Title: State ex rel. Jacquemin v. Union County Bd. of Elections

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Jacquemin v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5880.] 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-5880 
THE STATE EX REL. JACQUEMIN ET AL. v. UNION COUNTY BOARD OF 
ELECTIONS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Jacquemin v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections,  
Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5880.] 
Mandamus and prohibition—R.C. 519.12(H)—Board of elections abused its 
discretion in denying relators’ protest to referendum petition—Writ of 
mandamus granted. 
(No. 2016-0614—Submitted September 14, 2016—Decided September 19, 2016.) 
IN MANDAMUS and PROHIBITION. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relators, Paul and Mary Jacquemin, seek extraordinary relief to 
prevent a referendum from appearing on the November 2016 ballot.  We grant a 
writ of mandamus against respondent, the Union County Board of Elections. 
Background 
{¶ 2} On December 23, 2015, the Jerome Township Board of Trustees 
held a public hearing to consider a rezoning application filed by the Schottenstein 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Real Estate Group.  The application sought a “mixed-use” designation for three 
parcels of land, two owned by the Jacquemins and a third one owned by Arthur and 
Elizabeth Wesner. 
{¶ 3} By a two-to-one vote, the trustees adopted Township Resolution No. 
15-167, which stated in full: 
 
The Jerome Township Trustees hereby enter into record a 
Resolution adopting and modifying the recommendation of the 
Jerome Township Zoning Commission.  It is recognized that the 
applicant filed a Preliminary Zoning Plan Application for a Mixed 
Use Planned Development (PUD #15-120). 
It is recognized by the Trustees that the application meets the 
requirements of the Jerome Township Comprehensive Plan and 
further the applicant and co-applicants have agreed to make 
substantial financial contributions to the needed road improvements.  
The application further meets the needs of the Township regarding 
senior housing and care and multi-unit housing in accordance with 
future needs as presented to the Township by the Mid Ohio Regional 
Planning Commission (MORPC) and other independent studies. 
It is agreed that after passage, the applicant or their 
representatives will negotiate with Township representatives in 
good faith the following terms of passage to be presented in text 
upon such time [as] the Final Development Plan is presented for 
approval. 
1. Terms and conditions of any Joint Economic Agreements 
or Tax Incremental Financing agreements as needed for the Final 
Development Plan and also reimburse Jerome Township and [sic] 
January Term, 2016 
3 
 
agreed upon expenses in the execution of these documents should 
they be necessary. 
2. Applicant and or their legal representative shall enter into 
an agreement in the Final Development Plan as an agreement that 
will include negotiated reimbursement to Jerome Township for 
additional necessary costs incurred for the service of Fire and EMS 
protection for the proposed development until such time tax revenue 
is generated at projected build out. 
3. Negotiate in good faith with any other terms and 
conditions as necessary in the text of the Final Development Plan. 
Jerome Township further reserves the right to negotiate 
further terms of the Final Development Plan beyond the scope of 
this resolution. 
Amended portion of the resolution is to include the 
modifications as presented by the Applicant/Developer in their 
memorandum dated December 22, 2015. 
 
{¶ 4} On January 20, 2016, opponents of Resolution No. 15-167 delivered 
a referendum petition to the township fiscal officer.  Each part-petition contained 
the following summary language: 
 
A Zoning amendment approving rezoning an irregular “L” 
shaped site of approximately 60.43 acres Between the West side of 
Hyland Croy Road and the East side of US 33 from U-1 Rural 
District to P.U.D. Planed [sic] Unit Development for Parcels 17-
0031038000 and 17-0031038100 known as the “Jacquemin Farms.”  
The P.U.D. Planed [sic] Unit Development (Res. 15-167) provides 
for approximately 300 Residential Units and a 250 Bed Adult Living 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Facility (See Development Site Map – Exhibit #2 and Plot Map – 
Exhibit #3.)  The Nearest intersection being Hyland Croy Road and 
SR 161 – Post Road. 
All as more fully described and identified in the attached: 
1) The Record of Proceedings of Jerome Township Board of 
Trustees Public Hearing of December 23, 2015 (Exhibit #1) 
2) “Jacquemin Farms.”  Vicinity “Site” Map (exhibit #2) 
3) Development Plot Map (exhibit #3) 
 
{¶ 5} The Jacquemins filed a protest of the petition with the Union County 
Board of Elections.  Five days later, the Wesners filed a separate protest.  On April 
12, 2016, the board held a hearing on the two protests, and at the conclusion of the 
hearing, it voted three to one to deny the protests and to place the referendum issue 
on the November 8, 2016 general-election ballot. 
{¶ 6} The Jacquemins then filed this action to prevent the board from 
placing the referendum on the ballot.1  The parties have fully briefed the case.  In 
addition, we have received three amicus briefs, two in support of the Jacquemins 
(filed by the Ohio Home Builders Association and the Diocesan Retirement 
Community Corporation) and one in support of the board of elections (filed by 
Andrew Diamond). 
Analysis 
{¶ 7} R.C. 519.12(H) requires that each part of a petition seeking a 
referendum on a township zoning resolution contain “a brief summary” of the 
resolution’s contents.  The overriding purpose of the summary is to present the 
question or issues to be decided fairly and accurately, so as to ensure that voters 
can make a free, intelligent, and informed decision.  State ex rel. Gemienhardt v. 
                                                 
