Republican candidate survives residency challenge, but opponents say they will appeal

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge dismissed a residency claim against a Republican legislative candidate on Monday, but challengers say they will appeal the ruling.

Michael Way registered to vote in both North Carolina and in Arizona and voted in North Carolina in both 2021 and 2022.

State law requires political candidates to be Arizona residents for three consecutive years before running for office, but Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rodrick Coffey wrote that fellow Republican Deborah Kirkland filed a challenge against Way too late.

“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,” Coffey ruled.

Kirkland’s attorney Tim La Sota says that’s because Way lied and Kirkland didn’t know about his North Carolina affiliation until reading about it in the Arizona Republic in August.

“I think that the reason she didn’t file a pre primary challenge was; Mr. Way filed a false nomination paper saying he’d lived in the state for six continuous years prior to his running for office,” La Sota said on Monday.

He noted that the court’s ruling is not on the merits of Way’s eligibility.

Way is running for a spot in the state House of Representatives in Legislative District 15 - encompassing part of the West Valley.

Coffey wrote that it’s up to the state legislature to decide whether Way is qualified, if he gets elected.

La Sota also pushed back on speculation that members of the state Arizona Freedom Caucus are behind Kirkland and her challenge because they backed an opponent of Way.

“I know he [Way] said that on the stand,” La Sota said. “He’s obviously not credible,” he said.

As for the Freedom Caucus — led by Sen. Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) who also represents LD15 — La Sota said “I don’t know what they support, but I can tell you they’re not paying me.”

Way’s attorney Andrew Gould said the ruling is not surprising at all. He called the challenge a “baseless attack” and added that he doesn’t anticipate the court of appeals will draw any other conclusion.

As for the Freedom Caucus; Gould said he doesn’t know about their involvement, but said that Kirkland’s testimony was “strange.”

When Kirkland was on the stand, Gould asked her who is paying for this lawsuit. She — the sole plaintiff — replied that she didn’t know. He followed up, but she repeated that she didn't know.