A judge has dismissed a residency challenge filed against Republican Michael Way’s candidacy for one of the LD15 House seats. The lawsuit alleged that Way was ineligible to be elected to the legislature because he doesn’t meet the three-year Arizona residency requirement in the state constitution. The judge’s ruling was applauded by Republicans, saying it upholds Way’s qualifications to serve.
“Today’s ruling is a clear victory for Michael Way and all the voters of LD15,” stated AZGOP Chairwoman Gina Swaboda. “Michael has proven time and time again that he is a dedicated advocate for our shared values. We are thrilled that the court has upheld his qualifications, and we look forward to his continued leadership in the fight to keep Arizona red.”
The Party said it would continue to stand “firmly with Michael Way as he works tirelessly to secure our legislative majority and deliver Arizona for President Trump in November.”
While the State GOP alleged the challenge was a baseless attack from Democrats and their allies attempting to challenge his candidacy, numerous politicos have noted that the lawsuit was filed by a Republican and appeared to track back to members of the Arizona Freedom Caucus who were unhappy with Way’s primary victory.
Way may not be fully in the clear however, because the judge did not rule on Way’s qualification for office, instead ruling that at this late stage in the process, it is the Legislature’s job to determine eligibility, not the courts.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rodrick Coffey found the plaintiff, represented by attorney Tim LaSota, relied on the wrong Arizona law in their challenge:
Article 4, Part 2, Section 2 of the Arizona Constitution sets forth the minimum qualifications for those who serve as legislators in the Arizona Legislature: “No person shall be a member of the Legislature unless he shall be a citizen of the United States at the time of his election, nor unless he shall be at least twenty-five years of age, and shall have been a resident of Arizona at least three years and of the county from which he is elected at least one year before his election.” Plaintiff contends that Way will not have been an Arizona resident for at least three years before the upcoming election. She could have asserted her challenge to Way’s qualifications under A.R.S. § 16-351, but in order for her to do so, she was required to file her claim “not later than 5:00 p.m. of the tenth day, excluding Saturday, Sunday and other legal holidays, after the last day for filing nomination papers and petitions.” Because Plaintiff filed her Complaint 126 days after the deadline set forth in A.R.S. § 16-351, she was time barred from asserting a claim under that statute. So, instead of asserting a timely claim under A.R.S. § 16-351, Plaintiff asserted her claim under A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(2), which states:
Any elector of the state may contest the election of any person declared elected to a state office, or declared nominated to a state office at a primary election, or the declared result of an initiated or referred measure, or a proposal to amend the Constitution of Arizona, or other question or proposal submitted to vote of the people, upon any of the following grounds:
2. That the person whose right to the office is contested was not at the time of the election eligible to the office.
Way contends that A.R.S. § 16-678 precludes Plaintiff’s claim. That statute provides, “Nothing in this article shall be deemed to affect in any manner procedures relating to contests of elections of members of the legislature.” The “article” that is referenced in A.R.S. § 16-678 consists of every statute between A.R.S. §§ 16-671 – 16-678, including A.R.S. § 16-672. A.R.S. § 16-678 clearly and plainly states that nothing in A.R.S. § 16-672 affects “in any manner procedures relating to contests of elections of members of the legislature.” That is consistent with Article 4, Part 2, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution, which states, “Each house, when assembled, shall choose its own officers, judge of the election and qualification of its own members, and determine its own rules of procedure.” In essence, A.R.S. § 16-678 precludes courts from performing the duties that are expressly delegated to the Arizona Legislature in Article 4, Part 2, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution. Because the duties of judging elections of members of the State Legislature and determining the qualifications of those who are elected to be legislators are expressly delegated to the Arizona Legislature, dismissal of the Complaint is warranted. If Way is elected, it will be up to the Arizona Legislature to judge his qualifications.
Plaintiff argues that A.R.S. § 16-678 does not bar her claim because instead of challenging the election of a member of the legislature, she is challenging the primary election, which led to Way becoming a candidate in the upcoming general election. But, A.R.S. § 16-671 states, “Contests arising out of primary elections shall be brought and determined in the same manner, as nearly as possible, as provided by law for contests of general elections.” The distinction Plaintiff tries to make is inconsistent with the plain language of A.R.S. § 16-671. Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing.
Records show Way bought a house and moved his family from Arizona to North Carolina in 2021 and voted in North Carolina in both November 2021 and November 2022 elections.
However, he claims that Arizona has been his home for fifteen years, and “despite having business interests all over the world, Arizona is my primary residence and where I have filed taxes for many years.”
In a statement released after the judge’s ruling, Way did not address his voting record in North Carolina.
Former Arizona Supreme Court justice and Way’s attorney, Attorney Andrew Gould, told Axios that Way has been an Arizona resident for 15 years, and voting in North Carolina while he temporarily lived there for work doesn’t change that.