1 The Wesners are not parties to this case, and the grounds asserted in their protest are not at issue 
in this case.   
January Term, 2016 
5 
 
Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-1666, 846 N.E.2d 
1223, ¶ 38.  For this reason, the petition summary must be accurate and 
unambiguous.  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). 
{¶ 8} “ ‘If the summary is misleading, inaccurate or contains material 
omissions which would confuse the average person, the petition is invalid and may 
not form the basis for submission to a vote.’ ”  State ex rel. Hamilton v. Clinton 
Cty. Bd. of Elections, 67 Ohio St.3d 556, 559, 621 N.E.2d 391 (1993), quoting 
Shelly & Sands, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 12 Ohio St.3d 140, 141, 465 
N.E.2d 883 (1984).  An R.C. 519.12(H) petition summary must strictly comply 
with the requirement that it not be misleading.  Gemienhardt at ¶ 57. 
{¶ 9} The Jacquemins contend that the referendum summary is invalid 
because it contains six omissions and three errors.  The board of elections did not 
agree.  When reviewing the decision of a county board of elections, the standard is 
whether the board engaged in fraud or corruption, abused its discretion, or acted in 
clear disregard of applicable legal provisions.  State ex rel. Holwadel v. Hamilton 
Cty. Bd. of Elections, 144 Ohio St.3d 579, 2015-Ohio-5306, 45 N.E.3d 994, ¶ 29.  
Our consideration of the Jacquemins’ arguments convinces us that one of the 
arguments is meritorious.  Accordingly, we resolve this case based on that argument 
and do not address the other contentions. 
{¶ 10} The parcels in question are shaped somewhat like the state of 
Louisiana, with the western boundary sloping toward Texas as one moves north.  
The Jacquemin property forms the larger, rectangular base, and the Wesner parcel 
is the smaller, northern top.  The eastern boundary of the Jacquemin property is 
Hyland-Croy Road, which runs north and south. 
{¶ 11} The summary states that the nearest intersection to the properties is 
“Hyland-Croy Road and SR 161 – Post Road.”  But the closest intersection is 
actually Hyland-Croy Road and Park Mill Drive.  Hyland-Croy Road intersects 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Post Road a quarter mile or more away from the southern edge of the development 
site.  Without more, the error seems minor enough.  But as is so often the case, the 
context of the mistake informs its import. 
{¶ 12} In fact, the context of the mistake in identifying the nearest 
intersection allowed potential signers to infer that the petition addressed a different, 
contentious zoning change already approved for a development to the southwest of 
this property.  A member of the township’s Zoning and Development Committee 
testified that identifying Route 161-Post Road and Hyland-Croy Road as the nearest 
intersection was “misleading * * * [b]ecause it’s referencing a sore spot for the 
community * * * because there’s been a lot of discussion about that particular 
intersection as how this particular development would impact that intersection.”  
The misidentified intersection is near the location of land now zoned for big-box 
retail use.  People in the community are likely familiar with what is poised to 
become a large development project near the Post Road intersection with Hyland-
Croy Road.  By misidentifying the nearest intersection as one that is near property 
that is already being developed for big-box retail use, the petition summary may 
have poisoned would-be signers against the new development, which is more than 
a quarter mile away from the intersection identified in the summary.  At the very 
least, it suggests to a would-be signer that the developments would nearly overlap 
each other.  The petition summary is therefore misleading and cannot form the basis 
to submit this issue to a vote.  Hamilton, 67 Ohio St.3d at 559, 621 N.E.2d 391, 
citing Shelly & Sands, 12 Ohio St.3d at 141, 465 N.E.2d 883.  Instead of properly 
exercising its discretion, the board clearly disregarded the applicable legal standard 
for reviewing petition summaries.  C.V. Perry & Co., 94 Ohio St.3d at 445, 764 
N.E.2d 411. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 13} For the foregoing reasons, we grant the request for a writ of 
mandamus. 
January Term, 2016 
7 
 
Writ granted. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
McTigue & Colombo, L.L.C., Donald J. McTigue, J. Corey Colombo, and 
Derek S. Clinger; and Laura M. Comek Law, L.L.C., and Laura M. Comek, for 
relators. 
David W. Phillips, Union County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thayne D. 
Gray, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. 
Kristen L. Sours, urging granting of the writ for amicus curiae Ohio Home 
Builders Association. 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, Robert G. Schuler, Paul D. Ritter Jr., and 
Allan L. Handlan, urging granting of the writ for amicus curiae Diocesan 
Retirement Community Corporation. 
Andrew I. Diamond, pro se, urging denial of the writ as amicus curiae. 
_________________________