House Minority Leader John Loredo, D-Dist. 13, was elected to the House in 1996 and served as minority whip during the 44th Legislature.

He recently spoke to Arizona Capitol Times to discuss the upcoming session, the effect of term limits and the possibility of his wife running for office.

Arizona Capitol Times: Do you think the special session will have any effect on the regular session≠

Mr. Loredo: It’s hard to say. I don’t think it will, given the folks in charge of the process. I don’t see them changing the process at all. I would hope that the appropriations process will actually be an appropriations process as opposed to what we have now. I would hope that the subcommittee appropriations process would be allowed to do its work the way it used to do its work instead of having the two appropriations chairs putting their own budget together behind closed doors and then simply going through the motions of cramming it through committee.

How do you think work on the budget will go during the regular session≠

I think that it took eight weeks in the special session to get the House Republican leadership to the table to negotiate two bills. At the end of the process, it only took three days to negotiate those bills. It seems to me that the logical thing to do would be to start negotiating with all different sides at the table starting at the beginning of session. That ultimately is what needs to happen in order to get an acceptable budget – acceptable to the Democrats and the Republicans.

Do you think the Democrats will have a role≠ If so, what do you think it should be≠

I think we play a huge role here. Remember that Republican leadership doesn’t even come to the table until they get scared into coming – scared that there is going to be a majority of the body that moves without them. That majority consists of Democrats and moderate Republicans. Now, it’s not even so much moderate Republicans anymore; it’s starting to include mainstream Republicans.

When it becomes clear that a majority of the members are moving in a particular direction the Republican leadership decides to come to the table. Prior to that, they simply refuse. Governor Napolitano invited [Speaker] Jake [Flake] to sit down and talk with her, and it took him three weeks to do it. She continuously invited him to come talk about the special session. He simply refused.

If it were not for a bloc of 20 Democratic votes, we’d probably still be in special session right now. You have to remember that at the negotiation table, we’re not a minority. We’re an equal part to that negotiation. You may have a Republican leadership in both chambers, but you’ve got two Democratic leaders and a Democratic governor.

At the end of the day, these folks may not realize that here in the House, but the Democratic caucus has a big say in what becomes law, and, in many cases, what doesn’t become law. I would hope that by now our Republican friends would have realized that it’s in their own best interest to negotiate some of these issues out with us, if they have any hope of these bills becoming law.

Bills that get out of the House with a bloc of 20 Democratic “No” votes are going to have a tough time in the Senate and an even tougher time passing the governor. There used to be a time here in the House when these issues were worked out beforehand with the goal of having 60 votes on bills. I remember that time very clearly. But for some reason, there seems to be an effort on the Republican side to guarantee “No” votes on the Democratic side.

And that’s fine. But at the end of the process, 20 Democratic “No” votes are going to be a big determining factor as to whether or not the bill becomes law.

When do you think the governor should get involved≠

I think if the governor had her way, we’d be negotiating right at the beginning of every session on tough issues. I think Governor Napolitano has been very aggressive in terms of public policy and legislation. She is a very hands-on governor. It would be nice if the Legislature – the speaker and the president – had the same motivation to sit down at the very beginning and negotiate a compromise. That usually happens in the Senate, but only because of the coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans. In the House, the dysfunction runs deep. It takes quite a while for Republican leadership to decide they even have the authority to sit down and negotiate.

What do you think of the governor so far≠ How do you think she’s doing≠

I think she’s doing great. Bottom line. She usually knows the issues better than any elected official in the room. She knows the numbers better any of the legislators at the table. She has a deep understanding of public policy and the practical effect that it has on the state. She’s an incredible negotiator. Very experienced.

My analysis on sitting on all these meetings is this: when you’re sitting down at the negotiating table with all different sides present, with the goal of reaching a compromise, you have to be able to justify your position – logically and rationally. That puts Republican leadership in the House at an extreme disadvantage. The reason why is that I think leadership in the House tends to be much more extreme than the majority of legislators here at the Capitol. And, I think they’ve been used to not having to justify their policy logically and with accurate numbers. And they simply cram whatever they want through as reckless as it may be. The point at which you actually have to defend the policy and the numbers is where they hit a huge roadblock.

