Our View: Parties should wait for Harrisburg to act before replacing DA

It’s still an evolving story with a lot of moving parts, so caveats apply. But a clearer picture of the Luzerne County District Attorney situation emerges each day, and the notion that much of this brouhaha could have been avoided grows stronger.

To recap, current DA Stefanie Salavantis filed nominating petitions for a place on the primary ballot as candidate for a seat on the county Court of Common Pleas. Nothing wrong with that, though we do usually prefer an elected official (DA is such a post) complete the term in their current office before seeking higher office. It’s not essential, but it does fulfill an element of trust the voters gave the candidate.

That said, Salavantis apparently planned to resign March 25, after her candidacy would become official, and at first blush that seemed reasonable. County Council members, however, pointed out that wording in the county’s home rule charter says once the petitions were filed, the council had to declare the DA’s post vacant. This also sounds reasonable, though it’s hard to figure how important it was to do that just a few weeks before Salavantis planned to resign anyway.

We’ve already briefly suggested in this space that better communication between council and Salavantis might have avoided this mess, and we stand by that. But here we are.

The second issue is who gets to appoint a replacement for Salavantis. The charter gives them the authority to do so, though it also notes charter rules may be superseded by state law. Court of Common Pleas president Judge Michael T. Vough says state law and case law make it unequivocal the county court has that authority.

Both disputes — whether council can vacate the DA’s seat when it did, and who appoints a successor — are clearly matters to be settled in the courts. And according to a letter emailed to council, Salavantis plans to file legal action seeking a ruling on both.

We side with that action because it is almost certainly the only sure way to settle the issues now and for any future similar developments. But there’s a big if.

The state legislature is moving on a new law that would make the appointment question moot by making DA replacement upon resignation a uniform process: The slot would go to the first assistant district attorney.

That certainly seems to make sense. It assures a smooth transition, it preserves the basic decision by voters as to which party they wanted to hold the post, and it should remove the potential of politics seeping in when an elected council or elected judge makes the pick.

And make no mistake, this whole mess reeks of behind-the-scene politics.

Thus all the moving parts. Maybe Salavantis goes to court and gets a quick ruling on both issues, with council opting not to appeal, all before the state law is passed. Maybe council does appeal and the wheels of justice grind well beyond the passage of the law (if it does pass). Maybe the law becomes reality before any court action can occur, making the appointment part moot, but leaving the validity (and the date) of Council’s move to vacate the seat legally unresolved — an issue that could impact other parts of the outcome either way.

It’s enough to make your head spin, and that’s probably the bottom line: If Salavantis were to submit a firm letter of resignation effective March 25, might we suggest all sides take a deep breath and wait to see if the bill moving through Harrisburg becomes law before any new appointments are made? The legality of council vacating the post can be pursued separately

— Times Leader