2017 Ohio 8167
Ohio2017Background
- Tam O’Shanter Company sought rezoning of ~62 acres in Jackson Township from R‑R to B‑3; application filed with the township zoning commission and approved by the board of trustees as “Amendment 630‑17.”
- A referendum petition circulated by township electors sought to place Amendment 630‑17 on the November 7, 2017 ballot; the petition identified the proposal as “Jackson Township Zoning Amendment 630‑17.”
- The petition did not include the property owner’s name “Tam O’Shanter” in the petition text or on the ballot language.
- Tam O’Shanter and its president Bennell filed a protest with the Stark County Board of Elections under R.C. 3501.39, arguing the petition failed to satisfy R.C. 519.12(H) (missing the application title, the name by which the amendment is known, and an adequate summary).
- The board of elections denied the protest after a hearing; relators then filed this original action seeking mandamus (to compel rejection) and prohibition (to prevent submission to voters).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to force the board to find the petition insufficient | Relators sought mandamus to compel the board to reject the petition under R.C. 3501.39 | Board: relief sought is effectively declaratory/injunctive, not mandamus | Mandamus dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (relators’ true relief sought was declaratory/injunctive) |
| Whether the petition failed R.C. 519.12(H)’s “full and correct title, if any” requirement because the application lacked the owner’s name as the title | Relators: the petition must include the property owner name (Tam O’Shanter) as the title/name of the amendment | Board: the application had no formal title; statute’s “if any” allows omission | Held: no abuse of discretion; application had no title and statute allows that omission |
| Whether the petition failed to “furnish the name by which the amendment is known” because public references used the owner’s name | Relators: the amendment was commonly known as the “Tam O’Shanter” rezoning and petition should have used that name | Board: the relevant identification is how the township board labeled the amendment (Amendment 630‑17); colloquial references are not controlling | Held: board acted within discretion to rely on township documents calling it Amendment 630‑17; relators failed to show abuse of discretion |
| Whether the petition’s brief summary omitted material information by not naming the owner, thus misleading voters | Relators: omission of owner’s name could mislead voters and fails the summary requirement | Board: summary matched the board of trustees’ notice (location, acreage, zoning change) and fairly informed voters | Held: summary satisfied R.C. 519.12(H); omission of owner’s name was not materially misleading |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Stoll v. Logan Cty. Bd. of Elections, 881 N.E.2d 1214 (2008) (boards may not rely on evidence not presented at their hearings in defense of their decision)
- State ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson, 716 N.E.2d 704 (1999) (mandamus cannot be used when the real relief sought is declaratory or injunctive)
- Choices for South‑Western City Schools v. Anthony, 840 N.E.2d 582 (2005) (requirements for prohibition: quasi‑judicial act, unauthorized by law, no adequate remedy)
- Whitman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 778 N.E.2d 32 (2002) (standard of review for board decisions: fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear disregard of law)
- State ex rel. Jacquemin v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, 67 N.E.3d 759 (2016) (summary must fairly and accurately present the issue so voters can make informed decisions)
- State ex rel. C.V. Perry & Co. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Elections, 764 N.E.2d 411 (2002) (summary complies where it uses wording substantially the same as the resolution)
- State ex rel. Columbia Res., Ltd. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 855 N.E.2d 815 (2006) (courts will not add requirements to statutes beyond their language)
- State ex rel. McCord v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 835 N.E.2d 336 (2005) (statutory content requirements for petitions that are not mere form must be strictly complied with)