Title: State ex rel. Barney v. Union County Board 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. Barney v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4277.] 
 
 
 
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. 2019-OHIO-4277 
THE STATE EX REL. BARNEY 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. Barney v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip 
Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4277.] 
Prohibition—Elections—R.C. 519.12(H)—Zoning-referendum petition was valid 
and board of elections correctly denied protest—Writ denied. 
(No. 2019-1296—Submitted October 11, 2019—Decided October 17, 2019.) 
IN PROHIBITION. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In this expedited election case, relators, Bryan R. Barney and 
Walbonns, L.L.C., (“the protesters”), seek a writ of prohibition to prevent 
respondent, the Union County Board of Elections, from placing a township zoning 
referendum on the November 5, 2019 general-election ballot.  We deny the writ. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
I. Background 
{¶ 2} On January 28, 2019, Paragon Building Group, Ltd., filed an 
application to rezone approximately 210.62 acres of land in Jerome Township, 
Union County.  The property in question is currently zoned RU-Rural Residential 
District and SRE-Special Recreation District.  The application sought to change the 
zoning classification to PD-Planned Development District.  Upon its filing, the 
zoning application was designated “PD 19-130.” 
{¶ 3} In March 2019, the Jerome Township Zoning Commission voted 5-0 
to recommend approval of PD 19-130 to the Jerome Township Board of Trustees.  
The board of trustees held four public hearings on the application. 
{¶ 4} On July 2, the trustees adopted Resolution No. 19-066 by a 2-1 vote.  
The resolution approved application PD 19-130, subject to five conditions (referred 
to as “modifications”).  Those modifications were set forth on a separate page 
labeled “Attachment 1”: 
 
1.  Increase to a 40-foot minimum setback for lots having 
shared access drives along Crottinger Road. 
2.  Remove at least 5 lots from south property (wooded area), 
adjacent to the neighbor/residence at 10420 Crottinger Road, with 
the option at Applicant’s election to redistribute or re-place any of 
those 5 lots elsewhere in the development at Final Development 
Plan. 
3.  Include additional language in the Development Text to 
state plainly that any golf course or other use operated or conducted 
on the Open Space shall at all times be open to the public. 
4.  As proposed by the Applicant, developer to pay a $500 
per lot supplemental zoning review fee, payable at time of Township 
zoning approval. 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
5.  Prior to construction, the execution and recording of an 
option contract for the golf course area substantially similar to the 
one prepared and proposed by the Applicant dated June 12, 2019. 
 
{¶ 5} On July 29, a petition was filed with the Jerome Township Fiscal 
Officer, seeking to place a referendum concerning the zoning amendment on the 
November ballot.  Atop each part-petition form, in the space designated for the 
“[n]ame and number of the proposal, if any,” the circulators wrote: 
 
Amendment of Zoning Resolution to rezone approx. 210.62 acres 
from Rural Residential District (RU) and Special Recreation District 
(SRE) to Planned Development District (PD).  Resolution 19-066. 
 
{¶ 6} In the space provided for a summary of the proposed zoning 
amendment, the following information was provided: 
 
A resolution, 19-066, approving zoning amendment PD 19-130 to 
rezone approximately 210.62 +/- acres located approximately 2,100 
feet north-west of the intersection of Taylor Road and Industrial 
Parkway having a current address of 10897 Industrial Parkway, 
Marysville, Ohio 43040 (“Property”), from Rural Residential 
District (RU) and Special Recreation District (SRE) to Planned 
Development District (PD) allowing for a residential community 
consisting of up to 378 single-family homes and open space areas to 
be known as “Rolling Meadows.” 
The attached exhibits provide more details. 
Resolution 19-066 (Exhibit 1) 
List of Affected Parcels (Exhibit 2) 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Regional Context Map (Exhibit 3) 
Illustrative Master Plan (Exhibit 4) 
 
