State ex rel. v. Bod. of Elecctions, 2002-1744.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: Per Curiam
• Citation: 778 N.E.2d 37,97 Ohio St.3d 221,2002 Ohio 5922
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. FULLER et al. v. MEDINA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al.
• Docket Number: No. 2002-1744.,2002-1744.
• Decision Date: 30 October 2002

Page 37

778 N.E.2d 37 97 Ohio St.3d 221 2002 Ohio 5922 The STATE ex rel. FULLER et al.
v.
MEDINA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al. No. 2002-1744. Supreme Court of Ohio. Submitted October 28, 2002. Decided October 30, 2002.

Lawrence J. Courtney, Medina, for relators.

Dean Holman, Medina County Prosecuting Attorney, and William L. Thorne, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

{¶ 1} Relators, Gilbert and Henrietta Fuller, own certain property in Brunswick Hills Township, Medina County, Ohio. On May 14, 2002, upon the application of Gilbert Fuller, the Brunswick Hills Township Board of Trustees rezoned three parcels of the Fullers' property from R-R (Rural Residential) to C-3 (Highway Arterial Commercial).

{¶ 2} A petition requesting a referendum on the zoning amendment was circulated. On June 11, 2002, the petitioners submitted the petition to the board of township trustees pursuant to R.C. 519.12(H). The board of township trustees transmitted the petition to respondent Medina County Board of Elections, and on July 1, 2002, the board of elections advised the trustees that the petition contained 191 valid signatures. On August 13, 2002, the board of township trustees approved the petition and requested the board of elections to place the referendum issue on the November 5, 2002 election ballot.

{¶ 3} On August 22, 2002, the Fullers submitted a written protest against the referendum petition, and respondents, the board of elections, its members, its director, and its deputy director, set the matter for a hearing. For one of their protest grounds, the Fullers claimed that the map attached to the referendum petition "is incorrect as it distorts the actual adjacent zoning which is misleading and insinuates inaccuracies thus failing to provide a complete indication of the nature of the surrounding area and as such is ambiguous

Page 38

and misleading to the average person."

{¶ 4} On September 23, 2002, the board of elections conducted a hearing on the protest. Gilbert Fuller and the Fullers' attorney attended the hearing and presented argument in support of their protest. The Fullers contended that the petition map failed to contain a fourth parcel and that the zoning classification of an adjacent parcel was misrepresented. At the conclusion of the September 23 hearing, the board of elections denied the protest, determined that the zoning referendum petition was valid, and ordered the referendum issue placed on the November 5, 2002 election ballot. On October 3, 2002, the board of elections mailed a letter informing the Fullers' attorney of its September 23 decision.

{¶ 5} On October 10, 2002, the Fullers filed this action for a writ of prohibition to prevent the board of elections, its members, its director, and its deputy director from placing the referendum on the township zoning amendment on the November 5, 2002 election ballot. On October 11, the Fullers filed an amended complaint requesting the same relief. Respondents submitted an answer, and the parties filed evidence and briefs pursuant to S.Ct. Prac.R. X(9). Ballots for the November 5, 2002 election have been prepared, and absentee ballots...