By Jim Small
jim.small@azcapitoltimes.com
After two years of leading the House Republican caucus, Steve Tully is retiring from public office. Elected to the House in 2000, the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has served as majority leader since 2005.
Known for being one of the more tight-lipped lawmakers — an attitude, no doubt, magnified by his role in leadership — Mr. Tully says he tried to instill a similar mind-set in his members, reminding them that a unified group of Republicans doesn’t spread rumors about its own. To drive the point home, his office has two posters hanging on the walls: “Rumors cost us lives” and the accusatory “Someone talked!”
Mr. Tully took a break from his corporate law practice Aug. 16 to speak with Arizona Capitol Times.
Why did you decide to not seek re-election?
Well, there’s just other things I wanted to do in life — other challenges to meet. I have four small children and I have another job as an attorney. They both take up a lot of time. This job takes a lot of time. It just seemed like the right time to focus on some other things rather than the Legislature.
There were rumors that you made a deal with your law partners that they would give you the time needed to meet your leadership commitments, but only if it was your final term. True?
No. They were fine with me working here. They’re not going to pay me as much as I’d make otherwise, but they were fine with me being at the Capitol. If I wanted to run for re-election, I’m certain they would have accommodated me, but they’re happy that I’m not running.
How were you able to juggle the Legislature, family and a law practice?
It just takes a long time. You’re here many days very late, especially in leadership. Of course, the law is not a small time factor. But the judges and other counsel were very accommodating and worked around my schedule. Fridays are off [at the Legislature], so you schedule depositions and things on that day. Luckily, Mondays and Fridays are motion days at the courthouse, so most hearings could be done on Fridays.
Did you do it effectively?
That’s for other people to decide. I’d like to think I did.
What will you miss most about being a lawmaker?
I’ll miss the people down here the most, I think. I would say I’ll miss the very direct involvement in public policy that you get down here. I’ll still be involved in politics — I intend to be involved in politics and, obviously, follow issues, but here you’re very directly involved in that.
What are you going to miss the least?
Oh, you damn reporters.
Ouch.
I’m kidding. I’m joking. Probably the political battles. Some of the acrimony that occasionally accompanies the process. That’s what I’ll miss the least.
What was your biggest accomplishment as a lawmaker?
Well, I’m not sure. The last two years, I would say it’s been getting the caucus together and passing budgets that have advanced Republican policies, including significant tax reduction. We’ve gotten rid of the gimmicks, paid off the rollover, filled up the rainy-day fund — I look upon that as being very positive. We’ve expanded school choice. So, we’ve really been able to achieve a lot of things with, I think, a lot of Republican priorities with a governor that doesn’t share those priorities. Those have been big accomplishments the last two years.
Prior to that, I was head of the Judiciary Committee. I think things ran well there and I think the accomplishments included the Jim Irvin [corporation commissioner] investigation. I think that was a somewhat trying time — obviously a very time-consuming effort — I like to think that was well handled.
Plus, I sponsored many, many bills down here, more as a Judiciary chair. The last two years, I really concentrated on bringing the caucus back together. We were fractured when I took over and I think we were able to put things back together and advance the Republican cause. I look upon that as probably my biggest accomplishment.
Any legislation you’re particularly proud of?
I’d have to go look at the list. There’s not like one bill that was the tipping point of my career. I think getting the budgets out the last two years have been important issues.
During this past session, you reluctantly voted for S1157, which would have made illegal immigrants violators of the state’s trespassing laws — you cast the 31st vote, even though you didn’t like the bill. What were your objections and were they fixed when it came out of the conference committee?
I was concerned at the time that the bill had the potential to be misused by law enforcement to round up anybody who was illegally in the country. Because of the vast numbers of people who live here and who have lived here for a significant number of years illegally, I thought that would — I had some ethical problems if that were to occur.
Obviously, people who are coming over illegally need to be stopped and repatriated as quickly as possible. And those who have been here for some time, there needs to be some way of repatriating those folks and/or naturalizing them once we secure the border. Unfortunately, the federal government has caused a problem, where they have allowed people to be in the country illegally for vast amounts of time — they’ve settled into the community, they’ve become part of the fabric of our country. I was concerned that some people, for political reasons, would ignore all the circumstances and just willy-nilly remove people, and I don’t think the vast majority of the citizens of this state really desire that outcome.
It was fixed in the sense that it was made a secondary offense, in which if you get pulled over for some other offense and then they find out you’re here illegally, they repatriate you. That seemed, to me, a reasonable accommodation. Unfortunately, the governor didn’t agree.
You wouldn’t want to just have officers going around and stopping people for speaking Spanish and saying, ‘Are you here illegally?’ Some of these folks have lived her 15 or 20 years. They work here, they have kids here, they’ve gone to school here, they haven’t been breaking the laws. It’s not an easy issue.
Had we had secure borders, we could do that. It’s not immoral to say, yeah, it’s trespassing, send everybody back if they’re caught. It’s not a problem if that’s been the policy all along. But to change the policy after you’ve tacitly said that hasn’t been the policy for the last 20 years provides some difficulties.
Is the state headed in the right direction?
Generally. I think we’ve been on the right direction for a while. I’ve got some concerns: obviously, I disagree with the direction the governor, given the power to do so, would take the state. But I think we’re at a good place competitively with other states currently. I feel very positive about this state.
Do you think Governor Napolitano’s going to get re-elected in November?
I hope not.
What was your role in the caucus as majority leader?
My job was to hold the caucus together, to divine, if you will, the will of the majority of the caucus and to attempt to enact policies that forwarded the will of the majority of the caucus, and, often times, provide guidance and direction regarding where we should be. I think I did that and we achieved most of those things.
Before becoming ML, you were hesitant to speak with the press. Why? How big of an adjustment has it been, now that you’re the face of all House Republicans?
I don’t think that’s true. I disagree. I don’t think I ever turned down a press interview. I didn’t go over and camp out in the pressroom, but I don’t think I’ve ever turned down an interview that was requested and I’ve certainly been willing to discuss things with the press.
Maybe I didn’t phrase that right. You’ve been guarded when you talk about issues and when you talk about specifics about legislation or policy.
I think what you may be assuming is that I’ve been reluctant to talk about the gossip that goes around here about members and personalities and disagreements among folks, and that’s true. That’s not my job — my job is the opposite. My job is to unify the caucus and I think I’ve always been available and been willing to speak about issues of policy at length — probably too lengthy for most reporters, because it doesn’t make good sound bytes and is hard to cut it down to two sentences for the article. When the press has invited me to attack the various people, I’ve abstained because I don’t think that would be helpful to our cause.
What’s your political future — are you done for good, or will we see your name again sometime down the road?
No plans to run for any office any time soon. I’m going to concentrate on the law and see if I can make a little money and spend some more time with my kids. I’ll be involved in other things and if something comes up, one never knows, but I didn’t run for office because I wanted to be a congressman or be a senator or anything else to use this as my stepping-stone. I ran because I’ve been involved in politics, interested in the issues, and thought I could provide something to the process. I’ve done that and I’m glad to move on to another era of my life. If another opportunity presents itself, I might take it, but we’ll see.
Do you have any advice for the next majority leader, whoever that ends up being?
Oh, I don’t know. Do the best you can. Not really anything else.
Thanks for your time and best of luck.
Not a problem. Thanks for interviewing me and being a great interviewer.