Ohio Supreme Court Orders Ashville to Forward Data Center Referendum Petition

The Ohio Supreme Court has ordered an Ashville official to move forward with a citizen referendum petition challenging a village resolution connected to a proposed EdgeConneX data center development.

The decision comes after Ashville residents Laura V. McNamara-Smith, Brian Thomas Meyers and Allison G. Meade filed an original action for a writ of mandamus on July 14 against Village Fiscal Officer April Grube. The residents argued Grube improperly rejected their referendum petition challenging Resolution 06-2026, which Ashville Village Council approved April 6.

The resolution approved a Development and Supply Agreement term summary between the village and EdgeConneX. Village documents describe a proposed project involving two data center buildings and supporting infrastructure on approximately 195 acres.

An EdgeConneX affiliate also intends to pursue a natural gas-fired, behind-the-meter power generating facility at the property. That energy facility would require separate authorization through the Ohio Power Siting Board.

The term summary outlines a potential package of up to $102 million in support for the Village of Ashville, Harrison Township and Teays Valley Local School District, along with additional potential financial commitments tied to future agreements and development.

Residents Gathered 875 Signatures

Opponents of the resolution submitted a certified copy of their referendum petition to the village on April 15 before beginning the signature-gathering process. The completed petition was filed May 5 with 875 signatures. According to the residents' court filing, the Pickaway County Board of Elections later determined that 669 signatures belonged to registered Ashville voters. The filing states that 498 valid signatures were required. Despite the number of valid signatures exceeding that threshold, the referendum did not move forward.

In a June 26 letter referenced in the lawsuit, Grube determined that the petition was insufficient and invalid.

The village's position centered on two issues. First, Resolution 06-2026 had been adopted as an emergency measure, which the village argued made it exempt from referendum.

Second, the village maintained that approving the term summary was an administrative action rather than a legislative action and therefore was not subject to the referendum process.

The residents challenged both conclusions. They argued that a village fiscal officer's role in reviewing a referendum petition is limited and that Grube did not have authority to make substantive legal determinations about whether the resolution could legally be challenged through referendum.

The residents also challenged the resolution's emergency designation and argued that the council action was legislative rather than administrative. Those were arguments made by the plaintiffs in their lawsuit and should not be treated as established facts simply because they appeared in the complaint.

Supreme Court Orders Petition Forwarded

The Ohio Supreme Court has now ordered Grube to transmit the referendum petition and related materials to the Pickaway County Board of Elections. The ruling gives the residents the relief necessary to move their petition beyond the village fiscal officer, but it should not be interpreted as the Supreme Court ordering the referendum onto the November ballot.

The court's action does not itself determine that Ashville voters will vote on Resolution 06-2026 on Nov. 3. Instead, the petition now proceeds to the next stage of Ohio's referendum process, with the Pickaway County Board of Elections responsible for its role in determining whether the proposed referendum qualifies for the ballot.

The residents originally asked the Supreme Court to compel Grube to certify the petition so the referendum process could continue. The court's ruling removes Grube's rejection as the obstacle preventing the petition from being transmitted to election officials. Whether the referendum ultimately appears on the Nov. 3 general election ballot remains subject to the remaining election process.

Data Center Project Remains Proposed

The Supreme Court decision does not approve or reject the EdgeConneX development itself.

Village documents show the proposed project would include two data center buildings with ancillary buildings and infrastructure on approximately 195.368 acres. The development proposal also contemplates a separate natural gas power generation facility intended to operate behind the meter and provide electricity associated with the project.

The Development and Supply Agreement term summary describes potential financial support totaling up to $102 million for Ashville, Harrison Township and Teays Valley Local School District, along with the possibility of additional financial commitments if other future agreements are reached. The term summary also states that it is generally not itself a legally binding agreement except for specifically identified provisions. The next major question is whether the petition ultimately qualifies to place Resolution 06-2026 before Ashville voters in November.