Bullskin candidate can be placed on GOP ticket
A candidate for Bullskin Township supervisor received enough votes in a recount to be placed on the Republican ticket in the general election.
In the May primary election, candidate Roy Thayer lost on the Democratic ticket to David Butler.
No Republicans ran for the six-year seat. However, both candidates received write-in votes on the Republican ticket. Larry Blosser, director of the Fayette County Election Bureau, said Fayette County Judge Steve Leskinen ruled in favor of Thayer's appeal for write-in name variations or surnames to be counted, giving him enough votes to be placed on the Republican ticket in the general election in November.
Butler, 60, and Thayer, 55, were the only Democrats seeking the nomination for the six-year term of supervisor.
Thayer and Butler will face off in the November general election.
In Dunbar Township, incumbent Supervisor John Tabaj won the Democratic nomination for the six-year seat in the primary, receiving 43 percent of the vote while challenger Vern Ohler received 42 percent of the vote. Challenger Chuck Clark received 14 percent of the vote on the Democratic side.
However, Ohler won a spot on the Republican ticket with write-in votes.
A hearing will be held before Leskinen on disputed name variations, however.
As with the Bullskin Township race, no Republicans sought the position.
Tabaj, 68, was seeking his second term. Ohler, 51, has worked for the Connellsville Street Department for 20 years.
Mark Hofmann is a staff writer with Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-626-3539 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.