Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer (center at microphone) celebrates with the Arizona delegates after casting their votes for Sen. John McCain at the Republican National Convention.

A reform-minded and competent administrator. Unflinchingly partisan and occasionally controversial.

Jan Brewer has been labeled all of the above during the past six years heading the state’s second-highest elected office: secretary of state.

Now, the 64-year-old former legislator and Maricopa County supervisor is preparing to take the state’s helm as governor, succeeding Gov. Janet Napolitano who awaits her confirmation as secretary of Homeland Security under Barack Obama. The transition could come as early as late January.

In the meantime, Capitol watchers say Brewer’s record suggests a cautious and capable leader not unaccustomed to big challenges. Perhaps none has been bigger than her oversight of state elections, for which most observers have given her good marks.

“All things considered, we’ve had some pretty smooth elections lately,” said Betsey Bayless, whom Brewer succeeded as secretary of state in 2003. Both women are Republicans.

Brewer sat down with The Arizona Republic last week to talk about her accomplishments as secretary of state, the tests she has met and the criticism she still faces.

Brewer ran for secretary of state in 2002 when feelings were still raw from the disputed 2000 presidential election. The recounts. Hanging-ballot chads. Florida.

She pledged to make optical-scan ballots available statewide, replacing traditional punch ballots – and their assorted problems – that were still in use in nine rural Arizona counties.

By January 2004, the new machines were in place – thanks in large measure to a multibillion-dollar modernization effort for elections nationwide under the federal Help America Vote Act. Brewer was responsible for the HAVA implementation in Arizona. Bayless, now the chief executive of the Maricopa Integrated Health System, lauded the transition as “fairly seamless.”

Purchase questioned

But it wasn’t without controversy. Brewer’s purchase of machines produced by Diebold Elections Systems drew criticism from those who say the equipment is vulnerable to hacking and election fraud, and protesters nearly shouted her down at a 2006 news conference at which she announced her re-election bid.

At the time, Brewer dismissed the protesters as “anarchists” and “conspiracy theorists.”

She remains convinced of the integrity of Arizona elections and boasts of the state’s avoidance of touch-screen voting machines as indicative of her “sound, good judgment.” Indeed, states such as California and Florida have decided to junk their touch-screen devices, which have been derided as susceptible to fraud, riddled with bugs and just plain unpredictable. Colorado has decertified roughly half its batch.

Arizona’s optical-scan machines produce a paper trail, Brewer said, allowing elections officials to re-create the vote in case of a computer meltdown. Perhaps the best measure of success: Arizona has avoided major Election Day hiccups experienced in other states.

“I can look anybody in the face and say we have the best elections system anywhere in the country,” Brewer said.

But there are some who question whether Brewer has done everything she could to ensure Arizonans who are eligible to vote actually get to cast a ballot.

Prop. 200 fight

Perhaps the biggest controversy involving Brewer has been her ardent defense of a state law – Proposition 200, which was approved by Arizona voters in 2004 – that requires individuals to show identification at the polls and proof of citizenship when they register to vote. Opponents of the measure have said it suppresses the vote, especially among minorities, and amounts to a poll tax for Arizonans who lack the required ID.

“It’s absolutely, I think, the obligation of the secretary of state to be a champion of voters. And that’s not something she’s been,” said Linda Brown, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network. The group is among those that have challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 200.

Brewer noted that she remained neutral on the initiative until it was approved by voters. Once that occurred, she said, it became “my job to implement what the people wanted.”

Proudly partisan

Secretary of state is a partisan office in Arizona. Regardless, Brewer’s cheerleading for prominent Republicans – most notably as co-chairwoman for President Bush’s re-election effort in Arizona in 2004 and Sen. John McCain’s presidential bid this year – has raised eyebrows at times.

Brown said, “It doesn’t inspire trust when your top elected official is also chairing a major partisan political campaign.”

In 2004, then-Arizona Democratic Party Chairman Jim Pederson called on Brewer to step down from either her campaign role with Bush or her elected office. Brewer did neither and appeared to up the ante the same day, when she strode to the microphone at the Republican National Convention and declared that she was “pleased and proud to let everyone know that Arizona is Bush country.”

Asked about the criticism last week, Brewer discounted it as “political rhetoric.” She noted that her office doesn’t actually count the ballots – that’s left to the counties – and likened her political campaigning to that done by Napolitano and other elected officials.

“I did not give up my First Amendment rights when I was elected,” Brewer said.

Life as governor

The next chapter in Brewer’s political career will be her biggest challenge yet. If she becomes governor, Brewer faces the prospect of a multibillion-dollar state budget shortfall this year and next, as well as a flagging economy and a housing market in freefall.

On a personal level, she acknowledged it also will be a significant adjustment for her, since she is social and chatty. Being governor doesn’t lend itself to having a listed phone number, as Brewer does. A security detail takes some getting used to.

“I think the accessibility has served not only (constituents) well, but me,” she said. “I’m going to miss that part, I think. In fact, I know I’m going to miss that part.”

———

Duties of the Arizona secretary of state

The Department of State is responsible for recordings and filings under the Uniform Commercial Code; coordinating statewide elections; receiving required filings from legislators, state officials, judges, candidates for office, campaign committees and lobbyists; training county elections officials; receiving filings of administrative rules, intergovernmental agency agreements and official executive orders/proclamations; registering trade names, trademarks and limited partnerships; appointing notaries public and certifying certain telemarketing and charitable solicitation organizations.

Jan Brewer: Then and now

• “I think that I’ve got the background, I’ve got the knowledge and I’ve got the temperament to be governor of Arizona.” – Brewer discussing her readiness last week to assume the governorship from Janet Napolitano.

• “I have never wanted to be governor nor have any aspirations to hold that position. However, God forbid that something did happen to the governor, I’m most qualified to do so.” – Answering the same question, a hypothetical at the time, when running for secretary of state in 2002.

• “My instructions were: No stress. Do not get angry.” – Doctor’s orders after Brewer suffered a near-fatal heart attack in October 1994.

• “Try to count to 10 every time I get stressed.” – Brewer, last week, discussing her healthy-heart regimen, which includes diet and exercise.