Exhibit 1 included the “Attachment 1” that set forth the five modifications imposed 
by the board of trustees.  However, the modifications were not described in the 
summary, nor did the summary indicate that there were any modifications. 
{¶ 7} On August 6, the board of trustees certified the petition to the Union 
County Board of Elections to determine the petition’s sufficiency and validity.  One 
week later, the board of elections determined that the petition contained a sufficient 
number of valid signatures and certified the issue to the ballot. 
{¶ 8} Three days later, on August 16, the protesters filed a protest against 
the petition with the board of elections.  They alleged that they each own two 
parcels of land that would be subject to the proposed zoning amendment.  Their 
protest letter identified four alleged defects in the petition: (1) the petition 
incorrectly identified the number of the zoning-amendment application, (2) the 
petition incorrectly identified the full and correct title of the zoning-amendment 
application, (3) the petition incorrectly identified the name by which the zoning 
amendment is known, and (4) the petition’s brief summary contained material 
omissions. 
{¶ 9} The board of elections conducted a hearing on the protest on 
September 19, at which it heard testimony from nine witnesses and received 
documents into evidence, including an affidavit from one of the township trustees 
who was unable to attend for medical reasons.  At the conclusion of the hearing, 
the board voted to deny the protest, allowing the referendum to appear on the ballot. 
II. Procedural history 
{¶ 10} On September 23, the protesters filed a complaint for a writ of 
prohibition.  Because they filed their complaint within 90 days of the relevant 
election, the case was automatically expedited pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 
January Term, 2019 
 
5
12.08(A)(1).  The matter was fully briefed.  The only evidence in the record was 
submitted by the protesters.  We also received an amicus brief from the Ohio Home 
Builders Association supporting the issuance of a writ. 
III. Legal analysis 
{¶ 11} Three elements are necessary for a writ of prohibition to issue: the 
exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power, the lack of legal authority for the 
exercise of that power, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course 
of law.  State ex rel. Tam O’Shanter v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections, 151 Ohio St.3d 
134, 2017-Ohio-8167, 86 N.E.3d 332, ¶ 14. 
{¶ 12} The first and third elements are met.  R.C. 3501.39(A) requires a 
board of elections to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing on a petition protest.  See 
State ex rel. Miller Diversified Holdings, L.L.C. v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections, 123 
Ohio St.3d 260, 2009-Ohio-4980, 915 N.E.2d 1187, ¶ 15.  A board of elections 
exercises quasi-judicial authority when it makes a decision regarding a protest after 
a mandatory hearing that includes sworn testimony.  See Christy v. Summit Cty. Bd. 
of Elections, 77 Ohio St.3d 35, 37, 671 N.E.2d 1 (1996).  And due to the proximity 
of the November election, the protesters have no adequate remedy at law.  See State 
ex rel. Combs v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Elections, __Ohio St.3d__, 2019-Ohio-4110, 
__N.E.3d__, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 13} This case turns on the second element of the prohibition analysis: 
whether the board of elections lacked authority to place the petition on the ballot.  
To answer this question, we “must determine whether the board acted fraudulently 
or corruptly, abused its discretion, or clearly disregarded applicable law.”  State ex 
rel. Brown v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 63, 2006-Ohio-1292, 846 
N.E.2d 8, ¶ 23.  There is no allegation that the board acted “fraudulently or 
corruptly.” 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
A. The requirements of R.C. 519.12(H) 
{¶ 14} 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).  The 
statute thus imposes “four distinct requirements” regarding what a zoning-
referendum petition must contain: 
 
(1) 
“the number of * * * the zoning amendment resolution, 
motion, or application,” 
(2) 
“the full and correct title, if any, of the zoning amendment 
resolution, motion, or application,” 
(3) 
“the name by which the amendment is known,” and 
(4) 
“a brief summary of the contents.” 
 
