State ex rel. Brubaker v. Lawrence Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 1087

Relator Ray Brubaker, general manager of Laidback Bar in Hanging Rock precinct (Lawrence County), sought to place a local-option question on the May 3, 2022 primary ballot to permit Sunday liquor sales.
The Ohio Division of Liquor Control informed Brubaker on December 29, 2021 that there were no liquor-permit holders in the precinct who would be affected by the proposal.
Brubaker filed part-petitions with about 40 signatures on February 2, 2022 but did not submit the required Ohio Secretary of State affidavit (Form No. 5‑N). Instead he attempted to file the division’s letter stating there were no affected permit holders; the board refused to accept that in lieu of the affidavit.
The Lawrence County Board of Elections rejected the petition for lack of the required affidavit certifying notice to affected permit holders and that petition papers contained the list of affected permit holders (if any).
Brubaker filed a mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking an order compelling the board to place the liquor-option on the ballot. The court considered documentary evidence in the record and denied the writ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the board abused its discretion by refusing the petition because Brubaker submitted the division’s letter instead of the affidavit (Form 5‑N).	Brubaker: the division’s letter showing no affected permit holders should have been accepted in lieu of the affidavit.	Board: R.C. 4301.33(A) requires both the list (division letter) and the affidavit; the letter cannot substitute for the affidavit.	Held: No abuse. Statute requires both documents; the board properly rejected the filing.
Whether Brubaker’s actions constituted substantial compliance with statutory requirements.	Brubaker: his efforts amounted to substantial compliance and should be excused.	Board: election statutes are mandatory and require strict compliance unless statute says otherwise.	Held: Substantial compliance not permitted here; strict compliance required by statute.
Whether completing the affidavit would have been false or constituted election falsification because there were no affected permit holders to notify.	Brubaker: signing the affidavit would be untrue because there were no permit holders to notify.	Board: statute contemplates the “if any” situation; petitioner can truthfully attest that there were none and that petitioners were shown the list/letter.	Held: Petitioner could have truthfully completed the affidavit by attesting there were no affected permit holders and by showing the division’s letter to signers.

State ex rel. Linnabary v. Husted, 8 N.E.3d 940 (mandamus elements requiring clear right, duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
State ex rel. West v. LaRose, 161 N.E.3d 631 (election-timing can render ordinary remedies inadequate)
State ex rel. Tam O’Shanter Co. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections, 86 N.E.3d 332 (standard for evaluating election-board abuse of discretion)
State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 677 N.E.2d 343 (definition of abuse of discretion)
State ex rel. Commt. for the Referendum of Lorain Ordinance No. 77-01 v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 774 N.E.2d 239 (election statutes are mandatory; substantial compliance allowed only when statute permits)
State ex rel. Weller v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 141 N.E.3d 157 (example where statutory language permitted substantial compliance)
State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 855 N.E.2d 1188 (construction of "shall" as mandatory absent clear legislative intent)