The Luzerne County Council’s recent decision to pass a non-discrimination ordinance has sparked a contentious debate, leading to a petition and potential legal battle. The ordinance, which expands protection against discrimination, is now under scrutiny as efforts to repeal it or put it to a county-wide vote are underway.
Since its approval on June 9, the ordinance has been challenged by former Luzerne County Controller Walter Griffith, who initiated a petition to either rescind it or allow voters to decide in an upcoming election. Despite the ordinance’s scheduled implementation 90 days post-approval, Griffith’s actions have paused its enactment.
Understanding the Ordinance and Referendum
The ordinance aims to extend anti-discrimination protections to groups not covered by state and federal laws. This includes protections based on gender identity, veteran status, and disabilities. Luzerne County Council member Joanna Brynn Smith, who introduced the ordinance, emphasized its importance for both residents and businesses. According to Smith, “These ordinances are not just helpful for the people who live here, they’re also helpful for businesses to bring new people here.”
While the ordinance was passed, a related proposal to establish a human relations commission to oversee discrimination complaints has yet to be approved. The ordinance defines discrimination as any exclusion or different treatment due to an individual’s membership in a protected class. For more details, you can view the official ordinance document.
Petition Drives and Legal Challenges
Griffith’s petition has cleared initial hurdles, pausing the ordinance for 60 days. By submitting 1,899 valid signatures, he moved the process forward, but now faces the challenge of collecting 11,650 more by August 7. Griffith has voiced concerns about the ordinance’s broad scope, claiming it could lead to unnecessary litigation.
He argues that the ordinance is too expansive, potentially allowing individuals with diverse personal traits, like “purple hair,” to claim discrimination. Griffith’s efforts have gathered significant community support, with around 5,000 signatures already collected toward their goal. He remains hopeful, stating, “Twelve-thousand signatures is a lot to get.”
Access to Petition Information Contested
Tensions escalated when Luzerne County announced that information about the petition would only be accessible via USB drives. This move led to debates over privacy and public access, culminating in a lawsuit against county council member Chris Belles, who released the petition online for public scrutiny.
Belles defended his decision, claiming it was in the interest of transparency. “It’s everybody’s government, it’s everybody’s ordinance,” he stated. The petition’s disclosure has ignited public interest and participation, with Belles encouraging residents to review and validate the signatures.
Current Status and Future Implications
While the ordinance’s implementation is temporarily on hold, the controversy surrounding it continues to unfold. Additional scrutiny from Belles has challenged the petition’s validity, citing discrepancies in the number of signatures. As the county’s Board of Elections reviews these challenges, the future of the ordinance remains uncertain.
Smith, reflecting on the situation, remarked that the petition process is “a lot of work to undo an ordinance that has protections for veterans.” The ongoing debate highlights the complexities and tensions inherent in balancing local governance with individual rights and community interests.