(Emphasis added.)  State ex rel. Quinn v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 152 Ohio 
St.3d 568, 2018-Ohio-966, 99 N.E.3d 362, ¶ 26, quoting R.C. 519.12(H). 
{¶ 15} The requirements of R.C. 519.12(H) demand strict compliance.  
Quinn at ¶ 30.  The protesters contend that the petition did not satisfy any of these 
requirements and therefore the board of elections abused its discretion and clearly 
disregarded applicable law by permitting the referendum to appear on the ballot. 
B. The number of the zoning-amendment application 
{¶ 16} The requirement of R.C. 519.12(H) that the petition must provide 
the number of the zoning-amendment resolution, motion, or application appears to 
be written in the disjunctive.  As we explained in Quinn, the three possibilities 
actually mirror the three methods by which a zoning amendment may be initiated.  
Id. at ¶ 29.  Under R.C. 519.12(A)(1), amendments to a township zoning resolution 
may be initiated in one of three ways, depending on who proposes the change: (1) 
January Term, 2019 
 
7
by motion of the township zoning commission, (2) by the passage of a resolution 
by the board of township trustees, or (3) by the filing of an application by one or 
more of the owners or lessees of the affected property.  Tam O’Shanter, 151 Ohio 
St.3d 134, 2017-Ohio-8167, 86 N.E.3d 332, at ¶ 18.  The appropriate number and 
title to use on the petition “depends on the method of initiation,” Quinn at ¶ 29.  
When, as in this case, the zoning amendment is proposed by an application, R.C. 
519.12(H) requires the petition to contain the number and title of the application.  
See Quinn at ¶ 29. 
{¶ 17} At the hearing before the board of elections, the administrative 
assistant to the township fiscal officer testified that the application number was PD 
19-130.  The parties agree that PD 19-130 was the correct number to use.  But they 
disagree over whether the part-petitions satisfied R.C. 519.12(H). 
{¶ 18} The name and number of the proposal filled in at the top of each part-
petition referred to “Resolution 19-066,” which was the number of the resolution 
adopted by the board of trustees.  Under the rule set forth in Quinn, reference to the 
resolution number rather than the application number did not satisfy the statute in 
this case because the zoning amendment was initiated by an application.  However, 
lower on the same first page of each part-petition, the summary referred to “[a] 
resolution, 19-066, approving zoning amendment PD 19-130.”  Based on this 
language, the board of elections concluded that the petition complied with the 
statute: the number of the application appeared on the face of the part-petitions. 
{¶ 19} We agree.  R.C. 519.12(H) requires each part-petition to “contain” 
this information.  But the statute does not specify where on the face of the part-
petition the information must appear.  The part-petitions therefore strictly complied 
with the statutory requirement that they contain the number of the zoning 
application. 
{¶ 20} The petitioners used Form No. 6-O, promulgated by the secretary of 
state, which instructs petitioners to write the “[n]ame and number of the proposal, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
if any,” on the top of the petition.  The secretary’s Form No. 6-O tracks the example 
provided in R.C. 519.12(H).  That statute indicates that the “form of a petition 
calling for a zoning referendum and the statement of the circulator shall be 
substantially as follows.”  (Emphasis added.)  Election statutes are mandatory 
“unless there is language allowing substantial compliance.”  (Emphasis added.)  
State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288, 2009-Ohio-5327, 915 N.E.2d 
1215, ¶ 15.  Thus, although the required information must appear somewhere on 
the face of the petition, strict compliance is not required with respect to the layout 
of the petition form.  See State ex rel. Simonetti v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
151 Ohio St.3d 50, 2017-Ohio-8115, 85 N.E.3d 728, ¶ 26 (R.C. 3513.261, which 
states that a nominating petition “shall be substantially in the form prescribed in 
this section,” requires only substantial compliance regarding the form of the 
nominating petition). 
{¶ 21} The protesters reply to this analysis by noting that the secretary has 
a legal duty under R.C. 3501.05(G) to prescribe forms for use by petition 
committees.  They then argue that by selecting this format for Form No. 6-O, the 
secretary interpreted R.C. 519.12(H) as requiring circulators to place the required 
information on the top of the form, and they ask us to defer to the secretary’s 
interpretation of state election law.  But in adopting the model form, the secretary 
did not purport to interpret the law as requiring strict compliance with the form.  
Thus, this is not a case in which we need to decide what deference, if any, to give 
to the secretary’s interpretation of an election statute. 
{¶ 22} The only question is whether the part-petitions substantially 
complied with the first requirement of R.C. 519.12(H).  When considering 
questions of substantial compliance, we ask whether the requirement at issue 
“ ‘serves a public interest and a public purpose.’ ”  Simonetti at ¶ 27, quoting Stern 
v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 14 Ohio St.2d 175, 180, 237 N.E.2d 313 (1968).  
Certainly, the public interest requires a part-petition to contain sufficient basic 
January Term, 2019 
 
