Due to a citizen-initiated repeal effort, Luzerne County Council must reconsider the anti-discrimination ordinance a majority had approved June 9.
That reconsideration vote is set for Tuesday’s council voting meeting, the agenda said.
Council Chairman Jimmy Sabatino said there may be different interpretations on when a council reconsideration must occur, and he does not want to risk missing a deadline. This is the first time citizens are attempting to exercise the county home rule charter option to force a ballot question to repeal a council ordinance.
The charter says the council shall reconsider the ordinance within 30 days after the citizen petition is “finally determined to be sufficient.”
Council Clerk Sharon Lawrence notified citizens Aug. 25 that their petition was sufficient, making Sept. 24 the deadline for the council to reconsider, Sabatino said.
An argument could be made that the petition’s sufficiency won’t be “finally determined” until an outstanding petition challenge has been fully resolved.
However, Sabatino said he does not want the council to be at fault for missing a deadline because the council clerk’s determination is in effect unless a petition challenge concludes otherwise.
The county’s five-citizen Election Board unanimously voted last week to pass on the opportunity to review a petition challenge filed by Action Together NEPA and seven residents, leaving the County Court of Common Pleas as the adjudicating body to rule on any claims the petition is insufficient.
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.
The request for review asserts there are 8,971 deficient signatures, raises issues about the petition format, and maintains signature collectors intentionally misled voters who signed it.
Sabatino said challenges and appeals could take time to adjudicate — a factor that he believes bolsters his position a council reconsideration vote should occur now.
Public arguments for and against the ordinance are “fresh in the minds” of council members, he said. A reconsideration vote would also affirm whether the council still wants to proceed with the ordinance before court time and resources are spent determining if the petition is sufficient, he said.
Sabatino, an ordinance supporter, has said he does not believe a council majority will vote to reconsider the ordinance.
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.
Tuesday’s council meeting starts at 6 p.m. in the county courthouse on River Street in Wilkes-Barre. Instructions for the remote attendance option are posted in the council’s online meeting section at luzernecounty.org.
Conflicting views
As for the sufficiency of the citizen petition, dueling legal arguments were aired during last week’s county Election Board meeting.
At the board’s request, county Assistant Solicitor Gene Molino presented his opinion on arguments made in the review request from Action Together and seven citizens.
A summary:
• Claim: Submitted petitions don’t have a date on the circulator’s statement.
Molino said he does not believe this is a valid reason to void the petition.
The council clerk’s office created the petition format, not the citizen petitioners committee, he said. Furthermore, the county charter does not reference a circulator’s date requirement, he added.
“So the fact that there may not be a date line for a circulator, in my opinion, could not be held against the petitioners committee,” Molino said.
• Claim: The petition header is “To have the referendum on Luzerne County Council Ordinance 2026-11” instead of stating it was a referendum to repeal an already passed ordinance.
Molino said he does not believe this is a basis to nullify the petition, reiterating the council clerk’s office prepared the petition.
It is “common sense” the ordinance was already adopted by the council because it has an official number, and the entire ordinance wording was included with the petition, Molino maintained.
“There is no other thing that you can do now to this ordinance but possibly repeal it,” he said.
• Claim: Signature collectors intentionally misled voters who signed the petition, preventing signers from having “full knowledge of the contents of the petition.”
Molino said a man recently approached the election board alleging misinformation or false statements made when he signed an unrelated petition involving an insider stock trading referendum, but there was nothing the board could do.
“I don’t think that’s a judgement call we can make,” Molino told the board.
More than 3,700 signatures would have to be thrown out to make the anti-discrimination referendum petition fall below the required threshold.
“Unless in excess of 3,000 people were going to march before the Board of Elections and basically take an oath and testify that they were misled, I think that’s very problematic,” Molino said.
• Claim: There are 8,971 deficient signatures under the following categories: not registered; not registered at address; not registered on 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.
The governing document — the charter — specifies only that signers must be county registered voters, Molino said.
Conclusions on what petition signer information could be deemed a deficiency may be subject to interpretation because the charter does not “go beyond” the requirement to be a registered voter in the county, Molino said.
Representing the petition challengers, Attorney Kim Borland, of Borland & Borland in Wilkes-Barre, argued state election code requirements for candidate nomination petitions would apply to the referendum petition.
The charter supersedes, but the county must “default” to the state election code on specific requirements that are not addressed in the charter, Borland said.
“We believe the election code does have a place in analyzing these issues where it is not in conflict with the charter,” Borland told the board.
The complete opposite stance was presented by Attorney J. Chadwick Schnee, of Schnee Legal Services in Lititz, who represents citizens seeking the referendum.
Schnee said state law has no bearing on this petition’s requirements because the power to seek a referendum repealing the council’s ordinance comes solely from the county charter.
“The charter is the law that governs here,” Schnee said.
The council could have added parameters for this type of petition in its administrative code after the customized home rule structure took effect in 2012, but it never did, Schnee said.
He argued the only “defect” that can cause a signature to be removed is if challengers prove a signer is not a registered county voter.
Schnee noted the charter does explicitly state voter addresses are required for the initial voters on the petitioners committee that oversaw the signature collection effort, but there is no such charter directive for addresses of the petition signers.
The charter itself says referendum petitions “shall be governed by the procedures and rules for form and sufficiency set forth” in the charter and “as may be provided in the administrative code, other county ordinance, and applicable law.” It also states the council clerk’s office must issue petition forms to the petitioners committee.