ShareThis Page
Half of candidates for judicial seat gone from race |

Half of candidates for judicial seat gone from race

| Friday, March 23, 2007 12:00 a.m

Half of the 12 candidates running to succeed Ernest Marraccini — a former Elizabeth Township district judge who obstructed an FBI investigation — have dropped out of the race or were thrown off the ballot because of filing problems.

Candidates George Hobaugh, Brian A. Merten, Darla J. Poorman and Robert W. Similo withdrew petitions, officials said. A judge removed Dennis M. Pohodich and Bonnie Martin Neander from ballots because challengers found errors in their petitions.

Six names will appear on Democratic ballots in May: Mary H. Levdansky, Patrick McDaniel, Dale T. Provins Sr., Beth Scagline-Mills, Michael Alan Shuey and Jace M. Younge. Each candidate, except Shuey, also will run as a Republican.

Other office-seekers were removed from ballots Thursday. Lawrence Bolind, a Findlay district judge hopeful, can’t run because he lacked 100 legitimate petition signatures. A judge ruled William “Buz” Brown can’t seek a South Fayette commissioner seat because, when he signed his petition to meet a 10-name requirement, he didn’t note he and his son share a name and address.

“Why is anyone so afraid to just let the voters decide?” asked Brown, 54. “It’s just a local election, for God’s sake.”

“The political process perpetuates itself. … It makes it very difficult to make changes in the community,” said Bolind, 57. “In some instances, the political connections of the incumbent candidates will be protected by the bringing of these objections.”

Categories: News
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.