• “Secretary of state has been a wonderful position. I’ve enjoyed it a lot. I would have been pleased as punch to serve here another two years.” – Brewer in comments last week.

The state spent $900,000 on the development of an anti-smoking campaign aimed at teens and children. But an 11th-hour decision by state officials resulted in the centerpiece, a series of television commercials, being yanked before they ever made the air.

Now, some health officials are criticizing the decision and say it may compromise the effectiveness of a public-awareness campaign two years in the making.

“You’ve already made this huge investment,” said Susan Gerard, the former director of the state health department that oversaw the campaign. “This is a waste of so many resources, so many man-hours of work … It’s really a shame.”

The series of three 30-second TV spots was intended to debut Nov. 20 to coincide with the Great American Smokeout, a national kick-the-habit effort.

But the ads were never broadcast following a decision by the Arizona Department of Health Services, which worked with Gov. Janet Napolitano’s office to produce the campaign. State officials say they began to question the cost-effectiveness of running the ads on TV, for which nearly $2 million was budgeted for airtime. The ads instead will be available online at anti-tobacco Web sites. But some health advocates question whether the health department’s reversal, which was endorsed by the Governor’s Office, was more about public relations than public health.

The state is facing a $1.2 billion shortfall this fiscal year, an amount that may double next year. Some health officials believe the anti-tobacco ads were canned to prevent the perception that the state was spending millions of dollars on advertisements during a budget crisis.

Funding for the ads was to come from tobacco taxes approved by voters and specifically set aside for anti-smoking efforts, and therefore could not be used, for example, toward the general fund.

January Contreras, director of the state health department, said there may be a better way to spend the money than to air the ads. But that decision has not yet been made, he said.

“It’s our responsibility to make sure we’re reviewing this carefully, and we’re making decisions that are smart and make the most sense in today’s economy,” she said. “No matter how that funding is used, it will be used for the purpose of youth tobacco-prevention efforts. It’s not as though any of the work that has been done will go to waste.”

On Nov. 18, when it became clear that the ads wouldn’t air on TV, officials from the American Lung Association of Arizona, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network and the American Heart Association sent a letter to Napolitano urging her to launch the campaign.

“Your record in leading the fight against tobacco, both personally and as a public official, is remarkable,” the letter stated. “It is with this in mind that we are incredibly alarmed to learn that your administration has decided to cancel Arizona’s new youth smoking-prevention campaign . . . ”

Jan Lesher, Napolitano’s chief of staff, responded with a letter noting that the bulk of the campaign will continue and defending the decision to cancel the TV ads.

“The vast majority of the campaign as originally planned continues to move forward,” Lesher wrote. “It does incorporate a Web site and Web-related outreach strategies to reach the settings where many of today’s youth spend their free time.”

The ads are part of a $7 million anti-tobacco campaign developed by health officials who hosted forums and town halls across Arizona, said Gerard, now vice-chairwoman of Maricopa Integrated Health System’s board.

Phoenix advertising and public-relations firm Riester produced the TV ads, but the state health department was unable Friday to determine how much the state paid for the work. Officials also did not release a copy of the commercials, saying they had not yet been approved.

Laura Oxley, a spokeswoman for the state health department, said the commercials may not appear only online, but could also be shown in schools.

That’s not enough, said Bob England, director of Maricopa County Department of Public Health. More than 500 kids start smoking in Arizona each month. Statistically, half eventually will die from it, he said. Aggressive, provocative TV ads are the best way to reach teens with the truths about smoking and addiction, England said.

“Marketing is the most crucial piece when we’re talking about teenage smoking,” he said. “The goal of the . . . TV advertisements is to create a buzz and drive kids to the Web site and to other materials so the whole thing can work together. If you try to do a marketing campaign, or other types of prevention activities without a good media piece, the science is really clear: You won’t get that synergy, it won’t work.”

Bill Pfeifer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association of the Southwest, said he was still hopeful state officials would reconsider their decision.

“They were really ready to go, but for whatever reason the Governor’s Office said, ‘No we don’t want to run those ads,’ ” he said. “This is about saving lives – in particular, young people’s lives – and (to) hopefully keep them from smoking.”

By Matthew Benson, Yvonne Wingett

On board early for Obama

In 2000, then-Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano made arguably her first splash on the national political stage with an address to the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles.

She was given three minutes on stage.

Four years later, Napolitano, in her first term as governor, received a bit more time – seven minutes – and a far more prominent, evening speaking slot as she addressed conventiongoers in Boston.

Now, Arizona’s Democratic governor is on the cusp of her biggest role in the drama that is a national political convention.

She is among Tuesday’s slate of featured speakers, scheduled between 5 and 5:30 p.m.

She will have 12 minutes on stage, although she joked last week, “I don’t know how much of that will be filled with words as opposed to applause. Kidding, kidding.”

This is the fifth national convention for Napolitano, her fourth as a delegate.

Her political ascent can be traced through the conventions.

In 1988, the promising young attorney oversaw the Arizona delegate-selection process leading up to the national convention in Atlanta. She attended as a visitor and nondelegate.

Four years later, Napolitano was somewhat of a surprise pick to lead the delegation at the New York City convention. She was tasked with helping unify warring Arizona Democrats after Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton won the majority of the state’s delegates but former Sen. Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts claimed the popular vote from the party’s caucuses. Napolitano was already a partner in the influential Lewis & Roca law firm in Phoenix and was burnishing her political credentials as first vice chairwoman of the state Democratic Party.

The following year, in 1993, Napolitano was named U.S. attorney representing Arizona.

The position’s distinctly apolitical status kept her from attending the 1996 national convention in Chicago.

But a couple of years later, Napolitano became the state’s top law-enforcement official by being elected attorney general.

The move served as a springboard for her return to the national political scene at the 2000 convention.

Napolitano led the state delegation that year, along with U.S. Rep. Ed Pastor, and headed the delegation once more in 2004 as Arizona’s top Democratic elected official.

Napolitano will take the stage Tuesday as a popular two-term governor, a red-state Democrat, a former chairwoman of the National and Western governors associations, and one of the nation’s authorities on border security and immigration reform.

Her convention address figures to add to her national stature, said Republican pollster Margaret Kenski of Tucson.

“I think it is a big deal,” Kenski said.

