Case Title: State ex rel. Donaldson v. Delaware County Board of Elections

Citation: 2021-Ohio-2943

Docket Number: 2021-0867

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2021-08-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Donaldson v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2943.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2021-OHIO-2943 
THE STATE EX REL. DONALDSON v. DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD OF 
ELECTIONS ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Donaldson v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip 
Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2943.] 
Mandamus—Writ of mandamus sought to compel the board of elections to include 
a referendum on a zoning amendment on the November 2021 ballot—Brief 
summary of contents in a zoning-amendment petition pursuant to R.C. 
519.12(H) that fails to summarize the contents of the zoning amendment 
passed by the township trustees or otherwise include the location of the 
property being rezoned and the zoning change does not fairly and 
accurately describe the issue being presented to persons being asked to sign 
the petition —Board of elections did not abuse its discretion or disregard 
clearly applicable law in sustaining an objection to the referendum 
petition—Writ denied. 
(No. 2021-0867—Submitted August 23, 2021—Decided  August 26, 2021.) 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Scott Donaldson, seeks to place a referendum on the 
November 2021 ballot asking voters to approve or disapprove an amendment to the 
Liberty Township Zoning Resolution.  Respondent, Delaware County Board of 
Elections, sustained a protest to the referendum petition because the petition did not 
include an adequate summary of the zoning amendment as required by R.C. 
519.12(H).  Donaldson asks this court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the 
board of elections to place the referendum on the ballot.  We deny the writ because 
the board of elections did not abuse its discretion or disregard clearly applicable 
law in sustaining the protest. 
I.  Factual and Procedural Background 
{¶ 2} The zoning amendment at issue in this case would allow a planned 
development on 17 parcels of land, totaling approximately 190 acres, in Liberty 
Township.  Currently, the various parcels are zoned as either planned-residence or 
farm-residence districts. 
{¶ 3} The various owners of the 17 parcels, including intervening 
respondent Clarkshaw Reserve I, L.L.C. (“Clarkshaw”), submitted to the Liberty 
Township Board of Trustees (the “township”) an application to establish a “planned 
overlay district” known as “POD 18(D)” and to amend the township’s zoning 
resolution accordingly.  The affected property would be rezoned for a planned-unit 
development under R.C. 519.021(C).1  Between October 2020 and January 2021, 
the Liberty Township Zoning Commission considered the proposed amendment 
and held at least two public hearings on the proposal.  On January 27, 2021, the 
 
1. R.C. 519.021(C) provides: “Pursuant to section 519.12 of the Revised Code, the board of 
township trustees may adopt planned-unit development regulations and amend the zoning map to 
rezone property as planned-unit developments.” 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
zoning commission adopted a resolution recommending that the proposed 
amendment be denied. 
{¶ 4} The township held public hearings on February 16 and March 15, 
2021, to consider the proposed zoning amendment.  See R.C. 519.12(E)(3) (stating 
that a board of township trustees shall have a public hearing on the proposed 
amendment after receipt of the zoning commission’s recommendation).  Clarkshaw 
modified the zoning amendment in response to some residents’ concerns and 
submitted the modified version to the township on March 12, 2021.  Clarkshaw’s 
modifications created five subareas with varying permitted uses in the proposed 
POD 18(D).  The four largest subareas would be rezoned for residential and/or 
certain commercial uses, and the fifth subarea would be rezoned to permit hospital 
or certain healthcare use. 
{¶ 5} At the March 15 meeting, the township approved Clarkshaw’s 
amended version of the zoning amendment, along with 36 additional modifications 
that were read into the record.  Thereafter, Donaldson circulated a petition to subject 
the POD 18(D) zoning amendment to a referendum in the November 2 election.  
And on April 13, Donaldson delivered a referendum petition to the township.  Each 
part-petition contained the following: 
 
 
The following is a brief summary of the proposed zoning 
amendment: 
 
