Write-in votes tighten Export mayoral race
In an impromptu rematch of the primary, Democrat Bob Campagna was holding on to a slim lead for Export mayor over a write-in campaign for the one-term incumbent, Mike Calder, according to unofficial election results Tuesday night.
Though Campagna, 74, was the only candidate on the ballot, his 90 votes were matched by 90 write-in votes, most of which appear to be for Calder.
Among those write-ins, Calder might be able to claim about 85 votes from people who showed an apparent preference for him. That total included some close misspellings of his name.
Another four people wrote in “Caulter,” “Mike Colden,” “Mike Climar” and “Michael Caldwell.” One person wrote in Andrea Britz's name. Election officials still might have absentee or military ballots to add to the vote totals before certifying a winner.
During the May primary, Campagna topped Calder for the Democratic nomination. Calder received enough write-in votes to win the Republican nod, but he later decided to withdraw his name from the ballot.
Also Tuesday, incumbent council members Barry Delissio, K. Melanie Litz and Stanley A. Mahinske and newcomer James A. Mahinske appeared to win four-year council terms.
Delissio led the field with 137 votes. Stanley Mahinske's 95 votes were 13 more than fellow councilman Clayton Soles, who finished last among the five candidates.
Chris Foreman is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8671, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.