PHOENIX β Saying they can't be counted on to control themselves, Republican lawmakers want voters to set a deadline for when they need to go home.
Two measures awaiting a House vote would put proposals on the November ballot to force lawmakers to do something they haven't done in a decade: End their annual sessions before May.
That's what the rules say. It requires them to adjourn by the Saturday of the week of the 100th day of each session. This year that falls on April 25.
"Anybody making any bets that that's going to happen,'' asked Rep. Justin Wilmeth. "We all know it won't.''
He said that's because all it takes to blow past the deadline is a motion, approved by the House and Senate, to ignore the rule.
So the Phoenix Republican figures there needs to be a hard-and-fast limit β something in the Arizona Constitution that can't be ignored.
He got the House Government Committee to approve his HCR 2005, which would set the deadline at April 30. If it also was approved by the Senate, that would put the question to voters in November.
Wilmeth told colleagues that there's no reason for a session to go that long.
He said the state's founders set up the legislature as a part-time job: go to the Capitol, take care of business, and then go back to someone's regular occupation.
That, in turn, has led to a part-time salary, currently $24,000 a year, which was set in 1998.Β And voters β who get the last word on legislative salaries β have shown little interest in increasing the pay, having defeated every proposal since then to do so.
So the key, Wilmeth said, is to ensure that the job really is part-time.
Wilmeth isn't the only one with a plan to ask voters to restrain legislators.
There's also HCR 2048.
Strictly speaking, that proposal by Rep. Michael Way would not require lawmakers to go home by April 30. But it would require them to have enacted the budget by that date.
And if they don't?
Lawmakers wouldn't get paid for the days beyond April 30 when there is no budget. Neither would the governor, who also has to approve any budget deal.
The Queen Creek Republican said he considers his plan complementary to what Wilmeth is pushing, just a different way of getting at the problem of legislative sessions that last into June, with the budget β the only thing that lawmakers are constitutionally required to do β often the last thing holding up adjournment.
But Way said there's also a loophole of sorts in the Wilmeth proposal.
If approved, it would require lawmakers to shut down the session by April 30. But it would leave the door open for them to be called back to the Capitol after that date for a special session on the budget all the way in June, "doing what we've done every single year.''
"So this gives it teeth,'' Way said. And it still allows for special sessions for other reasons as needed.
All this, he said, comes down to the need for something to be done.
"We should be able to regulate ourselves,'' he said.
"We don't,'' said Way. "The people will.''
Rep. Betty Villegas said she likes the idea of limited sessions. But she said there's a big flaw in creating an artificial deadline: There is no limit on how many bills lawmakers introduce each year.
This year, there were a record 1,137 bills filed by the 60 House members, not including various other resolutions and memorials. And the Senate, with half as many members, managed to propose 830.
"And some of them are ridiculous,'' she said, though she declined to call out any by subject or sponsor.
Without a limit, Villegas said, an artificial deadline makes no sense.
"It's not humanly possible,'' said Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton of an artificial deadline. The Tucson Democrat deals not only in day-to-day legislation but, as part of party leadership, is involved in the often-complex negotiations on the budget.
Rep. Aaron Marquez had an entirely different take: Scrap the whole idea of a part-time legislature.
He said that a 100-day session might have been fine when Arizona became a state in 1912. But now, with 7.5 million residents, Marquez said the time might be right to consider whether there needs to be a full-time legislature, one where lawmakers have one job, and one where there is less possibility of conflicts of interest as they vote on issues that could affect their regular jobs.
"We are a big boy state,'' he said.
But Rep. John Gillette said he wasn't convinced.
"Deadlines force productivity,'' said the Kingman Republican.
"It will force negotiations early,'' he said of the deadline for a budget. "It will force people to get into the room and make a decision.''
Anyway, Gillette said, he doubts that voters care about the personal situations of lawmakers, "what we get paid or what we don't get paid.'' And that, he said, leaves only one variable: the time at the Capitol.
"So let's let them decide how much we should do,'' Gillette said.
Way's proposal to cut salaries if there is no budget by April 30 would affect not just the governor and the lawmakers who are at the center of the negotiating process.
It would also stop salary payments to the lieutenant governor. Arizona will get its first one next year, someone who runs on a ticket this November with the successful gubernatorial candidate.
In fact, as crafted, all elected state officials would go without pay until there is a budget. And that even includes those who have nothing to do with the budget, like the secretary of state, attorney general, treasurer and state schools.
Way defended the broad scope of his plan.
"Its purpose is to create a shared accountability standard for the state's elected leadership to ensure the one must-pass bill each year, the budget, is done on time,'' he said.
"While some don't vote on the budget, they all are part of the state's elected leadership and influence the overall fiscal and policy process,'' Way said. "They work directly with legislators, advocate for priorities, shape fiscal policy, and influence negotiations.''
And there's something else.
As crafted, all the salaries would resume once there is a budget. But they would not get back pay.
