Box Turtle Bulletin

Arizona Lawmakers At A Crossroads

On Monday, the Arizona House of Representatives voted 33-25 to approve SCR1042, a proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendment, sending it on to the Senate for its approval to place the measure on the November ballot.

Half a continent away on Tuesday, voters in northern Mississippi’s first congressional district chose Travis Childers (D) over Greg Davis (R) by a margin of 54% to 46% in a special election to fill a vacant seat. Just to give you a sense of how bit this was, this was a district which President Bush carried by 59% in 2000 and 62% in 2004. Roger Wicker (R), the previous incumbent whose appointment to Trent Lott’s Senate seat created the vacancy, had won every election since 1994 by at least 63% of the vote.

One certainly has to wonder what was going through Rep. Marian McClure’s (R-Tucson) mind as she picked up Wednesday morning’s paper. She was among those who voted to put SCR1042 on the ballot in November.

That wasn’t always her position though. Just last April, Rep. McClure had been one of four Republicans who joined a procedural maneuver to kill an earlier identical anti-marriage amendment. In doing so, she followed not only her conscience, but the will of the voters in her district who sent her to the state house. In 2006, those voters soundly rejected Proposition 107 (that year’s anti-marriage amendment) with 52.5% voting against it and only 47.5% voting in favor. That margin was even wider than the statewide result. The statewide tally had 51.8% voting “no” and 48.2% “yes” (PDF: 220KB/18 pages).

But since that April House vote, the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), Focus On the Family’s official state policy council for Arizona, has been pulling out all the stops. They’ve exerted extraordinary pressure on state lawmakers to bring the measure back for another vote. That pressure included both threats and promises, and for some lawmakers it seemed to have worked. Rep. McClure was among those who caved to CAP’s pressure and switched her vote on Monday. Instead of following the voice of her constituents, she chose to dance to CAP’s tune instead.

So now she can count on CAP’s support in the general elections in November. And with yesterday’s California Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality, CAP’s political pressure has grown even stronger to get the bill scheduled for a vote in the Senate.

But does CAP really have the clout that they claim they have, when voters across the country have made it known that they’ tired of the same old politics that CAP represents?

Let’s go back to that vote in Mississippi on Tuesday. The national Republican Party had poured millions of dollars into that race. They even enlisted Vice President Dick Cheney to make an appearance. And yet Childers’ convincing win in what was supposed to be a solidly safe Republican seat sent shockwaves throughout the GOP. This loss follows earlier humiliating defeats in special elections to fill Rep. Dennis Hastert’s Illinois seat and Rep. Richard Baker’s Louisiana seat. These were also considered to be “safe” GOP seats.

A recent poll shows that 81% of Americans believe the US is on the wrong track. The divisive politics of the past have become an anathema. U.S. Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) describes this year’s political atmosphere as “the worst since Watergate and far more toxic than the fall of 2006.”

So all of this makes reviving a failed amendment from 2006 an odd choice for Arizona lawmakers. It certainly doesn’t represent the kind of change that voters say they’re looking for. It looks instead like the same old style of politics that voters in Mississippi, Illinois and Louisiana have rejected. And if the massive resources of the GOP financial and political machine couldn’t pull out a win in a solid-red district in Mississippi, what can CAP possibly offer to Arizona legislators like Rep. McClure?

Arizona voters have already indicated that they have rejected the kind of politics that CAP stands for. This rebellion first took shape in 2006 when Arizona voters said no to CAP and defeated Prop 107. That was also when voters sent Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) to Congress to represent Rep. Jim Kolbe’s (R) district. Jim Kolbe, you may remember, was the openly gay Republican Congressman who voters returned to Washington five times since his coming out in 1996.

Why do I bring this up? Well many of those voters who sent Rep. Giffords to Congress — and who re-elected Kolbe five times until he retired in 2006 — these are the same voters who will be asked to vote for Rep. McClure in November. Rep. McClure’s state district lies almost entirely inside Rep. Gifford’s Congressional district. (Gifford’s district, but the way, voted down Prop 107 by an even larger margin: 54.6% to 45.4%.)

CAP may be able to mobilize emails and phone calls to state legislators, but they can’t mobilize voters to turn out and support their causes in November. If anything, there’s a backlash building.

What must Rep. McClure be thinking right now?

It used to be a rare thing to see a politician stand up to powerful special interest groups. Those groups are looking much more like paper tigers these days. Our congratulations go to two state GOP lawmakers who were wise enough to see through CAP’s lobbying efforts and vote with their constituents. They are Reps. Pete Hershberger and Jennifer Burns. You might want to drop them a line and thank them for their support. After the pressure they’ve endured from CAP, they could probably use it right now.

Update: More GOP strategists see divisive marriage politics as a losing proposition this year:

“At best, it doesn’t move voters, and at worst for Republicans, it moves them against them,” said Matthew Dowd, President Bush’s 2004 chief strategist. “Why are we having a discussion on this issue when we should be talking about things that matter, like the economy, health care, or the war?”