Crossposted on both Democratic Diva and the new BfA site
Man, I called this on Facebook yesterday. After it was reported that Sen. Steve Pierce (R) wanted the Governor to veto SB1062, the religious bigot bill he voted for, I predicted that Sen. Adam Driggs (also R) would follow suit. Unsurprisingly, he was joined by Sen. Bob Worsley (also R).
“We feel it was a solution in search of a problem,” Sen. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa, said in an impromptu news conference outside the state Senate. He was joined by Sen. Steve Pierce, R-Prescott.
The two, along with Senate Majority Whip Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, sent Brewer a letter this morning asking for a veto.
“While our sincere intent in voting for this bill was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance,” the three wrote. “These allegations are causing our state immeasurable harm.”
Pierce and Worsley said the bill was moved along very quickly, not giving them enough time to convince fellow lawmakers to vote against it. Besides, Pierce said, they didn’t want to “tear apart” the GOP caucus, which was sharply divided last year over Brewer’s push for Medicaid expansion.
What a pantload. It would only have taken two of them to vote no to kill the thing yet they all voted for it. Let me reiterate a couple of things here:
1. Pierce, Driggs, and Worsley are clearly not worried about the primary. I believe they voted for SB1062 because they wanted to and thought they’d get away with it. Once again, this threat of being primaried that we’re so often given as the excuse for why “moderate” Republicans vote for bad right wing bills appears to be largely mythical. They’d be sticking to their guns if they really thought they’d pay a price with the hardcore rank-and-file in August if they didn’t. Similarly, you wouldn’t be seeing the majority of the GOP candidates for Governor, including Cathi Herrod’s boy Doug Ducey, shunning the bill right now if they were scared of primary voters. Sorry, Al Melvin, but your support of it may make you the darling of the Tea Party crowd for the next couple weeks or so but it’s not going to make a dent in your dismal chances in the primary.
2. Once again, I’ll remind everyone that the business community that is banding together to stop SB1062 could have done the same thing in 2010 with SB1070 but they chose not to. They deliberately sat on their hands while SB1070 was passed and signed so they could get the GOP sweep they wanted that year. They got it and can stop whining about all the money they lost through the boycotts and whatnot. Maybe they’ve learned their lesson.
I am not a citizen of Arizona, but I am a citizen of the United States. I hail from New Jersey, but this is a human rights issue and as a citizen of this country I feel it important to speak. To say I am appalled at even the consideration of, never mind the vote on bill SB1062 is the understatement of the millenium. Something is very wrong in the State of Arizona, and it's you. How can you possibly say that this vote is the protection of religious liberty, when the heart of all religion is to love others and do unto others as you would have done unto you? The hypocrisy is simply astounding. A very good friend of mine, who happens to be gay, just moved there. Why would you expect her, or anyone from the LGBT community to want to be citizens of a state whose legislators have determined are inferior beings? How is this different from the segregation laws of the 1960s? You have already tried to marginalize the Hispanic community. You are establishing an alarming track record. I trust that if the bill is signed by the Governor, and I don't thinks she has the guts to do it, that the citizens of your state rally against this law and the legislators who supported it. It's SO WRONG - I just don't get it. You aren't thinking. You're plotting.
Posted by: Teresa M DeSousa | February 25, 2014 at 06:30 AM
"While our sincere intent in voting for this bill was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance"
Yes, opponents "mischaracterized" the bill, by stating plainly what the bill does.
Look at the roaches scurry for cover when light is thrown on them. They're *desperate* to have Brewer veto the bill so they can proclaimm they voted for the bill without having to take responsibility for what the bill would do to the state.
Party of "personal responsibility" my shiny metal heinie.
Posted by: BruceJ | February 25, 2014 at 09:22 AM