ShareThis Page
Political Headlines

Connelly, Spurgeon elected to Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas

Bob Bauder
| Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2017, 9:42 p.m.
Patrick Connelly
Patrick Connelly
David Spurgeon
David Spurgeon
Mary C. McGinley
Mary C. McGinley

Allegheny County voters Tuesday elected two new judges to the Court of Common Pleas.

Patrick Connelly and David Spurgeon edged out Mary C. McGinley for two open seats, according to unofficial Allegheny County election results.

Connelly of Lawrenceville received 43 percent of the vote with 76 percent of precincts reporting, followed by Spurgeon of McKeesport, who had 37 percent. McGinley, 40, of Squirrel Hill received 20 percent.

Connelly, 50, has worked as an attorney in private practice for more than 20 years. He mainly represents people involved in civil lawsuits. He serves as solicitor for Pittsburgh's annual St. Patrick's Day Parade and previously chaired the Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board.

The Pennsylvania Senate last year appointed Spurgeon, 46, to fill a county court vacancy. He previously served as a prosecutor in Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr.'s office. He also works as an adjunct professor at the Duquesne University School of Law and Point Park University.

Connelly and Spurgeon are Democrats who earned “highly recommended” ratings from the Allegheny County Bar Association.

Judges serve 10 years and are paid $180,000 yearly.

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-765-2312, or via Twitter @bobbauder.

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