House Democratic Leader Phil Lopes believes the addition of two more Democrats to the caucus is the beginning of a trend that will add a psychological boost to the party.

The District 27 Democrat is in his second term, making the jump to caucus leader. He says his relative lack of experience will not be an issue with seasoned veterans Linda Lopez and Pete Rios rounding out the leadership team. His goal for the session is to make the caucus effective by “fighting very hard for those things that reflect our values and our principles” by doing whatever is necessary.

In an interview last month, Mr. Lopes discussed how he planned to make the caucus effective in the upcoming session.

Arizona Capitol Times: How do you think budget negotiations will go in the session?

Rep. Lopes: My hope is that we Democrats will be brought to the table and will be at the table from the beginning of budget negotiations. I have every reason to believe that we will be at the table.

Do you believe that because of meetings with House Speaker Jim Weiers and the Republican leadership?

Not so much with the Republican leadership, but with Mr. Weiers. He’s been very forthcoming. He’s said that we will be involved, and I presume that includes involvement in budget negotiations.

Do you expect that will be the same negotiation policy on other big issues, such as full-day kindergarten and state employee raises?

I’m optimistic that it will be, except you know how difficult it is sometimes with things like all-day kindergarten. It’s very divisive already, so those issues that come to us with a lot of division, it may be more difficult to do that. But, my expectation is that we will be fully involved. We are involved in that special committee that’s looking at all-day K, so, presumably, we will continue to be involved. I’m optimistic about that.

Revenue estimates show the state will have more money than expected this year. Will those numbers hold up and what impact will that have on the budget?

Well, I’m optimistic they will hold up until the end of the [fiscal] year, because the trend-line is quite nice now — it’s going in a nice direction, and it has been over the last several months. I’ve been reading the outlook of the economists, and they seem to think that will continue. So, I’m optimistic that it will continue.

What we will do, it looks like the AHCCCS program is having a good deal of growth in the numbers — we’re going to need some money to do that. We are faced right now with how to fund all-day K. That’s another use of that money. So, it’s not as if there aren’t good uses for that additional revenue, and I very much like the thing we did last year, with the triggers. You know, this is what we’re budgeting for, but if there’s more, let’s do this, and additional more goes to that. I like that approach, because that seems reasonable.

Where do you stand on full-day kindergarten?

I fully favor funding full-day kindergarten.

The interim committee recommended that students be phased in over a five-year period. Can the state afford to maintain current funding or expand it?

Oh, yeah. It’s not a matter of affording. This is one of those things where we have to recognize what the value is. Politicians often get cited as knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing. All-day kindergarten has value to the state and the residents of the state. We already decided we were going to do it. Now we’re at the point of deciding how we’re going to pay for it. A five-year phase-in certainly seems reasonable to me.

The Joint Legislative Study Committee on State Compensation recommended raises be included at the start of the budget and recommended a package that would cost more than $70 million. Is this another situation where the value outweighs the cost? What is the solution to giving pay raises?

I think it is an example of that. It is an investment. It is saying to our employees, we value what you do for us — if you didn’t do what you do and do it well, government wouldn’t work. We need to be able to compensate you in a fair kind of way. Do I think using some of those additional revenues for employee pay raises is a good idea? Yeah, I most certainly do.

The Legislature doesn’t have control over the vast majority of the budget — it’s all formulaic and you are mandated to spend certain amounts. Do you think that’s something that’s going to have to be changed in the near future so the state has the money to do things you want to do but can’t afford to do?

In order to change that, we would have to somehow change the Constitution so that the initiative process could not take place. I would be opposed to that.

So, it’s the initiative process that’s driving a lot of the formulaic spending?

It’s not only the initiative process, but a lot of it is the initiative process. The other formulaic spending is Medicaid. By agreeing to the formula, then we must serve everybody that comes to us that’s eligible for Medicaid. Other formulas have been put on us by the court. I’m one of those who says, government needs to act responsibly — frugally, prudently, but responsibly — and just cutting things for the purpose of cutting things that we should be doing is not acting responsibly, and when the courts tell us that, you didn’t behave responsibly, you’ve got to do that, hey, then we’ve got a formula.

What tax reform issues do you see as being important to be undertaken during the next two years, and how important is tax reform to the state’s economic future and attracting businesses to Arizona?

I’m not sure there is any tax reform that would maintain Arizona competitive, because what we’re told is, because the business tax is higher than we would like it to be, therefore businesses aren’t coming to Arizona. I don’t know if that’s accurate or not. What we do know is that when we’ve used the tax system to try to entice people into the state of Arizona, my understanding is most of the time, that doesn’t work. I think cities are now realizing that that doesn’t work. So, if there’s hard evidence that says, if we change Tax A, and it will result in, pick something — a rise in the minimum wage of 15 cents — I’d be hard pressed to vote against that. But if we’re lowering taxes or making changes in the tax code because we just think it’s unfair, I need to know what unfair means.

In the wake of last year’s budget turmoil, voters responded at the polls by seemingly choosing more fiscally and socially conservative Republicans. Do you think that will that translate into more bills on social issues — particularly gay marriage/unions and abortion — that get sent to the governor?

