PHOENIX — A judge is set to decide Tuesday whether a gubernatorial hopeful can run for office despite the fact he didn't list his home address on nominating papers and petitions.
At a court hearing Monday, Hugh Lytle's attorney acknowledged that Lytle listed a private mailbox at a UPS store at Hayden and Indian Bend roads in Scottsdale as his "residential address'' when he filed his paperwork to run as a candidate for the No Labels Party.
However, Lytle's attorney, Andrew Pappas, said Lytle has "substantially complied'' with the law.
He said he used the mailing address for Lytle's El Toro Ventures. And he told Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Mandell that there was no intent to deceive voters even though he actually lives in North Scottsdale.
But attorney Austin Yost, who is trying to keep Lytle off the ballot, argued that the use of the post office box was an attempt at deception.
People are also reading…
"It matters to voters ... which community someone comes from,'' said Yost. "He has a $7 million Scottsdale mansion. He tried to hide that from voters because he disclosed a private mailbox in a UPS store.''
Pappas said all that is irrelevant.
He argued the only relevant fact is whether a candidate lives within the political subdivision he intends to represent. He said there is no question but that Lytle has lived in Arizona for 29 years.
The lawsuit is more than just a dispute about what the law does and does not require.
Yost is representing Craig Beckman. And while the motive for his lawsuit was never mentioned in court — and is legally irrelevant —public records show Beckman has been a contributor to the Arizona Democratic Party as well as to Democratic candidates.
What makes that politically relevant is that Lytle would be running as a minor party candidate. Arizonans have never elected such a person as governor.
But he could be a spoiler in a close race between incumbent Democrat Katie Hobbs and whoever survives the Republican primary. Hobbs won her first term as governor by just 17,117 votes.
In a 1986 example of what can happen, when independent candidate and former Democrat Bill Schulz waded into the governor's race, he siphoned enough votes from the Democratic nominee to elect Republican Ev Mecham.
Hobbs, asked directly about any role her campaign is playing in the challenge to Lytle's candidacy, said, "I'm not going to comment.''
Yost told the judge the case is black and white, saying lawmakers created a "statutory framework'' for the rules candidates must follow.
"Mr. Lytle blatantly disregarded that framework, violated the legislature's residency requirement on both his nomination paper and his nomination petitions, and now asks this court to look the other way,'' he said. Yost rejected arguments that Lytle had substantially complied with state election laws.
"These are not technical errors,'' he said.
Still, Mandell pointed out this isn't someone who is trying to represent a specific city or legislative district and falsely claims a residence within the boundaries. In this case, the judge noted, Lytle wants to be governor, meaning the boundaries are the whole state.
"Does it matter that the address (where he actually lives) is 12 miles away from where he listed it?'' Mandell asked.
Yes, insisted Yost.
He said if the lawmakers simply wanted candidates for statewide office to avow they lived within the state, regardless of where, they could have done that. But they did not, Yost told the judge.
"He intentionally put an address he has never lived at,'' Yost said. That comes back to at least one reason why he said said it's important that voters know someone's address — Yost referred several times in court and in legal documents to Lytle's "$7 million mansion.''
That led Mandell to question whether Yost and his client would be raising the issue if Lytle happened to live in a $300,000 home. Yost responded that the value of the house is irrelevant.
"It matters to voters where you reside at,'' Yost responded, saying it also matters to legislators who put the requirement for a home address into the law.
Pappas, however, argued to the judge that the only real issue is whether Lytle violated the residency requirements to run for governor. The Arizona Constitution requires only that a statewide candidate be at least 25 years old, have been a U.S. citizen for 10 years and a resident of the state for five years — none of which is being challenged.
Still, Mandell suggested he wasn't entirely convinced it's OK to list an incorrect residential address.
In this case, the judge acknowledged, both the UPS post office box are in Scottsdale, within a dozen or so miles of each other.
"What if he resides in Apache County?'' the judge asked, but Lytle listed a Scottsdale address. "Is that still OK?''
"I think that might be a closer call, your honor,'' Pappas responded.
Whatever the judge rules may not be the last word, as whoever loses is likely to seek appellate court review.
This is the second challenge to Lytle's candidacy.
In a separate lawsuit, Teri Ann Hourihan, also a candidate for governor for the No Labels Party, claimed that Lytle did not have enough valid signatures on petitions to be on the ballot. But Mandell tossed that case last week when she could not back up her claims that many of those who circulated petitions for Lytle were convicted felons and therefore ineligible to gather signatures for him.
