The last two sessions have left House Minority Leader Phil Lopes fit to be bow-tied, so to speak. This year is different, though, as there is a sense of hope emanating from the Democrat caucus, a feeling generated by the swelling of the group’s ranks from 21 last year to 27.
For Lopes, who is beginning his second term and Democrat leader, that means considerably more opportunity to influence not only the policy that passes the House, but also the process by which it passes. The session wasn’t even an hour old when the Democrats flexed their newfound muscles, nominating Lopes for speaker against Jim Weiers.
Though he declined the nomination, Lopes took the opportunity to speak out against the unfair treatment he and other Democrats say the minority is receiving at the hands of the Republicans, telling the gathered dignitaries and families of lawmakers that Weiers needed to sublimate both his power and his caucus’ power in favor of bipartisanship.
Lopes spoke with Arizona Capitol Times in his office Jan. 10 about the upcoming session, the new-look Democrat caucus and the possibilities of working with Republicans on policy decisions.
So, how does it feel to have a bigger legislative family for the next two years≠
It feels very good, but I’m also challenged, because we need to be very strategic to make that bigger family effective.
What can you do≠ Obviously, the sheer increase in numbers is going to help you be more effective on the floor.
We’re going to try to be much more strategic in Committee of the Whole debates. We’re going to try to be more focused, we’re going to try to be more coordinated, so that we maximize our power in the debate.
What was the biggest surprise of the election≠
The biggest surprise was that we won as many [seats] as we did. Early on, I expected us to pick up two or three, but what I had not anticipated was how weak the Republican opposition was going to be. That was not in my calculation. So, as a result of that, we ended up picking up more than we anticipated — well, than I anticipated, I should say.
How will having 27 members strengthen your caucus≠
The obvious, quick answer is, with 27 members who stay together — and, historically, in my four years, Democrats have been very good about staying together — if we stay together, then we only need three more votes to stop bad stuff and we need four more votes to do good stuff. That’s the obvious, quick answer to what we do with 27.
Now, we’re still disappointed that we don’t have the equivalent of those 27 on committees because, if we did, we would be able to do the same thing on committees. But, as it is, we’re weakened. We’re unfairly weakened.
I know that’s been a criticism you’ve leveled at Speaker Weiers since the committees were announced a few weeks ago. Was that a motivating factor in some of the procedural moves your caucus did on the first day of session, like challenging Weiers for the speaker post≠
It was very much the motivating factor, because not giving us proportional representation on committees demonstrated to me that he didn’t get it, that the leadership did not realize that we now have 27 votes. That’s what we were trying to say.
How long do you plan on beating that drum, that you’re being treated unfairly≠
We haven’t decided specifically, but we will do it any time we think it makes sense for us to advance our agenda.
What was the biggest factor in voters putting Democrats into office in place of Republicans≠
We had a better message. We were more responsive to working people, that message was more responsive to working people. I think that was the major thrust. There were an awful lot of smaller things, but I think that was the main thrust of it.
Do you think your Republicans colleagues are going to acknowledge those reasons, or will policy issues be similar to the last two years≠
That’s hard to say. What I would say is that, on immigration, I think reasonable people would disagree what the message from the voters was on immigration, because, on the one hand, the four propositions passed, but, at the same time, those candidates that were the most extreme on immigration did not win. So, it’s kind of a split message there.
Issues about health care, issues about education, those were our messages, and those resonated with voters.
What is your relationship with Speaker Weiers like≠
Friendly. All the time I’ve known the speaker, he’s never gotten angry or raised his voice in my presence. Over the last two years, we’ve disagreed on a lot of things and it’s never resulted in any kind of anger, at least never in my presence. That’s good.
What are the top issues for the Democrats this session≠
During our retreat, we identified eight areas and we’re now, this week, finalizing what we’re going to do on those areas. The areas are: K-12 [education]; access to universities; access to affordable health care; alternative energy sources; immigration; consumer protection; water management; and transportation infrastructure.
So, we’re in the process now of fleshing those out. For example, in quality health care, one of our focuses is on removing the [waiting] period for health care group [enrollment], because we think that’s a barrier for small employers. In K-12, we’re going to be with the governor on raising the minimum wage for teachers [to $33,000 annually]. We’re also going to be exploring class size and removing the gag rule from KidsCare. Immigration, we’re working on a fairly comprehensive package. Higher education is going to involve continuing to support the medical school and getting more money to the financial aid trust fund.
We’re still working on statewide water management and transportation infrastructure.
Renewable energy, we’d like to do something with solar and air [energies]. Consumer protection, it’s going to be [restricting] payday lending, primarily.
So, those are the areas that we’re going to focus on.
Give me a prediction for the upcoming session.
I’m never good at this. I guess — the majority leader and speaker and I have talked about this already, and in my crystal ball, I can envision us doing this and, if we do it, I think it’ll be a benefit for everyone. And that ‘it’ is having some issues around which we can have some bipartisan action and support. We’ve talked about this in a very preliminary kind of way, but if there are some areas that look like there’s support, then we would kind of create an ad hoc group to work on it, as a demonstration to us and the public that it is, in fact, possible to do this. That would be great. I can see it in my crystal ball: Republicans and Democrats meeting together.
So, you think there’s going to be more of an air of bipartisanship around the building.
Well, I don’t want to blow this up too much. If we can do these small things, I’m not sure that’s an air of bipartisanship, but it’s certainly a demonstration of wanting to create an air of bipartisanship.
Thanks for your time.
Any time.