 
The proposed amendment would add Article 18D to the 
Zoning Resolution and create the planned overlay district as a 
planned unit development under Ohio Revised Code 519.021(C) 
and which would include sections detailing: the purpose and 
establishment of the overlay; requirements for the overlay, including 
development tract sizes, permitted uses, open space and prohibited 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4
uses; establishment of a review process and procedure; process for 
modification or extension of development plan; basis of approval; 
an approval period; process for modification or extension of 
development plan; provisions for design standards and minimum 
development standards including, but not limited to, access, 
setbacks, yard areas, signage, landscaping, parking, loading, and 
open space; and provisions for divergences from minimum 
development standards. This amendment would also amend Section 
5.01 by adding the POD 18D as a zoning district in the Zoning 
Resolution and revising the Zoning Map to designate the POD 18D 
area.  As part of the proposed amendment, the area and parcels 
proposed to be rezoned to the POD 18D are shown on the POD 18D 
Overlay Zoning District Map which is attached to and made part of 
the proposed amendment text. 
 
The “POD18D Overlay Zoning District Map” referred to in the summary was not 
attached to the part-petitions that were circulated for signature.  According to 
Donaldson, the language used in the summary was derived from the public-hearing 
notices issued by the zoning commission and the township on the proposed zoning 
amendment. 
{¶ 6} On April 19, the township adopted a resolution certifying the petition 
to the board of elections.  Clarkshaw submitted a protest letter to the board of 
elections, challenging the validity and sufficiency of the petition’s summary of the 
zoning amendment.  The board of elections certified the referendum for the 
November 2 ballot without addressing the sufficiency and validity of the summary. 
{¶ 7} Clarkshaw, joined by two other protesters, resubmitted the protest 
letter on May 13.  The protest letter alleged three deficiencies in the petition 
summary: (1) failure to identify the property subject to the referendum, (2) failure 
January Term, 2021 
 
5
to adequately describe the township trustees’ zoning resolution, and (3) failure to 
include modifications made to the zoning amendment prior to its passage by the 
township trustees. 
{¶ 8} The board of elections held a protest hearing on June 28.  Donaldson 
filed a motion to dismiss the protest, arguing that the board of elections lacked 
jurisdiction over the protest because the zoning amendment at issue was not 
properly initiated under R.C. 519.021(C) and was therefore void.  The board of 
elections denied the motion and following testimony and the submission of 
evidence, voted to sustain the protest and decertify the petition from the November 
ballot. 
{¶ 9} Donaldson commenced this action on July 14 and filed an amended 
complaint on July 19, naming the board of elections, the township, and individual 
township trustees as respondents.  In his first claim for relief, Donaldson seeks a 
writ of mandamus ordering the board of elections to place the referendum petition 
on the November 2 ballot.  The second through fifth claims sought extraordinary 
relief in either mandamus or prohibition against the board and the township 
respondents.  The court set an expedited schedule ordering respondents to respond 
to the amended complaint by July 23.  See 163 Ohio St.3d 1503, 2021-Ohio-2453, 
170 N.E.3d 893. 
{¶ 10} The board of elections and the township timely filed answers and 
motions to dismiss the second through fifth claims for relief under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), 
and Clarkshaw filed a motion to intervene as a respondent.  We granted the motion 
to intervene, granted the motions to dismiss counts two through five, and dismissed 
the township respondents as parties to this action.  See 163 Ohio St.3d 1514, 2021-
Ohio-2627, 171 N.E.3d 337.  We also granted an alternative writ as to the first claim 
and set an expedited schedule for the submission of evidence and merit briefs.  Id.  
Donaldson, Clarkshaw, and the board of elections have submitted evidence and 
merit briefs, and the matter is ripe for our decision. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
6
II.  Analysis 
{¶ 11} To obtain a writ of mandamus ordering the board of elections to 
place the referendum on the November ballot, Donaldson must establish by clear 
and convincing evidence (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear 
legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  See State ex rel. Ebersole v. Powell, 149 
Ohio St.3d 501, 2017-Ohio-509, 75 N.E.3d 1245, ¶ 10.  Given the proximity of the 
November election, Donaldson lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 
the law.  See State ex rel. Finkbeiner v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 122 Ohio St.3d 
462, 2009-Ohio-3657, 912 N.E.2d 573, ¶ 18.  As to the remaining elements, 
Donaldson must show that the board of elections engaged in fraud or corruption, 
abused its discretion, or clearly disregarded applicable law in invalidating the 
referendum petition.  See State ex rel. Jacquemin v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
147 Ohio St.3d 467, 2016-Ohio-5880, 67 N.E.3d 759, ¶ 9.  Donaldson does not 
claim fraud or corruption on the part of the board of elections; therefore, the 
relevant inquiry is whether the board abused its discretion or clearly disregarded 
applicable law. 
A.  The Petition’s Summary 
{¶ 12} Each part-petition calling for a referendum on a zoning amendment 
“shall contain the number and the full and correct title, if any, of the zoning 
amendment resolution, motion or application, furnishing the name by which the 
amendment is known and a brief summary of its contents.”  R.C. 519.12(H).  A 
referendum petition must comply strictly with these requirements.  State ex rel. 
Quinn v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 152 Ohio St.3d 568, 2018-Ohio-966, 99 
N.E.3d 362, ¶ 30.  The sole issue in this case is whether the summary of POD 18(D) 
contained in the referendum petition complied strictly with R.C. 519.12(H). 
{¶ 13} The phrase “brief summary of its contents” in R.C. 519.12(H) “refers 
to the zoning resolution, motion, or application passed or approved by the board of 
January Term, 2021 
 
