As the leader of a mini-insurrection in the House of Representatives in a tussle early this year over funding for a high-tech economic development program, Sam Crump gained notoriety beyond the boundaries of his north-Phoenix legislative district.

That might turn out to be a good thing for the second-term Republican, who is considering a bid for attorney general next year against two other potential opponents who have higher profiles.

Crump also has been one of the most outspoken critics of Gov. Jan Brewer’s desire to let residents vote on a temporary one-cent sales tax increase as a tool to balance the state’s budget. His stance on that issue – and his vote against the measure – led to the state Republican Party’s leader chastising him at a recent meeting in Crump’s Anthem legislative district.

Crump spoke with Arizona Capitol Times about the sales tax, the resulting run-in with Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen and the possibilities of a run for statewide office.

You were one of only three Republicans in the House and six total in the entire Legislature to vote against the special election for a temporary sales tax increase the governor was pushing for. Why?
First and foremost, because I believe that the sales tax hike referral is a bad idea. I can’t say that was a doctrine that Sam Crump necessarily (always) held, that I could say, “For my whole political life, that’s what I’ve believed.” Because, generally, as a lot of people are saying, it sounds kind of good – what’s wrong with referring it to the voters? As this thing came to a head, I had to think about that, and I started thinking, “Well, I think it’s a bad idea, and therefore I’m not going to refer it to the voters.”

Sort of a good analogy – a rebuttal to Senator Russell Pearce, who said we’ll refer it to the voters then campaign against it – would be a ballot referral for absolute government funding for abortions. Let’s just say that’s what a governor was pushing for – if you do that, you can have all these other goodies in the budget. Would you hold your nose and vote for that, then go out and campaign against it? Of course not. He’d find the issue repugnant, and I find this proposal repugnant.

I will also repeat what I’ve said to other people: This started out solely as a policy issue with the governor. However, because of the tone of her demands and admonishment to Republicans, it’s become as much about politics as policy.

Is it a matter of not trusting voters? Or thinking they’ll make the wrong decision? Your senator, I believe, made such a statement earlier this year.
That’s a bit of a loaded question. But I think what the senator was referring to, and it’s probably true, is how you define the voters.

There was a Phoenix bond proposal a few years back, and the (newspaper) headline read, “Voters overwhelmingly approve bond.” Then we found out that six percent of registered voters turned out because it was a special election. We’re looking at a special election if this thing got referred.

I don’t think it’s enough to just point to what California (voters) did and take consolation knowing that it’s going to fail or have that confidence, because special interest groups would be highly charged. Maybe it would pass.

You’ve been very outspoken that cutting spending is the best way to solve the problem and that the state could cut its way out of the deficit. If the tax increase went on the ballot and failed, wouldn’t that give lawmakers a mandate to do just that?
That’s one of the arguments being used. Certainly, if that’s the way that it goes, then that’s the way it would be. But, in the meantime, we can’t just rely on what happened in California. Those who say, “Oh, I’m just going to go campaign against it,” the data in front of them right now has overwhelmingly shown that the voters are going to pass it. So, when it does pass, don’t look surprised and shrug your shoulders. You basically initiated the possibility of this passing.

The sales tax referral came up at your district’s Republican Party meeting last month, when you and Senator Pamela Gorman were excoriated for your votes by the Republican Party chairman. Explain what happened.
That night (Aug. 24), there had already been some charged issues around Senator Gorman – she was getting a little more attention for her no vote that I did because hers actually made a difference – and some unusual guests had shown up from the chambers of commerce. Our state party Chairman Randy Pullen was there.

The legislators made their five-minute comments. Next on the agenda was Randy Pullen. Our chairman, for whatever reason, saved Mr. Pullen’s comments for the end of the meeting. When he got up there, I was totally blindsided. He started ripping into me and Gorman and any other Republican who voted against the sales tax referral. He said, “When they tell you” – meaning me and Gorman – “that the (income) tax cuts could have been overturned by a simple majority next year, don’t believe them because it’s just not true.”

I leaned over to the person next to me and said, “I think I’ve just been called a liar.” I was this close to standing up and telling him to basically close his mouth and sit down, because he was totally out of line as the state chairman, trying to affect policy and doing so basically in my house. I didn’t do that, but I wish I had.

