Close this search box.

PA-12: AFSCME Endorses Larchuk

LarchukThe Southwestern PA branch of the nation’s largest public employee union has selected a candidate in the PA-12 Democratic primary.

AFSCME Council 83 is endorsing attorney Steve Larchuk.

“I am grateful to the dedicated public workers of AFSCME who understand all too well the harm a Freedom Caucus member of Congress like Keith Rothfus can do by supporting efforts to shut down government, roll back restrictions on Wall Street and the big banks that put our economy on edge of the abyss and take away healthcare coverage from millions of Americans,” said Larchuk. “I look forward to working with AFSCME to build a better Congress.”

Larchuk is running against 2014 Democratic nominee Erin McClelland in the primary.

The 12th Congressional District covers Beaver County and parts of Allegheny, Cambria, Lawrence, Somerset, and Westmoreland Counties.

12 Responses

  1. eagleswing

    Shouldn’t the random selection be among judges that know election law?

    Or, given the inevitability of this, shouldn’t the judges have to take a 2 hour refresher class on election law at the start of election season for just this sort of problem?

  2. David, as i understand it Commonwealth Court assigns cases randomly to its judges using a ‘draw’ type system. i was unable to find any election law case opinion authored by Patricia mc Cullough; it is likely that this is her 1st case. that being said, there is ample precedent in the excellent opinions by experienced judges as to how to go about handling an election law challenge. one thing a court must never do is issue a court order barring the introduction of evidence which the statute specifies as relevant. that is automatic ‘abuse of discretion’ and reversible error. The judge appeared to be unhappy that line by line challenges were taking a long time last Thursday. line by line challenges are of course the ONLY way one can strike elector signatures for ‘illegible, in the hand of another, not registered, not registered in county, date outside petition period’ etc. –the 13 categories of challenge specified in the Election Code. so she issued an order randomly barring all but 4 categories , and barring expert testimony on ‘hand of another’ (which both counsel were prepared to produce via qualified questioned document examiners. ) ( Judge Mc cullough had thin trial experience before being elected; her husband Allegheny Councilman attorney Chuck Mc Cullough was recently convicted of felony theft and has been disbarred . so the judge has a lot on her mind. )

  3. eagleswing-

    Sounds like the judge needs a remedial course in elections. Can’t one of the ‘grown up’ judges who’s actually done this before explain the rules to her? (not issue a ruling, just explain the rules)

  4. re: the petition challenge: judge issued an odd order late 3/18 purporting to bar all but 5 categories of Larchuk’s evidence and witnesses to strike Mc cleland’s signatures — including a bar of his expert’s report claiming mc Clelland had forged in excess of 200 signatures . that order is currently being ‘reconsidered’– it is totally bizarre for a judge to disregard the 13 categories for voiding elector signatures as stated in the Election Code and try to limit objections to only 5 categories before even hearing the evidence. that is sure gourds for reversal by the Supreme Court.

    . Larchuk needs to get rid of only about 40 more to get her off the ballot; there are an additional 250 signatures about to be challenged tomorrow.

  • Does the NYC Verdict Make You More or Less Likely to Vote For Trump in 2024?

    • Less Likely (36%)
    • More Likely (34%)
    • Makes No Difference (30%)

    Total Voters: 112

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen