Halfway through her third term, Rep. Marian McClure is preparing to take on a principle of state government held in very high regard by the public — term limits. The District 30 Republican says she is determined to ask the public to revisit the issue that was approved by voters in 1992 by a better than two-to-one margin and despite recent polls that show more than three-fourths of Arizonans still support the limits.

Ms. McClure is also one of the 16 House Republicans — dubbed “moderates” for their actions — that bucked leadership in 2004 and joined Democrats to approve a budget with increased spending than the more conservative members of the caucus were willing to agree to.

She sat down for an interview with Arizona Capitol Times July 20.

What criteria do you use when voting on a bill — how do you decide whether a proposal should be enacted?

First of all, I try to always look at it [to see if] it’s good for all of the people in Arizona. I try to not let my personal, philosophical viewpoints interfere. I know quite well what I think; I’m just not always certain that I have the right to impose my philosophical viewpoints on everyone else in the state.

I think about if it would move Arizona towards a profitable future. In the past, we have had some rather regressive laws that really have kept us from moving into what I call the 21st century. I believe that those are the things: if it’s good for Arizonans and it will move us ahead in the right direction.

The idea of not letting your personal viewpoints color your voting doesn’t always jibe with the rest of your caucus and marks you as a moderate.

That’s right. I’m probably as conservative as any of my fellow Republicans, from my own personal viewpoint. However, I also know that the majority of the people in Arizona are not that conservative. They’re looking for maybe a more progressive government and they’re looking for a government that stays out of their personal lives. As a Republican, when I say I want government out of our lives, I don’t mean on issues that only I approve of — I mean on all issues. I just think we are better as a society if government interferes as little as possible.

The number of folks that share that viewpoint and have been labeled as moderates were thinned drastically after the last election. Why?

Well, I understand that there were groups that were working to try to eliminate people that did not agree with their philosophical viewpoints and, in some cases, they were quite successful.

What do you think the future holds for moderate Republicans in the Arizona Legislature?

Well, when you say moderate Republicans — I tend to disagree that there’s any such thing as a moderate Republican. I think that some Republicans probably look at things from a bigger picture.

I think that the future will probably be about the same as it has been in the past, depending on the campaigns, depending on how they run the campaigns. Some will not come back but others in other areas will step forward to replace them.

If you look historically, the numbers of what you would call moderates have not changed that dramatically ever since I’ve lived in this state. It has been somewhere between 11 and 15 Republicans [in the Legislature], and that’s about where we are right now. Again, it depends on the issue. I guess I don’t believe that it is ever necessary or helpful for every Republican to join arms, link elbows and go marching down the same path. Nor do I believe that you always blindly follow the majority because throughout history that has never proven healthy for society, ever. And I don’t think it would be helpful if everybody [here] said, “Oh, we have to do the same thing.” If we wanted to do that, then, actually, we should hold elections and the majority party should elect leadership, and the rest of us should go home, and only leadership should be paid, and [we could] have a benevolent dictatorship and let it go from there.

Arizona Capitol Times reported July 1 that you were going to sponsor a referendum to remove term limits from the books. Why are term limits a bad thing?

Yes, I am. Term limits, in my opinion, have empowered lobbyists and bureaucrats. It certainly has not empowered the people. On top of that great concern, it also takes approximately four years to really, really, really, really become an effective legislator. Even after that four years, you’re going to be learning something in the next two years and the two years after that.

I believe that the people already have term limits — it’s called voting. And, you know, every two years we’re up for re-election, and if you’ve done a really bad job, the people can voice their objection through their votes.

Historically, if I’m not mistaken, in this state there was always somewhere around a 25 percent turnover on the Legislature. Why would we want to throw away the good?

I can truly understand those folks who say, “I’d like term limits because of this example. This person is terrible.” Maybe they are, but, still, their constituency has the right to turn them out at any given moment, and if they elected not to do so, that is that constituency’s right not to do so.

