Smurl announces independent campaign for Scranton council
Smurl, an incumbent Democrat who's served on council since December 2022, announced his independent run in a news release.
'Thanks to the overwhelming support and encouragement from my family and friends, I am happy to announce that I am running for reelection to Scranton City Council as an Independent candidate,' he said in the release. 'I want voters to know that I am committed to leading the city's future with independence, integrity and a shared intent to continue moving Scranton forward by supporting economic development, restoring parks and pools, and promoting cleaner, safer neighborhoods.'
He joins a field of council candidates that includes Virgil Argenta, Patrick Flynn, Sean McAndrew, Marc Pane and incumbent Councilman Tom Schuster.
Flynn, McAndrew and Schuster are all Democrats who won Democratic nominations in May's primary election. Pane, the lone Republican council candidate in that race, secured a GOP nomination in the primary. Argenta, who finished last in the Democratic primary for council, received enough Republican write-in votes to win a GOP nomination and advance to November's municipal election. McAndrew, a Scranton school director and nephew of Democratic Councilman Mark McAndrew, also won a GOP nomination with write-in votes and will appear on the November ballot as having both Democratic and Republican nominations.
Council appointed Smurl in December 2022 to temporarily fill former Democratic Councilman Kyle Donahue's vacant seat after voters elected Donahue state representative. Smurl won reelection in 2023 to fill the remainder of Donahue's unexpired term and has served as council president since the beginning of 2024.
Smurl filed earlier this year to run for reelection as a Democrat but withdrew from the primary field in mid-March, citing an issue with signatures on his nomination petitions.
'It came to my attention over the weekend that some of my campaign people got a bit overzealous … and actually got signatures that were not verified,' Smurl told The Times-Tribune on March 17. 'All it means is they didn't actually see the people sign a few of these.'
He described the signatures in question as valid, but said at the time he didn't want the mistake to become an issue.
The release announcing Smurl's independent candidacy says he felt an obligation to run despite the setback 'in order to continue supporting Scranton's senior citizens and working families, as well as small business owners and laborers throughout the city.'
'I heard from so many folks, urging me to run, that I felt I just couldn't let them down,' he said. 'And even though elections are never easy, I have a great team of supporters and volunteers that I'm incredibly grateful to have by my side. We're looking forward to fighting the good fight for the people of Scranton.'
Smurl lives in South Scranton, is well-known for his annual 'Christmas Lights House' display on Prospect Avenue and is the longtime proprietor of Smurl HVAC LLC. He's also generally seen as a political ally of Democratic Scranton Mayor Paige Gebhardt Cognetti and, as council president, communicates regularly with the mayor and her administration.
Cognetti also seeks reelection this year. She comfortably defeated former Scranton School Board President Bob Sheridan in May's Democratic primary and will face Republican accounting executive Patricia Beynon and possible independent candidates for mayor in November.
There are three council seats up for grabs in the November's election. The winners will serve alongside Councilman Mark McAndrew and Councilwoman Jessica Rothchild, both Democrats.
'I know that what I'm doing is working,' Smurl said Wednesday in a phone interview. 'Just look at what we're doing and how well the city is doing.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
10 minutes ago
A look at Texas' redistricting walkout and California's response, by the numbers
A walkout by Democratic legislators in Texas has ended and Republicans arranged to push a plan for redrawing the state's congressional districts through the GOP-controlled Legislature and give President Donald Trump a better political landscape. Democrats' boycott of daily sessions kept the House from passing a new map because the state constitution requires 100 of the chamber's 150 members to be present to do business. Democrats hold 62 seats. A national, partisan brawl over redistricting has now started to shift to California, where Democrats are hoping to impose a new map that offsets any advantage Trump and his fellow Republicans might gain in Texas. Here's a breakdown by the numbers. Texas is the nation's second most-populous state and has 38 congressional seats. Republicans hold 25 of them but are hoping to boost that number to 30. Their goal is to make it easier for the GOP to hold on to its slim U.S. House majority in the 2026 midterm elections, so that Democrats have little ability to thwart Trump's agenda and can't initiate investigations of his administration. Democrats hold 43 of 52 congressional seats in California, the nation's most populous state. At Gov. Gavin Newsom's urging, they've drafted a proposal to increase the number to 48. However, the current map was drawn by an independent commission created though a voter-approved ballot initiative in 2008. To avoid legal challenges, Democrats want to put their proposal on the ballot in a special election in November. Redistricting usually happens after the once-a-decade population count by the U.S. Census Bureau and sometimes in response to a court ruling. Changes are required to keep a state's congressional districts equal in population after people move into or out of an area. Trump is pushing for a rare mid-decade redistricting in Texas, and Republicans are also considering it in other states including Missouri, Florida and Indiana. Republicans currently hold 219 seats in the U.S. House, seven more than the 212 held by Democrats. Four of the chamber's 435 seats are vacant, three of them previously held by Democrats. Midterm elections most often go against the president's party. In 2018, during Trump's first term, Democrats had a net gain of 41 seats to capture the House majority. Most House Democrats left Texas on Aug. 3 and stayed outside the state for 15 days. They fled to blue states like Illinois, California and Massachusetts to stay out of the reach of the Texas law enforcement officers trying to bring them back. Many of the same lawmakers also walked out in 2021 for 38 days to protest GOP proposals for new voting restrictions. Once they returned, Republicans passed them into law. The Democrats who bolted for other states and returned now have an around-the-clock escort from Texas Department of Public Safety officers to make sure they return to the Capitol, House Speaker Dustin Burrows' office said. Burrows' office did not provide more details, calling it an ongoing law enforcement operation. Plainclothes officers escorted them from the chamber after Monday's session.
