[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 HylandCroy 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. 

_________________________