ShareThis Page

Democratic Socialist-endorsed challengers Lee, Innamorato trounce Costa cousins

Tom Fontaine
| Wednesday, May 16, 2018, 1:33 a.m.
Summer Lee, left, of Swissvale, and Sara Innamorato, of Pittsburgh's Lawrenceville neighborhood, each won Democratic primary races for state House seats.
Summer Lee, left, of Swissvale, and Sara Innamorato, of Pittsburgh's Lawrenceville neighborhood, each won Democratic primary races for state House seats.
Political organizer and activist Summer Lee of Swissvale
Shots By J.E./Facebook
Political organizer and activist Summer Lee of Swissvale
Sara Innamorato
Facebook political candidate page
Sara Innamorato

Tuesday wasn't a good night to be a state lawmaker named Costa.

Two women endorsed by the Pittsburgh chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America trounced incumbent state Reps. Dom Costa of Pittsburgh's Stanton Heights neighborhood and Paul Costa of Wilkins in their respective Democratic primary races. The Costas are cousins.

In the 34th District, political organizer and activist Summer Lee of Swissvale collected 67.8 percent of the votes counted to Paul Costa's 32.2 percent, according to unofficial results with all precincts reporting.

Paul Costa has been in office since 1999.

In the 21st District, marketing and communications professional Sara Innamorato of Pittsburgh's Lawrenceville neighborhood picked up 64.1 percent of the votes to Dom Costa's 35.7 percent, unofficial tallies showed.

Dom Costa, a former Pittsburgh police chief, has served in the state House since 2009.

No Republicans filed paperwork to run for the GOP nomination in either race.

“These wins indicated that a renewed, vibrant left in America is not an aberration, but instead that working people are ready for real change, progressive policies and a society that works for all of us, not a select few,” Pittsburgh DSA co-chair Adam Shuck wrote in a statement.

Tom Fontaine is a Tribune-Review assistant news editor.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me