ShareThis Page
News

Saltlick supervisor makes it on November ballot

| Thursday, June 2, 2011

Saltlick Township Supervisor incumbent Rick Gales initially thought he would be serving the last of his 30 years as supervisor after falling behind in the votes on the Republican ticket to Tim Coffman during the May primary.

But a count of the write-in votes has given Gales' campaign new life.

Larry Blosser, director of elections for the Fayette County Election Bureau said Gales got enough votes on the Democratic side of things to run on the Democratic ticket in the fall general election.

During the primaries, Gales received 88 votes to Coffman's 127 votes on the Republican ticket, on which both were running. However, Gales outshone Coffman on the Democratic ticket when he received a total of 59 write-in votes to Coffman's 45 write-in votes.

Blosser said Gales received 58 Democratic write-in votes for Rick Gales and one write-in vote for Richard Gales. Coffman received 44 write-in votes for Tim Coffman and one write-in vote for Timothy B. Coffman.

Gales said he was a little surprised to learn he had lost in the primary on the Republican ticket and added that he's never had a race in all his years running that was this close.

"I think it's great that I was able to pull through on the Democratic side," Gales said. "I think it's great that people have stuck by me."

He intends to continue his campaign up until the general elections in November.

"After being here 30 years, you get to see all of the things that have come about like the parks, the trails, the Little League fields and after a while it's just sort of a way of life," Gales said.

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.

click me