Harrisburg's incumbent mayor poised to claim second term after fierce primary battle
Incumbent Harrisburg Mayor Wanda Williams appears to have clinched the Democratic nomination in her reelection bid, finishing with a slim lead over her closest rival.
Preliminary results in the May 20 primary election showed Williams capturing 35% of the roughly 4,900 votes cast in the mayoral contest, putting her 83 votes ahead of City Treasurer Dan Miller. Further behind were City Councilman Lamont Jones, community activist Tone Cook and repeat candidate Lewis Butts Jr.
More: Tim Barker wins Republican primary for York County District Attorney
With no Republican on the primary ballot, the winner of the Democratic nomination will almost certainly win the overall mayoral contest. Williams declared victory in the contest the night of May 20.
During the campaign, Williams presented herself as the only candidate with enough government experience and understanding for the job. Before her election as Harrisburg mayor in 2021, Williams spent several years on the school board and more than 15 years on the city council.
However, her Democratic primary opponents accused her of not doing enough on crime, affordable housing and business development during her four-year term. She also faced criticism for delays in restoring the historic Broad Street Market, which was damaged by a fire in the summer of 2023. The brick building that was gutted by the blaze remains closed, and repair work on it isn't expected to begin until this fall.
Williams has pointed blame at the city council, which she said has bogged down progress on certain priorities.
Bethany Rodgers is a USA TODAY Network Pennsylvania investigative journalist.
This article originally appeared on York Daily Record: Harrisburg PA mayor appears to earn primary win in reelection bid
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dozens of environmental groups sign letter opposing return of Utah public lands sale
People rally in opposition of Utah's lawsuit attempting to take control of federal lands at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on Saturday, Jan. 11, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) Organizations from around the country signed a letter on Monday urging U.S. senators not to include a controversial proposal to sell thousands of acres of federal land in Congress' budget bill. The letter comes in the wake of reports that Utah Sen. Mike Lee is considering reviving an amendment to the bill originally proposed by Rep. Celeste Maloy that would dispose of nearly 11,500 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in southwestern Utah, and about 450,000 acres in Nevada. Lee, when asked by a Politico reporter last week if he intended to reintroduce the disposal, responded, 'I gotta go vote, but yes.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Lee's office did not respond to a request for comment on Monday, and it's unclear whether Utah's senior GOP senator is considering bringing back an exact copy of Maloy's amendment, or something different. But more than 100 organizations and nonprofits around the country are sounding the alarm, telling Senate leaders to 'heed how dramatically unpopular this idea is and reject any misguided attempt to get public lands sales back in this bill.' 'Decisions about the future of public lands should remain in public hands. Leaders in the House and Senate, extractive industry, and private developers are using the reconciliation process to sell off federal lands to pay for billionaire tax cuts. But such moves are deeply unpopular. Polling has repeatedly shown that the public — especially westerners — strongly believes in keeping public lands in public hands and, across partisan lines, rejects any efforts that would lead to the sale of these shared and cherished lands,' reads the letter, signed by Utah groups like the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Conserve Southwest Utah, Save Our Canyons, Great Basin Water Network and Back Country Horsemen of Utah. Public lands sale may return to 'big, beautiful' bill with Mike Lee amendment The letter is addressed to Lee, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, New Mexico Democrat Martin Heinrich, the committee's ranking member, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat. Maloy's amendment was dropped from the budget bill after it received pushback from all sides of the aisle. That includes Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke, who previously said selling public lands is a line he would not cross and rallied support from a bipartisan group of lawmakers to strip the proposal from the bill. 'The public had no opportunity to participate in the process of identifying these parcels, let alone time to understand the long-term effect of selling off these public lands,' the letter reads. Maloy's proposal identified parcels owned by the Bureau of Land Management to sell to Washington and Beaver counties, the Washington County Water Conservancy District and the city of St. George. The land would have been used for water infrastructure (like reservoirs and wells), an airport expansion in St. George, new and widened roads, recreation and housing. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
S.C. senator attempt to stop state lawmaker pay increase
