Luzerne County’s Election Board did not certify county council’s home rule charter amendment ballot question Wednesday and instead sent it back to the county law office, insisting on revisions.
A county council majority had voted in June to approve Councilman Gregory S. Wolovich Jr.’s Nov. 7 general election ballot question asking voters if they want to reconstitute the volunteer, five-citizen election board.
Due to the number of changes proposed by council, Election Board members agreed the requested alterations should be presented to voters in eight separate questions instead of one.
County assistant solicitor Shannon Crake Lapsansky said the county law office must discuss the board’s decision with county council before determining how it will proceed. Deadlines are approaching in coming weeks for the election bureau to start preparing the ballot for proofing and printing.
Instead of asking voters to individually decide each of the changes, the county’s law office had suggested a general ballot question, based on the one in council’s ordinance. This question cites the proposed council appointment of all five board members while specifying the entire amendment is set forth in council’s ordinance.
More details about all changes would be in a “plain English” description published in legal advertisements and posted at polling places. However, this added description does not appear on the ballot.
The referendum package 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).
This fifth board seat also would be filled every two years instead of four years, and the fifth member also would not automatically serve as board chair as stated in the charter. Instead, board members could select any board member as chair.
The amendment also would vacate the current election board in January if it passes.
Other proposed changes when the current charter wording is compared to the new version:
• As currently written, citizens are ineligible for appointment to the board if they have, within the last four years, held any elective public office or public employment or served as an officer in a political party or as a member or employee of any county board/authority/commission. Also prohibited during this four-year window is work as a paid consultant for the county or its outside boards and employment or compensation by an individual or business that served as a contractor to the county or its outside boards.
The proposed amendment keeps these restrictions, but only going back two years instead of four. It also clarifies that “paid election workers” would no longer be considered county employees.
• The charter currently says an election board seat becomes vacant if a board member files a petition for nomination or election or becomes a candidate for any elective public office.
Under the proposed redo, this restriction is removed.
• Election board members must have been a member of the same political party continuously for at least five years prior to their appointment, according to the current charter wording.
This continuous registration requirement would be reduced to three years with the amendment.
In its directive approved Wednesday, the board also agreed with board Chairwoman Denise Williams’ instruction that the suggested plain English description must be changed in its reference to allowing “paid election workers” to serve on the board.
The plain English description said this change refers to poll workers, but Williams said the broad “paid election workers” specified in council’s ordinance could include prior election workers in any capacity, including past temporary and full-time ones.
Sixteen citizens criticized the proposed referendum during public comment Wednesday, with many describing the package of suggested changes as “confusing” and too extensive to lump into one question.
In other business, the board unanimously voted Wednesday to certify general election ballot questions in Jenkins Township and Nanticoke.
In Jenkins Township, the ballot question asks voters if they will allow the township to raise taxes 0.5 mill solely to provide dedicated funding to emergency services (police and fire). Nanticoke is asking voters if they want to eliminate city home rule charter term limits for city council and the mayor, which are currently capped at three consecutive, elected terms for both offices.