7
township trustees.”  E. Ohio Gas Co. v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections, 83 Ohio St.3d 
298, 300-301, 699 N.E.2d 916 (1998); see also Tam O’Shanter Co. v. Stark Cty. 
Bd. of Elections, 151 Ohio St.3d 134, 2017-Ohio-8167, 86 N.E.3d 332, ¶ 18 
(explaining the three statutory methods—motion, resolution, or application—by 
which a township zoning amendment may be initiated).  Regardless of the method 
by which the zoning amendment is initiated, the petition must summarize the 
contents of the zoning amendment passed by the township trustees.  Id. at ¶ 19; see 
also State ex rel. Barney v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, 159 Ohio St.3d 50, 2019-
Ohio-4277, 147 N.E.3d 595, ¶ 31 (R.C. 519.12(H) requires “a brief summary of the 
contents of the zoning amendment”); State ex rel. O’Beirne v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of 
Elections, 80 Ohio St.3d 176, 179, 685 N.E.2d 502 (1997) (“brief summary of its 
contents” refers to the zoning amendment passed by the township trustees).  “The 
purpose of requiring a summary is ‘to present fairly and accurately the question or 
issue to be decided in order to assure a free, intelligent and informed decision by 
the persons to whom it is presented.’ ” State ex rel. Hamilton v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of 
Elections, 67 Ohio St.3d 556, 559, 621 N.E.2d 391 (1993), quoting Nunneker v. 
Murdock, 9 Ohio App.3d 73, 77, 458 N.E.2d 431 (1st Dist.1983).  If the summary 
contains material omissions that would confuse the average person, the referendum 
petition is invalid and may not be submitted to a vote.  State ex rel. Gemienhardt v. 
Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-1666, 846 N.E.2d 
1223, ¶ 38; see also S.I. Dev. & Constr., L.L.C. v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
100 Ohio St.3d 272, 2003-Ohio-5791, 798 N.E.2d 587, ¶ 17 (summary must be 
“accurate and unambiguous” to be valid). 
{¶ 14} The obligation to briefly summarize a zoning amendment “implicitly 
requires a referendum petition to accurately describe property subject to rezoning.”  
State ex rel. Rife v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 70 Ohio St.3d 632, 635, 640 
N.E.2d 522 (1994) (describing the identical “brief summary” requirement in R.C. 
303.12(H) applicable to county zoning amendments).  In this case, the petition 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
8
summary describes in general terms that POD 18(D) would amend the Liberty 
Township Zoning Resolution to add a planned overlay district.  But nowhere does 
the summary contain any information about where the planned overlay district is 
located.  The average person reading the summary would not know where the 
planned overlay district is located or what property is included within it. 
{¶ 15} Equally problematic is the petition’s failure to describe the nature of 
the zoning amendment.  This court has found a referendum petition’s summary to 
be “ambiguous and misleading” when it “failed to apprise the reader of the present 
zoning status of the land and of the precise nature of the requested change.”  Shelly 
& Sands, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 12 Ohio St.3d 140, 142, 465 N.E.2d 
883 (1984); see also O’Beirne at 181 (present use and zoning of the property at 
issue was “material information” and its omission rendered the petition summary 
deficient).  The petition summary in this case did not describe either the current use 
of the property or the uses that the zoning amendment would permit.  The summary 
stated that the zoning amendment would “include sections detailing * * * permitted 
uses, open space and prohibited uses” and that the zoning resolution and map would 
be amended to designate the POD 18(D) area. 
{¶ 16} Accordingly, the board of elections did not abuse its discretion or 
disregard applicable law in deciding that the petition summary was deficient for 
failing to provide material information to those who were asked to sign it.  At a 
minimum, the summary should have identified the location of the land being 
rezoned and explained the proposed zoning change.  Without this minimum 
information, a petition summary does not present the issue fairly and accurately to 
those being asked to sign the petition.  Indeed, even in cases relied upon by 
Donaldson in which we upheld the validity of the petition, the summary at issue 
contained at least this information.  See State ex rel. C.V. Perry & Co. v. Licking 
Cty. Bd. of Elections, 94 Ohio St.3d 442, 445, 764 N.E.2d 411 (2002) (summary 
specified address of property and the zoning change “from AG to PUD” use); Rife, 
January Term, 2021 
 
