ASHVILLE, Ohio — The battle over a proposed EdgeConneX data center in Ashville is now headed to the Pickaway County Board of Elections, where officials will have to determine whether a citizen referendum challenging the village’s agreement with the company can move forward.
The Ohio Supreme Court recently ordered Ashville Fiscal Officer April Grube to certify the referendum petition to the Board of Elections, rejecting the village’s attempt to prevent the petition from moving forward because the council action had been declared an emergency.
However, the Supreme Court did not rule that Ashville residents are guaranteed a vote on the data center.
Instead, the court left one major question unresolved: Was the Ashville Village Council’s action legislative or administrative?
That distinction could determine whether voters ever see the issue on the ballot.
Legislative vs. administrative action
Under Ohio law, municipal legislative actions generally can be challenged through referendum, while administrative actions generally cannot.
The Ohio Supreme Court has historically distinguished the two by asking whether a government body is creating or changing law and policy or simply carrying out existing law.
That distinction is now at the center of the Ashville dispute.
Ashville officials have argued that Resolution 06-2026 was an administrative action involving a specific development agreement with EdgeConneX.
The referendum supporters argue the resolution went much further, establishing a special legal and policy framework for the proposed data center.
What does the EdgeConneX resolution do?
Resolution 06-2026 approves a development and supply agreement term summary between Ashville and EdgeConneX.
While much of the term summary is described as generally nonbinding, several provisions create binding obligations between the village and the company.
Among them, the agreement provides that Ashville’s existing data-center moratorium would not apply to the EdgeConneX project.
The village also agreed to work with EdgeConneX on permitting, utilities and infrastructure and committed to making substantial water and wastewater capacity available for the project.
The agreement also addresses how future village regulations could affect the development.
Those provisions are significant because referendum supporters can argue that council was not simply applying existing village law to a development project. Instead, they contend council created a special set of rules and protections governing one specific project.
That distinction could be critical before the Board of Elections.
Ohio Supreme Court cases could play a role
Ohio Supreme Court decisions have previously examined whether government actions are legislative or administrative.
In cases involving development and zoning, the court has found that applying existing regulations to a specific project can be administrative.
That is likely to be a major argument for Ashville.
The village could contend that council did not create a new law. Instead, officials say they were exercising existing governmental authority to negotiate and approve an agreement involving a particular development.
But other Supreme Court decisions have emphasized that a government action can still be legislative when it establishes a new policy, even if implementing that policy requires officials to use existing governmental authority.
That distinction could give referendum supporters an argument that Resolution 06-2026 is more than a routine development agreement.
The moratorium could be key
One of the most significant provisions for the referendum question could be the agreement’s treatment of Ashville’s data-center moratorium.
The village had previously enacted a moratorium affecting data-center development. Resolution 06-2026 specifically provides that the moratorium would not apply to the EdgeConneX project.
Referendum supporters could argue that council effectively changed the legal landscape for the project by removing an existing municipal restriction.
Ashville, however, could argue that the council was simply exercising its authority to approve a particular development under existing law.
The Board of Elections will have to weigh those competing arguments.
Supreme Court did not rule on referendum itself
The Ohio Supreme Court’s recent decision did not declare the EdgeConneX resolution legislative.
Instead, the court specifically left the administrative-versus-legislative question unresolved and directed the petition to proceed to the Pickaway County Board of Elections.
The court also determined the referendum petition should be treated as timely because of the delay caused by the village’s refusal to certify it.
The Board of Elections can now consider whether the underlying council action is subject to referendum.
If the Board determines the resolution is administrative, the referendum would not proceed.
If the Board determines the resolution is legislative and otherwise qualifies for referendum, the petition could move forward toward a potential vote.
The Board’s decision could also be challenged in court.
Residents collected enough signatures
The referendum effort has already cleared one major hurdle.
The Pickaway County Board of Elections previously determined that the petition contained 669 valid signatures, nearly 200 more than the number required.
The dispute is therefore no longer primarily about whether residents collected enough signatures.
The question is whether the action they are attempting to challenge is legally subject to referendum.
What happens next?
The Pickaway County Board of Elections is expected to take up the issue at its next meeting.
The decision could determine whether Ashville voters ultimately have an opportunity to weigh in on the village’s agreement with EdgeConneX.
The case could also have implications beyond Ashville as Ohio communities grapple with how to regulate rapidly expanding data-center development and whether agreements between municipalities and developers can be challenged directly by voters.
For Ashville residents, however, the immediate question is much simpler:
Will the EdgeConneX agreement go before the voters, or will the Board of Elections determine that the village council’s action was administrative and therefore outside the referendum process?
That decision now rests with the Pickaway County Board of Elections.
