Cordaro, George Jr. top ballots for judge
Two candidates won both the Democratic and Republican nominations in the five-way primary for judge in Fayette County, unofficial results indicated Tuesday.
With 93 of 98 precincts reporting, Linda Cordaro, 52, and Joseph George Jr., 42, were the top two candidates on both ballots to beat out three other candidates.
All five candidates were cross-filed.
Cordaro garnered the most votes on both tickets, tallying 30 percent of the Republican vote to George's 25 percent.
On the Democratic side, Cordaro had 30 percent of the vote to George's 29 percent.
George and Cordaro, both Democrats, beat out Democrats Jack Purcell, 55, of Wharton Township, and Doug Sepic, 45, of South Union and Republican Steven Walton, 47, of Menallen.
Purcell took 18 percent of the Republican vote, followed by Sepic with 15 percent and Walton with 12. On the Democratic side, Purcell had 21 percent to Sepic's 16 percent and Walton's 4 percent.
“I want to congratulate all of the candidates and I want to thank all of my supporters for making this possible. I'm looking forward to serving on the Common Pleas bench,” George said.
Cordaro could not be reached for comment.
Cordaro is an assistant district attorney and principal in the Connellsville law firm Horewitz, Cordaro, Dietz and Miele. George is an elected district justice in South Union and maintains a private practice in Uniontown.
Two 10-year terms on the bench opened when Ralph Warman and Gerald Solomon retired to become part-time senior judges.
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.