9
70 Ohio St.3d at 632-633, 640 N.E.2d 522 (summary specified address and acreage 
of the property and the zoning change to “general industrial”).  The board of 
elections therefore did not err in finding the petition invalid in this case. 
B.  Donaldson’s Reliance on Public-Hearing Notice and Zoning-Commission 
Language 
{¶ 17} Despite the omissions described above, Donaldson argues that the 
petition’s summary was sufficient as a matter of law because it was the same as the 
summary used (1) by the zoning commission in its notices of public hearings on the 
proposed amendment, (2) by the zoning commission in its resolution 
recommending disapproval of the amendment, and (3) by the township in its notices 
of public hearings in February and March 2021.  Donaldson argues that the board 
of elections abused its discretion and disregarded applicable law by requiring the 
petition summary to include information that was not in the township’s description 
of the zoning amendment.  Donaldson’s argument is unpersuasive. 
{¶ 18} Donaldson ignores that it is the zoning amendment as adopted by the 
township that must be summarized in the petition.  See Barney, 159 Ohio St.3d 50, 
2019-Ohio-4277, 147 N.E.3d 595, at ¶ 31; Tam O’Shanter Co., 151 Ohio St.3d 134, 
2017-Ohio-8167, 86 N.E.3d 332, at ¶ 19.  It is irrelevant that the petition summary’s 
text was identical to the public-hearing notices used by the township because those 
notices did not summarize the zoning amendment passed by the township.  Those 
notices simply informed the public of hearings that were scheduled to take place on 
the proposed amendment (prior to its enactment).  And unlike the petition summary 
required by R.C. 519.12(H), notices for hearings before the zoning commission or 
the township trustees are not required to contain a summary of the proposed zoning 
amendment.  Rather, if (as in this case) an amendment rezones more than ten 
parcels of land, the hearing notice must specify the time and place where the text 
and maps of the proposed amendment will be available for examination for a period 
of at least ten days prior to the hearing.  See R.C. 519.12(D)(3) and (G)(3). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
10 
{¶ 19} Nor does it matter that the language in the petition summary was the 
same as that used in the zoning commission’s resolution recommending denial of 
the proposed zoning amendment.  Again, the relevant inquiry is whether the petition 
adequately summarizes the zoning amendment passed by the township.  Barney at 
¶ 31; Tam O’Shanter Co. at ¶ 19.  The zoning commission’s resolution was a 
recommendation to the township, not a summary of the zoning amendment.  
Moreover, the zoning commission’s resolution related to a previous version of POD 
18(D), not the one that was ultimately passed by the township. 
{¶ 20} Donaldson relies on a line of cases in which this court has held that 
“when a referendum petition’s summary of a resolution contains substantially the 
same wording as the resolution itself, * * * the summary complies with the statutory 
requirement, even when the summary fails to include a statement regarding the 
meaning of the zoning classifications, the purpose of the zoning change, or the uses 
specified in the development plan approved by the resolution.”  State ex rel. 
McCord v. Delaware Cty. Bd of Elections, 106 Ohio St.3d 346, 2005-Ohio-4758, 
835 N.E.2d 336, ¶ 43, citing C.V. Perry & Co., 94 Ohio St.3d at 445, 764 N.E.2d 
411 and Rife, 70 Ohio St.3d at 634, 640 N.E.2d 522.  But these cases are of no help 
to Donaldson.  The petition summary in this case did not summarize a zoning 
resolution that was passed or approved by the township.  As detailed above, the 
petition summary borrowed from language contained in the public-hearing notices 
and in a resolution of the zoning commission, not from any resolution or other 
legislative act of the township passing the zoning amendment at issue. 
{¶ 21} Donaldson also argues that the board of elections abused its 
discretion because it “apparently wanted a map to be included with each part-
petition.”  Donaldson bases his argument on a board member’s observation at the 
protest hearing that there was no map attached to the petition that was circulated 
for signature.  As this court held in State ex rel. Columbia Reserve, Ltd. v. Lorain 
Cty. Bd. of Elections, 111 Ohio St.3d 167, 2006-Ohio-5019, 855 N.E.2d 815, ¶ 32, 
January Term, 2021 
 
