Citizens seeking to repeal Luzerne County’s new anti-discrimination ordinance not short on signatures

Citizens seeking to repeal Luzerne County’s new anti-discrimination ordinance did not fall below the required threshold in their petition signature submission, officials confirmed Wednesday.

County Chief Solicitor Harry W. Skene said Wednesday that 1,899 signatures were submitted by the citizens, as originally stated by Council Clerk Sharon Lawrence.

Due to an inadvertent data transfer error in the council clerk’s office, approximately 315 of the signatures were not copied to the flash drive that had been provided to several individuals upon written request, Skene said, stressing the office made it clear it was a mistake with no malicious intent.

Lawrence confirmed Wednesday it was a computer error that occurred during the transfer of data to the flash drives.

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

Lawrence had notified referendum organizer Walter Griffith in writing on June 26 that she was confirming the on-time receipt of 1,899 signatures and accepting all but 63 of them.

County Councilman Chris Belles, an ordinance advocate, said Monday he tallied only 1,584 signatures on the petition signature flash drive he had received for review. Using that lower number as a starting point, Belles had said the referendum proponents would not have enough signatures to proceed if he were successful in his pending challenge of another 475 signatures.

Skene said those who had submitted requests will be contacted and invited to pick up another flash drive containing the 315 signatures.

Griffith said, from the start, there was no question he and his team had submitted 1,899 signatures. Any assertions otherwise should have been further investigated before they were publicly broadcast by ordinance supporters because they created a false impression that signature seekers fell short, he said.

Belles said Wednesday he understands mistakes are made but finds this one concerning because it prevented him from reviewing and, if warranted, contesting any of the 315 signatures before Monday’s challenge deadline.

“This puts us once again into unknown territory,” Belles said, in reference to the council clerk’s office error. “It’s an embarrassment for anybody involved in the process because they’re supposed to be keeping a chain of custody and ensuring things are done properly.”

The county Election Board must rule on which challenged signatures are accepted or rejected.

Belles is trying to throw out 475 signatures for a range of reasons, including issues with dates, handwriting, abbreviations, and addresses.

Meanwhile, Griffith is asking the board to accept approximately 60 signatures that had been rejected by Lawrence, saying he has information demonstrating those signers are registered voters.

County Assistant Solicitor Gene Molino, who serves as solicitor for the election board, said the board will meet in executive session to develop a plan to publicly adjudicate the signature challenges.

Griffith has 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 keeping them intact.

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. Based on a recent status check, Griffith said they have collected more than 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.