Council votes for court ruling on Luzerne County DA race

In a surprise move, a Luzerne County Council majority voted Tuesday to retain outside legal counsel and seek a court ruling on whether the district attorney’s race should be on the November general election ballot.

Republican Sam Sanguedolce, previously first assistant DA, was automatically appointed to fill the post March 25, when Stefanie Salavantis resigned because she is running for county judge.

Attorneys have offered conflicting interpretations on the length of Sanguedolce’s appointment under new state legislation governing DA vacancies. A county election board majority decided last month the race must be on the Nov. 2 ballot, with the county Democratic and Republican party organizations each able to choose a contender.

Sanguedolce would be the likely Republican nominee. County Manager C. David Pedri has been widely named as a possible Democratic contender but has not made an official statement on whether he will apply.

Under council’s resolution, it will form an ad hoc committee appointed by council Chairman Tim McGinley to select outside counsel to represent council and ask the courts to “present the issue to the courts to make an unbiased decision” on the election board’s action.

The council action was along party lines, with yes votes from all six Republicans — Walter Griffith, Harry Haas, LeeAnn McDermott, Chris Perry, Kendra Radle and Stephen J. Urban. The five Democratic council members voted no: Linda McClosky Houck, McGinley, Sheila Saidman, Robert Schnee and Matthew Vough.

Perry’s son-in-law is new First Assistant DA Anthony G. Ross. Perry said he did not abstain because this resolution sought court resolution on a complex legal issue involving new state legislation. It did not require him to “take a position in favor of or against the DA’s office or its administration,” he said.

Council members had a lengthy debate over the matter.

McClosky Houck said she does not believe council has standing to challenge the election board’s decision. The Republican Party could file a challenge if it does not “like the date,” but the legal bill should not “come to council,” she said.

McGinley said the election timing is “clearly an election board decision” that can be disputed by others if warranted. He argued council should “stay away” from decisions of the independent election board.

But McDermott said two of the five election board members abstained from the decision because they could not interpret the conflicting legal opinions presented to them, and she questioned why there was a “rush” for the board to decide.

Stressing she is not taking a position, McDermott said attorneys on both sides “made very good arguments,” but many still don’t agree on which was right.

She maintained the plan to obtain another legal opinion and court ruling is not political or an attack on the county law office.

The new 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 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 upcoming May 18 primary.

However, Attorney Joseph M. Cosgrove, who was retained by the county Office of Law to provide an 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. County Chief Solicitor Romilda Crocamo agreed with Cosgrove’s interpretation.

Radle said she is not “picking a side” but wondered why Butera’s opinion was not accepted when he has been providing “sound” guidance on election matters for years. She argued council should be proactive seeking further clarification on an “extremely complicated legal issue.”

Griffith said he helped Radle draft the resolution at her request. He called on Pedri to disclose if he would apply for the post, asserting that unknown factor is “the elephant in the room” and making people question if decisions are being made “to put certain people in the position.”

McGinley said the decision on seeking the seat is “personal” for Pedri to decide, and Pedri did not offer a response on his plan. Pedri would have to give up his position because the manager cannot become a candidate for any elective public office unless he/she first resigns, the county’s home rule charter says.

Urban said he senses there’s an “an agenda behind the scenes” and that the matter should be decided by a judge.

Assistant solicitor Vito DeLuca said Cosgrove’s opinion was sought because the “consensus opinion” among attorneys in the county law division differed from Butera’s.

Crocamo said she presented Butera’s dissenting opinion to the election board to be as transparent as possible and that there was “no bias at all” from any attorneys weighing in on the matter. She asked the election board to decide now to allow time for potential legal challenges and said the election board had the option to postpone a decision if members felt they needed more time.

Bradford County also has a DA vacancy and will hold its election in November, Crocamo added.

DeLuca also said he does not believe council has legal standing to challenge the election board decision in court but said the law office will respect the council majority’s decision.

McGinley announced at the end of Tuesday’s work session that Radle will chair the ad hoc committee. McDermott will serve as vice chair, and McGinley also will be a member, he said.

In other business, council started debating a proposed resolution suggesting implementation of a Second Amendment “sanctuary” declaration for the county modeled after one approved by Butler Township Supervisors and several other counties.

Saidman and McClosky Houck raised concerns echoed by several citizens.