in clear disregard of 

applicable law.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Placing a Local Liquor Option on the Ballot

{¶ 2} R.C. 4301.323 confers on electors of an election precinct the privilege 

of a local-option election to consider the question whether “the sale of beer, wine 

and mixed beverages, or spirituous liquor at a particular location within the 

precinct” should be permitted. An applicant for or holder of a liquor permit at a 

particular location within the precinct may petition for a local-liquor-option 

election in that precinct. R.C. 4301.323(A) and (B).

{¶ 3} To exercise the privilege of a local-liquor-option election conferred 

by R.C. 4301.323, a petitioner must present a petition to the board of elections of 

the county in which the precinct is located at least 90 days before the day of a 

general election or a special election held on a day on which a primary election may 

be held. R.C. 4301.333(A). If the petition is for the submission of a question

specified in R.C. 4301.355(B)(1), “[t]he petition shall contain” certain information, 

including “[a] notice that the petition is for the submission of the question or 

questions set forth in section 4301.355 of the Revised Code.” R.C. 4301.333(B)(1). 

Included among the questions set forth in R.C. 4301.355 is the one relevant to this 

case: “Shall the sale of __________ (insert beer, wine and mixed beverages, or 

spirituous liquor) be permitted by __________ (insert name of applicant [or] liquor
January Term, 2024

3

permit holder . . . at __________ (insert address of the particular location . . . ) in 

this precinct?” R.C. 4301.355(B)(1).

B. The Liquor Permits Issued to Imposters

{¶ 4} R.C. Ch. 4303 sets forth various types of liquor permits that the Ohio 

Division of Liquor Control may issue. The following permits are relevant to this 

case:

• the D-1 permit, which authorizes retail sale of beer, R.C. 4303.13;

• the D-2 permit, which authorizes retail sale of “cider, wine, and prepared and 

bottled cocktails, cordials, and other mixed beverages,” R.C. 4303.14;

• the D-3 permit, which authorizes retail sale of spirituous liquor by the individual 

drink, R.C. 4303.15; and

• the D-6 permit, which authorizes Sunday sales for holders of a D-2 or D-3 

permit, R.C. 4303.182(A).

{¶ 5} Imposters operates a performing-arts theater in Cleveland. In July 

2022, Imposters submitted to the division of liquor control (1) an application to 

transfer to its business location the ownership of D-1, D-2, and D-3 permits and (2) 

an application for issuance of a new D-6 liquor permit.

{¶ 6} In February 2023, the division of liquor control advised Imposters 

about the local-liquor-option status for liquor sales at its location. According to 

local-liquor-option voting records obtained by the division, Imposters’ permit 

location was completely “dry” for wine and spirituous liquor, but sales of beer and 

mixed beverages were permitted on Monday through Saturday. Accordingly, the 

division issued D-1 (beer) and D-2 (limited to mixed beverages) permits for 2023 

to Imposters but held the D-3 (spirituous liquor) and D-6 (Sunday sales) permit 

applications in “pending” status.

{¶ 7} Though a D-2 permit issued under R.C. 4303.14 would normally 

allow sales of wine and mixed beverages, the D-2 permit issued to Imposters stated 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

“sale of wine illegal” because of the location’s local-liquor-option status. Based on 

the board’s voting records, the allowance of mixed beverages but prohibition of 

wine at Imposters’ location dates back to a local-option election in November 1969, 

when precinct voters opted to allow sales of beer and mixed beverages but voted 

against sales of wine and spirituous liquor.

{¶ 8} Under its current liquor permits, Imposters is permitted to sell beer 

under a D-1 permit, mixed beverages under a D-2 permit, and both on Sundays 

under a D-6 permit.1 Imposters’ D-2 permit remains partial, authorizing Imposters 

to sell “wine and certain pre-packaged drinks [i.e., mixed beverages],” but then 

containing the limiting language, “sale of wine illegal.” Imposters does not 

currently have a permit to sell wine or spirituous liquor.

