Ohio bill would let local governments authorize Sunday liquor sales without a ballot issue

House Bill 387, a proposal to let local governments opt in to Sunday liquor sales without sending the question to a local ballot, was given a first hearing Tuesday before the Ohio House Agriculture Committee.

Representative Jack Siegrist and Representative Jack Daniels, joint sponsors, told the committee the bill would allow permit holders who already sell wine, spirits, and mixed beverages Monday through Saturday to receive Sunday liquor privileges from the Ohio Department of Liquor Control if their township, village, or municipal legislative authority adopts an ordinance or resolution doing so.

The bill’s sponsors said the change is permissive and preserves local control. “This bill is pro-business, pro-consumer, and pro-tourism,” Representative Jack Siegrist said during sponsor testimony. Representative Jack Daniels said the measure is intended to “save money and time for local communities and boards of election,” and described a recent local election in New Franklin that produced seven votes and cost the county $43,913.74 to administer.

Sponsors described how the measure would work in practice. Under their explanation, an existing business would still need to apply to the local jurisdiction for permission; the change would move the decision from a voter ballot question to an ordinance or resolution adopted by the local legislative authority. For new permit applicants, sponsors said the site or precinct must be a “wet” location (allowed for alcohol sales); if it is not, the location-specific local election process would still apply. Representative Siegrist said a D-6 license requires that at least 50% of sales be nonalcoholic, a point he cited when explaining how the licensing categories interact with Sunday privileges.

Committee members asked how citizens would keep input under the proposed procedure. Representative Cockley asked whether there would be any community buy-in required if a municipality opts out of the election process. Representative Daniels replied that the bill is not automatic for businesses and that citizens retain petition rights: citizens could lobby elected officials to adopt or to rescind an ordinance, and they retain statutory rights to initiate petitions to remove licenses if a license becomes a nuisance. Representative Schmidt asked whether an adopted ordinance would include a waiting period (for example, a 30-day window) allowing voters to challenge the decision; sponsors said that was the intent and that they would follow up with clarifying language and with Legislative Service Commission (LSC) analysis.

Committee members also sought clarity about the bill’s scope. Representative Sims and others asked whether the bill applies differently to existing businesses versus new businesses moving into a precinct; sponsors repeatedly said the bill distinguishes between site-specific (precinct) approvals and general permission for existing businesses in “wet” precincts. Sponsors emphasized the bill is meant to be permissive — local governments can choose not to opt in and leave the current ballot process unchanged.

No formal vote or committee action was taken; the hearing was a first hearing on the measure and committee members asked for follow-up clarifications from sponsors and from LSC. The sponsors said they would provide additional language and answers about timelines and citizen petition rights.

Votes at this hearing: none.