9
information to notify potential signers what the petition seeks to do.  But the 
protesters have “assert[ed] no logical or reasonable proposition, based upon a 
public purpose, public policy or public interest for invalidating this part-petition 
upon [the] technical ground,” Stern at 179, that the application number appeared in 
the summary section, rather than on the top of the form. 
{¶ 23} We therefore agree with the decision of the board of elections to 
reject the protesters’ first argument for invalidating the part-petitions. 
C. The title of the zoning-amendment application 
{¶ 24} R.C. 519.12(H) also requires the petition to contain the full and 
correct title, if any, of the zoning-amendment application.  The top of the part-
petitions identified the title as: 
 
Amendment of Zoning Resolution to rezone approx. 210.62 acres 
from Rural Residential District (RU) and Special Recreation District 
(SRE) to Planned Development District (PD).  Resolution 19-066. 
 
The protesters describe this as a “made up” title and fault the petition for failing to 
use the full and correct title.  But they never identify what the correct title is.  They 
neglected to place the actual application into evidence.1  Nor is there an affidavit or 
testimony identifying the correct title of the application.  Instead, they refer to 
multiple exhibits they submitted to establish that Jerome Township never referred 
to the application by the title used in the part-petitions. 
{¶ 25} The record contains what purport to be the agendas for three 
meetings of the Jerome Township Board of Trustees, dated May 6, May 21, and 
June 25, 2019.  Each document indicates that the topic for consideration will be: 
 
                                                 
1. The record contains only what appears to be a single page from the application, a form executed 
by the property owner authorizing Paragon Building Group to act as its agent. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
Public Hearing—Application #PD #19-130 submitted by Laura 
MacGregor Comek, Attorney for Paragon Building Group 
Ltd.—The proposed development will be known as - “Rolling 
Meadows” 
 
(Boldface sic.)  The board of trustees’ meeting minutes for those same dates refer 
to: 
 
Application for a Zoning Amendment (PD 19-130) 
Submitted by Paragon Building Group Ltd. 
Rural Residential (RU) and Special Recreation (SR) to Planned Development 
(PD) 
(Approximately 210.62+/- acres) 
Parcel Numbers 14-00050060000, 14-00050070000, 15-00040180000, 15-
00040184000, 15-00040181000, 15-00040183000, 14-00050030000, and 15-
00040044000 
 
(Boldface sic.)  The record also includes an agenda for the meeting on July 2, 2019, 
which contains a line item designated simply “Rolling Meadows – Vote.”  The 
meeting minutes for that date indicate approval of “the application submitted by 
Paragon Building Group, Ltd. PD 19-130 to rezone from Rural Residential and 
Special Recreation to Planned Development, approximately 210.62+/- acres * * *.”  
Elsewhere, the same minutes report a discussion of “a zoning amendment submitted 
by Paragon Building Group, Ltd., referred to as Rolling Meadows.”  On August 6, 
the board of trustees considered the referendum petition, calling the underlying 
application “the Rolling Meadows project, application for a zoning amendment PD 
19-130.” 
January Term, 2019 
 