C. Imposters’ Local-Liquor-Option Petition

{¶ 9} Endeavoring to overcome all the liquor restrictions applicable to its 

location, Imposters seeks to place a local-liquor-option question before precinct 

voters at the November 5, 2024 general election. Imposters submitted a timely 

local-liquor-option election petition to the board on Form 5-R as prescribed by the 

Ohio Secretary of State. As submitted by Imposters, the petition appeared as 

follows:

1. At the November 2023 general election, voters in Cleveland 03 Precinct B voted to allow Sunday 

sales at Imposters’ location.
January Term, 2024

5

As shown above, Imposters inserted “wine and spirituous liquor” on the first blank 

in paragraph (1). The instructions below the blank, however, indicated that the 

petitioner should “insert above one or more of the following three choices: ‘beer’; 

‘wine and mixed beverages’; or ‘spirituous liquor.’ ” (Boldface deleted.)

{¶ 10} Imposters’ petition contained enough valid signatures of precinct 

electors to qualify the local liquor option for the ballot. However, on August 7, the 

board’s manager of candidate and petition services, Brent Lawler, informed 

Imposters that the submitted petition was invalid because Imposters had inserted 

“wine and spirituous liquor” on the first blank in paragraph (1) of the petition form. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

Lawler wrote in an email to Imposters that “[t]he type of sale ‘wine’ must also 

include ‘mixed beverages’ to be considered a valid submission.” Thus, according 

to Lawler, Imposters should have inserted “wine and mixed beverages and 

spirituous liquor” on the blank at issue. In support of this position, Lawler included 

in his email the following quote from the Local Liquor Options Guide published by 

the secretary of state:

“Wine and mixed beverages” is a single category, requiring BOTH 

wine and mixed beverages. Thus, [the] petition may request “beer 

and wine and mixed beverages” or “wine and mixed beverages and 

spirituous liquor,” but NOT “beer and wine” or “beer and mixed 

beverages” or “mixed beverages and spirituous liquor.”

Lawler informed Imposters that the local-liquor-option petition would be submitted 

to the board “for removal from the ballot” at the board’s August 19 meeting.

{¶ 11} Imposters appeared at the board’s August 19 meeting to argue 

against the rejection of its local-liquor-option petition. Imposters acknowledged 

that the petition form required it to insert “beer, wine and mixed beverages, or 

spirituous liquor” on the first blank in paragraph (1) of Form 5-R. However, 

Imposters took the position that an applicant may choose any one or more of beer, 

wine, mixed beverages, or spirituous liquor to which R.C. 4301.355(B)(1) applies 

“and put that [combination] on the ballot.” In other words, Imposters argued that 

it did not have to list “wine and mixed beverages” on the blank at issue. Imposters 

further argued that it did not need to include “mixed beverages” on the petition 

because it already has a D-2 permit allowing it to sell mixed beverages. To the 

extent that the secretary of state’s guide dictated otherwise, Imposters argued that 

the secretary’s interpretation was contrary to R.C. 4301.355(B)(1).
January Term, 2024

7

{¶ 12} The board voted unanimously to reject Imposters’ petition and to not 

certify Imposters’ local liquor option for the November 5, 2024 general-election 

ballot.

D. Imposters Files this Action

{¶ 13} On September 5, 2024, more than two weeks after the board rejected 

its petition, Imposters filed this expedited election action. Imposters seeks a writ 

of mandamus ordering the board to certify its local-liquor-option question for 

placement on the Cleveland 03 Precinct B, November 5, 2024 general-election 

ballot. The board timely answered the complaint, admitting most of the material 

facts but denying that Imposters is entitled to relief. The board also asserted as an 

affirmative defense that Imposters’ complaint is barred by the doctrine of laches.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Laches

{¶ 14} In election cases, a relator must act with the utmost diligence. State 

ex rel. Syx v. Stow City Council, 2020-Ohio-4393, ¶ 11. Laches may bar relief if 

there is (1) unreasonable delay or lapse of time in asserting a right, (2) absence of 

an excuse for the delay, (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the injury or 

wrong, and (4) prejudice to the other party. State ex rel. Carrier v. Hilliard City 

Council, 2016-Ohio-155, ¶ 8.

