State court will not weigh in on prison referendum matter
The state Supreme Court has advised a Fayette County group that it would not impose its authority upon the local election board and require it to add a referendum to the May 20 ballot.
In the decision handed down Tuesday, it was noted that the “application for exercise of plenary and extraordinary jurisdiction using King’s Bench and superintendency powers,” requested by John Cofchin in the prison referendum matter, was denied.
In mid-April, Cofchin, of Uniontown, petitioned the state court to intercede after it appeared the county election board would not
agree to add the prison-related question to the primary election day ballot, as requested by the Prison Referendum Committee.
The ballot question, if approved by the voters, would halt any planning, designing or financing for the construction of the new estimated $30 million Fayette County Justice and Rehabilitation Center, and mandate that officials include the public in future discussions regarding the replacement, expansion or renovation of the current 1889-built prison.
The election board has since ruled it would follow the legal opinion of its solicitor that the question had no constitutional basis and would not be considered for the ballot.
Cofchin said Thursday that he did not anticipate any further involvement by the state court, but hoped the local Court of Common Pleas would intercede.
“I do not anticipate further Supreme Court involvement unless circumstances change,” he said. “I do expect the Court of Common Pleas will rule on the referendum question.”
The committee had also requested the local judiciary hear the case. President Judge John F. Wagner delayed the matter pending the outcome of the election board meeting. In delaying the matter, Wagner wrote that he would reschedule oral arguments in the case if a motion was filed by either party to do so. Cofchin said that the committee did so by the Wednesday deadline.
A hearing date has not been scheduled.
County Commissioner Al Ambrosini, who along with Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Angela M. Zimmerlink serve on the election board, said Wednesday that he was not surprised that the state court declined to take up the referendum matter.
“The solicitor tried repeatedly to offer guidance to the referendum committee, but it went unheeded,” he said. “There is no statute that allows for this question to be on the ballot.
“(The committee) was advised before they began collecting signatures and again when they brought the petitions in to the election bureau that the referendum did not have a constitutional foundation and therefore could not be put on the ballot.”
The election board has also been asked to convene a special hearing to empanel an independent board to investigate alleged violations of the state election code. Michael Cavanagh of Uniontown asked last week that the current board recuse itself and Wagner step down from hearing any issues tied to the referendum matter.
“Any reasonably intelligent person would understand that this (current) board can’t investigate its own actions,” he said. “These clear conflicts of interest dictate that an independent election board is selected by an independent judge since it has clearly been established that our (local court) has a clear conflict of interest in this matter.”
Ambrosini said that he is aware of the request, but will not call for a special meeting.
“This matter was decided by the election board and this week the state Supreme Court has said it will not get involved,” he said. “Again, the reason is that there is no state statute that allows the election board to add the referendum to the ballot.
“We have to follow the law.”