Six Luzerne County residents filed an action in county court Friday seeking a judicial review in an effort to stop the county’s anti-discrimination repeal referendum.
Citizens submitted 15,405 signatures seeking the referendum on the 2027 primary election ballot, which was well above the 11,615 signatures required, prior county controller Walter Griffith, who heads the citizen petitioners committee, has said.
Action Together NEPA and seven residents sought a review of the petition, asserting there are 8,971 deficient signatures, issues with the petition format, and that signature collectors intentionally misled voters who signed it.
The county’s five-citizen Election Board unanimously voted Sept. 16 to refrain from adjudicating the request for review.
Friday’s filing in the county Court of Common Pleas, submitted by six residents involved in the initial challenge, reiterates arguments that the petition has too many deficiencies to be deemed “sufficient.” It asks the court to hold a hearing to review the petition and rule that it is insufficient.
The following citizens filed the court action through Attorney Sarah L. Borland, of Borland & Borland in Wilkes-Barre: Beth Gilbert, Olivia Butkiewicz, Kathlyn-Lopez-Hiraldo, Melissa Rivers, Samantha Troyan, and Yesenia Rodriguez.
County court now has jurisdiction over the matter under the county’s home rule charter because the election board voted to “take no action,” Friday’s filing said. The charter allows any county resident to seek a judicial review of the petition’s sufficiency, it said.
Initially the residents considered asking the court to direct the election board to make a determination, but their filing instead directly asks the court to decide if the petition is sufficient.
Friday’s request for a court review raises the same general arguments as the one seeking a county election board review, although it states the number of asserted deficient signatures is “over 4,000.” It lists the following deficiency categories: not registered, not registered at the listed address, not registered on the date signed, out of county, illegible, line information omitted, duplicate, line information in the hand of another, nickname/initial, printed signature, defective circulator statement, and voter signature before June 17.
“That amount of deficient signatures would lower the number of proper signatures under the threshold for sufficiency,” the request for court review says.
It argues that deficiencies applying to candidate nomination petitions under state law are also applicable for referendum petitions.
The filing cites Pennsylvania Supreme Court case law stating, “…all the safeguards the law has placed around nomination petitions in order to insure their genuineness, have also been placed around the petitions to be filed for the purpose of causing to be submitted to the electorate in any municipality the [initiative] question.”
Attorney J. Chadwick Schnee, of Schnee Legal Services in Lititz, who represents citizens seeking the referendum, has vehemently disagreed with this interpretation.
Schnee said during the election board meeting earlier this month that state law has no bearing on the referendum petition’s requirements because the power to seek a referendum repealing the council’s ordinance comes solely from the county charter.
The council could have added parameters for this type of petition in its administrative code after home rule took effect in 2012, but it never did, Schnee said.
He argued the only “defect” that can cause a repeal referendum signature to be removed is if challengers prove a signer is not a registered county voter.
Referencing Schnee’s arguments, Griffith said Friday the court has the right to review signatures to verify the signers are county registered voters, but not to throw out signatures based on state law candidate nomination petition requirements.
Any county court ruling on this matter can be appealed to Commonwealth Court.
The anti-discrimination ordinance requires local adjudication of complaints that extend beyond county government and involve employment, housing, healthcare, education, and establishments that sell goods or services to the general public.
Supporters said the ordinance will protect classes not already covered in state and federal laws and speed up processing of complaints due to a state backlog. Critics argued the county should not get involved in such matters and raised concerns about potential liability, litigation, and added expenses.