Petition signature challenges filed in battle over Luzerne County’s new anti-discrimination ordinance

In the battle over Luzerne County’s new anti-discrimination ordinance, requests have been submitted to both reject and accept signatures on the petition needed to get an ordinance repeal on the ballot.

The county Election Board must rule on the petition signature challenges.

County Councilman Chris Belles, an ordinance supporter, is contesting hundreds of signatures for various reasons.

Meanwhile, former county controller Walter Griffith, who is leading the ordinance-repeal effort, is asking the board to accept some signatures that Council Clerk Sharon Lawrence had rejected.

County Assistant Solicitor Gene Molino, who serves as solicitor for the election board, said the board will meet in executive session later this week to discuss the matter.

The board must develop a plan to schedule one or more public meetings to adjudicate the signature challenges, Molino said.

Adjudication procedures must be established because this is the first time a citizen-initiated referendum has been attempted under the county’s home rule charter, which took effect in 2012, Molino said.

In comparison, the board is not involved in disagreements over election candidate nomination petition signatures because those challenges go straight to the county Court of Common Pleas, he said.

Molino expects the process will be similar to the board’s adjudication of paper provisional ballot challenges, with a stenographer present to document testimony and other information presented.

Belles and Griffith would then have the option to appeal the board’s decisions to the county court, he said.

As part of an incremental process, citizens seeking the referendum had to submit at least 1,162 signatures within two weeks of the ordinance’s June 9 passage.

Lawrence notified Griffith in writing on June 26 that she was confirming the receipt of 1,899 signatures and was accepting all but 63 of them. This communication noted that any citizen could seek an election board review within 10 days after the determination, which was Monday.

In his written request to the board on Monday, Belles said he tallied only 1,584 signatures on the petition flash drive he had received for review.

He is challenging 475 signatures for a range of reasons, including issues with dates, handwriting, abbreviations, and addresses.

Based on his calculations, Belles said there may not be enough signatures for the referendum to proceed if the election board agrees with his arguments.

Griffith said Monday he has no idea what’s on Belles’ flash drive and knows only that Lawrence had verified 1,899 signatures submitted both at the time of the petition’s delivery and in her follow-up communication.

Griffith said he does not believe the issues Belles identified with the 475 signatures are “fatal flaws” and will present arguments to the board in favor of counting them.

Griffith’s challenge seeks acceptance of signatures that had been deemed disqualified by Lawrence. He cited reasons the names could not be matched in voter records, including a misspelled street name or a signature of Joe instead of Joseph.

Citizens are working to complete the final step of the referendum process — collecting at least 11,615 signatures within 60 calendar days of the ordinance passage, or by Aug. 8, Griffith said. He and others involved in the effort estimated they have collected approximately 4,000 signatures so far, in addition to those already submitted.

The ordinance establishes the creation of a county human relations commission to hear discrimination complaints involving employment, housing, healthcare, education, and establishments that sell goods or services to the general public. Council must still adopt an ordinance on the commission makeup.

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.

Legal challenge

Griffith and citizen Ben Herring filed litigation against Belles last week over Belles’ online posting of a link to view the petition signatures.

This filing argues Belles’ publication of the signers’ names and home addresses “was not a lawful disclosure of public records” and was instead “an act of targeted exposure designed to identify, and thereby deter, citizens from participating in the referendum process.”

“Defendant’s disclosure was not made in the exercise of any legitimate governmental function,” the filing said. “Defendant instead used information he was able to access by virtue of his position as a sitting member of County Council, without completing the affirmation required of other requesters, to further his own personal political ends.”

Belles said Monday he shared the link, which is set to go offline when Monday’s challenge deadline expires, because he wanted public assistance on whether any signatures warranted challenging.

“When you sign a public referendum petition, you should expect public scrutiny. There is no such thing as a private public referendum,” Belles said. “I believe that this is a matter of transparency versus secrecy, and once again, I am on the side of transparency. That is my politics.”

Belles said he has not yet received a copy of the plaintiffs’ litigation. No hearing date has been set in county court.

Dueling criticism

Regarding Belles’ petition signature challenge, Herring said the objections “lack merit.”

“Every voter in Luzerne County should be alarmed — and frankly disgusted — that a sitting freshman council member is trying to discard nearly one-third of valid referendum petition signatures simply because he opposes the process,” Herring said. “This abhorrent challenge is another example of radical partisans attempting to silence voters and undermine a legitimate purpose using shameful tactics.”

“Make no mistake: these signatures were gathered by hardworking Luzerne County leaders and signed by residents who deserve to be heard,” Herring continued. “The effort to invalidate them is not only baseless — it is a shameful attempt to disenfranchise voters while pretending to defend democracy.”

In reply, Belles said he thinks “it’s ironic that Mr. Herring is accusing me of undermining democracy for insisting that election laws be followed.”

“Mr. Herring’s statement is heavy on political rhetoric but light on legal substance. This case is not about supporting or opposing the referendum. It is about whether the petition complied with Pennsylvania election law. Every candidate and every referendum petition must meet the same legal requirements, and any registered voter has the right to challenge petitions they believe do not.”

Belles said claims of voter disenfranchisement are “simply incorrect” because signing a petition is not the same as casting a ballot.

“If the petitions comply with the law, they will survive the challenge. If they do not, the law provides the remedy,” Belles said. “The accusations of intimidation and lawbreaking are baseless distractions from the real legal issues. I have confidence that the Board of Elections — and, if necessary, the courts — will apply the law fairly and consistently.”