COLUMBIA, S.C. (WSPA) – A legal battle is underway over state lawmakers giving themselves more money. One senator said the way it was done is unconstitutional, but the lawmaker who pushed for the increase the state's new budget, lawmakers voted to more than double their in-district compensation, increasing it from around $1,000 a month to $2,500 a month. The move was led by Republican Senator Matt Leber (R – Charleston), who said it's not a pay raise but a reimbursement to help public servants cover travel and district costs. Leber sponsored a bill that had the same language and said he will try to pass the bill in January. He said lawmakers have not gotten a raise in in-district expense since 1994, and they need to adjust for inflation. Therefore, he said it's not a salary raise. 'If we don't make this at least affordable for the everyday person to run for office, then we're not going to get the everyday person to run for office,' Leber said. 'It's just going to be elites up there running everything, and they love this argument. ' Not everyone agrees on the decision. '$1,000 a month arrives in legislators bank accounts via direct deposit. There are no receipts required to submit for reimbursement. It's just $1,000 deposit into the account. Legislators are free to expend those funds however they deem appropriate,' said Senator Wes Climer (R – York). The increase was passed as an amendment to the budget and Climer said it wasn't the right way to do it. 'Regardless of how you feel about a legislative pay raise, this is the wrong way to do it. Violate the principle that the legislature cannot take the people's money and appropriate it to themselves in real time,' Climer added.'The proviso method is there for us to use more difficult for the current crop of legislators to continue to work. I felt like it was right to go for it now. ' Climer is now suing the State Treasurer's Office, and said the South Carolina Constitution bans lawmakers from increasing their own compensation before an election. He and retired Senator, Dick Harpootlian, have asked the South Carolina Supreme Court to step in, arguing the vote violates the state constitution. 'We are standing here and have filed the suit in order to protect or to defend the constitutional safeguards against the general assembly,' Climer added. Governor Henry McMaster chimed in on the issue last week. 'They are the ones that are trying to pay those expenses. In good faith, if they use that money for the in-district expenses as they're supposed to, then if that amount is legitimate, then that's a proper law,' McMaster said. The South Carolina Supreme Court has issued a scheduling order requiring the state to respond to the injunction request by next Monday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jackson County legislator envisions no vote for Chiefs, Royals this year
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The Missouri House of Representatives is in Jefferson City again Monday as lawmakers try to pass a stadium package aimed at keeping the Chiefs and Royals in Missouri. At the same time that's taking place, FOX4 is getting county reaction to the chances either team goes back to the voters of Jackson County. Kansas City's Country Club Plaza struggles with closures and empty shops Our biggest question for Democratic Legislative Chairman DaRon McGee was whether he believes the Chiefs are willing to go to a vote of the people in November of this year. 'What I can tell you since I am chairman, I do not envision a vote for the Chiefs or Royals this year,' McGee said. FOX4 asked McGee why doesn't think a vote will happen this year. His response: 'My position is that, it's not about when the vote is, it's that the work has been put in with the community, that feedback from the community is heard and what they're going to do, how things are going to go, how money is going to be spent,' he responded. 'What is their plan and that this plan is not rushed, so if there is to be a vote, whether it's Chiefs only, Royals only, I don't envision a vote until next year.' McGee said the teams could go in April of 2026, the primaries in August or the mid-term elections in November of that year. Meanwhile, one of the opponents to the April 2024 election spoke to us as well. End Zone Extra: Get the top Chiefs news and insider features all season long 'If the Chiefs go back to the voters of Kansas City with a lease agreement, details of what their request is and what it's for, and go through the proper process, I believe that that would be successful at the Truman Sports Complex,' Chairwoman of the Committee Against New Royals Stadium Taxes Becky Nace said in an interview with FOX4 Monday. 'I personally would not be opposed to supporting a Chiefs request for renovations, reasonable renovations over a reasonable timeframe staying at the Truman Sports Complex.' The Chiefs and Royals wouldn't comment on Nace or McGee's remarks Monday. On June 3, Chiefs' lobbyist Rich AuBuchon said the team was looking at a renovation still if they were going to stay in the Show-Me State. That same day, the Royals' lobbyist, Jewell Patek, said the Royals were looking at a new stadium either in Jackson or Clay County if they were going to stay in Missouri. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
