‘I hate this bill and I vote aye’ 

Last year, Sen. Jack Harper gave his word that he would vote for a bill to restrict notary publics from notarizing documents that would present a conflict of interest. He made good on his promise by voting for it in committee.

But when the bill failed there, Harper said he was relieved that it didn’t pass. He had decided, after all, that the bill was no good.

“It is one of those bills where, once it is passed, there will be a whole bunch of people (trying) to figure out what happened and (they’ll) be very mad. And we would be the ones they could blame,” he told committee members. “Sen. Blendu ran this bill for the secretary of state, and this is no reflection on Sen. Blendu, but it has its problems. I did tell the secretary of state that I would support the bill, so I will vote ‘aye.’ And I’m glad it is failing.”

The situation illustrates the fact that lawmakers sometimes vote for measures they don’t necessarily like. In those situations, they often explain their vote by saying, in effect, “I hate this bill, and I vote aye.”

Asked why he didn’t simply vote “no,” Harper said sometimes lawmakers commit to a bill based on hearing one side of the issue. Problems become apparent after the other side is heard, for instance, during debate in committee. “That might have been the reasoning there,” Harper said.

Harper is not alone. Lawmakers routinely deliver speeches – with varying degrees of intensity – to hedge their support for bills they don’t like.

There are myriad reasons: compromise, chances for amendments, buckling to pressure, agreeing with the premise but not the details, and ideological clashes.

The budget compromise
Political compromise is most apparent when it comes to negotiating the state budget.

The budget is more problematic than other, more narrowly tailored legislation because the budget is the most comprehensive set of measures lawmakers tackle each year. With billions of dollars flowing to dozens of state agencies and hundreds of programs, it’s difficult enough to follow all of the money – let alone agree with where it’s all being spent.

Sen. Carolyn Allen, a Republican known for not mincing words, stood up on Dec. 17 to explain that she didn’t like the budget plan in front of her. She didn’t cite specific details, but said the process had been “chaotic.”

She voted for it anyway.

“I am ashamed to say I am a Republican anymore because of how we are doing this,” she said. “I’m going to support you on this, but I sure as heck am not proud of it. I vote aye.”

Pass it now, amend it later
The legislative process itself sometimes lends an excuse to vote for bills that are less than perfect. If lawmakers agree with the premise but disagree with the details, there is always a chance to amend it later.

Former Rep. Tom Prezelski, a Democrat from Tucson, voted for a bill in 2007 that created harsh penalties for businesses that deliberately employed illegal immigrants, but not before he gave a speech to explain that he didn’t agree fully with the bill.

He put it this way: “I’ve learned a little something from the majority – that we can pass less-than-perfect legislation and let someone else fix it. So, with that, I’ll vote aye.”

Allen, the Scottsdale Republican, sponsored an air-quality bill in 2007 that she described as a “shell.” She voted for it so that it would move through committee, although she recognized it needed to be tweaked. Later, it was amended and was passed by the Legislature.

The federal government required the air-quality legislation, which was a big reason another lawmaker decided to vote for it.

“This one here, we have no choice,” said Rep. Ray Barnes, a Republican from Phoenix who chaired the House Environment Committee.

Pressure from the inside
Pressure from colleagues also causes lawmakers to sacrifice their opinions and beliefs.

Lawmakers rely on each other for support and build networks of like- minded colleagues who will back them up when necessary. Refusing to back others can mean they will refuse to support you.
Some lawmakers are honest enough to admit the reality.

“(Lawmakers) are trying to be loyal to a caucus, but they know the bill is bad, and it puts you in a very difficult position because you are there to represent your constituency, but you also have to be part of the caucus,” said Rep. Bill Konopnicki, a Safford Republican.

It took a lot of convincing, for example, before Sen. John Nelson, a Republican from Litchfield Park, was persuaded to stay and vote for a budget plan in 2008.

It was about midnight on June 4, and, according to witnesses, Nelson was about to leave the building when Senate President Bob Burns persuaded him to stay and talk with him and House Speaker Kirk Adams.

“I think we have to get a bill out by the end of June,” Nelson later said. “And with what I was told in talking with both the speaker and the president that it is going to be … impossible to get a bill out by then if we didn’t get this bill out tonight because we are going to have a member missing until probably the middle or late next week.”

It’s common for lawmakers to lobby their colleagues, even while a vote is ongoing. Sometimes they succeed in securing a vote. It’s also not uncommon for lawmakers from one chamber to go to other chamber to also lobby for bills while they are being voted on.

Good premise, bad details
Sen. Linda Gray, a Republican from Glendale, voted “yes” on a 2007 bill that would have prohibited teachers from engaging in a list of activities, including endorsing political views, laws or politicians when acting in official capacity.

Gray agreed with the idea behind the bill. In fact, she was a co- sponsor. Yet she was concerned that it would have unintended consequences.

She explained her vote this way: “I am willing to give the sponsor a chance, but I have great doubts about being able to work out all of the possibilities that could put a teacher in jeopardy of losing their job. For now I will vote aye.”

Sen. Jim Waring, a Republican from Phoenix, said very few of his bills have come out exactly the way he wanted them. He compared the Legislature to a family with many members who have to agree on which movie to watch on Sunday night or where to dine out during a special occasion.

“Let us imagine you are a family of 90, with the parental figure being the governor, and you are trying to do this for a group of six million – you are not going to make everybody happy,” he said.

Ideological collision
In rare cases, an issue may force lawmakers to choose between their political philosophy and their moral convictions.

When the Legislature tackled a ballot measure in 2008 to ask voters to amend the state Constitution to make gay marriage illegal, Sen. Karen Johnson, a conservative Republican from Mesa, was expected to support it.

And she did, casting the 16th vote to pass the ballot referral. It was her last act as a lawmaker; she retired at the end of the year. The measure was passed by voters in November that year.

Later, though, Johnson said she was conflicted, saying she disagreed with sending the measure to the ballot.

She said she ultimately voted for it because “that’s absolutely where 85 to 90 percent of my constituents are coming from, and I’ve been elected to represent them.”

Her personal view of the issue is more complicated.

“To me, marriage is a very, very sacred ordinance, and I don’t even know that the state should be involved,” she said. “It’s a religious type of thing to me. So to be making more laws about it and having the government more involved is a concern of mine.”

Just say no
The Arizona Legislature includes a few lawmakers who will vote against measures that they don’t believe in, no matter the cost. Sen. Ron Gould is one of those lawmakers.

Gould rarely, if ever, votes against his personal convictions. He said he wasn’t elected to make friends in the Legislature.

He said there are three things that he will always oppose: Tax increases, government expansion and measures that take away personal liberty. But he said the idea that he won’t compromise is fallacious.

He does compromise – but only if the legislation moved the agenda “in the right direction.”
“If I can only get halfway there, then I am willing to take halfway there,” he said. “But if I have to take three steps back on something else, there is really no point.”

Gould consistently voted against several budget bills because the plan included sending a measure to the ballot for a sales tax increase. He was one of only a few Republicans in the Senate to oppose it at every level.

He said Republican compromises led to the state’s financial crisis; if GOP lawmakers had stood firm on their principles in recent years, spending would have been kept in check.

Click here to read “Governors ‘hate’ bills but sign them anyway”

Click here to read “Voters hate compromise”