The village of Ashville must submit a referendum petition to the board of elections seeking a public vote on the village’s tentative agreement to cooperate in the construction of two data centers and an accompanying natural-gas power-generating facility, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court concluded that the Ashville fiscal officer, April Grube, could not refuse to certify the petition of opponents of the EdgeConneX data center plan because the village adopted its agreement with the company as emergency legislation.

The Court ordered Grube to submit the petition to the board of elections for placement on the Nov. 3 general election ballot. However, the Court’s decision does not ensure voters will get to decide the matter. The Court noted that the Pickaway County Board of Elections may consider whether the resolution was an “administrative action” taken by the village, and not subject to a referendum.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the per curiam opinion.

Justice Jennifer Brunner concurred with the opinion but stated she supported setting an expedited schedule for the Court to address whether the village resolution is not subject to referendum because it was an administrative action.

Village Adopts Proposal to Facilitate Data Centers
In April, Ashville village council adopted Resolution No. 06-2026 to approve a “development and supply agreement term summary” with EdgeConneX and to declare an emergency.

The resolution stated EdgeConneX and its affiliate intended to construct and operate two single-story data centers and a natural gas power plant on village property. The resolution noted EdgeConneX intended to seek authority from the Ohio Power Siting Board to build the power plant.

The term summary states that the resolution does not constitute a legally binding agreement, except for four provisions. Those provisions included EdgeConneX paying between $50,000 and $100,000 to the village to hire professional advisors to assist with the project, and that the village’s previously enacted data center moratorium would not apply to the project.

The resolution’s emergency clause stated the legislation was “immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety of the municipality” and that it needed to accept the terms “as soon as possible so that this project is not unnecessarily delayed.”

The resolution was adopted in April and approved by the mayor.

Residents Oppose Resolution
Village resident Laura McNamara-Smith and others circulated a referendum petition to repeal the EdgeConneX resolution. In May, the group turned in enough valid signatures to place the referendum on the Nov. 3 ballot. The petitions were submitted to Grube to transfer to the board of elections.

In a June letter, Grube informed the board of elections that she was not submitting the petition because it was insufficient and invalid. She explained the resolution is not subject to referendum because it passed as an emergency measure and was an administrative action.

McNamara-Smith sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court directing Grube to submit the petition to be on the ballot.

Supreme Court Analyzed Petition Requirements
The Court explained a municipal official with the duties of the village clerk has limited discretionary authority to determine the sufficiency and validity of a referendum petition. Grube has those duties for Ashville and has the right to refuse to submit the petition if it is an emergency measure.

The opinion noted that R.C. 731.30 defines emergency ordinances as measures “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety in such a municipal corporation.”

The Court noted that to qualify as an emergency measure, it must contain sufficient reasons for the village to declare it an emergency.

“In doing so, we must determine whether the council apprised voters of the specific reasons for declaring the resolution to be an emergency measure,” the opinion noted.

The Court wrote that it previously ruled that parroting R.C. 731.30 by referring to the “preservation of the public peace, health, or safety” is not enough. The village also cannot provide “after the fact” reasons for declaring an emergency that are not in the resolution, the opinion noted.

The other reason stated by the village was to prevent unnecessary delay. An emergency resolution takes effect immediately. Other resolutions take effect within 30 days, the opinion noted.

“All emergency measures are presumably designated as such because commencement of the underlying matter should not be delayed. But Resolution No. 06-2026 does not explain why waiting 30 days for the resolution to take effect would unnecessarily delay the EdgeConneX project,” the Court wrote.

Because the resolution fails to apprise voters of specific reasons to pass as an emergency, it is not exempt from referendum and must be submitted to the board of elections, the Court concluded.

Administrative Actions Require Separate Review
Under the Ohio Constitution, voters have the right to overturn legislative actions through referendum, but not administrative actions, the Court noted.

Whether the village’s resolution was a legislative or administrative action is a judicial question and is beyond the limited authority of a municipal official to decide, the Court stated. Grube did not have the authority to deny the petition on the grounds that it was an administrative action.

However, the Court has previously ruled that boards of elections may consider the legal question as to whether an action is administrative and ineligible for a vote. A board of elections’ decision can be further challenged in court.

The Court stated it takes no position on whether the EdgeConneX resolution is administrative or legislative. The Court noted that while the deadline to submit a petition to the board was Aug. 5, it directed the Pickaway County board to consider it filed on time because of the unnecessary delay caused by Grube.

The board must still make its own determination as to whether the referendum can be on the ballot, the Court concluded.

2026-0906. State ex rel. McNamara-Smith v. Grube, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-3035.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.