ShareThis Page
Politics

Casorio notches victory over Lisotto

| Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2002

She lost this time, but Susanna Lisotto hasn't ruled out challenging incumbent James E. Casorio Jr. again for his seat in the state House.

The 44-year-old Republican fell behind early Tuesday evening in her bid to unseat Casorio, a Democrat who has held the 56th District seat for five years.

With 51 of 51 precincts reporting, Casorio garnered 11,791 votes to Lisotto's 7,315, according to unofficial results at press time from the Westmoreland County Election Bureau.

In what poll workers called a "decent" turnout, Casorio began to build a big lead from the beginning of the vote count — 71 percent of the votes to Lisotto's 28 percent with only 3 percent of precincts reporting.

Lisotto, of Harrison City, Penn Township, said she may consider another run in the next election cycle.

"We'll look at it when the time comes. I want to see leadership. We've got to change the face of politics in Pennsylvania, and if that means another campaign, so be it," she said.

The St. Vincent College prevention specialist caseworker was one of 51 women running for 203 seats in the state House of Representatives, according to the Center for Women in Politics in Pennsylvania at Chatham College.

The 56th District encompasses Jeannette, parts of North Huntingdon and Penn townships, and Irwin, North Irwin and Penn boroughs.

Casorio, 38, of North Huntingdon Township, has held the seat since 1997, when it went up for grabs after 18-year incumbent Allen G. Kukovich was elected to the state Senate.

Casorio could not be reached for comment.

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