11 
there is no statutory requirement that a map of the affected area of a zoning 
amendment be attached to a referendum petition. 
{¶ 22} But here, the board did not find the petition deficient for want of a 
map.  On the contrary, a board member mentioned the inclusion of a map as one of 
several ways in which the petition could have described the location of the property 
to which the zoning amendment applied.  In other words, the board member 
suggested that a map attached to the petition could have provided material 
information that was missing from the petition’s printed summary.  See Barney, 
159 Ohio St.3d 50, 2019-Ohio-4277, 147 N.E.3d 595, at ¶ 33-34 (material 
information provided in an attachment to the petition but not in the printed summary 
satisfied the summary requirement). 
C.  Alleged Voidness of Zoning Amendment 
{¶ 23} Donaldson also argues that the zoning amendment at issue was not 
properly initiated under R.C. 519.021 or enacted by the township under R.C. 
519.12.  He also asserts that the property owners’ application for POD 18(D) was 
“defective at best and fraud at worst” because of alleged discrepancies between the 
version of the application that the protesters filed with the board of elections and 
the version maintained in the township’s records.  Because of these alleged defects, 
Donaldson argues that the application and the zoning amendment passed by the 
township are nullities. 
{¶ 24} Under R.C. 3501.11(K)(1), a board of elections has the authority to 
determine the validity of a referendum petition.  But alleged defects in a township’s 
enactment of a zoning amendment are not a proper basis for granting mandamus 
relief against a board of elections that has sustained a protest to a referendum 
petition.  While a board of elections’ authority to determine the validity of a 
referendum petition may include the power to determine whether a ballot measure 
is a proper subject of a referendum, boards do not sit as arbiters of the legality of 
the underlying local legislation that is the subject of the referendum.  See State ex 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
12 
rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 144 Ohio St.3d 239, 2015-
Ohio-3761, 41 N.E.3d 1229, ¶ 11. 
III.  Conclusion 
{¶ 25} For the foregoing reasons, Donaldson has failed to demonstrate by 
clear and convincing evidence that the board of elections abused its discretion or 
disregarded clearly applicable law in sustaining the protest to the referendum 
petition.  We therefore deny the writ. 
Writ denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., 
concur. 
FISCHER, J., concurs in judgment only. 
BRUNNER, J., dissents and would grant the petition for a writ of mandamus 
ordering the Delaware County Board of Elections to place the referendum issue on 
the November 2, 2021 ballot. 
_________________ 
Guzzo Law Office, L.L.C., and Peggy S. Guzzo, for relator. 
Melissa A. Schiffel, Delaware County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mark W. 
Fowler and Vince J. Villio, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for respondent. 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease L.L.P., and Joseph R. Miller, Christopher 
L. Ingram, Elizabeth S. Alexander, and Muna Abdallah, for intervening respondent. 
_________________