Former House Speaker Jim Weiers apparently is suffering from political homesickness.

In an Aug. 13 interview with Arizona Capitol Times reporter Phil Riske, the first-term GOP senator from Dist. 10 said he will not seek re-election to the Senate and waxed nostalgic about the House, where he served from 1995 to 2002, the last two years as speaker.

His decision opens a door to the Senate for Rep. Linda Gray, a Republican district-mate and Weiers supporter who is termed out of the House next year. Asked whether she will seek the Weiers seat, she said, “When I can say so, I’ll do so,” a reminder that a state elected official cannot announce for a different office without resigning her current office until she is in the last year of her term. She said she would like to see Mr. Weiers as House speaker again. “He was a great leader,” she said. “He was fair to everyone.”

Mr. Weiers, who failed in a bid for the Senate presidency last fall and was named chairman of the Judiciary Committee, also discussed term limits, the state’s budget and proposed ballot initiatives.

Q: Near the close of the past session, you said you would be announcing your political plans for after the 2004 session. Will you seek re-election to the Senate, run again for the House, or neither≠

A: I’ve got a meeting with my district on Monday (Aug. 21) and I’m going to be talking to my two seatmates and also the rest of the precinct committee members. At this time, I will not be running for the Senate. This is something I know I will not be doing. As far as what I’ll be doing in the future will be determined by what comes out of the meeting next Monday.

During the past session, you often visited the House, and some of your fellow senators have told us you miss that chamber. First, do you, and second, what have you found to be the most striking differences between the two houses≠

You miss anything you like. The House is different from the Senate just by numbers. It’s got a little more electricity to it. More than anything else, it’s not the building, it’s the people who occupy it. The House still has a lot of people I have respect for and like —friends.

What’s the culture difference you referred to≠

A lot of it has to do with the numbers. When you come over here, by the reduction of half [the Senate has only 30 members to the House’s 60], everybody becomes a little more important as far as the vote, as people would see it, so things are looked at a little differently. There’s not as much new and novice approach in the Senate as the House because you had all the freshmen come in [to the House]. The learning curve is over there. People are very eager, like sponges. As they come over to the Senate, a lot of people have concluded that they’ve learned what they want to learn and they’re pretty status quo and they’re going to operate at the level they’re comfortable. In the House, they haven’t learned what their comfort level is, and I enjoy that — I love to see progress and synergism that’s created by the House. It’s more chaotic, but that’s the kind of temperament I’m accustomed to, coming from a large family.

There are only five House members and two senators who are termed out in 2004. Do you expect Senators Jack Brown and Pete Rios to run for the House and Speaker Jake Flake, John Loredo, Linda Gray, Jim Carruthers and Karen Johnson to run for the Senate≠

I expect Jake [Flake] will probably be running for the Senate. I expect [Linda] Gray will be running for the Senate. I don’t know that Peter [Rios] will be running for the House. What you have to do is take into consideration who they’d be running against. I expect Jack [Brown] will probably run for the House.

And this prompts us to ask if you are in favor of term limits.

I was very, very supportive of term limits when they were first introduced because they had a lot of merit. Over the years, I’ve seen a lot of reasons why you could come to the conclusion it’s not good. But if you weigh the good and the bad . . . there’s a lot of bad with it now because you lose a lot of the institutional memory. The good part is it gets people in gear a little faster to get things done a little bit quicker. But sometimes things get done too quickly. The fact they’re not done right the first time is not uncommon in legislation. I don’t think term limits is the answer. I will still, at this point, say that I support them, but there’s obviously a lot of problems. You should not look at yourself as a career politician. It was never meant to be that way. There’s got to be a life outside these walls. There are people who have come down here, and this has become everything to them.

Let’s go back to just after the 2002 election and your desire to become president of the Senate. Is it true that in the initial vote in your caucus, you came up only one or two votes short of being elected over Ken Bennett≠

No. Not true.

Is it true that one or two of your former House colleagues who were elected to the Senate had pledged their support for you for president, but then changed their minds when the caucus took a vote≠

I guess that’s up for interpretation.

You’re one of the more conservative senators who voted in favor of the 2004 budget deal in the Senate. Did you swallow hard on that vote≠

Oh, you have to. It was like drinking sour milk. It was a bad budget. I was somewhat hopeful it would be tweaked and modified going over to the House. That did not happen. The idea was there would be a trailer bill following that would be able to give some comfort to conservatives. All in all, I don’t know if the state is any better or any worse with the budget. I think it’s probably worse because we have the deficit hanging over our ears. We’ve got to the point where we’re going to have to make some real changes —structural changes. The crisis, as it was called, called people to engage, to think outside the box. As time went on, it seems like that was lost, and we got back to the same-old, same-old. We’re going to either have to raise taxes or change spending. There’s no in-between.

You’ve probably answered the next question. Senate Appropriations Chairman Bob Burns says the 2004 budget was a “cakewalk” compared with what’s ahead in 2005. Do you agree≠

No truer words have ever been spoken.

We’d like you to comment on three proposed initiatives that might be on the 2004 ballot. First, to mandate per-pupil spending at a national average that could cost the state at least $1.6 billion more than it spends now.

I would be against that. If you’re going to mandate anything, I think you would mandate the results, the quality of the programs, not the money you’re going to put into them. Does money have an effect≠ Sure, it always does if you spend the money wisely and spend it prudently.

Second, the Protect Arizona Now initiative, where people would have to prove their citizenship to vote and receive certain government services.

I haven’t seen that. A couple of people have come out and said there’s a provision in there that would make it a felony for a government office or an employee for not turning in someone [who is in the country illegally], and that’s the sticking point. As far as giving out entitlements to people who are here illegally in the United States, I think it’s wrong because what you’re doing is saying the word illegal means nothing.

Finally, Mark Osterloh’s idea to increase voter turnout with a $1 million prize from Lottery proceeds.

[Laughs] You give enough people enough idle time to thi
nk of things, and this is the kind of stuff they come up with.

What are your predictions on the outcome of three lawsuits against Governor Napolitano — one to overturn some of her line-item vetoes to the 2004 budget . . .

It looks like the case is very strong against Ms. Napolitano. I think it’s a lawsuit that will be won by the Legislature.

one to overturn her executive order banning sexual orientation discrimination . …

I don’t know where she gets the ability to do it [issue such an order]. I wouldn’t have much comment on that.

and the action challenging the state’s ban against same-sex marriage≠

I don’t think they’re going to win. [Two gay men have sued to overturn the same-sex marriage law after they were denied a marriage license.]

What’s your take on the California gubernatorial extravaganza≠

I think it’s pumpin’ up. Governor Davis has to take responsibility. I believe he will be recalled. —