It’s too early for me to tell whether they’re going to get passed on [to the governor] or not, but just based on one committee that I know what the bills are that the committee chairman is considering, it’s a fairly safe bet that some of those very conservative social issues will be discussed. Whether they pass committee or whether they get voted out of the chamber is something we’re just going to have to wait and see.

Besides the budget and full-day kindergarten, what other important issues do you see on the horizon?

I talked earlier about the increase in the AHCCCS enrollment — it’s going to require more money. Of course, water conservation, water distribution, the whole area of natural resources that includes forests. That’s an area that I think we’re going to have to pay some serious attention to. Tort reform is also so
mething that’s going to be pushed.

Do you think the remaining eight moderate Republicans from last session will be as willing to work with Democrats after seeing their number cut in half during the elections?

Are there eight? Did you count them? That’s a very difficult question for me to answer. Probably the best way for me to answer is, and I hate to do this to you, but it depends. In this case, it depends on the issue. I mean, there may be some very conservative people who understand, for example, the value of university research. There may be others who understand the value of all-day kindergarten. There are very few people in this chamber who you can say are always over there or always over here. People bounce back and forth. So, to say that, because we’re down to eight, that they’re going to be gun-shy — I’ve got to see it first.

Your caucus gained two seats in the elections: how important is it that there are 22 Democrats? Especially when coupled with the eight remaining moderate Republicans from last session?

(Laughing) Well, what’s important is we need one more Republican. We can count: 22 and nine equals 31. It’s very important to us on a number of fronts. I think it’s psychological, and I’ll only speak for myself — it’s a good psychological boost, because we’ve been at 24. So, we go from 20 to 22, the trend is in the right direction. And, if we get some redistricting before 2006, like we’d like to see some redistricting, that could help us. So, I like 22 because it’s a trend. The other thing about 22 is, if we can keep our own caucus together, we can stop veto overrides. Because, with 20, unless we got some Republican votes, we couldn’t stop a veto override, but with 22, and, if we can keep our caucus together — and that’s a big and — we can stop veto overrides.

Speaker Weiers has said he plans for an April 15 sine die and a 65-day budget cycle. What do you think of that timeline?

I think his goals are admirable and laudable, and I hope we can reach them. But, my own position is, let’s not set artificial timelines, let’s instead let the process that’s fair, equitable, contains broad participation from everybody in the House, and, most importantly, achieves the end that we want. It seems silly to me to say, we’re going to do this in 10 days. It might take 11 days to get a really good product. But if you say, we’re going to do it in 10, we’ve got to do it in 10, that doesn’t make a lot of sense, especially when we’re in this kind of a business where so much negotiation has to take place.

Several of the high-profile committees — Judiciary, both Appropriations and Education K-12 — are made up primarily of very conservative lawmakers. What is your reaction to that and what impact will it have on the session?

It’s like my answer to the previous question — I think instead of… assuming that because somebody is “conservative,” they’re going to behave a certain way in a committee, I’d like to wait and see first. They may be conservative, but there may be issues that they think are important. We’ve had people that were conservative before vote for issues that people didn’t think they would, university research being one. So, principled conservatives often do see the value of certain things government does. In those instances, I would expect them to vote much more like I vote.

What do you think about the dual approps committees?

(Laughing) I really feel sorry for Reps. [Tom] Boone and [Russell] Pearce. I’m not sure, logistically, how that’s going to work out. I don’t know — we’re just going to have to wait and see. I’m not going to be on either one, so…

How will you run the caucus compared to how it was run last session? What lessons — good and bad — did you learn from the previous leadership?

Well, one of the things I’ve learned is I’m going to lean on both [Assistant Democratic Leader Linda Lopez and Whip Pete Rios] a great deal, because they’ve got the experience. I think the major lesson I learned and my major focus is going to be to make the caucus more effective. Now, you say, what does effective mean? It means that — it doesn’t necessarily mean the number of bills we pass, because the number of bills we pass is so often out of our control, it’s a difficult standard to use to measure. But, effectiveness can mean that we fight very hard for those things that reflect our values and our principles. That might mean doing amendments, it might mean debate on the floor, it might mean doing some trading with people. We’re going to be doing any of that that reflects the principles and values that we believe in. So, one of the things that we’re in the middle of right now — we started at a retreat — we started to identify those principles and those values on which we will base all of our activities, all those activities you can think of. Additionally, though, in order to do that, we’ve got to have a caucus that’s united, where we’re all pulling in the same direction. And the reason for developing these values and principles is so we can all get on the same track and, hopefully, we can pull together.

Do you want to remain in leadership until your term limit in 2010?

Oh, yeah. Unless I either lose my election or the caucus votes me out. You know, I just learned this — the caucus can vote out a leader anytime they have a quorum. They could decide to meet tomorrow. I just realized that. I guess that’s one of the rules of the game. That makes me keep my nose clean. Yeah, it is my intent to stay here as long as I get reelected both in my district and in the caucus, because, especially as a minority party, the fact of continuity seems to be very, very important. For example, things that we might be interested in doing, such as universal access to health care, raising the minimum wage, those are things that probably aren’t going to be done in one fell swoop. You know, do a little bit this year, a little bit that year. It seems that it would be easier to do that kind of incremental stuff if your leadership is somewhat consistent. —