2019 Ohio 4277
Ohio2019Background
- Paragon Building Group filed an application (PD 19-130) to rezone ~210.62 acres in Jerome Township from RU and SRE to PD; the township trustees approved Resolution No. 19‑066 with five modifications (Attachment 1).
- A referendum part‑petition campaign filed petitions that, at the top, listed Resolution 19‑066 but included language in the summary referring to PD 19‑130 and attached the full text of the zoning amendment (including the five modifications).
- The Union County Board of Elections certified the petition as having sufficient signatures; protesters filed a protest alleging defects in the petition’s number, title, name, and summary.
- After a hearing, the board of elections denied the protest; protesters sought a writ of prohibition from the Ohio Supreme Court to prevent placing the referendum on the ballot.
- The Supreme Court held that the part‑petitions complied with R.C. 519.12(H): required information appeared on the face of the petitions (location on form not mandated) and the brief‑summary requirement was satisfied because the full, short text (including modifications) was attached and easily accessible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition contained required application/resolution number | Petition used "Resolution 19‑066" at top, not application number PD 19‑130, so deficient | PD 19‑130 appeared in the petition summary and the statute requires the number be contained on the petition (location not specified) | Valid — statutory requirement met because the application number appeared on the face of the part‑petitions; strict placement on top is not required |
| Whether petition used the full and correct title of the application | Petition used a "made up" title and failed to use the application’s correct title | No competent evidence proved the application had an official title; statute requires title only "if any" | Valid — protesters failed to prove a correct, different title existed; requirement satisfied as applied |
| Whether petition identified the name by which the amendment is known (e.g., "Rolling Meadows") | The project was commonly known as "Rolling Meadows" and the petition did not list that name at the top | The name (and PD 19‑130) appeared in the summary; statute does not mandate where on the form the name must appear | Valid — information appeared on the petition; location on form not mandated |
| Whether the brief summary omitted material information (the five modifications) | The summary did not recite the five trustee modifications, making the summary misleading/incomplete | The petition attached the entire zoning amendment, including the five modifications; the whole document was short and accessible to signers | Valid — inclusion of the full text (two pages) satisfied the "brief summary" requirement on these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Quinn v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 152 Ohio St.3d 568 (2018) (defines four distinct R.C. 519.12(H) requirements and ties required citation to method of initiation)
- State ex rel. Tam O’Shanter v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections, 151 Ohio St.3d 134 (2017) (explains methods to initiate township zoning amendments and related rules)
- State ex rel. O’Beirne v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 80 Ohio St.3d 176 (1997) (holding that inclusion of the full text of an ordinance amendment normally satisfies the summary requirement)
- State ex rel. Simonetti v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 151 Ohio St.3d 50 (2017) (permits substantial compliance with form requirements even when content must be strict)
- Stern v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 14 Ohio St.2d 175 (1968) (articulates public‑interest test for substantial compliance)
- State ex rel. Gemienhardt v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 212 (2006) (summary invalid if misleading, inaccurate, or materially omits information that would confuse the average signer)
- Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288 (2009) (statutory forms and mandatory language in election statutes are enforceable unless statute allows substantial compliance)
- State ex rel. Federle v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 156 Ohio St.3d 322 (2019) (relator seeking extraordinary relief must prove entitlement by clear and convincing evidence)