Election Board fires back in suit over DA election

In a continuing battle of court briefs, the Luzerne County Election Board presented new arguments on why a judge should reject an injunction that would stop the board from holding the county District Attorney election Nov. 2.

County Council and county District Attorney Sam Sanguedolce sought the injunction as part of litigation they filed against the board in county court last month.

It stems from conflicting interpretations on what must happen now that Sanguedolce is filling the seat vacated by prior DA Stefanie Salavantis.

Council and the DA argue the race should not be on the ballot until 2023 for a four-year term. An election board majority concluded new state legislation requires the seat to be on the ballot this November for a two-year term.

Although the county Republican Party vehemently disagrees with the board’s decision, it nominated Sanguedolce as its Nov. 2 DA candidate in case the election proceeds. County Democrats were unable to come up with a nominee, blaming candidates’ reluctance due to the pending litigation.

The election board’s new filing said Sanguedolce won’t be harmed if the injunction is denied because he will remain DA regardless as the lone, unopposed candidate Nov. 2.

If the court ultimately decides after adjudication that a Nov. 2 election was not correct, the court can void the Nov. 2 election, it said.

But if the injunction is granted and the DA election does not occur on Nov. 2, it will be too late if the court later decides an election should have occurred, said the filing by board legal counsel, Selingo Guagliardo LLC of Kingston.

“No harm will occur by denying the injunction while great harm may occur by granting it,” the filing said.

The board’s filing also points to Bradford County, which adopted the same Nov. 2 election date and term to fill the seat of its resigning DA.

“If this court were to prevent the election in Luzerne County, as scheduled, it would create a difference between the two counties and thus create an unnecessary crisis of potentially statewide importance,” the filing said.

The new state statute says the first assistant DA serves “until the first Monday in January following the next municipal election occurring not less than 90 days after the occurrence of the vacancy.”

County Assistant Solicitor Michael Butera, long assigned to advise the election board, had argued the race cannot be on the ballot until the 2023 primary because nominees must be selected through a primary in a municipal election year, and the vacancy came too late for candidates to run in the May primary.

However, Attorney Joseph M. Cosgrove, who was retained by the county Office of Law to provide an outside opinion, took a position the new statute requires the DA race to be on the ballot this November because it is the next municipal election.

The council/DA litigation questioned why Butera’s opinion was not accepted. The county law office as a whole has said a majority of attorneys in the office disagreed with Butera’s opinion.

In the election board’s new filing, it refers to the memorandum that Butera “allegedly authored.”

“Mr. Butera’s unsolicited and undated memorandum raises a question of his motives and whether he was or was not acting on behalf of his client, the Election Board. As such, Mr. Butera’s credibility and bias are at issue,” it said.

Contacted Tuesday, Butera said he wrote his memorandum and stands by its position.

“It is solely my own research and opinion. I am certainly not biased on this issue,” Butera said.

Butera also said he is surprised the new filing challenges his credibility.

“I have no idea why it would question my credibility. I called it as I saw it. It’s as simple as that,” Butera said.

Adjudication has been assigned to Robert J. Shenkin, a senior judge from Chester County.

Council is represented by Stevens & Lee, while Sanguedolce retained Kleinbard LLC.