The Maricopa County Superior Court declined to weigh in on whether Republican House candidate Michael Way is qualified to run, instead opting to dismiss the complaint.
Way is running in Legislative District 15.
In the Friday ruling, the court declared that the challenge to Way’s candidacy was inadmissible because it was filed after the statutory deadline and, more significantly, the authority to determine qualified candidates resides with the Arizona legislature.
“Because the duties of judging elections of members of the State Legislature and determining the qualification of those who are elected to be legislators are expressly delegated to the Arizona legislature, dismissal of the complaint is warranted,” stated the court. “If Way is elected, it will be up to the Arizona legislature to judge his qualifications.”
Deborah Kirkland, a resident of the district, challenged Way’s candidacy on allegations that he hasn’t been a resident of the state for at least three years. In one part of the lawsuit, Kirkland alleged that Way indicated to district voters that he’d moved to Arizona from North Carolina in the past year.
Kirkland’s lawsuit alleged that Way was still registered to vote in North Carolina, per the North Carolina State Board of Elections. Additionally, those election records indicated that Way voted in person in North Carolina’s 2022 general election as well as the 2021 municipal election for the town of Wake Forest.
Her lawsuit further questioned the validity of Way’s claim of residing in or even owning his declared Arizona property, noting that the property was owned by another individual with the same last name. Their lawsuit further alleged that Way didn’t sell his North Carolina property until January 2024.
The Maricopa County Superior Court declined to address the merits of Kirkland’s claims regarding Way’s eligibility for election to the legislature, and also declined to issue an advisory opinion as requested. The court also declined Way’s request for an award of attorney’s fees.
In a press release, the Arizona GOP celebrated the court’s dismissal and dismissed the lawsuit claims as “baseless attacks from Democrats and their allies.” Party Chair Gina Swoboda defended Way as an invaluable advocate of GOP values.
“Michael has proven time and time again that he is a dedicated advocate for our shared values,” said Swoboda. “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.”
Earlier this month, Republican State Representative David Cook asked Attorney General Kris Mayes in a letter to investigate Way’s residency and his claim of having resided in Arizona for at least six years prior to this election, which he made when he signed his nomination paper.
Cook’s letter also echoed allegations of illegal voting made by Kirkland, claiming that Way had voted not only in the North Carolina but also the Arizona primary election in 2022. Cook alleged that Way’s wife did the same.
“A number of politicians beat the drums regarding election integrity frequently,” said Cook. “This seems to be the poster child for laws ensuring election integrity — we cannot have individuals simply picking and choosing which state they want to vote in depending on the election. Election integrity cannot be a partisan issue, which is why I am coming forward with this complaint.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
On Tuesday, a judge considered the ongoing matter of Prop 140 in April Smith v. Fontes. The case involves a challenge of the validity of Arizona’s ranked choice voting initiative signatures.
At the end of the hearing, the number of challenged signatures was whittled down from over 40,000 to approximately 38,100 to be reviewed by a special master appointed by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge FrankMoskowitz.
Court observers are questioning if the outcome of the case has already been determined in Moskowitz’s mind.
It was evident that there was confusion between the judge and counsels for the plaintiffs, the Make Elections Fair Arizona PAC, and the Arizona Secretary of State on how to determine whether signatures already eliminated by County authorities or the Secretary of State would be present in either the full number of signatures or in “extrapolations.” The extrapolations are created by multiplying a 5% sample by 20 under existing statute to create a “validity rate” that can be applied to the sum total of signatures.
The hearing seemed expressly focused on how much of the evidence of duplicate signatures the court should exclude from consideration, rather than as the Supreme Court directed in Mussi v. Fontes, to “determine whether the exhibits prove any duplicate signatures by clear and convincing evidence.”
Judge Moskowitz appeared more concerned with determining how many exhibits do not prove duplicate signatures, saying, “They’re done. It’s over. It doesn’t matter if the remaining 31,000 or whatever it is are in fact duplicates and maybe double counted, maybe not give ’em credit and say they weren’t double counted. If you can get 4,800 that were double counted, it’s over,” describing what he expects to see in a brief from Make Elections Fair PAC.
Attorney Daniel Arellano, representing Plaintiffs April Smith, Nira Lee, and Joshua Davidian pushed back against this notion saying, “First of all, I just to be clear, I mean these all sound like categorical arguments to me, which I think are precisely what the Supreme Court said not to do. I’ve not seen briefing of this issue. There’s a preview of it. (…) I’ve not actually seen any legal argument on this, but as I listened to this argument here today, judge, I think, again, I forget if it’s Leah v. Hobbs or Leah v. Reagan, but one of the two definitely says that we get to invalidate signatures for reasons other than, in addition to, and outside of the 5% sample. And so if the premise of the committee’s argument is that it is, we have to go with what the county hasn’t validated because that is already multiplied times 20, and we can’t invalidate anything in addition to or separate from that. That is I think a proposition that the Supreme Court has squarely rejected.”
He added, “I think the point is I don’t think we can use this as an avenue to foreclose line by line review of the 38,000 signatures.”