11 
{¶ 26} None of these documents establish what the actual “correct title” of 
the application is.  In some respects, the descriptions used in these documents are 
quite different from one another.  Some documents, for example, include the phrase 
“Rolling Meadows.”  But that phrase is absent from many of the meeting minutes, 
including from the line item memorializing the board’s approval of the application.  
Instead, the meeting minutes identify the application by the affected parcel 
numbers, but that information is not included elsewhere. 
{¶ 27} R.C. 519.12(H) requires the petition to contain the full and correct 
title, “if any.”  The statute thus contemplates the possibility that an application will 
not have a title.  Based on the evidence in the record, there is reason to believe that 
this is the case here: even the township resolution itself did not refer to the name of 
the application it was approving: rather, it “described” the zoning-amendment case 
as: 
 
an application submitted by Laura MacGregor Comek, Attorney for 
Paragon Building Group, Ltd., seeking the rezoning of a 210.62 +/- 
acre tract located approximately 2,100 feet northwest of the 
intersection of Taylor Road and Industrial Parkway having a current 
address of 10897 Industrial Parkway, Marysville, Ohio 43040, from 
Rural Residential District (RU) and Special Recreation District 
(SRE) to Planned Development District (PD) pursuant to Chapter 5 
of the Jerome Township Zoning Resolution.  The proposed 
development is a residential community consisting of single-family 
homes and open space areas and will be known as “Rolling 
Meadows.” 
 
{¶ 28} The protesters, as the party seeking the issuance of a writ, must prove 
their entitlement to relief by clear and convincing evidence.  State ex rel. Federle 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 156 Ohio St.3d 322, 2019-Ohio-849, 126 N.E.3d 
1091, ¶ 10.  Here, that means showing that the application did in fact have a title 
that the petitioners should have used.  But the protesters submitted no evidence 
establishing a title. 
{¶ 29} The board of elections correctly rejected the protesters’ second 
argument for invalidating the part-petitions. 
D. The name by which the zoning-amendment application is known 
{¶ 30} R.C. 519.12(H) requires a petition to identify the name by which the 
amendment is known.  The protesters contend that the application was well known 
as “Rolling Meadows” and that the part-petitions were defective because they did 
not identify the proposal by that name or by “PD 19-130.”  But both of those 
designations appeared on the face of the part-petitions, in the summary section.  The 
protesters are making the same argument here as they did regarding the first 
requirement (analyzed in Section A, above): that the information must appear at the 
top of the form.  As discussed previously, R.C. 519.12(H) requires the information 
to appear on the part-petition but does not mandate where it must appear.  For these 
reasons, the board of elections correctly rejected the protesters’ third argument for 
invalidating the part-petitions. 
E. The “brief summary” omitted material information 
{¶ 31} R.C. 519.12(H) requires each part-petition to contain 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) (“The 
phrase ‘brief summary of its contents’ refers to the zoning resolution passed by the 
township trustees”).  The protesters contend that the petition omitted material 
information from the “brief summary” section—specifically, the five modifications 
made to the proposal by the board of trustees and incorporated into the resolution 
as Attachment 1. 
January Term, 2019 
 
13 
{¶ 32} The purpose of the 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 [a petition for referendum] 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) (considering the statute concerning amendments to 
county zoning resolutions).  The summary must therefore be “accurate and 
unambiguous.”  S.I. Dev. & Constr. v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 100 Ohio St.3d 
272, 2003-Ohio-5791, 798 N.E.2d 587, ¶ 17.  “ ‘[I]f 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. Gemienhardt v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-
Ohio-1666, 846 N.E.2d 1223, ¶ 38, quoting Shelly & Sands, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. 
Bd. of Elections, 12 Ohio St.3d 140, 141, 465 N.E.2d 883 (1984). 
{¶ 33} At the protest hearing before the board of elections, the chairman 
conceded that the five modifications were material:  
 
I do agree with the Protesters that those five conditions are material 
and that they had to be in the Referendum Petition.  I think anyone 
who saw the Petition would have to know that the change in zoning 
was modified by those five provisions. 
 
