Challenger to Metcalfe's state House seat off primary ballot
The Republican challenger to well-known conservative state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe of Cranberry said he'll wage a write-in campaign now that the state Supreme Court has ordered his name be removed from the May 20 primary ballot.
The court on Friday cited Gordon Marburger's failure to file a statement of financial interest with the state Ethics Commission. The court on Thursday removed Bob Guzzardi, a Montgomery County Republican, from the ballot as a challenger to Gov. Tom Corbett for the same reason.
Marburger said he simply made a mistake, and that his financial statement was attached to his nominating petition, instead of being filed separately with the ethics commission.
“I'm in too far to stop now,” said Marburger, 57, of Adams, a Mars Area School Board member. He said he's spent about $45,000 trying to unseat Metcalfe, 51, who has been in office since 1999.
Metcalfe said he supports the court's decision.
“If you can't meet the level of competency to get the job done, you should not be on the ballot,” Metcalfe said. “He hasn't been able to comply with the law, but he wants to become a lawmaker.”
The ruling left Butler County officials scrambling on Friday. County solicitor Mike English said the ballots will be reprinted. He did not believe anyone had cast an absentee ballot yet.
English did not know how much the change would cost the county.
Voters Marlene Lott of Butler and James S. Powers of Middlesex challenged Marburger's candidacy.
Bill Vidonic is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-380-5621 or email@example.com.
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.