{¶ 15} In this case, the board rejected Imposters’ local-liquor-option 

petition on August 19. But Imposters waited 17 days until it filed this action on 

September 5, seeking extraordinary relief in mandamus. This court has found a 

delay of this duration to be unreasonable in an expedited election case. State ex rel. 

Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 1995-Ohio-269, ¶ 13. And Imposters has 

given no reason why it waited 17 days to file suit.

{¶ 16} Delay alone, however, is not enough to establish a laches defense. 

See id. at 145. When this court has found laches dispositive, it is generally because 

of “prejudice to the respondents in their statutory obligation to absentee voters to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

have absentee ballots printed and ready for use.” State ex rel. Steele v. Morrissey, 

2004-Ohio-4960, ¶ 14. Thus, in Steele, this court rejected laches as a dispositive 

defense, noting that “the schedule for evidence and briefs in [that] case was 

completed before the passage of the absentee-ballot date.” (Emphasis in original.) 

Id.

{¶ 17} In this case, the board contends that the 17-day delay is prejudicial 

because the board is required to begin distributing ballots under the Uniformed and 

Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (“UOCAVA”) to eligible voters on 

September 20 and commence mailing absentee ballots to other eligible voters on 

October 8. And a directive from the secretary of state requires it to send a copy of 

each precinct’s absentee ballot to the secretary of state by September 19. Moreover, 

the board states that it must “successfully complete logic and accuracy testing and 

give notice to its print vendor to print the ballots for the 2024 General Election by 

October 1, 2024.” The procedure for this logic and accuracy testing will begin by 

September 20. Thus, says the board, a failure to resolve the issue whether 

Imposters’ petition is valid by September 20 will prejudice its ability to timely 

finalize absentee ballots by October 8.

{¶ 18} Though Imposters’ 17-day delay in filing this suit appears 

unreasonable under the circumstances of this case, we decline to deny the writ 

based on laches. The record before us does not establish the requisite prejudice to 

sustain a laches defense. Despite the delay, Imposters still brought this case far 

enough in advance of the board’s October 1 deadline for completing all “logic and 

accuracy testing” for absentee ballots that this court can issue a decision in time for 

the board to complete its work. And as for the UOCAVA deadline, the board has 

not demonstrated prejudice arising from that looming date. The board does not 

state whether any UOCAVA ballots need to be ready for use by September 20. 

Insofar as the local-liquor-option question would be presented to the electors of 
January Term, 2024

9

only one precinct in Cuyahoga County, it is not certain on the record before us that 

any overseas ballots are required.

B. Mandamus

{¶ 19} To obtain a writ of mandamus ordering placement of its local-liquoroption question on the November 5, 2024 general-election ballot, Imposters must 

establish by clear and convincing evidence that (1) it has a clear legal right to the 

requested relief, (2) the board has a clear legal duty to provide it, and (3) it does not 

have an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Brubaker 

v. Lawrence Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2022-Ohio-1087, ¶ 9. With respect to the third 

element, Imposters lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law 

because the November 5 election is little more than 40 days away. See State ex rel. 

Lambert v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2023-Ohio-3351, ¶ 12 (the relator 

“lack[ed] an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law due to the proximity 

of the election” when the court issued its opinion on September 20, 2023, ahead of 

the November 7, 2023 election).

{¶ 20} As to the first two elements, this court must determine whether the 

board engaged in fraud or corruption, abused its discretion, or acted in clear 

disregard of applicable law. Brubaker at ¶ 10. Imposters does not contend that the 

board engaged in fraud or corruption. Thus, Imposters’ entitlement to relief turns 

on whether the board abused its discretion or acted in clear disregard of the law.

{¶ 21} The resolution of this case turns on whether Imposters was required 

to insert “wine and mixed beverages and spirituous liquor” on the first blank in 

paragraph (1) of Form 5-R for a local liquor option, even though Imposters already 

has a permit allowing it to sell mixed beverages. To resolve that question, 

Imposters points to R.C. 4301.355(B), which governs the form of ballots for the 

local liquor option that Imposters seeks to place before the voters in its precinct. 