But the chairman considered it sufficient that the five modifications were present 
as an attachment rather than as part of the brief summary.  The other board members 
agreed. 
{¶ 34} In O’Beirne, we held that inclusion of the full text of an ordinance 
amendment usually satisfies the “brief summary” requirement.  80 Ohio St.3d at 
180, 685 N.E.2d 502.  In this case, it did.  The petition here contained the entire 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
14 
zoning amendment, including the full text of the modifications.  Further, the 
zoning-referendum petition was brief—the complete zoning amendment including 
the full list of amendments was only two pages long.  Under these facts, we 
conclude that the brief summary requirement was satisfied.  The protesters’ 
objection, once again, is not that the petition lacked essential information but that 
the information was not placed in a particular location on the form.  We reiterate 
that R.C. 519.12(H) requires strict compliance as to the contents of a zoning petition 
but allows for substantial compliance as to its form.  Here, we conclude that under 
the facts of this case, the petition substantially complied with the requirements of 
the law. 
{¶ 35} The board of elections correctly rejected the protesters’ fourth 
argument for invalidating the part-petitions. 
IV. Conclusion 
{¶ 36} For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the board of elections 
correctly denied the protest.  We therefore deny the writ of prohibition. 
Writ denied. 
KENNEDY, FRENCH, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., concurs, with an opinion. 
FISCHER, J., concurs, with an opinion. 
_________________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J., concurring. 
{¶ 37} I concur with the judgment of the court.  I write separately to 
emphasize the limited scope of today’s holding.  The court does not hold that the 
complete text of a zoning amendment, attached as an exhibit to a part-petition, will 
satisfy the “brief summary” requirement of R.C. 519.12(H) in all cases. 
{¶ 38} All the court says today is that on these facts, the petition summary 
substantially complied with R.C. 519.12(H) because all the material information 
was referred to therein and was easily accessible to potential signatories.  Critical 
January Term, 2019 
 
15 
to this conclusion is the fact that the zoning-referendum petition was so brief: the 
complete zoning amendment, including the full list of modifications, was a mere 
two pages long. 
{¶ 39} Whether there has been strict compliance with an election-law 
requirement is a question of fact.  See Olen Corp. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
43 Ohio App.3d 189, 198, 541 N.E.2d 80 (10th Dist.1988).  A different set of facts, 
involving more voluminous documents or the absence of any reference to those 
documents in the summary, might yield a different result.  But that scenario is not 
the one before us today. 
{¶ 40} Under the facts presented, the petition complied with the 
requirements of R.C. 519.12(H).  I therefore concur with the judgment of the court 
to deny the writ of prohibition and permit the referendum to appear on the 
November ballot. 
_________________ 
FISCHER, J., concurring. 
{¶ 41} It is a fundamental and time-tested principle that “the people are the 
only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that * * * the several 
branches of government [derive] their power,” Madison, The Federalist No. 49 at 
313-314 (Clinton Rossiter Ed.1961). 
{¶ 42} Consistent with that principle, the Ohio Constitution reserves some 
of the legislative power for the citizens of this state by giving them the right to 
adopt or reject legislative acts at the polls through initiatives and referenda.  Article 
II, Section 1, Ohio Constitution.  This includes the right of citizens at the local level 
to reject zoning ordinances.  See id. at Section 1(f); Hilltop Realty, Inc. v. S. Euclid, 
110 Ohio App. 535, 164 N.E.2d 180 (8th Dist.1960). 
{¶ 43} This is a case that put that right to the test by asking this court to 
decide whether Ohio citizens should be denied the opportunity to exercise that right 
because, among other things, their brief summary was too brief.  In my opinion, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
16 
denying the writ was the proper thing to do given these facts and the system of 
government established under the Ohio Constitution. 
{¶ 44} Today, thanks to the decision of this court, the right to referendum 
is more than illusory and Alexis de Tocqueville would still have something to 
admire in America in 2019. 
{¶ 45} For these reasons, I concur in the court’s opinion. 
_________________ 
McTigue & Colombo, L.L.C., J. Corey Colombo, Donald J. McTigue, 
Derek S. Clinger, and Ben F.C. Wallace; and Laura M. Comek Law, L.L.C., and 
Laura MacGregor 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. 
_________________