2 appeals by prothonotary hopeful denied
A Commonwealth Court judge on Thursday affirmed rulings that denied a Fayette County prothonotary candidate's bid to have the names of two competitors stricken from the ballot, but she ordered that a hearing be held in regard to a third candidate.
Robert “Ted” Pritchard of Fairchance is one of four candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for prothonotary.
He challenged the nominating petitions of the other three candidates in an attempt to have their names taken off the ballot, but three Fayette County judges denied the challenges.
Pritchard appealed all three denials to Commonwealth Court, but Judge Anne E. Covey affirmed the Fayette judges' rulings on candidates Nina Capuzzi Frankhouser and Pam Hudson.
President Judge John F. Wagner Jr. denied Pritchard's objection to Hudson's petition after holding a hearing.
Judge Steve Leskinen did not hold a hearing on Frankhouser's petition, but he issued an opinion and order in which he listed various reasons for denying it.
For the third candidate, Paul Shipley, Covey vacated Senior Judge Gerald Solomon's order in which Solomon denied Pritchard's challenge as untimely without holding a hearing.
Covey found that Pritchard's objections were “timely filed,” and she ordered the case remanded to Fayette County for a hearing.
“Given the time constraints inherent to election cases, the trial court is directed to conduct the hearing and render its opinion on the merits no later than May 6,” Covey said in the order.
The primary will be held May 21.
Pritchard said he intends to appeal Covey's findings on Frankhouser and Hudson to the state Supreme Court.
Liz Zemba is a reporter for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-601-2166 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.