But Judge Moskowitz was quick to retort: “No, I understand that. But even if I said yes, clear and convincing all 38,000, it says proceed accordingly. And my proceed accordingly is my next step is going to be how do I know of whatever number is of duplicates hasn’t been already invalidated. How do I know this signature hasn’t already been invalidated? And I think that would be in the proceed accordingly part of the Supreme Court’s order.”
However, the order from Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer made the court’s priority clear, “The trial court must continue with determining whether the initiative is supported by a sufficient number of qualified signatures. This determination should be made as expeditiously as possible to provide the parties and the public certainty.”
In a thread posted to X, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) paraphrased a comment from the organization’s President Scot Mussi, “This isn’t a debate about dubious matches or concerns of same family members with the same name being confused as a duplicate. All the duplicates submitted to be removed were exact name and address matches that aligned with what was on the voter file. Under state law, you are only allowed to sign a petition once, so they should have been removed. Instead, thousands of people were allowed to sign the initiative petition sheets multiple times, and those signatures were counted.”
This isn’t a debate about dubious matches or concerns of same family members with the same name being confused as a duplicate. All the duplicates submitted to be removed were exact name and address matches that aligned with what was on the voter file.
In a press release the organization cited from the evidence presented that:
When the Prop 140 Committee submitted their signatures to the Secretary of State, around 250 people had signed five or more times.
One individual had signed 15 times.
All those signatures were included in the final tabulation by the Arizona Secretary of State.
In a status update hearing held late on Wednesday, it was determined that Retired Arizona Superior Court Judge Christopher Skelly will lead the signature verification effort as court-appointed Special Master. During the meeting, Judge Moskowitz again referred to a possible stopping point for the signature review, asking Arellano, “Not to be looking at this for one side or the other, but there is a number of 4,800. And the only reason I say that number is because it’s the lowest number we’re talking about. But if that 4,800 number of duplicates is reached um… Does he stop if he knocks out whatever that number is 4,800 of duplicates? So you don’t get to your 33,000 something, something number Mr. Arellano? Does he just stop?”
Arellano, representing the plaintiffs, responded that the Special Master should be checking in with attorneys from both sides “periodically,” however, he added, “We’ve not set that up as any particular kind of benchmark. Nor do I know that we’d be comfortable doing so, since it sort of sets that up as like a goal of sorts.”
The signature checking effort is expected to run through September 16th with a hearing to discuss legal briefs from both sides on Friday.
The people of Arizona deserve elections that are free, fair, transparent, and lawful. As the top election official in our state, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes should be working every day to ensure this happens. And he should be providing an Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that gives impartial direction to county recorders to ensure uniform and correct implementation of election law.
This shouldn’t be that hard…or controversial.
But Adrian Fontes took it upon himself to produce one of the most radical EPMs in Arizona’s history. In fact, several of the “rules” in his EPM even go as far as to criminalize activity that is protected under the First Amendment—creating an unconstitutional chilling effect on protected political speech. Apparently, Adrian Fontes hasn’t read the United States Constitution or the Arizona Constitution.
Because of this illegal EPM, we sued him. And last week, a Maricopa County Superior Court ruled in our favor, finding that Fontes’ EPM contains speech restrictions that violate the Arizona Constitution, misstatements and modifications of statutes, and failures to identify distinctions between guidance and legal mandates.
So, how did Fontes respond? Did he realize the error of his ways? Will he now properly understand his role and amend the EPM to align with the law? No. Instead Adrian Fontes has responded how you would expect someone to respond when he knows he can’t win. He’s resorted to maligning our organization in the media…
Arizona Senate Republicans won a legal challenge to keep their border security ballot measure on track for voters to decide its fate in the November General Election.
🚨 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 'Secure the Border Act' Withstands Frivolous Constitutional Challenge, Will Appear on November Ballot
Last week, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge issued an order on an effort to stop HCR 2060 from being considered by state voters this fall, “denying applications for preliminary applications for preliminary injunction and declaratory judgment relief” in Living United for Change in Arizona v. Fontes.
In his order, Judge Scott Minder wrote, “Arizona’s constitution requires HCR 2060 to ‘embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith.’ HCR 2060 is intended to refer ‘responses to harms relating to an unsecured border’ to the people of Arizona for the November 2024 ballot. In this challenge, Arizona law requires Plaintiffs to overcome the strong presumption that the act is constitutional. Because a natural connection exists, i.e., all provisions are ‘responses to harms relating to an unsecured border,’ Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show a violation. Absent other challenges, the policies of HCR 2060 should be left to the voters.”
BREAKING: A victory for the citizens of Arizona! Late today, a superior court judge blocked a frivolous lawsuit filed by radical left activists in an effort to deprive Arizona voters of the opportunity to take border security matters into their own hands this November with HCR… pic.twitter.com/n3ORsEicEN
Judge Minder ruled “in favor of the defendants on all counts because the parties agreed to combine the trial on the merits with the argument for the preliminary injunction applications.”
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen issued the following statement after the superior court judge ruled: “It’s unthinkable Democrats and our Governor would stand with Biden and radical left activists, instead of the hardworking Arizona families who are begging for their elected leaders to secure our border and promote safety within our communities. As expected, the court ruled in favor of sanity instead of chaos, and we’re grateful we are able to provide this opportunity to voters to have the final say on.”