House Speaker Jim Weiers is asking that Gov. Janet Napolitano call lawmakers back to the Capitol for a special session aimed at saving a pair of private-school voucher programs for disabled and foster-care children.

The programs were casualties of the latest round of budget cuts with a state-spending plan for fiscal 2009 that began July 1. If the funding isn’t replaced, about 500 students are expected to lose out on scholarships that would allow them to attend private schools.

Weiers, a Phoenix Republican, said that need not be the case. In a letter to Napolitano, a Democrat, Weiers wrote that legislators and the governor could arrive at a funding fix for the voucher programs in a single day. He has offered $5 million from a House contingency fund to float the programs through the school year, which begins this month.

“The solution is there. It’s simple,” Weiers told The Republic. “This isn’t really a difficult issue.”

The two scholarship programs lost funding as legislators and Napolitano, no fan of vouchers, attempted to close a $2 billion budget shortfall.

Napolitano couldn’t be reached for comment Monday because she was visiting family in New Mexico. Her office sounded cool to Weiers’ suggestion.

“This request came from one legislator on one issue,” Napolitano spokeswoman Shilo Mitchell said in a statement. “If the speaker wants to use some of the House operating money for the budget, we should look at the other programs that were impacted (by budget cuts) as well.”

Mitchell wouldn’t say if Napolitano was open to the possibility of a special session.

The future of the two voucher programs, created in 2006, is further muddied by their legal history.

In May, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that they violate a state constitutional prohibition against the use of public money for private and parochial schools. But, pending appeal of that ruling, the state Supreme Court said the state could continue funding the programs.

“A special session would allow these kids to stay in the schools that they are currently attending until a final decision is reached by the courts,” Weiers wrote Monday.

Transportation tax, payday loan measure financed by industries

So much for the “citizens” with this year’s batch of citizens initiatives.

For most of the nine initiatives planned for the November ballot, financial backing from individual donors has been scarce. The money has flowed almost exclusively from corporations, political committees and a relative handful of wealthy individuals.

Grass-roots? Nope. Not yet anyway.

Take the transportation campaign in favor of a 1 cent-per-dollar hike in the state sales tax.

Of the nearly $1 million received by the ballot effort, just $100 has thus far been donated by individuals. Campaign-finance reports filed with the Secretary of State’s Office show that the vast majority of contributions have come from businesses with a financial stake in roadwork and other transportation projects: construction companies, contractors and engineering firms.

Likewise, nearly every cent of the $8.7 million dumped into a ballot effort benefiting the payday-loan industry has been donated by – guess who? – a trade group representing payday lenders: the Arizona Community Financial Services Association.

Initiative representatives counter that the disparity in campaign donations among business interests, political committees and regular Arizonans is nothing new.

But the divide is so pronounced this election cycle that it raises the question of whether Arizona’s direct democracy has become little more than a legislative vehicle for wealthy special interests.

Voting via pocketbook

Some past initiative campaigns have demonstrated better success at gathering money from a broad base of donors.

In 2004, the Protect Arizona Now campaign reported that individuals accounted for more than one-fifth of its $550,000 haul.

The initiative, approved as Proposition 200, set restrictions on government benefits for illegal immigrants and established regulations for identification at the polls.

Two years later, an initiative to ban gay marriage in Arizona garnered thousands of individual donors. Despite raising more than $1 million, Protect Marriage Arizona was rejected at the polls. Supporters have returned to the ballot this year but chose to save their money and energy by opting instead for it to be referred to the ballot by the Legislature.

Although no guarantee of success, small-dollar donations are important when measuring a campaign’s base of support, said Pat Graham, campaign chairman for the latest effort to reform the state’s trust-land system.

Said Graham, “Somebody who feels strongly enough to vote with their pocketbook is going to get out and carry the message for you.”

What if your campaign is short on cash?

Bonita Burks had hoped to qualify for the ballot new state restrictions on motorists’ use of mobile phones while driving. But despite a series of high-profile accidents that focused public awareness on the issue, her petition drive stalled long before it collected the 153,000 valid signatures it needed. Some of that she attributes to a lack of campaign funding that forced her to rely on volunteer, rather than paid, signature gatherers.

“It made it difficult,” said Burks, whose Safer Road Arizona campaign reported just $1,050 in total donations. “Although it is a very important issue and I’m very passionate about it, we just didn’t have the dollars to make it happen this year.”

Even with a throng of volunteer signature gatherers, border-security activist Don Goldwater, too, failed to make the ballot with either of his immigration proposals.

“In the history of the state of Arizona, no citizens initiative has ever been done without paid signature gatherers,” Goldwater said. “If you’ve got the bucks, you can get the initiative on the ballot.”

Measuring support

Luckily for supporters of Graham’s trust-land reform initiative, that campaign has a handful of big-dollar donors.

The Our Land, Our Schools campaign has garnered more than $820,000 in donations so far this cycle, most of which have come from the Nature Conservancy and a development firm owned by Democratic benefactor and former state-party boss Jim Pederson. Individuals have contributed $50,250, all but $250 of which was given by John W. Graham, chairman of the board for the state chapter of the Nature Conservancy.

Campaign Chairman Pat Graham said he expects small-donor contributions to pick up once the initiative is certified for the ballot.

“People don’t want to give money to gather signatures,” the Nature Conservancy’s John Graham said. “The broader base of fundraising is going to pick up now through the rest of the campaign.”

Arizona Department of Health Services Director Sue Gerard is resigning her position, effective Aug. 1.

“I’d like to thank Governor Napolitano for giving me the opportunity to work at my dream job for the last three years,” Gerard wrote in a statement released Thursday. “It has been a privilege to work for the people of Arizona, and we’ve made some wonderful progress toward improving the quality and availability of health care. But I think this is the right time for me to move on. We have an excellent staff in place, and I’m proud of the progress we’ve made.”

Gerard was appointed head of the department – one of the state’s largest, with more than 1,800 state employees – in April 2005.

Previously, she was a chief adviser to Gov. Janet Napolitano on health care issues and served as a Republican legislator from 1988 to 2002. Replacing Gerard on an interim basis is January Contreras, the governor’s adviser on health issues.

