Evankovich brings home third term in 54th District in the state House |

Evankovich brings home third term in 54th District in the state House

Voters in the newly drawn 54th District in the state House encountered a ballot rematch between the Republican incumbent, Eli Evankovich, and former Kiski Area School Board member Patrick Leyland.

The result Tuesday was a repeat of 2012, with Evankovich winning a third term.

Leyland, an Allegheny Township Democrat, said during the campaign that he hoped voters would choose change in Harrisburg, but Evankovich coasted to victory in the district that includes portions of northwestern Westmoreland County and 11 precincts in Allegheny County.

Unofficial totals show Evankovich took 70 percent of the votes cast in Westmoreland versus 30 percent for Leyland. With all Allegheny precincts reporting, Evankovich had 63 percent of votes to Leyland’s 37 percent.

“I’m very excited about winning a third term and going back to Harrisburg to work … especially representing new areas in Allegheny County as well as representing my constituents in Westmoreland County. I think the results are indicative of the work we’ve put into our district over the past two terms,” said Evankovich of Murrysville.

In his campaign, Evankovich noted his work in assisting small businesses, including the establishment of a bipartisan manufacturing caucus in 2013 that now has 105 members.

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.