Whether one of the three candidates vying for a seat on the Cochise County Superior Court in November meets the 5-year residency requirement has come into question after records from DeKalb County, Georgia show the candidate voted there in 2014 and 2016.
Sandy Finch Russell is a Sierra Vista attorney and former prosecutor with the Cochise County Attorney’s Office. She earned a spot on the general election ballot against Anne Carl, the Democratic nominee, and Jason Lindstrom, a Republican, by running as an Independent.
On Thursday a legal challenge was filed by Carl, who contends Russell may not meet the residency qualifications for a superior court judge. According to the Arizona Constitution, superior court candidates must be “a resident of the state for five years next preceding their taking office.”
Oaths of office are administered in early January, so Russell needs to have been an Arizona resident since early January 2016. Public records show Russell signed a Declaration of Qualification with the county’s election department on April 6 in which she declared under penalty of perjury that she will “have resided in Cochise County for 7 years” before the election.
Carl is representing herself in the challenge, which utilizes public records and Russell’s social media postings to suggest that Russell not only fails to meet her self-declared 7-year residency but also the 5-year constitutional requirement.
A hearing on the challenge is set for Sept. 9 before Presiding Judge James Conlogue, who is retiring at the end of the year. In the meantime, Cochise County’s election director has been served notice of Carl’s legal action, just days before ballots are scheduled to be printed.
Russell emphatically stated Thursday evening that she was not withdrawing from the race and expects to be vindicated at the hearing. She had confirmed via a Facebook posting on Tuesday that Carl reached out to her about the residency issue.
“(Tuesday) she sent me an email threatening me to withdrawal from the campaign claiming I haven’t lived in Cochise County long enough to run,” the posting read. “This lie, amongst many others she has told and continues to tell about me shows her true character. She is not a good person nor is she a good lawyer.”
Cochise County Attorney Brian McIntyre has arranged for county officials to be represented at next week’s hearing by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. McIntyre conflicted his office off the case given that he terminated Russell’s employment last year. In addition, Lindstrom works for the office and Carl was a deputy county attorney several years ago.
One issue that Judge Conlogue will need to consider is that Arizona’s election laws don’t provide a clear explanation of what is required for a candidate to meet the 5-year residency requirement.
ARS 16-101 does define a resident, for purposes of election matters, as an individual “who has actual physical presence in this state…combined with an intent to remain.” The statute goes on to read that a temporary absence “does not result in a loss of residence if the individual has an intent to return following his absence.”
But Carl points out in her challenge that the statute clearly states that for purposes of election law, an individual “has only one residence.”
Among the exhibits Carl provided with her challenge is one of Russell’s Facebook postings which indicates she “lives in” Sierra Vista in April 2014. Other postings show Russell frequently traveled between Arizona and Georgia, where she maintained a law office and where her young daughter’s father lived.
A key exhibit is one of Russell’s postings in which she announced voting in Georgia in May 2016. Russell didn’t register to vote in Arizona in until October 2016.
“Defendant RUSSELL could not have legally resided for the purposes of voting in both Arizona and Georgia at the same time in 2016 and earlier, so her claims about being an AZ resident for seven years, which were made on her Nomination Paper and Declaration of Qualifications…are false,” Carl contends.
The Arizona Daily Independent requested a copy of Russell’s Georgia voting record from DeKalb County. It shows she also voted in Georgia in November 2014, several months after she purportedly established residency in Arizona. Carl apparently was not aware of that when she filed the challenge.
The Georgia Secretary of State’s Office advises voters they are ineligible to vote in that state “if you move outside the county in which you are registered to vote in excess of 30 days prior to an election.” The Georgia Attorney General’s Office would not confirm whether a formal complaint has been filed concerning Russell’s voting history in that state.
Russell’s campaign has created a strong social media presence which emphasizes her legal experience and her thoughts about the local judiciary system. She has also been very candid about her work as a county prosecutor, including a Human Resource review into a complaint filed by a crime victim.
According to public records, Russell suspected the victim overstated the amount of damages suffered as the result of someone’s criminal actions. The victim didn’t appreciate the suggestion, although Russell found support for her belief in a comment by the police officer.
The victim later agreed to accept a lower amount of restitution, but then alleged Russell threatened to withhold a restitution check until the victim withdrew the complaint. The HR review was referred back to McIntyre who apparently took no action.
Another subject Russell has been open about is an ethics sanction imposed on her a few years ago by a federal judge in Georgia. The underlying issue involved how Russell came to be in possession of critical evidence on behalf of her client, an elderly woman who had sued a national insurance company.
The judge in the case contended Russell failed to file a document required by court order. As a result, he sanctioned Russell, including an order that she pay some of the insurance company’s attorney’s fee. She was also ordered to write and submit an article to the Georgia State Bar about “the practical and legal consequences of failing to be candid with the court and comply with court rules.”
The 2017 sanction was later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. It should be noted that Russell’s client in that case supports her candidacy and is even featured in a campaign video.
Lindstrom meanwhile declined to comment about Carl’s legal action or the questions about Russell’s residency.