As I like to try to do, I didn’t respond quickly. I waited a few days, but then I did send an e-mail to our national Republican chairman, Michael Steele, because Randy Pullen is our national treasurer. I just wanted to let him know that I thought Mr. Pullen’s conduct was completely out of line and inappropriate, and I still do. The feedback from most Republicans is that they agree with me.

Have you spoken with Mr. Pullen or Mr. Steele?
Mr. Steele never responded to me. I’ll trust that the e-mail got to him. Plus, there was media coverage, so I’m sure it didn’t go unnoticed back East.

I did go up to Mr. Pullen immediately after his comments, when the meeting adjourned, and said basically, “Why would you come to my own district meeting and say such outlandish things?”

And he said because it wasn’t true that a simple majority could repeal the tax cuts. I said, “First of all, legally and technically, it is absolutely true.” He said, “Well, it would never happen.” But that’s irrelevant, and that was his point. I said, “You’re the state chairman. Your job is to register Republicans and raise money to help Republicans get elected. We’ve got plenty of mouths going off in the political arena about the pros and cons of the budget, and we don’t need yours.”

How do you feel Governor Brewer has performed since taking over as governor in January?
I, along with everybody else, had really high hopes. I was very excited after six years of Governor Napolitano, and just thought this would be great. And, to her credit, we’ve gotten some good things through in the Second Amendment area and on pro-life issues, so I don’t want to take that away from her.

But I think the high hopes and the spirit of can-do attitude and unification was really dashed very quickly when she started talking about sales tax hikes very early on. March 4 was her address to the Legislature, and at that point everyone started scratching their head, going, “This isn’t what we expected.”

It’s pretty much been downhill ever since.

What do you think that means for her in next year’s election, if she chooses to run?
I think she’s really on the ropes. I’ve seen one poll that was a barometer of very low support, and it’s about what I would have expected.

If she does decide to run, I think the best she can hope for is about a dozen people running, and maybe she would win the nomination by a plurality.

The disappointment is palpable. It’s not quite universal (among Republicans), but close.

Speaking of the elections next year, you have an exploratory committee for attorney general. Why do you feel you would make a good attorney general?
This year, I’m celebrating my 20th anniversary as an attorney. Not only did I get my law degree, but I later went on and got my master’s in public administration, just because I enjoy the public arena and public policy.

For me, it’s sort of a natural progression. I’m in my second term in the Legislature. The default option would be to run for a third term in the Legislature, which would be fine. But, quite honestly, I feel a little bit restless. I think my third grade report card must have said, “Does not play well with others,” because the Legislature is a team sport and you’ve got to do a lot of back-slapping and glad- handing, and I don’t know if I’m particularly good at that.

Running for an executive position like attorney general appeals greatly to me, because it seems like you can get a lot more done. It’s sort of a solo sport, like tennis.

Then I look at the credentials that are required – you have to be an attorney – and then I look at the experience I have as an attorney, and I’ve got a very diverse experience. It seems tailor-made for attorney general. Some people may think that it’s just criminal prosecutions, but it’s not. It’s the chief attorney for the state of Arizona, the people of Arizona and the agencies. It includes advisory opinions and being a counselor. It’s not just criminal prosecutions, although that’s a big part of it.

I was amazed to find that it’s a significant office with 1,000 employees and 400 attorneys statewide. And while it’s not really a policymaking office, per se, certainly the attorney general and his or her value system plays a part in the cases he takes on, the opinions and elsewhere.

I find it very compelling, and I think my background of having been a military prosecutor, a municipal attorney, a school district attorney and now a private-practice attorney, I think it prepares me very well for the office.

Other potential candidates for the attorney general race have a higher profile than you. Do you think you’d be the underdog going into a race against Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne and Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, the other Republicans exploring bids?
I don’t know if I’d say underdog. I like the term “sleeper.”

Certainly, if you do a poll right now, their name ID is going to come back higher than mine, but I think the people are going to like what they see if the three of us get out there.

Name ID is one thing, but good name ID is another thing. We’ll get more into the details of that as we go forward.

How much money do you think it would take to run a successful race?
Hundreds of thousands of dollars. I would run traditional, at least at this point. I’ve got my work cut out for me. I’ve got a fundraiser scheduled for September 30. We’re in the exploratory phase, so that’s what we’re doing: raising money and trying to earn endorsements.