Opposition gathering planned before Luzerne County Council meeting

Four advocacy groups announced they will be gather outside the Luzerne County Courthouse before council’s Tuesday meeting to oppose a Nov. 7 general election ballot referendum that would reconstitute the county’s five-citizen election board.

“Since council introduced this charter amendment, the process for getting it on the ballot has been filled with chaos and confusion,” said Action Together NEPA’s announcement about the gathering on the courthouse steps. “Advocates are calling on the council to abandon its fruitless effort to take over the Board of Elections and start focusing on the real needs of Luzerne County residents.”

Three other groups will join Action Together — In This Together NEPA, the Wilkes Barre NAACP and All Voting is Local Action — at 5 p.m. for a media conference, it said.

Council is set to meet in closed-door executive session while this event is going on and convene its voting meeting at 6 p.m.

Two opposite options are on council’s agenda to either start the process to rescind the ballot referendum entirely or to seek county court assistance in convening a panel to properly frame the question so it can appear on the ballot.

The matter has come to a head because election board certification is required for ballot questions, and the county’s election board did not vote to certify the question at its meeting last week. Instead, the election board unanimously agreed to send it back to the county law office for revisions, saying the number of changes warrants eight separate questions instead of one.

Time is an issue because the election bureau must finalize the ballot in September.

Council’s proposed amendment would revamp the charter section covering the election board and include changes in the way a fifth seat is structured and filled and the eligibility requirements for all board members. It also vacates the currently seated board if the amendment passes.

County Councilman Tim McGinley said Monday he already made up his mind he will vote to seek court assistance. Specifically, the resolution on Tuesday’s council agenda would petition the county Court of Common Pleas to appoint county judges or electors to serve instead of the election board for the purpose of framing the ballot question set forth in council’s ordinance.

McGinley declined to elaborate on his reasoning before the meeting. Although McGinley intends to pursue action to honor a council majority’s directive to place the referendum on the ballot, he wasn’t among those voting in support of the referendum in June. The others voting against the referendum ordinance two months ago were LeeAnn McDermott, Stephen J. Urban and Kendra Vough.

McDermott said Monday she has not made a final decision on how she will vote Tuesday night but was leaning toward rescinding the referendum, largely because she is unsure the court would be able to convene a panel, review the matter and finalize the ballot wording by the time ballots must be proofed, printed and programmed into machines and proofed again.

She said she was informed Sept. 11 would be the ideal deadline for ballot finalization, which leaves only about three weeks.

“We don’t want to have any problems with the election, and I’m worried we will be causing problems,” McDermott said.

Councilman Brian Thornton said he supported — and still does — a referendum that would have asked voters to form a study commission to examine the entire government structure and possibly recommend changes. He said a wholesale review would be better than piecemeal referendums, but he remains supportive of the election board reconstitution referendum drafted by Councilman Gregory S. Wolovich Jr.

Thornton said he was heading in the direction of approving the court action but wouldn’t make a final decision until he hears input during the executive session and from council colleagues.

Councilman Kevin Lescavage said he has not cemented his position. While he was disappointed the election board did not “try to make it work” in tackling the referendum wording, he questions if the court would agree to take on this task.

Urban requested Tuesday’s vote to introduce an ordinance rescinding the one authorizing the referendum, with that proposed document saying it is “in the best interest of the citizens” to remove the question from the ballot.

But even if an ordinance is introduced with the four minimum required votes on Tuesday, a final decision would not be known for another week, at minimum, because the ordinance adoption meeting cannot be scheduled for at least six days after the ordinance introduction.

Action Together NEPA’s release was highly critical of the referendum, describing it as “partisan and misleading” and accusing council of “scapegoating” the election board for “dysfunction and confusion” council has created.

Council’s Tuesday voting meeting starts at 6 p.m. at the county courthouse on River Street in Wilkes-Barre, with instructions for remote attendance posted under council’s online meeting link at luzernecounty.org.

If approved, the charter amendment would:

• Empower 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).

• Fill the fifth seat every two years instead of four years.

• Allow the board to select any board member as chair instead of automatically making the member in the fifth seat the chair.

• Vacate the current election board in January.

• Change the retroactive window for board eligibility prohibitions from four years to two years.

• Remove “paid election workers” from eligibility prohibitions.

• Reduce the continuous political party registration minimum requirement from five years to three years prior to board appointment.

• Omit a current requirement to vacate a board seat if the member files a petition for nomination or election or becomes a candidate for any elective public office.