Bullskin election results still out
By Rachel R. Basinger
Published: Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011
Mounting a huge write-in campaign after losing the Democratic primary, incumbent Scott Keefer might have secured himself another six-year term on the Bullskin Township Board of Supervisors.
With write-in votes counted and the most recent election results posted from the general election, David E. Butler, also a Democrat, secured 732 votes to Keefer's 680 votes, but Larry Blosser, Fayette County director of elections, said there's more to Keefer's story.
Besides the 680 counted votes, Keefer may come out ahead if the courts approve several variations and spellings of his name that voters put down on their write-in ballots.
There are 61 more votes for Keefer if the courts OK the following variations: Scott Keffer, 38 votes; Keefer, 16 votes; Keller, one vote; Scott, one vote; Scott Keeffer, one vote; Scott Kefer, one vote; Scott Keifer, one vote; Scott Kieffer, one vote; and Scottkeefer, one vote.
Keefer would need the courts to approve just 53 of the possible 61 votes to win the election.
Blosser said Keefer must have his attorney schedule a court date so the issue can be heard before a judge.
He added that the election board had a hearing Friday to determine the validity of several provisional ballots, including those from Bullskin. That hearing was continued until 1 p.m. Wednesday in the Fayette 911 building across from Storey Square in Uniontown.
Show commenting policy
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 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.