State ex rel. Miller v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2023 Ohio 3664

In Nov. 2022 Marysville enacted an annexation ordinance to annex 263.25 acres and, the same day, a zoning ordinance to rezone ~196.05 acres for a residential development (Stillwater Farms).
Relators (petition committee members) gathered signatures for a referendum on the annexation, submitted certified materials to the city, and obtained 1,311 valid signatures (required 824); the Union County Board of Elections certified the referendum to the Nov. 7, 2023 ballot by April 4, 2023.
Highland Realty filed an early protest (administrative-act argument) that the board denied; on Aug. 11 intervenor Richard Warner filed a protest alleging circulators misled signers; Aug. 23 hearing produced a 2–2 board tie, which was sent to the Ohio Secretary of State.
On Sept. 8 the Secretary of State sustained the protest and removed the referendum from the ballot, citing (1) misleading oral/written statements by circulators and petitioners and (2) an aerial-photo map shown to potential signers that highlighted only the rezoned 196 acres (not the full 263 acres).
Relators filed an expedited mandamus action (Sept. 18) asking the Ohio Supreme Court to order the Board to restore the referendum to the ballot; the Court held the board and Secretary abused their discretion and granted the writ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Laches (delay)	Relators acted promptly after Secretary's decision and filed within days.	Board/intervenors claim relators delayed and thus are barred.	No laches: relators acted promptly; protestor’s own delay (Warner) undermines laches claim.
Is the Secretary of State a necessary party?	Not necessary; relief (ordering Board to place referendum on ballot) can be afforded without Secretary.	Intervenors say Secretary is indispensable because he broke the tie.	Secretary not necessary under Civ.R. 19; may intervene but omission is not jurisdictional.
Do circulators’ oral statements and petition advertisement invalidate the petition?	Such statements did not and cannot invalidate an otherwise valid petition; R.C. 731.36 sanctions fines, not ballot exclusion.	Circulators misrepresented contents and confused voters, warranting invalidation.	Held for relators: misrepresentations (if any) are not grounds to invalidate petition; Board abused discretion.
Does use of an aerial-photo map that highlighted only the rezoned portion invalidate the petition?	The official ordinance exhibit (map of full 263 acres) accompanied the petition; the aerial photo was explanatory and not part of the petition and did not mislead signers in the record.	Map was inaccurate and objectively misleading to average voter, justifying exclusion.	Held for relators: removal based on the aerial-photo map was an abuse of discretion; petition itself contained accurate map.

State ex rel. Baur v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 90 Ohio St.3d 165 (Ohio 2000) (statutory misrepresentations by circulators do not invalidate a petition; penalties are statutory fines)
State ex rel. Brown v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 63 (Ohio 2006) (additional misleading material included in official petition can invalidate it, but Brown addressed material that was part of the official submission)
State ex rel. Jacquemin v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, 147 Ohio St.3d 467 (Ohio 2016) (interpretation of statutory requirements for referendum petition summaries in township zoning context)
State ex rel. Mann v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 143 Ohio St.3d 45 (Ohio 2015) (standard for mandamus: board abused discretion, acted in clear disregard of law)
State ex rel. Clark v. Twinsburg, 169 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 2022) (laches in election cases: extreme diligence required; laches rarely bars challenges)
State ex rel. Hasselbach v. Sandusky Cty. Bd. of Elections, 157 Ohio St.3d 433 (Ohio 2019) (statutory defects such as omitted disclosures do not automatically invalidate petitions)