Luzerne County’s five-citizen Election Board is questioning when it will receive outside legal counsel to respond to Monday’s court filings over a Nov. 7 general election ballot referendum about reconstituting the election board.
The matter has taken on more urgency because a county Court of Common Pleas judicial panel responded to the county’s filing on Tuesday by setting a Friday deadline for the election board’s legal response. A court hearing also has been set for Sept. 5 at the county courthouse.
Election Board Chairwoman Denise Williams said she sent an email to the county law office Monday night asking if the board will receive outside legal representation but had not received a response as of Tuesday afternoon.
County Manager Romilda Crocamo said Tuesday the county law office has reached out to outside counsel to potentially represent the board and is actively working on finding representation.
As is customary, any attorneys considering the work must perform their due diligence before accepting, Crocamo said.
For example, attorneys must determine if they could devote the necessary time to the sudden assignment, whether they have any conflicts and the amount of their potential fees. This decision could be complicated by the Sept. 4 Labor Day holiday, which is the day before the hearing.
The county’s two-part legal action asks the court to consider one of two options to get county council’s election board reconstitution question on the Nov. 7 general election ballot:
• A mandamus ordering the election board to hold one or more special meetings to frame the question/questions and certify the ballot referendum before the Sept. 11 deadline to finalize the general election ballot.
• A peremptory challenge 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 home rule charter amendment question or questions.
Court intervention was authorized by council because the election board did not vote to provide required certification at its Aug. 16 meeting. Instead, the board unanimously agreed to send it back to the county law office for revisions, saying the number of changes warrants eight separate questions instead of one.
Although the two filings seek opposite paths, county Chief Solicitor Harry W. Skene told council he wanted to give the court options and filed them simultaneously due to the looming Sept. 11 deadline.
Williams said election board members are in agreement that the board needs attorney representation to provide guidance on how to proceed, particularly now that “contradictory filings” have been lodged against the board.
She questioned how the board can convene a special meeting regarding the referendum when the other court filing asserts the board should not be handling the matter because it has a conflict due to the referendum subject matter.
“They’re sending us one thing and then they’re doing another,” Williams said.
Skene sent an email to election board members at 4:30 p.m. Monday, around the time of the filing in county court, informing the board of the court action and requesting the board’s immediate scheduling of a special board meeting to review and approve the referendum wording.
His email included a revised suggested ballot question and plain English statement for the board’s consideration.
Williams said Tuesday the board must have legal counsel.
“I am concerned we have not heard anything yet,” she said.
The proposed ballot amendment would revamp the charter section covering the election board 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.
According to Tuesday’s scheduling orders, county Court of Common Pleas President Judge Michael T. Vough has assigned a panel of three judges to preside over the matter: Lesa S. Gelb, Tina Polachek Gartley and Richard M. Hughes III.
Election board responses are due at 1 p.m. Friday, and the Sept. 5 court hearing starts at 10 a.m., the orders say.
Skene had informed council he retained the law firm Joyce, Carmody and Moran to represent the county and file the action. He said this was necessary because the county Office of Law determined a conflict exists with the election board, partially due to court testimony that will be required by two county assistant solicitors — Shannon Crake Lapsansky and Paula Radick — related to the legal opinions they provided to the board.
The law office is suggesting this ballot question:
“Should the Luzerne County Home Rule Charter be amended at Section 8.04 to reconstitute the Board of Elections, allow Council to appoint the fifth Board Member to two year terms, require Board reorganization after each Municipal Election, allow Board members to run for office, reduce political party affiliation to three years and allow former elected officials, County employees (except election workers), contractors or appointees to be eligible for Board appointment after two years have elapsed?”