Luzerne County Election Board seeks dismissal of referendum mandamus

Luzerne County’s Election Board has asked the county Court of Common Pleas to dismiss a mandamus action the county filed against the board over a ballot referendum, according to a Monday court filing.

Filed Aug. 28, the mandamus asked the court to order the board to frame the ballot question wording and certify the referendum by Sept. 11 so it could be placed on the Nov. 7 ballot. The referendum would reconstitute the election board.

However, the board unanimously voted Sept. 7 against providing the required certification. Ballot additions are no longer possible without disrupting election preparations because the election bureau finalized the ballot Sept. 11 and gave the go-ahead to start programming the information for ballot marking devices.

In addition to the mandamus, a county-filed legal action is still pending asking the court to take the matter out of the election board’s hands and convene a panel of judges or electors to properly frame the amendment question or questions.

Election board members subsequently argued the court can’t act unless it first rules on the board’s position that it has legal authority to determine if county council’s referendum is “in proper order,” which includes determining its legality.

While it may be too late to resolve the litigation for the Nov. 7 election, council can continue in court attempting to get the referendum on the 2024 primary ballot. But continued litigation will take time and money, and another option would be for council to rescind the referendum ordinance and halt the litigation.

Council has discussed the matter in closed-door executive session but has not yet publicly voted on any further action related to the referendum.

The election board’s outside legal counsel — Joseph M. Cosgrove, of Selingo Guagliardo LLC — filed the court document Monday. The board was required to file a response to the county’s mandamus action under court procedures and at the direction of the court.

The filing said the board fulfilled its statutory responsibilities when it voted to reject placement of the ordinance on the ballot. The board “exercised its discretionary duty to assess the propriety of the ordinance/referendum” and determined it was not “in proper order,” the filing said.

As a result, the board’s action “now renders this matter moot,” the filing said.