I don’t usually hang out in public bathrooms, but I admit to lingering a couple of minutes Monday afternoon to see if political violence would break out in the fourth floor men’s room at Pima County Superior Court.
I had done my business at the same time as several men who were upset over a lawsuit intended to kick Justine Wadsack off the general election ballot for state senate. This was a dispute between Republicans.
“Ronald Reagan would be rolling over in his grave,” one said, likely referencing Reagan’s famous commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.”
The hearing down the hall was on a break, and their nemesis came in the bathroom — Sen. Vince Leach, who they think is behind the lawsuit.
One man stood in an intimidating pose, blocking the path to the paper towels, while another moved among the sinks, stalls and urinals. The situation looked primed.
Maybe it would have come to nothing anyway, but when they realized I was observing, they let Leach by with no more than some muttered hostilities.
Wadsack won the lawsuit and will be on the ballot.
That’s good, if expected, news for her campaign. But the hearing was a messy four-hour affair that raised as many questions as it answered and highlighted divisions in the local GOP.
Supporters of Wadsack in the audience repeatedly directed loud comments and even intimidating stares at the plaintiffs in the case, Edward and Onita Davis, as well as Leach himself. Pima County Sheriff’s Department corrections officers eventually came to the courtroom to monitor the scene, and even after that, two men asked an officer to eject the other from the courtroom over these hostilities. (Nobody was ejected.)
Wadsack’s testimony also raised questions, even for the judge, who referred to her story as “suspicious,” though he ultimately ruled in her favor. The lawsuit centered on whether Wadsack had really moved from the home where she has lived for years, on East Sixth Street in Sam Hughes, to a home where she rented a room on the far east side, in Legislative District 17.
That naturally led to questions about why she had moved. The unexpected answer? Antifa.
Broadly speaking, Wadsack testified that she and her husband had suffered repeated, politically motivated attacks at their home on East Sixth Street. Wadsack ran for state senate in 2020, losing the race in Legislative District 10 to Kirsten Engel, who is running for Congress now.
The attacks, Wadsack testified, led to her husband issuing an ultimatum: Either leave politics or leave the house. She chose to leave the house and keep running for office, she testified.
These attacks, she said, included a time in 2020 that her husband was bitten by a dog while running nearby. Previously, she has said this occurred in Himmel Park and the dog owner shouted “Black Lives Matter, b**ch” before releasing the dog.
The attacks also included this, she testified: “I had a black gentleman show up at my house and say ‘We’re coming after you, you cracker b**ch.’”
Wadsack also testified: “Antifa surrounded my house one night, but the police chased them to the west, and they let fireworks off to try to set my house on fire.”
And she noted that over this period she had also gotten a restraining order against a fellow Republican, though that was eventually overturned.
I’ve checked with Tucson police on reports from her longtime address, and they were able to find a report on the second incident she mentioned. Sgt Richard Gradillas said Wadsack called 911 on Nov. 23 “saying that someone was knocking on her door making racist remarks toward her. She believed that it was affiliated with some kind of political party.”
No arrests were made.
Wadsack told me Tuesday that the Antifa episode happened in late 2020, and she called the police then, too. She said it was the police who labeled the group “antifa” and that the people were wearing masks, goggles, hoodies and backpacks. They piled into a car and were chased west by police, she added.
With this motivation for moving established, the questioning went on to delve into whether and when Wadsack had really moved into the east-side home. Although Wadsack signed a lease on Jan. 31, and she changed her voting registration and driver’s license to the new address on Feb. 18, she continued to put the East Sixth Street address down when she signed the petitions she was circulating to get on the ballot.
She gave a series of explanations for this: that the secretary of state’s online e-qual signature system was not functioning due to redistricting, that she wanted to wait until her driver’s license with her new address arrived before changing the address she used, and that the “muscle memory” of writing her old address kicked in at times.
One of the most curious moments of the hearing occurred when her attorney, Michael Kielsky, asked Wadsack whether moving into LD 17 was part of the reason for moving to the east-side address. Surprising Kielsky, Wadsack said no, that she could have moved into a house of hers on Blacklidge Street, but that her ex-husband lives there.
It raised the question of when, if ever, Wadsack planned to live in the district where she was running for Legislature.
What all of these questions and answers didn’t do, though, is produce proof beyond the level of “clear and convincing evidence” that Wadsack did not live at the east-side address when she ran for the nomination on Aug. 2.
“Is it suspicious? Absolutely,” Judge Richard Gordon said from the bench. “But you need proof this is all made up.”
While the stories were wild and the divisions were clear, that proof was missing.
