UPDATE: Luzerne County voters have decisively rejected a proposed revised charter during Tuesday’s election, with 29,993 votes against and 20,184 in favor, according to unofficial results as of now. With 120 of 186 precincts reporting, the rejection of this charter marks a significant moment for county governance.
The proposed changes aimed to reduce the county council from 11 members to 9 and to make modest revisions to the government structure. Critics argued that this would concentrate power and diminish representation for smaller communities. The mail-in ballot results also reflected disapproval, with a vote tally of 10,635 against and 7,749 in support.
The charter, first adopted 15 years ago, abolished a traditional government led by three county commissioners. Under the current structure, only the district attorney, controller, and council members are elected officials. The proposal sought to maintain this setup while introducing a council-appointed manager to oversee day-to-day operations.
Earlier this year, in April 2024, voters approved the creation of a county government study commission, which then proposed this charter following a 4-2 vote in July. Tim McGinley, a member of the study commission and former council member, abstained from the vote, expressing concerns that the proposed charter strayed from the original goal of reducing political influence in governance.
Controller Walter Griffith criticized the proposal, labeling it a “bait and switch charter,” claiming it would allow council members to alter who serves on the county election board and ethics commission. Most candidates for county council also opposed the changes.
Supporters of the charter, including Luzerne County District Attorney Sam Sanguedolce and State Representative Brenda Pugh, argued that the proposal was aimed at creating a more effective and accountable government. Pugh emphasized on social media that the changes were about improving responsiveness, while Sanguedolce mentioned that reducing council size would ensure greater accountability among elected officials.
Despite these endorsements, the overwhelming voter rejection indicates a strong desire for maintaining the status quo in governance. As a result, the current structure will remain intact, and the conversation around county governance will likely continue as officials seek new ways to engage and represent constituents.
This developing story highlights the significant impact of local governance decisions and the importance of voter engagement in shaping the future of Luzerne County. What happens next will be closely watched by both supporters and critics of the proposed charter.