That statute provides:
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10

At the election, one or more of the following questions, as 

designated in a valid petition, shall be submitted to the electors of 

the precinct:

(1) “Shall the sale of __________ (insert beer, wine and 

mixed beverages, or spirituous liquor) be permitted by __________

(insert name of applicant, liquor permit holder, or liquor agency 

store, including trade or fictitious name under which applicant for, 

or holder of, liquor permit or liquor agency store either intends to 

do, or does, business at the particular location), an __________

(insert “applicant for” or “holder of” or “operator of”) a __________

(insert class name of liquor permit or permits followed by the words 

“liquor permit(s)” or, if appropriate, the words “liquor agency store 

for the State of Ohio”), who is engaged in the business of 

__________ (insert general nature of the business in which 

applicant or liquor permit holder is engaged or will be engaged in at 

the particular location, as described in the petition) at __________

(insert address of the particular location within the precinct as set 

forth in the petition) in this precinct?” 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 22} Election laws are mandatory and require strict compliance; 

substantial compliance is acceptable only when an election provision expressly 

states that it is. State ex rel. Commt. for the Referendum of Lorain Ordinance No. 

77-01 v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2002-Ohio-4194, ¶ 49. In this case, Imposters 

does not argue for substantial compliance. Rather, it argues that R.C. 4301.355(B) 

did not require its petition to include “mixed beverages” as a subject of the proposed 

local liquor option. That is so, argues Imposters, because it already has a permit to 

sell mixed beverages at its location. Thus, Imposters argues that the language “wine 
January Term, 2024

11

and spirituous liquors” on its petition is accurate and would be valid ballot language 

under R.C. 4301.355(B) because “wine and spirituous liquor were the only two 

types of beverages that remained dry at Imposters’ location, and for which 

Imposters needed the voters to approve such sales.” Nothing in R.C. 

4301.355(B)(1), argues Imposters, prohibited it from filling in the blank on the 

petition Form 5-R with the phrase “wine and spirituous liquor.”

{¶ 23} The board disputes Imposters’ interpretation, arguing that we must 

look not only to R.C. 4301.355(B) but also to R.C. 4301.333. The latter statute 

provides that a local-liquor-option petition “shall contain” several disclosures, 

including:

The address and proposed use of the particular location 

within the election precinct to which the results of the question or 

questions specified in section 4301.355 of the Revised Code shall 

apply. For purposes of this division, “use” means all of the 

following:

(a) The type of each liquor permit applied for by the 

applicant or held by the liquor permit holder as described in sections 

4303.11 to 4303.183 of the Revised Code, including a description of 

the type of beer or intoxicating liquor sales authorized by each 

permit as provided in those sections.

(Emphasis added.) R.C. 4301.333(B)(3).

{¶ 24} The board argues that Imposters’ petition did not strictly comply 

with R.C. 4301.333(B)(3)(a) because none of the permits “described in” R.C. 

4303.11 to 4303.183 authorizes the sale of “wine and spirituous liquor.” An 

examination of the relevant permit statutes shows that the board is correct in this 

regard. The liquor permits applicable to Imposters’ proposed uses were a D-2 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12

permit authorizing “wine and . . . mixed beverages,” a D-3 permit authorizing 

“spirituous liquor,” and a D-6 permit authorizing Sunday liquor sales. See R.C. 

4303.14, 4303.15, and 4303.182. Thus, by pairing “wine and spirituous liquor” 

together on a petition form relating to its proposed use, Imposters was not 

describing a valid liquor permit that would authorize the sale of those categories of 

liquor together.

