Ohio Supreme Court Rules on Three Data Center Petition Cases
The Ohio Supreme Court issued three rulings on data center cases, siding with citizens in each. The Court overturned local government decisions that had blocked citizen-led petitions seeking to place data center issues, including prohibitions and recall provisions, on local ballots. These rulings underscore the role of citizen petitions in data center policymaking and the supremacy of the Ohio Constitution over city charters.
The Ohio Supreme Court has delivered three significant rulings on data center-related petitions, each case pitting citizens against their local governments. These decisions have compelled local authorities to allow citizen-led initiatives regarding data center development to proceed to the ballot.
In Ashville, Pickaway County, the Village Council approved an agreement with developer EdgeConneX for two data centers and a natural gas plant, also declaring the project exempt from an existing data center moratorium through an "emergency clause." A citizen group collected signatures to repeal this resolution via referendum. The Village Fiscal Officer, citing the emergency clause, deemed the petition invalid. The Ohio Supreme Court, however, ruled that the emergency resolution lacked sufficient specific reasons required by Ohio law to justify its emergency status and ordered the Village to certify the petition for the ballot.
Separately, in Trenton, Butler County, citizens proposed a city charter amendment to prohibit data centers over 25 MW. The city rejected the petition, arguing it lacked sufficient signatures based on a charter interpretation that included all registered voters, not just those who cast ballots in the last election, and that it was not eligible for the upcoming general election. The Supreme Court found Trenton's charter conflicted with the Ohio Constitution on voter definitions, compelling the city to certify the petition based on the constitutional definition. The Court also clarified that the petition was due for a special election, not necessarily the November 3 general election.
Finally, in Sidney, Shelby County, a committee sought to amend the city charter with recall provisions for elected officials, prompted by data center tensions. The Sidney City Clerk rejected the petition, citing a state law requiring pre-filing of initiatives and referenda. The Supreme Court concluded that this pre-filing requirement did not apply to petitions proposing city charter amendments, distinguishing them from initiatives or referenda, and ordered the clerk to accept the petition.
These rulings highlight the power of citizen-initiated petitions in local data center policymaking and affirm the Ohio Constitution as the guiding authority for municipal laws over city charters.