I think that’s the attitude and the problem that House Republicans have. What happens on the floor should be the model for Republican leadership, but their failure to notice disconfirming evidence leads to escalation and commitment to a failing policy. They do this every single time. They fail to recognize all of the disconfirming evidence that should lead them to the conclusion that they don’t win when they act like that. But they don’t. They refuse to see it. They never seem to realize that at the end of the day, their extreme policies never become law. Never.

What other issues do you see coming up in the regular session≠ You’re probably going to have to revisit Child Protective Services and prisons.

All we did is stick a Band-Aid on CPS. At least until next month, literally. And we will have to start the issue all over again. So, you’re going to have CPS. [The Department of] Corrections should be okay for a while. However, the reality is that CPS is not the only issue. DES [Department of Economic Security] is running a shortfall in a variety of different programs so there again you’re going to have those issues – all of those shortfalls in need of supplemental appropriations.

The governor said part of the agreement was that Department of Economic Security programs would continue. Is that correct≠ If so, that is going to require supplementals along the line. Correct≠

Yes. Like we do every year. Every year that I’ve been here we’ve done supplementals. The only difference is that this group of Republicans seems to not care much about reality. In a bad economy, which we have, caseloads at DES go up because more people become eligible and need services. So, the bottom line is that it is a matter of public value. Do you come through and bridge the gap between unemployment and employment to make sure people don’t fall completely off and become impoverished≠ Or do you simply ignore it and reap all the consequences that that entails≠ Increasing crime rate, increasing poverty. Those are things we’re supposedly trying to prevent – trying to keep people employed and put them ba
ck into a productive role, which is what many of these programs do.

We’ve got a number of different shortfalls that exist right now that we’re going to have to deal with like CPS. It’s bizarre. You’ve got folks that don’t understand the issues. They’re blinded by their own extremist philosophy that doesn’t allow them to see the truth.

Do you think this will be a long session≠

Probably. I would imagine so. It took us eight weeks to do one supplemental appropriation to CPS. I can imagine how long it is going to take us to do quite a few of the other ones. AHCCCS is going to come in for supplementals along with quite a few of the DES programs.

You are facing a term limit in the House. What are your plans≠

I don’t plan to run for anything. I can be here as long as anybody wants to this summer. I would imagine the folks running for re-election might want to get out of here pretty early.

I kind of feel like I’ve put in my time here over the last eight years. I’ve been one of the most active members every year that I’ve been here. I never intended to be here this long. Never thought I would be. So for me, this is much more than I expected.

I’m not sure what I’m going to do. But there’s plenty of offers coming my way so I am excited about what the future holds. And I’m sure I’ll be very involved in politics just not as an elected person.

I understand your wife [Rebecca Rios, who served in the House from 1995 to 2000] may be looking into running for her father’s seat [Sen. Pete Rios, D-Dist. 23, who is facing a term limit]. Is that a possibility≠

Yeah. Pretty much. She’d like to come back, but I keep telling her I don’t know why she would. I keep telling her that it’s not like it used to be. It’s very, very different. The atmosphere is different; the process is different. And not necessarily for the better.

I think the veteran members that used to exist were more likely to negotiate things out and work together.

Do you think term limits have changed things≠

Absolutely. It has led to a kind of an arrogance that is not good for the process. And more so, it’s led to less respect. Art Hamilton [a former House minority leader] always stressed respect for the institution, which means you follow the rules, you follow the process. Nowadays, there seems to be more of a disrespect for the institution, ignoring the process, ignoring the rules. That’s not a good thing because the rules were set up to ensure that an equitable process existed that would, in and of itself, create good public policy. There was much deeper thought with the veteran members.

Do you get much feedback from your constituents≠ You seem to because seem to really be out in front on a lot of issues that concern your district.

Every time my name is in the paper or on the radio or something like that, there are always people that respond. The response is not just from my district but statewide. I’m involved in a lot of community issues; I always have been. That’s what I did before I came to the Legislature. So, I am very connected to community and over the years it has expanded from just being West Side issues to being statewide issues. —