{¶ 25} For Imposters to comply with R.C. 4301.333(B)(3)(a), Imposters 

had to state in its Form 5-R petition that it was seeking voter approval of the sale 

of “wine and mixed beverages” under its D-2 permit in combination with 

“spirituous liquor” under a D-3 permit—i.e., “wine and mixed beverages and 

spirituous liquor.” In other words, the proposed use of its D-2 permit that Imposters 

needed to clearly submit to precinct voters was for the sale of wine and mixed 

beverages together—a change from Imposters’ current authorization under its D-2 

permit to sell only mixed beverages and not wine.

{¶ 26} The board further contends that this understanding of strict 

compliance with R.C. 4301.333(B)(3)(a) is bolstered by the ballot language 

specified in R.C. 4301.355(B)(1), which expressly states that the question posed to 

the voters should state whether the sale of beer, wine and mixed beverages, or 

spirituous liquor should be permitted at a particular location within a precinct. R.C. 

4301.333(B)(3)(a) combined with R.C. 4301.355(B)(1), the board says, shows that 

Imposters’ petition language of “wine and spirituous liquor” is invalid.

{¶ 27} The board did not abuse its discretion or act in clear disregard of 

applicable law in rejecting Imposters’ petition based on this rationale. R.C. 

4301.333(B) sets forth the requirements of a local-liquor-option petition for an 

election under R.C. 4301.355(B)(1). This court has stated that “[o]ne of these 

requirements is that the petition contain a notice that the petition is for the 

submission of one or more of the questions in R.C. 4301.355.” (Emphasis added.)

State ex rel. Stevens v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2000-Ohio-66, ¶ 7. The 
January Term, 2024

13

questions in R.C. 4301.355 are worded in specific terms. In this case, the question 

that must be presented to the precinct voters under R.C. 4301.355(B)(1) is: “Shall 

the sale of __________ (insert beer, wine and mixed beverages, or spirituous liquor) 

be permitted by [Imposters] . . . ?” (Emphasis added.) As the board determined, 

the prescribed ballot language contemplates the question to be whether retail sales 

of “wine and mixed beverages” together should be approved by the voters within 

the precinct. Indeed, this is consistent with the statutory definition of a D-2 permit 

authorizing the sale of wine and mixed beverages together at the same location. 

See R.C. 4303.14(A). There is no mechanism in the statutory ballot language for 

voters to consider “wine” only or “wine and spirituous liquor” without “mixed 

beverages.” By omitting “mixed beverages” from its petition, Imposters was not 

giving precinct voters the opportunity to consider the issue whether the sale of 

“wine and mixed beverages” together should be permitted at Imposters’ location.

{¶ 28} We recognize that precinct voters in a previous local-option election 

were apparently allowed to approve the sale of mixed beverages yet reject the sale 

of wine at Imposters’ location. For this reason, Imposters has a D-2 permit that 

does not appear to be contemplated by current law: its permit allows the sale of 

mixed beverages but forbids the sale of wine, even though a D-2 permit typically 

allows the sale of both. Imposters believes that its status as a holder of a D-2 permit 

for mixed beverages means that it did not have to list “mixed beverages” on its 

local-liquor-option petition. The statutory language, however, states otherwise. 

R.C. 4301.355(B)(1) requires the ballot language to state that voters are being asked 

to approve sales of “beer, wine and mixed beverages, or spirituous liquors.” 

(Emphasis added.)

{¶ 29} The fact that precinct electors may have been allowed to consider 

(and reject) the sale of wine by itself in a previous local-option election does not 

mean that the same should be allowed under the current statutory language. To 

adopt Imposters’ argument would require us to create an exception to Ohio’s liquor 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

14

laws that the General Assembly did not prescribe. The General Assembly knows 

how to draft laws that contain exceptions; we will not create one when the General 

Assembly did not do so. See Pauley v. Circleville, 2013-Ohio-4541, ¶ 38.

III. CONCLUSION

{¶ 30} For the foregoing reasons, the board did not abuse its discretion or act 

in clear disregard of applicable law in declining to certify Imposters’ local-liquoroption petition for the November 5, 2024 general-election ballot. We therefore deny 

the writ.

Writ denied.

__________________

Walter Haverfield, L.L.P., and John N. Neal, for relator.

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mark 

R. Musson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

__________________