Luzerne County Council has scheduled a closed-door executive session before Tuesday’s meeting to discuss the county Election Board’s decision to not certify a home rule charter amendment ballot question, council Chairwoman Kendra Vough said Thursday.
It is highly likely council will be briefed on the options it has to ensure its proposed amendment is put before Nov. 7 general election voters.
Time is an issue. Based on past elections, the election bureau must finalize the ballot by September so it can be proofed both before and after it is printed for mail ballots and programmed into electronic ballot marking devices used at polling places.
The executive session will be at 5 p.m.
Council’s proposed amendment would revamp the charter section covering the election board itself 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.
Instead of certifying the ballot question as presented or proposing new wording, the board unanimously agreed Wednesday to send it back to the county law office for revisions. Due to the number of charter changes proposed by council, Election Board members agreed the decision should be presented to voters in eight separate questions instead of one. Board members said the single question in council’s ordinance and a version proposed by the law office do not sufficiently inform voters of what they would be deciding.
County assistant solicitor Shannon Crake Lapsansky told the board the county law office must discuss the board’s decision with county council before determining how it will proceed.
A council majority had voted in June to approve the charter amendment ballot referendum proposed by Councilman Gregory S. Wolovich Jr.
Wolovich said Thursday he worked with the county law office when he presented the original ballot amendment ordinance that council approved and was not informed of any legal concerns with the wording.
He believes the board is within its legal rights to alter the language in the question as long as it accurately summarizes the charter changes council is seeking.
Wolovich said he is confident the essence of the proposed amendment can be captured in one yes/no question that does not exceed the 75-word limit under state law, particularly because a more descriptive “plain English” statement explaining each change must be posted at polling places and appear in legal advertisements.
He noted a similar general question/plain language explanation were used when voters decided to switch to an entirely new home rule government structure that was implemented in 2012.
“I thought the changes were plain and simple, and they’re making it into a monstrosity,” Wolovich said, referring to the board. “We passed the ordinance, and the board has to put it on the ballot because it is the law.”
Council Vice Chairman John Lombardo said the board must figure out how to get council’s proposed charter amendments on the ballot.
“The job of the election board as it relates to this is not to try to stonewall us and not to determine if the question can or should be on the ballot,” Lombardo said. “We gave the board a task.”
Lombardo added council’s “minds are not going to be changed” about proceeding with the ballot question due to the election board’s actions.
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.
Wolovich said Thursday he was not aware this last provision was cut in his proposed amendment. While this elimination was inadvertent, he said he is confident state law already prohibits candidates from serving on the election board because prior county commissioners had to be replaced by court appointees when they were on the ballot.