“My thanks go to Susan for her commitment to Arizona, and for sharing her expertise with DHS,” Napolitano wrote in a statement. “She has been an outstanding public servant for more than two decades. Much of the progress we’ve made in health care is a direct result of legislation Susan introduced and improvements she made at DHS.”

Regardless of the sunny statements released Thursday by Napolitano and Gerard, their relationship became strained over the last year or so with the uncovering by Gerard’s inspectors of a string of patient-care problems at the Arizona State Veteran Home, which is part of the state Department of Veterans Services.

In May, the state-run nursing home came under criticism after sending home without home-health services or medications a 67-year-old diabetic man recovering from brain surgery. DHS declared that residents in the home were in “immediate jeopardy,” the worst possible designation for such a facility. It was the second time in a year-and-a-half that the home had received the designation.

After that incident, the outspoken Gerard revealed some of her frustration with the Governor’s Office in a series of interagency e-mails, which subsequently became public.

In one, Gerard wrote that the Governor’s Office and Department of Veterans Services had a habit of siding with the veterans home rather than DHS when it came to questions of patient care at the nursing home. In another, Gerard described the reaction to her agency’s negative inspections of the veterans home as a “shoot the messenger mentality.”

Napolitano spokeswoman Jeanine L’Ecuyer said the governor didn’t request Gerard’s resignation, and denied that recent problems at the veterans home played any role in the shakeup.

“Sue Gerard made the decision to resign,” L’Ecuyer said. “It was her decision. The timing of Gerard’s decision was Gerard’s.”

News of her resignation comes two days after Gen. Richard “Gregg” Maxon stepped down from his position as head of the Department of Veterans Services. Stepping in to replace Maxon is Col. Joey Strickland, who most recently was deputy secretary of the Louisiana Department of Veterans Affairs.

Just over a week ago, the bulk of Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano’s legislative agenda was in doubt.

Her plan to expand state health coverage for dependents up to age 25 was essentially dead. As was her initiative for a new, three-in-one state ID card. A proposal to raise the dropout age to 18 never got so much as a hearing this session.

Plans to take photo-enforcement statewide and a $1 billion-plus borrowing package for state universities appeared tenuous at best.

But today, it’s Napolitano basking in the glow of a budget deal through which she landed some of her biggest legislative priorities.

Authority for up to 100 photo-enforcement cameras on state highways? Check.

Borrowing to the tune of $1 billion for the state’s three public universities, including the downtown medical campus? Check.

A budget plan that closes a $2 billion shortfall without whacking past Napolitano initiatives? Check.

“We were able, in large part, to protect things that are important,” the governor said, reflecting this week on a legislative session that spanned nearly six months but was dominated by a single topic: the budget.

‘Count your blessings’

The state’s troubled finances played a role in virtually every Capitol debate this year.

The deficit, which ballooned between the session’s first days in mid-January and its final days late last month, effectively kept Napolitano on the defensive, focused on protecting her cherished state programs from $1 billion or more in cuts advocated by some lawmakers.

New or expanded state services were almost out of the question. It just wasn’t that kind of session. Money was too tight.

“This was just the wrong time to do it,” said Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor, a Gilbert Republican. “Expanding anything when we’re facing a $2 billion shortfall is foolish, in my point of view.”

Democratic pollster and strategist Bob Grossfeld called it the kind of session “when the most significant thing you’ve done is not sink.”

“There was not a shutdown of state government. As far as I know, people still can’t go into bars with guns blazing,” he said, referencing past legislative efforts to allow the carrying of firearms into bars.

“You’ve got to count your blessings where you find them.”

Despite Napolitano’s success at the end of the session, the difficult Capitol atmosphere meant that many of the policy initiatives laid out in her State of the State address in January never came to fruition.

Her proposed Centennial Scholars program, guaranteeing free college tuition for good students beginning with the senior Class of 2012, never got off the ground. Nor did a proposed four-year tuition freeze for students entering college.

The Legislature also rejected her call to refer to the November ballot measures to raise taxes for transportation and reform Arizona’s trust-land system.

In each instance, though, Napolitano went a different route. The Arizona Board of Regents is looking at a scaled-down version of Centennial Scholars, and the governor is supporting citizens ballot initiatives for transportation and trust land.

Napolitano’s whatever-it-takes motto: “If the door’s not open, we’ll go through the window.”

And when it came to the biggest portions of her agenda, the governor teamed up with Democrats and a small number of Republicans to secure her priorities through budget negotiations.

The prime example: A $1 billion bond package to help the state’s three major universities maintain and refurbish campus facilities.

The bonds will be floated with revenue from an expanded state Lottery.

Proponents pitched the 30-year borrowing scheme as a way to both stimulate the economy with construction jobs and help the universities climb out of a deferred-maintenance deficit estimated at $550 million.

It also fit with Napolitano’s aim to invest in education and help the universities churn out more graduates, especially in the health care field.

“The global competition isn’t waiting for us to get through the recession,” said Fred DuVal, a member of the state Board of Regents and Phoenix-based political consultant.

“This was an exceptional commitment in a down year.”

Praise for the budget deal, especially the photo-enforcement and university-bonding provisions, has been anything but unanimous.

All but a handful of Republicans in each chamber voted against the budget, with many saying the borrowing and other fiscal maneuvers will result in greater financial pain in future years.

Verschoor was among them. But although he and the Republican caucus thwarted the lion’s share of Napolitano’s agenda this year, it was Verschoor who sounded resigned Wednesday.

“She has so many things out there that I think she probably got most of the things she really wanted, to be honest with you,” he said.

“Her playbook has always been along those lines.”

Sen. Robert Blandu (left), R-Litchfield Park, and Rep. Tom Boone, R-Peoria, talk during the last day of the state legislative session on Friday in Phoenix.

Numbers dominated this legislative session.

As in shrinking revenue projections and growing deficit numbers for the state budget.

As in counting the number of votes needed to pass a budget – which has its own controversial set of numbers.

As in counting the hours that a Democratic-led filibuster dragged on in the Senate, in hopes of derailing a vote on a gay-marriage amendment.

Or the even longer Republican-led filibuster against the budget deal days earlier.

The session ended after 166 days of work, even more if you count the week of work done on the budget before the session officially started in January.

The last day unfolded under a sky darkened by smoke from a wildfire, a fitting metaphor for the darkening mood of the Legislature.