10 minutes ago
Maryland tax on digital ads violated Big Tech's free speech, judges say
ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Maryland's first-in-the-nation tax on digital advertising violated the Constitution, a federal appeals court says, because blocking Big Tech from telling customers about the tax violates the companies' right to free speech. Supporters say Maryland needed to overhaul its tax methods in response to significant changes in how businesses advertise. The tax focuses on large companies that make money advertising on the internet such as Meta, Google and Amazon, who say they're being unfairly targeted. The ongoing legal fight is being watched by other states that are considering taxes for online ads. Maryland estimated the tax could raise about $250 million a year to help pay for a sweeping K-12 education measure. Maryland's law says the companies must not only pay the tax, but avoid telling customers how it affects pricing, with no line items, surcharges or fees, said the appeals court Friday in siding with trade associations fighting the tax. Judge Julius Richardson cited the Colonial-era Stamp Act, which helped spark the Revolutionary War, and wrote that 'criticizing the government — for taxes or anything else — is important discourse in a democratic society.' The plaintiffs contended Maryland lawmakers were trying to insulate themselves from criticism and political accountability by forbidding companies from explaining the tax to their customers. 'A state cannot duck criticism by silencing those affected by its tax,' the judge wrote. The unanimous ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a decision by U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby and sends the case back to her with instructions to consider an appropriate remedy in light of the panel's decision. Trade groups praised the decision. 'Maryland tried to prevent criticism of its tax scheme, and the Fourth Circuit recognized that tactic for what it was: censorship,' said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a statement. Maryland Comptroller Brooke Lierman, who is the defendant in the case, and the Maryland attorney general's office, who is representing the state, declined to comment Monday. The law has been challenged in multiple legal venues, including Maryland Tax Court, where the case is ongoing. The law imposes a tax based on global annual gross revenues for companies that make more than $100 million globally. Under the law, the tax rate is 2.5% for businesses making more than $100 million in global gross annual revenue; 5% for companies making $1 billion or more; 7.5% for companies making $5 billion or more and 10% for companies making $15 billion or more. The Maryland General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats, overrode a veto of the legislation in 2021 by then-Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican.
25 minutes ago
Appeals court overturns order that stripped some protections from pregnant Texas state workers
NEW YORK -- A federal appeals court has upheld a law strengthening the rights of pregnant workers, vacating a judge's earlier order that had stripped those protections from Texas state employees. The ruling was a victory for advocates of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that passed with bipartisan support in 2022 but quickly became embroiled in controversy over whether it covers workers seeking abortions and fertility treatments. A federal judge last year blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for Texas state employees, ruling that its passage was unconstitutional because a majority of House members were not physically present to approve the law as part of spending package in December 2022. In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit appeals court disagreed, finding that the law was properly passed under a COVID-19 pandemic-era Congressional rule allowing members to vote by proxy to meet the quorum requirement. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act strengthens the rights of women to receive workplace accommodation for needs related to pregnancy and childbirth, such as time off for medical appointments and exemptions from heavy lifting. Its passage came after a decades long campaign by women's advocacy groups highlighting the struggles of pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage roles, who were routinely forced off the job after requesting accommodations. The Texas case differed from other lawsuits that have narrowly focused on federal regulations stating that abortion, fertility treatments and birth control are medical issues requiring protection under the new law. The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, instead took aim at the entirety of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, drawing opposition from Republican lawmakers including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who defended the pandemic-era proxy voting rule. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has continued to fight Paxton's lawsuit, which if successful, could help open the door to legal challenges of other pandemic-era laws passed by proxy. Paxton's office did not reply to emails seeking comment, and it was not clear whether he would appeal Friday's ruling. The Justice Department declined to comment. 'This is a big win for women's rights. We are really happy to see that the Fifth Circuit agreed with us that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed constitutionally and will continue to fight for the PWFA to stay legal,' said Inimai Chettiar, president of a Better Balance, an advocacy group that spearheaded the campaign for passage of the law. Texas state employees are not immediately protected, however, because the appeals court ruling doesn't become final for several weeks to give time for a possible appeal, Chettiar said. Conservative officials and religious groups, meanwhile, have been largely successfully in challenging the regulations passed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which established that workers seeking abortions are entitled accommodations. In May, a federal court struck down the abortion provisions of the EEOC regulations in response to lawsuits brought by states of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses. The Trump administration is almost certain to comply with that ruling. President Donald Trump in January fired two of the EEOC's democratic commissioners, paving the way for him to quickly establish a Republican majority at the agency. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, has signaled her support for revising the regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority by including not only abortion but fertility treatments and birth control as medical needs covered by the law.