I’m never egotistical enough to think that the people are just automatically going to vote for me just because I’m in office. I have to earn that respect and that right to serve them again. I just think term limits are misguided. I know that it passed about 15 years ago, but I think — if you notice, you don’t see the drive for term limits anymore — I believe it’s never inappropriate to take it back to the people and say, “Do you still want term limits?” And if they do, so be it.

What kind of support have you received from your fellow lawmakers?

I’m actually having a great deal of support from other lawmakers. Now, whether they’re willing to put their name to the paper… But, so far, they are saying they want to sign on to the bill. I’m probably one of the logical ones to run this bill. I’m not going to be here 20 years from now, at least not in this body. I have no intention to be serving here when I’m in my 80s. I’m doing it just because I really believe it’s in the best interest of the people of Arizona to look at this issue a second time.

A recent KAET poll showed 76 percent of Arizonans support term limits. That’s an almost unheard of approval level. How do you change people’s minds, if you get this on the ballot?

I saw that and it really made me think seriously about not doing this. I think if we can let people really understand why — I believe Arizonans are very intelligent and if they understand why term limits are not necessarily a good idea — that they will be open to that. But if not, I’m perfectly willing to abide by whatever the voters say. But I do think that it’s in the best interest of the people to take the question back to them another time.

What did you think about the governor’s veto of H2718, the Flores bill?

I personally believe that it will only cost us more money as the people of Arizona. I believe that, if we allow the court system to dictate what’s really going to happen, it is going to cost us much more in the long run. First of all, in legal fees and, secondly, just in the whole program. To tell you the truth on the Flores bill, we got that rather shortly before we were voting on it. I sat in on all the [caucus] briefings. I’m not convinced that we need a statewide plan, because what might be good in the big city of Phoenix, Maricopa County, may not necessarily be the same program that would be most beneficial in ru
ral Arizona.

I wish that the governor could have worked something out with our leadership on this issue. I believe it would have been in the best interest of the people of Arizona.

Besides term limits, what other key issues do you see on the horizon next session? Which are most important to you?

One of my most important issues is trying to work something out on payday loans, payday lenders. I am actively working that issue right now. I believe it’s sucking money out of Arizona, and there’s statistics to back that up — that the money’s leaving Arizona.

From a business standpoint, we’re probably losing close to a billion dollars in buying power just on payday — the expenses associated with people taking payday loans. That would buy an awful lot of shoes and what have you that could be generating more income for people in Arizona. That’s probably going to be my big issue next year.

Of course, I’m also still working with the county attorneys on another program, but I’m not sure we’re going to be ready this year any more than we were last year, but I hope that we will have something ready to go.

What kind of program?

Alternative to sentencing. The biggest thing that we have to figure out is if people blow their one chance, how do they go directly to prison? In other words, a “Do not pass Go, go directly to prison” thing if you blow it. This is not designed to be easy on criminals. But it is designed to, instead of incarcerating people, literally put them into homes, if you will, where they would have counseling, drug counseling. They would have job training; if they don’t have a high school education; they would have to get their GED. They, at the proper time, would be given help on getting a place to live that’s away from the contributing factors that caused them to get themselves in trouble in the first place. And, in many cases, allowing families to be reunited.

From a Republican standpoint, in my opinion, it makes a lot of sense from an economic standpoint to spend $10,000 a year versus $23,000 a year [to incarcerate them]. One is maybe going to get them back into mainstream life; one is incarcerating them for a year.

They still get their drugs in prison — people say, “Well, how can they get their drugs in prison?” Well, they get drugs in prison — I don’t know how to stop it. So, you’re spending $23,000 versus $10,000. They’re not being rehabilitated — they’re only coming out knowing how to be better criminals. If they also have a couple of children, you’re spending $23,000 [for prison] and you’re spending about $12,000 for foster care. That’s $35,000. Anytime I can save one-third, I like the idea of that.

My county attorney right now tells me she is prosecuting grandchildren of felons that she prosecuted 25 years ago. There is a cycle there. If we can break the cycle, not only do we have a more productive society, but we’re not throwing generations away. In some states, this program has been tried, and they’re having a 70 percent success rate. Seventy percent is pretty darn good, as far as I’m concerned.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you for your time. I appreciate it and I enjoyed it. —