The mood had begun to sour earlier in the week with division over the state-budget deal, and that atmosphere continued with angry and passionate debate over the gay-marriage amendment.

An exasperated and exhausted Senate President Tim Bee lamented the hostile tactics that swirled around the gay-marriage debate.

“This issue has permeated this session,” the Tucson Republican said. “It’s been very divisive.”

Rep. Bill Konopnicki, a Safford Republican, called it “the most difficult session I can remember ever,” punctuated by personality conflicts between legislators, a narrowly divided House and Senate and a $2 billion budget gap that loomed over all else.

In the end, lawmakers finished work on a $9.9 billion spending plan on the 165th day, amid predictions that they would be called back to the Capitol before the year is done to continue shoring up a budget many believe will fall back into deficit.

The budget squeaked by, passing with one-vote margins in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The prospect of cutting one-fifth of the state budget colored every decision this session, leading to few program expansions and lots of wrangling over dollars.

“Every bill with any spending on it, any bill with a dollar on it, was tightly scrutinized,” said Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor, R-Gilbert.

Accomplishments

There were non-budget accomplishments, to be sure. But lawmakers were slow to recall many on short notice.

“I couldn’t find a lot of positive things we’ve done,” said Sen. Debbie McCune-Davis, D-Phoenix.

She said she was pleased with a bill that expanded insurance to cover autism, as well as a state budget that “held steady” on education and economic development.

The state’s new employer-sanctions law was amended to reflect changes that came to light after it took effect Jan. 1, clarifying that it applied only to employees hired as of the start of the year.

It was one of the few immigration-related bills to pass this session, a marked departure from recent years. Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, sponsored the sanctions bill, as well as numerous other immigration measures that went nowhere.

Bills spearheaded by Reps. Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, and Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, provided more openness in the records produced by Child Protective Services, opened up certain court hearings related to child custody and put more requirements on caseworkers intended to better protect the welfare of a child under CPS’ watch.

A bill that extended a property-tax break for renewable-energy plants passed in the final hour of the session.

It was sponsored by Rep. Lucy Mason, R-Prescott, and was characterized as crucial to a massive solar-generating project planned near Gila Bend.

The bill had stalled for a final House vote, and supporters speculated that House Speaker Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix, was sitting on it as retribution for Mason’s support for a rival state-budget plan. But Weiers put the bill up for a vote Friday night, and it passed easily.

The last-minute drama underscored how much the budget dominated the legislative session.

Deficit colors assembly

The size of the state deficit ballooned over the course of the session, as state coffers flagged under the strain of a cooling economy and crashing housing market. Legislative leaders spent months in closed-door talks, ultimately reaching deals with Gov. Janet Napolitano to close shortfalls of $1.2 billion for fiscal 2008, $2 billion for 2009.

Napolitano and Democrats preached a budget-management plan that would largely paper over the deficit, relying on more than $1 billion in borrowing and other fiscal maneuvers to close the 2009 shortfall without deep cuts in state services.

Ultimately, the two factions reached a deal with a handful of GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate, outmaneuvering remaining Republicans who favored deeper cuts.

Weiers called the budget package – signed into law Friday by Napolitano – “my biggest disappointment” of the session.

He and other critics worry that the plan merely worsens the state’s fiscal outlook by draining its reserves and pushing more than $600 million in education expenses into future years.

“In this case, I believe we made the problem worse,” Weiers said. “It puts us in the position that the state is now on the brink of bankruptcy.”

Weiers and other lawmakers made a last-minute run to win support for a “stimulus” package of bills that supporters said would generate thousands of construction jobs.

But only two of the proposed five measures passed – both included in the budget.

The provisions include $1 billion in borrowing for university construction, to be financed with the proceeds from an expanded state Lottery.

The other stimulus provision expands existing state tax credits for research and development, with the goal of luring startup companies in the high-tech and biotech industries.

Left by the wayside were proposals to create tax credits to attract solar-manufacturing facilities; to give a tax break for a downtown entertainment district; and to allow Pima County officials to call an election to allow a tax that would shore up Tucson’s spring-training baseball fortunes.

The gay-marriage issue, which would amend the state Constitution to stipulate that marriage is between one man and one woman, is the only matter that lawmakers referred to the ballot.

But not for a lack of trying.

Earlier this year, for example, lawmakers approved a bill that would permanently repeal a state property tax that is on hold through next year. Napolitano vetoed it.

Last week, lawmakers tried again, advancing measures that would refer the tax repeal to the ballot, thereby avoiding the governor’s veto stamp.

But those bills never got a final vote.

Other attempted ballot referrals included a measure that would have required local police departments to inquire about the immigration status of people they stop, as well as a measure that would have allowed the Legislature, under certain conditions, to adjust the spending of voter-approved projects.

By Matthew Benson, Mary Jo Pitzl

Proposal affects Roosevelt, other troubled districts

The state could assume control of the Roosevelt school district in south Phoenix and a handful of other troubled districts under a takeover plan approved by House lawmakers Wednesday.

The measure, House Bill 2711, would allow the Arizona Department of Education to take control of districts in which at least half the schools are underperforming or failing, according to their scores on a state report card.

Along with Roosevelt, other districts that would qualify for immediate state intervention include Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified in Sells, Miami Unified, San Carlos Unified and Union Elementary in Tolleson.

But it’s the struggling Roosevelt school district that motivated bill sponsor Rep. Cloves Campbell Jr. The Phoenix Democrat noted that half of the district’s 21 schools are failing or underperforming, the worst record in the state. Turnover of school-board members hasn’t rectified the problem, Cloves said, nor has a parade of seven superintendents over the past 17 years.

“This is a last-ditch effort,” Campbell said of the bill.

Growing up, he attended schools in the area – one of which is named for his father, Cloves Campbell. Now, the district numbers nearly 12,500 students. An additional 2,000 choose to attend neighboring districts or charter schools instead, costing Roosevelt more than $12 million in state funding.

Roosevelt Superintendent Mark Dowling could not be reached for comment Wednesday, but has previously voiced objections to notions of a state takeover. Norma Munoz, president of the Roosevelt governing board, has noted that the bill would make new district leadership unaccountable to residents, unlike a traditional, voter-approved school board.

