Luzerne County ballot questions raise questions

Luzerne County Councilman Gregory S. Wolovich Jr. said Monday a renewed push for a home rule study commission “kind of came out of left field.”

A council majority had voted in June to proceed with his Nov. 7 general election ballot question asking voters if they want to reconstitute the election board.

Now some of his council colleagues are throwing support behind an ordinance, which is up for possible introduction Tuesday, to place another question on the general election ballot seeking voter approval to convene a study commission.

It may not be possible to have both questions on the ballot at the same time under state law, according to the state’s home rule handbook and county Controller Walter Griffith.

That could mean council would have to take action to cancel the election board reconstitution question to proceed with the study commission one.

The election board question was approved through an ordinance, and it’s unclear what steps would be needed to rescind it. Several council members past and present said they cannot recall any ordinances rescinded since home rule was implemented in January 2012.

Meanwhile, the county’s five-citizen election board has scheduled a special meeting on July 31 to consider requesting an outside legal opinion on the legality of the ballot question drafted by Wolovich.

However, the county law office sent a communication to the election board Monday night informing the board it does not have legal authority to obtain outside counsel or reject council’s legislative decision to place the question on the ballot.

Instead, the board’s limited role in the matter is determining the wording of all questions and preparing a “plain English” explanation of the purpose, limitation and effects of ballot questions, the law office indicated.

The ballot question asks voters, in part, if they want council to appoint the fifth election board member of any affiliation instead of leaving that choice up to the four council-appointed members (two Democrats and two Republicans).

It also would automatically vacate the current election board in January if the question passes, although council members have stressed current members would be free to reapply.

At a meeting earlier this month, the election board unanimously voted to hold off on discussing the ballot question until it receives a written legal opinion about the legality of the question.

Study commission

Council’s Tuesday voting agenda states it will decide whether to introduce an ordinance that would place a home rule study question on the general election ballot.

If it is introduced, council would then have to hold a public hearing and approve the ordinance at a subsequent meeting for the question to appear on the ballot.

The agenda says council will be voting on the same question a majority had rejected in January, which asks voters if they want to convene a seven-citizen commission to assess the home rule charter and recommend whether to keep it, revise it or try a different structure, which could include reverting back to the prior three-commissioner system.

Aug. 8 is the last possible day for council to file a ballot question ordinance with the county election bureau for placement on the Nov. 7 ballot, the law office has said.

Griffith supports the study commission ballot question but sent council an email Saturday questioning the legality of placing two differing home rule referendums on the ballot at the same time.

He also asserted council does not have enough time to complete all necessary steps before Aug. 8 and maintained citizens may not have ample notice and awareness about the opportunity to serve on the commission.

Citizens would have to run for the seven commission seats on Nov. 7. The top vote-getters would only serve if voters approve the ballot question.

State law says candidates would have to circulate nomination papers between the thirteenth and tenth Tuesdays before the election, which would be Aug. 8 through Aug. 29. Candidates would need at least 200 signatures from registered voters.

Council Vice Chairman John Lombardo said Monday he will listen to arguments presented Tuesday and vote accordingly. While he is open to the study commission option, Lombardo said he wants to make sure council is “doing it the right way” because deadline issues and confusion could “lead to problems.”

Wolovich said he will never support a study commission question providing the option to return to the prior commissioner form of government.

He said he would have considered a study commission question that would require a commission to keep home rule, but the ordinance that appears on Tuesday’s agenda stuck with the general question providing all options.

State law provides three question options to consider an optional form of government, a home rule charter or both, the latter of which is on the agenda.

Council’s Tuesday voting meeting starts at 6 p.m. at the courthouse, with instructions for the remote attendance option posted under council’s online meetings link at luzernecounty.org.