All eyes have been on one race for one seat in the state House of late. Republican candidate Michael Way has been in court defending himself against allegations that he broke the residency rules for state candidates. Way voted in North Carolina in 2021 and 2022, even though Arizona law requires a lawmaker to have been a resident here for at least three years when they run.
Deborah Kirkland, a fellow Republican and precinct committeewoman from the East Valley district, sued him over it. But, a judge this week dismissed the claim on a technicality, saying the claim was filed too late. So, he stays on the ballot.
All of this brings up questions about residency and the courts and what it even means, but, there’s another layer to this political saga: Who’s paying for this lawsuit? And why it’s a Republican trying to get Way kicked off the ballot?
Camryn Sanchez, field correspondent on KJZZ’s Politics Desk, joined The Show to discuss.
Full conversation
LAUREN GILGER: Good morning there, Camryn.
CAMRYN SANCHEZ: Good morning.
GILGER: OK. So it is a Republican precinct committee woman who brought this lawsuit to get Way off the ballot even though it was unsuccessful. Why did she do that?
SANCHEZ: That's a great question. And it's a question that everybody wants answered. So Way is saying that the lawsuit is being paid for by a far-right Freedom Caucus Republicans, which is a group in the state Legislature run by state Senator Jake Hoffman, who also represents the Senate in the same district which is LD15.
And so Way is saying that his political opponents are angry with him because in the primary election, he defeated a candidate who was a fellow republican who Hoffman and the Freedom Caucus were backing. And so he's claiming that they're paying for this lawsuit against him.
Now, when the woman Deborah Kirkland, who filed and is the only plaintiff, went up on the stand and Way’s attorney asked her who's paying for this lawsuit. She said, I don't know. And he followed up with her and she was like, yeah, I don't know, which is an unusual response when asked who is paying for you to be filing a lawsuit against someone.
[Timothy] LaSota, who is the attorney for Kirkland, said that the Freedom Caucus is not paying him, but wouldn't say anything else. And I believe Hoffman denied it to another publication. Hoffman denying that the Freedom Caucus is paying for the lawsuit. So it's a big question mark. There's a lot of speculation about who's paying for this.
GILGER: OK. OK. So until the judge ruled that we can stay on the ballot. This also had big implications for the Democrats, right, for who might control the state Legislature going forward because it's very narrow right now. The Republicans have a very narrow lead in both houses, but there's an election coming up and the Democrats are hoping to change that. This was, you know, but potentially Republican on Republican sabotage in that way, right?
SANCHEZ: Yes. And I think their chances are just about done. But the Democrats fleetingly, I think, saw a potential opportunity for themselves in this, in this very heavily conservative district. It's in the East Valley, I think Queen Creek. And you know, had Michael Way not been eligible, then there would have been a Democrat name on the ballot next to a Republican name who's ineligible.
And, you know, there could have been potentially a write-in candidate or some other option, but there was a chance for Democrats to pick up a seat where they, you know, based on voter registration shouldn't be able to.
GILGER: Right. Right. It's a very Republican district. Tell us more, Camryn, about the judge's decision here. This case seems pretty clear, right. Like he voted in North Carolina just two years ago. State law says you have to have lived here for three years to run for office. What did this ruling say?
SANCHEZ: Well, Way says he feels like an Arizonan and the ruling really isn't about the merits of whether or not he is in Arizona or North Carolina or something else. It's about the timing. So there is a time frame in which you have to file a suit like this and this one came too late.
I believe the suit was filed in the middle of August and LaSota’s explanation for that was, well, you know, his client didn't know because we lied about his residency allegedly and didn't, the client didn't know until reading about this whole situation in the Arizona Republic. And so it couldn't have been filed sooner. But the judge is like, well, you know, tough luck. You filed it too late. There's really nothing to be done here. Hands are tied. Well, LaSota says he wants to appeal it. But Way's attorneys don't expect a different outcome.
GILGER: Interesting. OK. Is there any path that could lead to the Legislature doing something differently here? Because the judge also sort of said, you know, now it's up to them.
SANCHEZ: Yes, a few different things would have to happen. The judge did, you know, stipulate that the Legislature has the ultimate authority about what goes on over there. Which is true. I mean, the legislature could hypothetically expel him. It really, I think depends on if and when he makes it all the way to the ledge, it depends on who is in charge because that general election that we're all gearing up for is not the last election.
There still are leadership elections after that to decide who runs the chamber and, you know, whichever party is in power gets to make those decisions. But if the Democrats get power then, yeah, obviously, you know, Way's not going to have a whole lot of power whether or not they decide to kick him out or not. But if the Republicans win, it's kind of about which type of Republican wins, I think because if you listen to Way's version of events, the Freedom Caucus does not like him.
So if they get power, maybe they would be more inclined to kick him out of the Legislature versus the other kinds of Republicans, the non-Freedom Caucus Republicans who maybe like him more and would be more inclined to him stay and maybe even give him some power in the ledge.
GILGER: Interesting. OK. So let's back up for the last couple of minutes here, Camryn, and just talk about this idea of residency, right? Because this is not the only time we've seen residency questions brought up with lawmakers and end up in court.
In fact, you ended up in court not long ago after trying to verify whether state Senator Wendy Rogers lived in her Flagstaff district or in another house here in the Valley. It seems like it's kind of a high bar to get when kicked off the ballot because of these residency rules.
SANCHEZ: Higher and higher because every residency challenge that has gone to court seems to fail. And you know, this one is not about the merits. Like I said, it's about the timing but it does seem to indicate, I think to the people I've spoken with that our residency laws are somewhat toothless because residency in the mind of the court anyway, seems to be sort of a state of mind.
So, you know, no evidence in a variety of cases seems to convince the courts one way or another about where someone lives.
GILGER: A state of mind, like you said, Way testified. I feel like an Arizonan.
SANCHEZ: Yeah.
GILGER: Interesting. OK. Do people care about where their politicians live, Camryn? I think this is a little bit of an existential question but in the last minute or so here, tell us what you think about it, having been through this and having covered the cases like this.
SANCHEZ: I think people care. I think people like to know that the person representing them and their community is also of their community, but I think that people don't think about it that much at the state legislative level, although it does raise eyebrows when people feel like they've been lied to. And I don't know if that's about residency so much as people feeling deceived and frustrated by deception.