Under HB 2711, given final House approval by a 52-7 vote, the state Board of Education would be empowered to install a superintendent at districts such as Roosevelt. The superintendent would serve three years and report to the state board. The superintendent also would have authority over district hiring and firing and be charged with drawing up an improvement plan for academic achievement.

State schools chief Tom Horne backs Campbell’s bill, saying “the Number 1 moral issue in education today is that we’ve got to turn around these failing school districts.”

He noted the state’s success in recent years in working with individual schools. Under existing guidelines, the state may take control of any school that ranks underperforming for three straight years.

But, occasionally, Horne said, school problems are systemic and can be traced to district mismanagement. It’s for those instances that Campbell’s measure would come in handy.

The bill next heads to the Senate for consideration.

Proposal garners 1,400 comments

Public response has been widely supportive of a plan to expand state benefits to domestic partners of state employees, judging from roughly 1,400 e-mails, letters and faxes received by the Arizona Department of Administration.

Department spokesman Alan Ecker called it “an extraordinary amount of comment” that was received by the agency during a 30-day window allowed for public response to the proposal late last year.

In short, it would allow state employees with domestic partners, gay or straight, to claim the same benefits as married couples. The biggest benefit among those perks is coverage under the state health plan.

Many letters came from longtime gay and lesbian couples.

“My partner of over 20 years, who received her master’s degree from the U of A in December 2004, has been without health insurance since graduation,” wrote Beverly Seckinger, a Tucson resident and faculty member at the University of Arizona.

“We have exhaustively explored the available options and discovered that, at present, we are not able to afford private health insurance for her.”

The benefits expansion was proposed in November by Department of Administration Director William Bell and has the backing of Gov. Janet Napolitano.

In opposition are social conservatives, led by the Center for Arizona Policy.

Public feedback generally fell into two broad categories:

• Supporters who view the benefits expansion as a matter of fairness and a means for the state to better compete for employees with the private sector and the more than a dozen states that already offer domestic-partner benefits.

• Opponents who see the proposal as a threat to traditional marriage between one man and one woman and those who question the budgetary impact at a time when the state is facing a string of years with billion-dollar shortfalls.

UA President Robert Shelton noted in a letter that his institution and Arizona State University are the only PAC-10 schools that don’t provide domestic-partner benefits.

“These are our prime competitors for faculty,” he wrote, “and the decision by the state to allow domestic-partner benefits will greatly enhance our ability to be competitive against these national peers in recruiting and retaining top faculty and staff.”

During the 30-day public-comment period, the state received 820 e-mails, roughly 600 letters and six faxes. More than half were form letters, and at least one note was scrawled onto a Christmas card “wishing you happy holiday moments to share.”

“No no no benefits for domestic partners,” the inside of the card said. “Let’s get smart with taxpayer money!”

Most of the feedback came from regular Arizonans and state employees, current and retired.

Vittoria Giovannucci, a Peoria resident, called the benefits expansion “fiscally irresponsible and most likely illegal.”

“Increasing benefits at a time when the state of Arizona faces nearly a $1 billion shortfall flies in the face of fiscal responsibility,” Giovannucci wrote.

The Department of Administration estimates that the benefits expansion would bring 315 to 850 new individuals under state coverage at a cost of up to $4.5 million in its first year. Those additional costs, the agency says, could be offset with benefits savings in other areas.

One handwritten note came from Theodore Coleman, a self-described 70-year-old retired teacher from Ash Fork.

“My partner has no coverage at all, and I do not take advantage of (Arizona State Retirement System) health insurance since I cannot provide coverage for my partner,” Coleman wrote.

“I taught in the Arizona school system for almost 30 years and do not get the same benefits as married couples.”

The benefits-expansion proposal will next be presented to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council, a six-member board appointed by Napolitano.

The hearing, which will allow public testimony, will likely come in March or April. If approved, the change would take effect Oct. 1.

Arizona is poised to join more than a dozen states that offer health and other benefits to domestic partners of state employees, gay or straight.

The change would affect the state health plan, to which 65,000 active employees of state government and public universities, as well as 9,000 retirees, belong. In short, it would allow state employees with domestic partners to claim the same benefits as married couples, the biggest of which is coverage under the state health plan.

Supporters, who include Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, say the proposal is a step toward fairness and would help the state and its public universities better compete for employees in a marketplace where domestic-partner benefits are becoming more common.

Napolitano could not be reached for comment Monday, but representatives of her office told The Arizona Republic that she is backing the plan.

“It’s something that most of the other private corporations and large cities are doing, and it’s time state government started doing it, as well,” said Tim Nelson, general counsel to the governor. “It’s something the governor believes strongly is the right thing to do.”

But the issue is not without controversy in a state where voters 13 months ago faced a gay-marriage initiative that would have barred government benefits for domestic partners. The measure narrowly failed, paving the way for this attempt to expand domestic-partner benefits from a select handful of Arizona cities to all state employees.

Opponents see an attempt to erode traditional values and stamp a sort of state endorsement on the validity of gay and other unmarried relationships. They vow a fight.

“It’s inappropriate. I will support no such thing,” said Rep. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican and chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. “This is absolutely outrageous.”

Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor is among legislators who believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. He called the plan for domestic partners a “slippery slope” toward government acceptance of variations on traditional marriage.

“I think it’s going to be met with a lot of resistance,” the Gilbert Republican said.

Bill Bell, director of the state Department of Administration, quietly filed the proposal Nov. 7 with the Secretary of State’s Office. After a few weeks to process the measure, it was published Friday along with the secretary of state’s regular registry of proposed rules.

The public now will have fewer than 30 days to comment on the proposal, after which a hearing will likely be scheduled. The Governor’s Regulatory Review Council, a six-member board appointed by the governor, will have the final say on the domestic-partners plan.

It has actually been in the works for eight years, said Sen. Ken Cheuvront, a Phoenix Democrat and one of the proposal’s chief backers. But the timing was continually bad, with resistance under a prior gubernatorial administration, issues with the state not being self-insured and other hold-ups. Legislative measures to advance the same issue came up virtually every session but never got far with the GOP-led Legislature.

Then, in November 2006, Arizona voters defeated a citizens initiative targeting gay marriage and civil unions.

