Nigeria's army admits its soldiers were at Lagos shootings

125902904_web1_Coronavirus--1-

64 new cases of COVID-19 confirmed in Luzerne County; 1 new death

Luzerne County&rsquo;s controversial recusal request for new U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a case involving ballot-counting deadlines should soon be withdrawn, county Chief Solicitor Romilda Crocamo said Wednesday.
				A council majority &mdash; six Republicans and one Democrat &mdash; voted Tuesday to advise county Manager C. David Pedri to withdraw the motion, with some asserting the recusal stance was improper and taken without council input. Concerns also were raised that it unnecessarily attracted national media coverage.
				Pedri sent a letter to outside Attorney Larry Moran on Wednesday making a formal request to withdraw the recusal motion.
				In response, Moran, of Joyce, Carmody & Moran, P.C., prepared a withdrawal filing that will be filed soon, Crocamo said during the county Election Board&rsquo;s Wednesday night meeting. Crocamo said her office signed off on the withdrawal filing.
				At issue is whether the U.S. Supreme Court will reject a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that mailed ballots must be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received by 5 p.m. Nov. 6.
				In the June 2 primary, completed ballots had to be physically returned to the county election bureau by 8 p.m. on Election Day, and postmarks did not count. For the general election, the state Supreme Court granted the Democratic Party&rsquo;s request to order a three-day extension.
				Pennsylvania Republicans are attempting to reverse the state Supreme Court decision.
				The county&rsquo;s filing argued Barrett should recuse herself from the decision due to her &ldquo;unprecedented&rdquo; nomination and confirmation so close to a presidential election.
				In a statement Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to reach an expedited decision on the three-day extension before the Nov. 3 general election, but it left open the possibility of ruling on the matter under a shortened schedule after the election.
				Justice Barrett &ldquo;took no part&rdquo; in the consideration or decision to refrain from deciding the matter before the general election, the statement said. However, there is no stated intention for her to recuse herself from future participation in the matter.
				If the state Supreme Court&rsquo;s decision is ultimately overturned, a &ldquo;targeted remedy&rdquo; will be available because the state has directed county election boards to segregate ballots received between 8 p.m. on Nov. 3 and 5 p.m. Nov. 6, the statement said.
				Although withdrawal of the county&rsquo;s recusal request is in the works, debate continued among county officials Wednesday.
				County Councilman Matthew Vough argued the recusal filing should not be withdrawn, saying it will &ldquo;100% compromise the county&rsquo;s insurance coverage on every claim going forward.&rdquo;
				&ldquo;I have serious concerns over what took place last night. What started as a procedural motion recommended by our insurance turned into a political stunt,&rdquo; Vough said in an email to Pedri and Crocamo.
				According to Vough, the county&rsquo;s liability insurance policy says the carrier directs litigation &mdash; not the county, he said, capitalizing the word not for emphasis.
				&rdquo;I strongly urge everyone to reconsider and do what is right for the taxpayer and not what is right for the Republican agenda,&rdquo; wrote Vough, a Democrat.
				He urged the five-member county Election Board to vote Wednesday night to keep the recusal motion intact.
				Councilman Walter Griffith, a Republican, fired off his own counter response disagreeing with Vough and urged the election board to vote in support of council&rsquo;s decision.
				Election Board member Joyce Dombroski-Gebhardt made a motion to support the council decision, but it only received one other vote from fellow Republican board member Keith Gould.
				The three election board Democrats &mdash; Jeanette Tait, Peter Ouellette and Audrey Serniak &mdash; voted no.
				Under home rule, the county election board is filled by four council-appointed citizens &mdash; two Republicans and two Democrats &mdash; and a fifth board member/chairperson from any political party selected by those four, which is currently Tait.
				Party affiliation of election board members does not generally come up because the focus is on overseeing elections for all voters and candidates, regardless of their party (or lack of any political affiliation).
				The recusal filing issue also brought political party affiliation to the forefront on the 11-member council &mdash; something that typically has not been a consideration.
				Since the home rule structure took effect in 2012, any alliances that formed were not along party lines, with both &ldquo;sides&rdquo; containing a mix of Democrats and Republicans.
				In the initial vote Tuesday, five of the six Republican council members voted to seek withdrawal of the recusal motion: Harry Haas, LeeAnn McDermott, Chris Perry, Stephen J. Urban and Griffith.
				The remaining Republican council member &mdash; Kendra Radle &mdash; asked to revote later in the meeting, saying she does not want to set a legal precedence that a Supreme Court justice cannot be trusted to independently make a decision on recusal.
				In the revised voting, Democratic Councilman Robert Schnee also supported withdrawing the recusal filing, bringing the count to seven for passage.
				The four remaining Democratic council members voted against the filing withdrawal: Vough, Sheila Saidman, Tim McGinley and Linda McClosky Houck.
				Echoing his statements that appeared in the Times Leader&rsquo;s Tuesday coverage of the recusal matter, county Republican Chairman Justin Behrens issued a release Wednesday criticizing the county recusal filing and highlighting the Republican council majority.
				&ldquo;In a sign of solidarity it was a great sight yesterday evening to see our Republican majority on Luzerne County Council vote to rescind the recusal request,&rdquo; Behrens said.
				The county Republican party trusts all Supreme Court justices have the &ldquo;character, intellect and commitment&rdquo; to follow the U.S. Constitution, Behrens stated.

Controversial Luzerne County recusal request for U.S. Supreme Court justice in withdrawal process