State ex rel. Quinn v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion)
99 N.E.3d 362
Ohio2018Background
- Quinn submitted a township zoning-referendum petition challenging Berlin Township Resolution No. 17-10-09 (rezoning parcel at 5427 State Route 37 East to Planned Industrial) after trustees adopted the resolution on October 9, 2017.
- Petition used Secretary of State Form No. 6-O and identified the matter as “Berlin Township Zoning Commission Case 17-006 Boatman, Inc.” and summarized the resolution as “Resolution 17-10-09.”
- Berlin trustees certified the petition to the Delaware County Board of Elections; the board initially found sufficient signatures and certified the petition for the May 8, 2018 ballot.
- Intervenor Savko filed a written protest under R.C. 3501.39 alleging defects under R.C. 519.12(H): incorrect or incomplete title, wrong case number (missing “(R)”), missing the name by which amendment is known, and an inaccurate/omissive summary.
- The board held a protest hearing and voted 3–1 to sustain the protest based on the petition’s title and 2–2 on the summary; the 3–1 vote removed the measure from the ballot. Quinn sought mandamus in the Ohio Supreme Court; the court issued an alternative writ and expedited briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Quinn) | Defendant's Argument (Boatman/Savko/Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether protest letter gave adequate specificity under R.C. 3501.39 to permit challenges to title/name/summary | Protest letter lacked required specificity; Quinn had insufficient notice to defend | Protest letter and later brief gave adequate notice; board can disqualify facial defects regardless | Board did not abuse discretion: specificity requirement satisfied for facial, title challenges; summary issue left unresolved (not ripe) |
| Whether the petition used the “full and correct title” required by R.C. 519.12(H) | Quinn used BZC case number/title (“BZC 17-006 Boatman Inc.”) which reflected how trustees identified the matter | Savko argued petition should show trustees’ resolution title (“Berlin Township Zoning Resolution No. 17-10-09”) or use revised case number “(R) BZC 17-006” | Court held title requirement met: petition need reflect the application title (not necessarily trustees’ resolution title) and the absence of “(R)” was not fatal because trustees and BZC did not consistently use “(R)” |
| Whether petition satisfied the “name by which the amendment is known” under R.C. 519.12(H) | Name used on petition (“BZC 17-006 Boatman Inc.”) matches how trustees referred to the proposal | Savko argued the name must equal the trustees’ resolution title | Court held name requirement met: inquiry looks to how trustees identified the amendment, and trustees used the BZC case designation |
| Whether petition’s brief summary was inaccurate or misleading enough to invalidate petition | Quinn contends summary was adequate and borrowed from trustees’ resolution where appropriate | Savko contends summary omitted material facts and was misleading, warranting disqualification | Court declined to decide on the summary: the board was tied on that ground and the Secretary of State declined to break the tie, so the summary issue is not ripe for review |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Tam O’Shanter Co. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections, 151 Ohio St.3d 134, 2017-Ohio-8167 (clarifies R.C. 519.12(H) requirements; title/name are distinct and statute is disjunctive)
- State ex rel. Gemienhardt v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-1666 (discusses proper identification of township zoning resolutions)
- State ex rel. McCord v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 106 Ohio St.3d 346, 2005-Ohio-4758 (election statutes require strict compliance)
- State ex rel. O’Beirne v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 80 Ohio St.3d 176, 1997-Ohio-324 (summary must describe the trustees’ approved resolution)
- State ex rel. Miller Diversified Holdings, L.L.C. v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections, 123 Ohio St.3d 260, 2009-Ohio-4980 (summary invalid if misleading, inaccurate, or contains material omissions)
- State ex rel. Cooker Restaurant Corp. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections, 80 Ohio St.3d 302, 1997-Ohio-126 (protest specificity serves to give notice and ability to prepare a defense)
- State ex rel. Ryant Commt. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 86 Ohio St.3d 107, 1999-Ohio-165 (protest that fails to identify specific defects lacks required specificity)
- State ex rel. Holwadel v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 144 Ohio St.3d 579, 2015-Ohio-5306 (standard of review of board decisions: fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear disregard of law)