“My colleagues and I worked tirelessly this session to create impactful legislation to help secure our border because the people of Arizona are desperately asking for it,” said Senator Janae Shamp. “The attempts from Arizona Democrats and radical left activists to deprive voters of the opportunity to decide on this matter is truly appalling. From the spreading of misinformation to the filing of frivolous lawsuits, they will stop at nothing to keep our border wide open and perpetuate Biden’s border crisis. The federal government has neglected the safety of our citizens, and the time has come to empower Arizonans to fight back against the tyranny. I wholeheartedly believe the Secure the Border Act will save countless lives, save billions in taxpayer dollars, and strengthen our national security.”
“While the Biden Administration continues to turn their backs on our law enforcement, we will not,” said Senator David Gowan. “These men and women are putting their lives on the line to protect our communities from the deadly crimes associated with the border crisis, and they deserve the tools and support they need to do their job. Our law enforcement reached a breaking point a long time ago. It’s now up to everyday Arizonans to stop the lawlessness.”
Last month, former President Donald J. Trump was asked about this ballot measure. He replied, “I endorse anything that is going to make it more difficult for people to come into our country illegally.”
"I endorse anything that is going to make it more difficult for people to come into our country illegally."
We asked President Trump during an exclusive interview whether or not he would support HCR 2060, a measure that will now be on the November ballot and would allow local… pic.twitter.com/wDUj8PPJcx
The efforts from Arizona legislators to send this referral to state voters came months after Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed SB 1231, the Arizona Border Invasion Act, which would have “ma[de] it unlawful for a person who is an alien (unlawful immigrant) to enter Arizona from a foreign nation at any location other than a lawful port of entry and outline[d] penalties for violations of illegally entering Arizona and provide[d] immunity from civil liability and indemnification for state and local government officials, employees and contractors who enforce this prohibition” – according to the purpose from the state Senate.
Senator Janae Shamp, the sponsor of SB 1231, had vowed in the aftermath of the governor’s veto that members of her party would continue to push forward solutions to combat the border crisis. Republicans in both the Arizona House of Representatives and Senate came together to pass HCR 2060 earlier this spring, sending the border-related policies to the November General Election ballot.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
On Monday, an Arizona court ruled that government “prevailing wage” mandates for businesses were unlawful.
The Maricopa County Superior Court issued a ruling against the cities of Phoenix and Tucson concerning their prevailing wage ordinances, which required contractors on public works to pay its workers according to city and federal rate determinations. The Department of Labor defines prevailing wage as that average wage paid to similarly employed workers in a specific occupation in that area of intended employment.
The Maricopa County Superior Court agreed that state law (A.R.S. § 34-321(B)) prohibited any city from enacting such prevailing wage ordinances as the cities of Phoenix and Tucson had done in January.
“This Prevailing Wage Statute, by its plain language, prohibits any Arizona political subdivision, such as the City of Phoenix and the City of Tucson, from enacting an ordinance that requires contractors and subcontractors to pay their workers less than the prevailing rate of wages. Nevertheless, both cities did just that on January 9, 2024,” read the ruling.
Phoenix Ordinance G-7217 and Tucson Ordinance No. 12066 required city contractors or subcontractors under a contract with an aggregate value of $4 million or more and $2 million or more, respectively, to pay workers not less than the prevailing wage rate for the same class and kind of work in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Both cities required certain record keeping and instilled penalties for violations including contract rescission, disqualification from future city contracts, and liquidated damages up to three times the wages owed.
Yet, the cities argued that their ordinances were protected under Proposition 202, or the Raise the Minimum Wage for Working Arizonans Act. The cities claimed that the act functioned under the doctrine of implied repeal: since the act and state law were inconsistent, the act took precedence since it came after state law. The superior court rejected that interpretation, since the act itself didn’t address the term prevailing wage, and there remained definable differences between prevailing wage and minimum wage.
“A prevailing wage ordinance is not a minimum wage law, and the Minimum Wage Law did not impliedly repeal the prevailing wage prohibition because the two laws can be harmonized by ‘reasonable construction,'” stated the court. “They have fundamentally different underlying policy goals. Moreover, unlike minimum wage laws, which set a single, across-the-board floor on wages, prevailing wage measures impose a complex, fluctuating schedule of wage standards (determined by federal law and regulation) meant to approximate average wages for specific occupations and localities.”
The Goldwater Institute, in partnership with attorney Robert G. Schaffer, sued Phoenix over its prevailing wage ordinance on behalf of the Associated Minority Contractors of Arizona, the Arizona Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, and the Arizona Builders Alliance.
The institute’s vice president for legal affairs, Timothy Sandefur, said in a press release that the ruling protected fairer wages for workers.
“Today’s decision is a victory for Arizona taxpayers — who deserve to have public works projects run as closely as possible to true market conditions, instead of having their costs decreed by politicians in order to benefit their political friends,” said Sandefur. “It’s also a win for workers themselves, who deserve to do work in a competitive environment where wages are based on merit, instead of political dictate.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
