The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on August 7, 2026, that the fiscal officer of Ashville, Ohio, must certify the sufficiency and validity of a referendum petition regarding a controversial resolution passed by the village council. This decision affects the local community, as it allows residents to vote on a resolution related to a data center project proposed by EdgeConneX, Inc. The ruling emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability in local governance.
The case, titled State ex rel. McNamara-Smith v. Grube, was initiated when Laura V. McNamara-Smith and two other residents sought to hold a referendum on a resolution that the Ashville village council passed to support EdgeConneX's plans for a data center and natural gas power facility. The resolution was passed as an emergency measure, which the fiscal officer, April Grube, claimed exempted it from being subject to a referendum. However, the court found that the resolution did not provide sufficient reasons for its emergency designation, thereby allowing the referendum to proceed.
The dispute began when the Ashville village council adopted Resolution No. 06-2026 on April 6, 2026, which aimed to facilitate the construction of a data center by EdgeConneX. The resolution included a term summary outlining a potential development agreement between the village and the company. Following the council's approval, McNamara-Smith and her colleagues submitted a petition to hold a referendum on the resolution. However, Grube refused to certify the petition, citing the emergency designation of the resolution as a reason it was not subject to a referendum.
In response, McNamara-Smith filed a mandamus action on July 14, 2026, requesting the court to compel Grube to certify the petition. The court's ruling addressed two main issues: whether the resolution contained adequate reasons for being classified as an emergency measure and whether Grube had the authority to determine if the resolution was an administrative action.
The Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the resolution lacked specific reasons justifying its emergency status. The court stated, "Resolution No. 06-2026 does not contain sufficiently specific reasons for Ashville’s village council to have passed it as an emergency measure." Additionally, the court ruled that Grube did not have the discretionary authority to determine whether the resolution was an administrative action, which also would exempt it from a referendum.
The ruling was significant as it granted a peremptory writ, ordering Grube to certify the referendum petition to the Pickaway County Board of Elections. This decision allows the residents of Ashville to vote on the resolution during the upcoming general election on November 3, 2026. The court emphasized that Grube's refusal to certify the petition constituted an abuse of her limited discretionary authority.
This ruling has far-reaching implications for local governance in Ohio. It reinforces the principle that emergency measures must be clearly justified to bypass the referendum process, ensuring that voters have a say in significant local decisions. The decision also highlights the court's commitment to upholding the rights of citizens to challenge local government actions.
Looking ahead, the ruling opens the door for residents of Ashville to express their opinions on the data center project through the referendum. The case underscores the importance of civic engagement and the role of local governments in addressing community concerns. While Grube's decision can be appealed, the court's ruling stands firm, affirming the need for transparency and accountability in local governance.
As the November election approaches, the outcome of the referendum will be closely watched by both supporters and opponents of the data center project. The ruling serves as a reminder of the power of local citizens to influence decisions that affect their communities.