State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose, 2024 Ohio 4953

The Ohio Democratic Party and two voters (Wernet and Duffy) sought a writ of mandamus compelling Secretary of State LaRose to rescind Directive 2024-21, which restricted who may return absentee ballots using drop boxes and required an attestation for those returning someone else's ballot.
Federal law and a recent federal district court injunction (League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose) allow disabled voters to have a person of their choosing return their absentee ballot, preempting restrictive Ohio statutes.
LaRose, after that injunction, issued Directive 2024-21 (and related directives/advisory), stating only the voter may use a drop box and requiring in-person attestation for others delivering ballots.
Plaintiffs argued the directive was unlawful and burdensome, violating state and federal law and equal protection; LaRose defended the directive as necessary for ballot integrity.
The suit was filed 24 days after the directive was issued and after absentee voting began; LaRose argued this delay (and start of absentee voting) caused material prejudice and invoked laches as a defense.
The Ohio Supreme Court, in an expedited election case, denied the writ solely on the grounds of laches (untimely filing), refusing to address the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Directive 2024-21 unlawfully add burdens to ballot delivery by assistants?	Directive contradicts Ohio/federal law by restricting who can return ballots to the drop box and adding an attestation requirement.	Directive aligns with state interests in ballot security; seeking compliance with election law and federal injunction.	Not reached; court declined to address merits due to laches.
Should laches bar plaintiffs’ claims due to delay?	Delay was reasonable given subsequent directives/advisories and plaintiff circumstances; any prejudice was minimal or created by LaRose’s late rule changes.	Delay was unreasonable, and relators had knowledge; absentee voting had begun, instructions printed/mailed, creating material prejudice.	Claims barred by laches; writ denied.
May courts alter election procedures after voting begins?	Courts should act to safeguard voting rights, even if late; directive’s issuance was calculated to avoid review.	Courts should avoid changing rules mid-election (Purcell principle), to avoid voter confusion and administrative chaos.	Adopted Purcell logic as persuasive; supported non-intervention.
Should the RNC/Ohio GOP be allowed to intervene?	N/A	Sought intervention as respondents.	Motion denied as untimely; brief accepted as amicus.

State ex rel. Clark v. Twinsburg, 177 N.E.3d 306 (Ohio 2022) (discussing requirements for laches in election disputes)
State ex rel. DeMora v. LaRose, 2022-Ohio-2173 (Ohio) (cautioning against judicial changes to election procedures during ongoing elections)
State ex rel. Colvin v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 110 (Ohio 2008) (mandamus is appropriate where secretary directs action contrary to statute)