In the case of State ex rel. Pinkston v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1060, the Ohio Supreme Court held that (1) the doctrine of laches did not apply when the citizen waited fourteen days to file suit to compel the board of elections to put the rezoning referendum on the ballot, even though the delay caused the board of elections prejudice as no primary election was planned and (2) the board of elections abused its discretion and acted contrary to law when the board improperly denied a referendum petition being placed on the ballot, even though the petition complied with the summary requirement of R.C. 519.12(H).
In this case, the citizen argued that (1) the doctrine of laches did not apply because, even if the citizen had filed the law suit sooner, the court would not have decided the case before the deadline to prepare absentee ballots and the citizen did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the delay would cause the board of election to prepare to hold an election and (2) the petition summary provided the parcel number and address for the property, the current zoning, the proposed zoning, and the nature of the proposed development as required under R.C. 519.12(H) and did not leave out any material information. In response, the board of elections argued that (1) the board did not prepare for a primary election because the only issue for the entire county was a school levy that affected 109 people in the county for school located in a neighboring county so the board transferred that vote to the neighboring county, but the board would have prepared for an election had the citizen filed the law suit sooner and (2) the brief summary was misleading and failed to inform the reader of the precise nature of the requested change because the summary did not state how many homes would be built in the proposed development and the summary did not describe the modifications made to the application and made it seem as though the approved rezoning was the same as the initially proposed rezoning. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with the citizen on the doctrine of lashes and petition summary issues.
In support of its decision in favor of the citizen on the doctrine of laches issue, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that while the citizen did unreasonably delay the filing of the lawsuit, the delay did not cause the board of election to miss the deadline to prepare absentee ballots as the Ohio Supreme Court would not have decided the case before the deadline anyways. The Ohio Supreme Court further explained that although the board of elections may have prepared for an election had the lawsuit been filed earlier, laches could not apply because the citizen did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the delay would cause the board any harm.
In support of its decision in favor of the citizen on the petition summary issue, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that the petition summary contained all requirements listed in R.C. 519.12(H). The Ohio Supreme Court next explained that there is no requirement that a petition summary indicate how many homes are in the residential development proposal and the board of elections did not argue that the petition summary contained any inaccuracies. The Ohio Supreme Court further explained that a petition summary does not need to describe earlier applications and only needs to summarize the zoning amendment that the township adopted.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.