“I think you saw the majority of Arizonans do not believe in discrimination,” Cheuvront said. He and supporters decided the time was now for their domestic-partners plan. Actually, “that time came a long time ago,” he said.

For Cheuvront, one of the Legislature’s only openly gay members, it’s both an issue of fairness to employees and state competitiveness.

In 1990, fewer than two-dozen U.S. employers offered spousal-equivalent benefits for gay couples, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Today, the nation’s largest civil-rights organization for gays, lesbians and others estimates that the majority of Fortune 500 companies – including Gannett, owner of The Arizona Republic – offer some kind of benefits for domestic partners. Also doing so are more than 200 communities nationwide, including Phoenix, Tempe, Scottsdale and Tucson.

“This is just a natural progression of what’s happening in our state and across the nation,” said Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat.

It’s estimated that the domestic-partners change would bring 300 to 850 new individuals under the state’s benefits plan beginning in October 2008, when the expansion would take effect. The budget impact is pegged at $1.3 million to $4.2 million for the first year, though the Department of Administration believes benefit savings in other areas would make up the difference.

Peter Gentala, an attorney with the conservative Center for Arizona Policy, called it “breathtaking” that a policy shift of this size and scope would be undertaken outside the legislative process and said the proposal amounts to an “end-run” around state law. Arizona defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and that has long been the barometer for determining eligibility of a state employee’s partner for state benefits.

But Chris Edelson of the Human Rights Campaign said the time for that policy has passed.

“Same-sex couples pay taxes just like everyone else,” Edelson said. “They should be able to get benefits just like everyone else.”

———

Government authorities that provide domestic-partner benefits

In Arizona: Phoenix, Tempe, Scottsdale, Tucson, Pima County, Maricopa Community Colleges.

Nationwide: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Washington D.C.; More than 200 cities and towns.

Source: Human Rights Campaign and Arizona Republic research

Who would qualify as a domestic partner?

• Individual at least 18 years of age who shared the employee’s residence for at least the last 12 consecutive months.

• Had not signed an affidavit of domestic partnership with any other person within the last year.

• Not legally married to anyone else, and not a blood relative of the employee.

• Financially tied to the employee (joint mortgage or lease tenancy, life insurance beneficiary, joint vehicle ownership, etc.)

For what benefits would they be eligible?

• Coverage under the state health plan for active employees and former elected officials.

• Group life insurance and disability income insurance.

———

Want to comment?

Public comment on a proposal to expand health and other benefits to domestic partners of state employees can be directed to:

Christine Bronson with the Arizona Department of Administration

Address: 100 N. 15th Ave., Suite 261, Phoenix AZ, 85007

Telephone: 602-542-1423

E-mail: Christine.Bronson@azdoa.gov.

Fax: 602-542-1980

The deaths of Tucson siblings Ariana and Tyler Payne, ages 4 and 5, were uncommon.

The circumstances surrounding the deaths were anything but.

A broken home. Poverty. A father with a past of domestic violence and of drug and alcohol abuse. A mother with allegations of methamphetamine use. And a Child Protective Services system that appeared overwhelmed and unwilling or unable to give the case the attention it needed.

Believing the children were safer with their father than their mother – and despite a court order granting her custody – CPS recommended the children remain with him.

Less than a year later, in February, Ariana’s body was found stuffed into a bin in a storage locker. Her brother was never found, though he is presumed dead. In custody and charged with first-degree murder in the case is their father, Christopher Payne, and his girlfriend, Reina Gonzales.

Rep. Jonathan Paton said the case, the focus of a House Government Committee hearing Tuesday, is illustrative of the dilemmas that CPS faces routinely.

In the wake of Ariana and Tyler’s deaths – as well as that of another Tucson child, 5-year-old Brandon Williams – Paton hopes to offer the agency expanded power and resources, tied to additional accountability and transparency.

Specifically, the Tucson Republican would authorize CPS to require drug testing of parents in cases, such as with the Payne family, where the agency suspects but can’t prove drug use.

Drug or alcohol abuse is involved in three-quarters of all CPS cases, testified Lillian Downing, a CPS administrator in Pima County.

“If a parent is going to choose meth over their child,” Paton said, “the state needs to be able to step in and force that parent to seek treatment or remove the child.”

Paton would also open to the public the CPS case files of children killed or seriously injured. Those cases could be closed only with a court order. Now, the opposite is true.

Other potential legislation would allow CPS to file missing-person reports for children who disappear and improve the agency’s access to criminal background data through the Department of Public Safety.

CPS officials said understaffing is also critical. They cited case overload as a primary cause of two of the major oversights in the handling of the Payne case.

First, the caseworker never obtained the 2003 divorce decree that gave the mother, Jamie Hallam, custody and denied the father visitation. The decree cited his past problems with drug use and domestic violence.

Three years later, CPS closed the case and ended its involvement with the family – even though the children were living with their father in violation of the court order. There had been no court hearing to transfer custody.

Downing noted the agency had no reason to believe the father was a threat to his children. But she also conceded, “In my opinion, we should have maintained the case open until the conclusion of the transfer of custody. We did not do that.”

CPS officials wanted to keep the children with their father. They wanted to keep the family intact as much as possible.

Tracy Wareing, director of the state Department of Economic Security, said that’s always the goal. And the push-pull between rescuing children from dangerous homes and unnecessarily breaking up families will surely be at the heart of any coming debate on CPS reforms.

“There’s a really fragile balance there,” said Rep. Steve Farley, a Tucson Democrat who sat in on Tuesday’s hearing. “I think (CPS) may have the balance right but just needs more funding to carry it out.

Colangelo, others mount counterattack

Some of the state’s biggest business leaders are joining forces and finances to oppose Arizona’s tough new sanctions against the hiring of illegal workers – sanctions they say would devastate the economy.

The coalition, Wake Up Arizona!, counts Valley McDonald’s franchiser Mac Magruder, Tucson car dealer Jim Click, former Phoenix Suns Chief Executive Jerry Colangelo and Meritage Homes Chief Executive Steve Hilton among its supporters.

The group plans to mount a legal challenge against a new state employer-sanctions law already being called the nation’s toughest.

