The seeds planted by Democrats two years ago bore fruit this year, as their numbers in the state Legislature made the party a force to be reckoned with on almost every major policy issue — including the budget.
Democrats plucked six House seats  from Republicans in 2006, narrowing the GOP majority to 32-28. The gains allowed Democrats to join with moderate Republicans to stymie measures introduced by conservative lawmakers.
That cooperation gave Democrats an unexpected advantage when negotiating the 2009 budget, which was passed over the strenuous objections of nearly all House Republicans and signed by Gov. Janet Napolitano.
House Minority Leader Phil Lopes said he hopes it was just the beginning. He is leading the charge as Democrats try to take control of the House for the first time since 1966, something he feels is a very real possibility given the current political climate nationwide.
Lopes spoke with Arizona Capitol Times July 9 about the budget, the criticism it has received, how the deal came about and what Democrats expect to gain in the November election.
Are you happy with the 2009 budget that was the end result of the session?
Given that we had to make up a $2 billion shortfall, we were able with this budget to protect the programs that are important to my constituents — to our constituents, as a caucus — that we’ve worked hard on for the last five or six years. I feel good about it.
What’s your response to the criticism that the budget doesn’t do enough to address what some people see as the core problem, that state spending is outpacing revenues by a significant amount?
My answer to that is that we get elected to manage these kinds of problems. If we make wrong decisions, then there’s something called the ballot box where people can go after us.
But I prefer to look at this budget process through the eyes of, this is what we need to do to move Arizona forward, and what can we do to make that happen in a revenue shortfall, within the constraints that we have — instead of saying there’s some magic formula that we can’t go over 7 percent (of aggregate personal income) or that we should have no debt or that kind of bumper-sticker stuff. I’m not into that.
One of the starkest things in the budget is that you guys had to deal with roughly $3.5 billion of shortfall in the 2009 budget and the fix to the 2008 budget, and you did it with the elimination of very few programs and only cutting about $650 million of actual state agency spending. Is that fiscally responsible?
We had to make up the shortfall without sacrificing the things that we think are important, and I think we did that.
Next year — or next special session — it’s another ballgame. That’s what we’re paid for: to come back and manage these things in the best way that we can. That’s how I view that.
Are you concerned about a special session to fix the current budget? Or what the situation will be for the 2010 fiscal year?
I know it’s important to take the long view of these things, but we don’t take the long view of anything in this place. I mean, I’d like to take the long view — people say we ought to take the long view of a (budget) crunch that’s coming along, that they anticipate. But why aren’t we taking the long view about what we want to do in terms of budget? Nobody ever wants to talk about that.
I don’t want to dismiss it, but all I’m saying is we need to be responsible for managing whatever situation presents itself.
How did this year’s budget deal come about? It seemed like things were moving, with Republicans and Democrats meeting regularly. Then everyone went home for the weekend, came back on Monday, and the budget deal was done. What happened that got the deal done?
Probably the thing that was most significant in making it happen was that people got really impatient and the clock (was) short. As a result of that impatience, a few people came together and said, “We’ve got to figure out another way to do this, because this ain’t working.”
Which people came together?
It was people who represented Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and House Democrats.
Are Democrats still striving to take control of the House in this fall’s elections?
Yes, we continue to be very optimistic. For example, I just looked at the (registration) numbers in District 12 yesterday — I almost wanted to jump up and down! They’re enormously in our favor — in District 12.
A key to your plan is to retain the six seats you picked up two years ago. With Rep. Mark DeSimone withdrawing his candidacy, what kind of an impact does that have on your plan? It can’t help your strategy any.
I would be less than honest if I said that his not being on the ticket doesn’t have an impact, because it does.
But I’m very optimistic about (Democratic write-in candidate) Eric Meyer. He was born and raised in the district, his wife was born and raised in the district. His wife’s a doctor. He’s a doctor. He just seems like somebody who well represents the values and principles of that district.
What’s your prediction for the fall? You’re excited about registration numbers and a lot of political analysts see another big year for Democrats nationally at the polls. What do you think will be the result, come Nov. 5?
Some of this is wishful thinking on my part, but I want at least four seats. If we got six or seven, that’s even better, but I want at least four. You know as well as I do what being in the majority means: It means you set the agenda and you set the timing and you control the place.
We haven’t done that for 44 years, so it’s our turn.?