Action Together challenges 8,917 signatures, triggers formal review of Luzerne County anti-discrimination ordinance repeal referendum petition

A formal request was filed Friday seeking review of the citizen-initiated Luzerne County anti-discrimination ordinance repeal referendum petition.

Friday was the deadline to challenge the petition.

Citizens submitted 15,405 signatures seeking the referendum on the 2027 primary election ballot, which was well above the 11,615 signatures required by Aug. 8, prior county controller Walter Griffith, who heads the citizen petition committee, has said.

The review request was jointly submitted to the county election bureau by Action Together NEPA and several residents seeking an examination of issues with the petition form and an assertion that signature collectors intentionally misled voters who signed the petition.

The county’s volunteer, five-citizen Election Board must adjudicate challenges, and the board’s decision can be appealed to the county Court of Common Pleas.

County Assistant Solicitor Gene Molino said he will inform the board of the request and said a hearing will be scheduled.

In response to the request, Griffith said his group followed all petition-format procedures outlined in the county home rule charter, and the petition was prepared by the county Office of Law and supplied by the county clerk as required.

“I think it’s really sad that the people filing this challenge are trying to not allow the people signing this petition an opportunity to speak,” he said. “The whole point is to give people a voice in something they do not agree with.”

Action Together issued a release stating its group and other involved citizens are exercising their right under the charter to request a review of the petition.

It cited the following “believed deficiencies” in its review request:

• Petitions that have been submitted by the circulators do not have the date of the circulator’s statement.

• The petitions that were circulated state “referendum on the ordinance” instead of “referendum to repeal the Ordinance 2026-11.”

• Signature collectors intentionally misled voters who signed the petition.

• Believed deficiencies in the signatures submitted.

The release quotes Beth Gilbert, a county resident requesting review, who is also the voting and elections manager for Action Together NEPA.

“Luzerne County Council passed this ordinance to provide important protections against discrimination for people throughout our community,” Gilbert said. “An effort to repeal those protections is significant, and the petition process must be followed correctly. We are exercising the same right available to every Luzerne County resident to review these petitions and ensure that all of the requirements established by the home rule charter have been met.”

According to the request, which was filed through Attorney Joseph Borland:

In addition to Action Together and Gilbert, the other review requestors are Olivia Butkiewicz, Kathlyn Lopez-Hiraldo, Melissa Rivers, Samantha Troyan, Yesenia Rodriguez, and Andrea Glod.

It said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated all legal safeguards placed around nomination petitions for candidates also apply to petitions seeking referendums.

As a result, it said the lack of a petition circulator’s statement date on the anti-discrimination petition is a deficiency.

Regarding the petition header, it said the wording did not make it clear the purpose was to “repeal an already passed ordinance.”

It also claimed voters were misled about the aspects of the anti-discrimination ordinance involving bathrooms and landlord rights, indicating petition signers did not have “full knowledge of the contents of the petition” as required.

Finally, the request maintains there are 8,971 deficient signatures under the following categories: not registered; not registered at address; not registered on date signed; out of county; illegible; line information omitted; duplicate; line information in the hand of another; nickname/initial; printed signature; defective circulator statement; and voter signature before June 17.

It asks the board to find the signatures insufficient.

Griffith said the filing attempts to apply state law provisions instead of procedures in the county charter. If the argument is that state law supersedes the charter, then the challenge is not valid because state law allows only seven days for petition challenges, which would mean the group missed the deadline to contest it, he said.

He said the missing circulator’s date argument is invalid because the date was not on the petition form supplied by the county. He added that the date is irrelevant because the circulators had to follow the charter time frame to seek signatures.

As for the header, he reiterated that the wording was provided by the county. Griffith said petition signers were “fully aware of what they were signing.”

He disputed that signers were misled about the underlying anti-discrimination ordinance, saying the claims are “hearsay and do not reflect what our circulators were doing.”

Griffith said there are not 8,971 deficient signatures.

“That number is not accurate at all. That’s their interpretation,” he said.

He maintained the request is attempting to “stifle voices.”

“What are they afraid of? Let the people vote,” Griffith said.

The anti-discrimination ordinance requires local adjudication of complaints that extend beyond county government and involve employment, housing, healthcare, education, and establishments that sell goods or services to the general public.

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.

Local journalism matters, and your support makes it possible. You can help sustain this work by making a donation or choosing one of our subscription options. Subscribers enjoy valuable benefits, including full access to our e-edition, a reduced ad experience on timesleader.com, and more.

Your support helps ensure independent, high-quality local news remains available today and for future generations. Thank you for standing with local journalism.

Click for subscription offers.