Mandatory Inclusion of Approved Zoning Modifications in Referendum Petitions under R.C. 519.12(H)

Introduction

State ex rel. Shamro v. Delaware County Board of Elections, 2025-Ohio-941, is an expedited election-law mandamus case in which Chris Shamro sought to compel the Delaware County Board of Elections to place a zoning referendum on the May 6, 2025 primary-election ballot. The referendum challenged a Brown Township zoning amendment filed by Henmick Brewery, L.L.C., which had rezoned farmland with an existing brewery from “Farm Residential (FR-1)” to “Planned Commercial and Office District (PC).” Shamro’s petition included a name for the amendment (“Henmick Brewery”), a summary of its contents, and a property map. The board of elections sustained an election protest filed by Henmick (and an interested local voter), finding that the petition failed to state the precise name of the amendment, contained a misleading summary by omitting four trustee-approved modifications, and used a resized but accurate map. Shamro then filed a mandamus action seeking a writ to restore the referendum to the ballot and attorney fees. The Supreme Court of Ohio denied relief.

Summary of the Judgment

By per curiam opinion, a majority of the Court held that Shamro failed to demonstrate that the board of elections abused its discretion or acted in clear disregard of R.C. 519.12(H). The Court reaffirmed that township-zoning referendum petitions must strictly comply with the statute’s four core requirements: (1) the amendment’s full and correct title or application number, (2) the name by which the amendment is known, (3) a brief summary of its contents, and (4) an appropriate map. Because the petition’s summary omitted material trustee-approved modifications—removal of agritourism, a curfew on outdoor live music, dust-mitigation requirements, and additional tree planting—the board of elections properly sustained the protest and decertified the measure. The writ of mandamus was denied, and Shamro’s claim for attorney fees was deemed waived for lack of supporting argument.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Valentine v. Schoen (2024-Ohio-3439): Reiterated that mandamus may issue only where a board of elections abuses discretion, and lack of an adequate remedy justifies expedited relief in election cases.
• Shelly & Sands, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections (1984): Held that referendum summaries must be accurate and unambiguous; misleading or materially omissive petitions are invalid.
• E. Ohio Gas Co. v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections (1998-Ohio-285): Invalidated a petition whose summary failed to present an accurate and unambiguous description of the rezoning.
• State ex rel. Barney v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections (2019-Ohio-4277): Established that R.C. 519.12(H) demands strict compliance and that material omissions in summary or map warrant decertification.
• State ex rel. Quinn v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections (2018-Ohio-966): Clarified that the “name by which the amendment is known” must reflect how the zoning body itself identified the proposal.
• State ex rel. Rife v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections (1994): Stressed that omissions in summary are material only if they appear in the resolution itself.
• State ex rel. McCord v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections (2005-Ohio-4758): Explained that a summary mirroring resolution language satisfies R.C. 519.12(H), but added details must also be accurate and unambiguous.

Legal Reasoning

The Court emphasized that R.C. 519.12(H) requires “strict compliance” with both the form and substance of referendum petitions. When trustees approve a rezoning amendment, the name, summary, and map that accompany any referendum petition must faithfully reflect the final, board-approved amendment. Here, the Brown Township trustees made four material modifications—eliminating agritourism, imposing a curfew on outdoor music, mandating dust control, and planting additional trees—which altered the amendment’s substantive terms. By omitting these changes, the petition’s summary became misleading and incomplete under the standards of Shelly & Sands, E. Ohio Gas, and Barney. The board of elections therefore acted within its discretion in sustaining the protest.

As to the amendment’s “known name,” the Court found that the trustees consistently referred to the project as “Henmick Brewery,” even when appending “Planned Commercial and Office District.” This use established “Henmick Brewery” as the name by which the amendment was known, satisfying the statutory requirement. Finally, the resized map reproduced the trustee-approved boundaries and parcel identifiers, meeting the “appropriate map” standard.

Impact

State ex rel. Shamro V. Delaware County Board of Elections clarifies and reinforces the exacting standards for township-zoning referenda. Going forward, petition circulators must ensure that any trustee-approved modifications—even those affecting aesthetics or operational details—are incorporated into the petition summary. Boards of elections are empowered to scrutinize summaries for material omissions and to decertify petitions that fail strict compliance. The decision underscores the narrow scope of mandamus review—limited to abuse of discretion or clear statutory disregard—and signals that courts will defer to election boards enforcing R.C. 519.12(H) rigorously.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Mandamus: A court order compelling a public official to perform a legal duty. Here, Shamro sought to force the elections board to restore the referendum to the ballot.
• R.C. 519.12(H): The Ohio statute governing township-zoning referenda. It mandates that petitions include the amendment’s title, known name, a brief summary, and an appropriate map.
• Abuse of Discretion: A standard of review that requires a decision to be arbitrary or unreasonable to be overturned. Courts will not disturb election-board decisions absent clear misapplication of law.
• Material Modification: Any change to a zoning amendment that alters the rights, uses, or restrictions on the land. Omitting such a modification in a petition summary renders the summary misleading.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Shamro v. Delaware County Board of Elections reaffirms that township-zoning referendum petitions must mirror the final, trustee-approved amendment in name, summary, and map. Material modifications—no matter how operational or aesthetic—cannot be omitted without rendering the petition summary misleading. Election boards may decertify noncompliant petitions, and mandamus relief will be denied absent an abuse of discretion or clear statutory violation. This decision carries significant implications for how local referenda are drafted, reviewed, and litigated under R.C. 519.12(H).