In addition, the group says it will campaign against a separate citizens initiative that seeks even stricter penalties for employers and perhaps will even seek an initiative of its own.

Magruder said the group also will target lawmakers who played a key role in pushing the new law, including House Speaker Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix, and Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa. That effort would be in the form of political action committees to help unseat the legislators in the 2008 election.

The actions, Magruder said, are warranted to counter the new law and a citizens initiative known as the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which have the potential to cost legitimate Americans their jobs as companies face losing their business licenses for violations or are forced to defend themselves against investigations. In other cases, he surmised, “economic flight” will result as businesses leave the state or opt against locating here.

“I don’t believe the people of Arizona have any idea of the unintended consequences of the law our governor just signed,” said Magruder, an owner of seven McDonald’s restaurants in the Valley who is leading the effort. “Everyone in Arizona is affected by this law.”

His challenge will be making that point to Arizonans who seem pitched in favor of a get-tough immigration strategy. Don Goldwater, a former gubernatorial candidate leading the Legal Arizona Workers Act, isn’t worried.

“The voter, I think, knows exactly what’s going on with businesses who are trying scare tactics,” he said.

Chamber may sign on
Wake Up Arizona! grew out of the wake of House Bill 2779, which cleared the Republican-led Legislature and was signed July 2 by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano. The measure made national headlines, drawing cheers from those who favor a border crackdown and sending chills through some in the business community. It takes effect Jan. 1.

Among those contemplating joining the business coalition is the Arizona Chamber of Commerce. The business group will make its decision next week.

The dynamics behind the new law’s support aren’t complicated: Arizonans are fed up with illegal immigration, and opinion polls indicate broad public backing for sanctions against the employers of undocumented workers.

The measure received added impetus in the days before the governor’s signature when a U.S. Senate deal fell apart, demonstrating anew the federal government’s unwillingness to act.

So Napolitano did.

Now, the business interests coalescing around Magruder’s efforts say they’re bearing the burden of the federal government’s immigration failure. Of main concern is the potential that the law will mean harassing complaints against businesses that hire Latinos and increased identity theft among job applicants looking to skirt a required new database check that matches names to valid Social Security numbers.

Looming largest, though, is the loss of a business license. Under the new law, it will be suspended on a first offense for “knowingly” or “intentionally” hiring an illegal worker and revoked on a second.

With the ballot initiative, revocation would come on a first offense.

“I’ve got my whole life invested in this business,” said Click, among the state’s biggest donors to Republican candidates and causes. “What if my service manager turns his head, or fakes it (when hiring a worker)? I lose my license? Is that fair? I don’t think so.”

Goldwater noted that both his initiative and the state law offer employers a defense if they use a federal database to confirm the legality of new employees.

The database “protects businesses,” he said, noting that sanctions against employers figure to hurt only those breaking the law.

As for talk of a big-dollar campaign to oppose his initiative and weaken the new state law, Goldwater offered a challenge: “I hope they raise a lot of money. I hope they spend a lot of money. I hope they lick their wounds at the end of the day.”

———

Fair and Legal Employment Act (House Bill 2779)

Provisions

• Would prohibit employers from knowingly or intentionally hiring undocumented workers.

• Starting Jan. 1, would require all employers to run their new hires through the Basic Pilot Program to determine their legal status. Use of the program would act as a sort of immunity for employers facing prosecution under the law.

• Would form an eight-member committee to study employer-sanctions laws in Arizona and whether they are fairly enforced. A committee report would be due to the governor, speaker of the House and Senate president by the end of 2008.

Penalties

• First offense: Businesses caught “knowingly” employing an undocumented worker would lose their license for up to 10 days. Those caught “intentionally” hiring an undocumented worker would lose their license for at least 10 days.

The court would order that the employment of all undocumented workers at the business be terminated, and require the employer to sign an affidavit stating that the workers were fired and they will not hire such workers in the future. Employers would be placed on probation for three years (five, for “intentional” violations)

• Second offense (while on probation): Permanent revocation of the business license.

Enforcement

• Investigations would be conducted based on complaints against employers.

• If the complaint was shown to be valid, the investigator would be required to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and local law enforcement.

• From the state’s 2007-08 General Fund, the bill would provide $100,000 to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, and $2.4 million to be distributed to county prosecutors.

Wanted: current and former U.S. Border Patrol agents to train others in border enforcement. Good pay and benefits. Room and board included. Exotic locale: Iraq.

That’s essentially the pitch a Virginia-based military contractor made in Tucson this week as it recruited people with Customs and Border Enforcement experience for a new mission in the Middle East. The company, DynCorp, has been asked by the U.S. State Department to find 120 people to train Iraqis in the security of their country’s border.

But the recruiting drive comes as the United States wrestles with its own border security. Calling the DynCorp hirings a contradiction of that effort, Gov. Janet Napolitano wrote President Bush this week to say the deal “makes no sense.”

DynCorp has contracted with the State Department since 1994, and already has 700 police trainers for local security in Iraq. The request for border security trainers was made in late March. It comes amid growing concerns that the country’s porous border is allowing a free flow of terrorists, insurgents and weapons that pose a threat to U.S. troops.

Not surprisingly, “you have to pay people a premium to go to Iraq,” said DynCorp spokesman Gregory Lagana. He said the company is offering $134,100 for a one-year stay, plus a $25,000 signing bonus. For those who sign on, the first $90,000 in income is tax free, and housing and food are free.

While the pay is significantly more than the roughly $55,000 earned by Border Patrol agents with at least two years’ experience, Lagana said money isn’t the main motivating factor for recruits.

“People may get interested just for the pay, but pay isn’t enough,” he said. “(Recruits) just have a very strong sense of mission.”

That may be true, but Napolitano worries about the security of the U.S. border.

“We should be focused on supporting our nation’s security efforts along the Mexican and Canadian border instead of hampering (Customs and Border Patrol) by sending our best agents to a war zone in Iraq,” Napolitano, along with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, wrote President Bush.

Lagana, who was unsure how many people were recruited in Tucson, brushed aside those concerns. Twenty-three of the 30 recruits who have already deployed for Iraq were former, not current, Border Patrol agents.

Agent Shannon Stevens, a Border Patrol spokeswoman, noted that the number of personnel sought by DynCorp is “a very small number compared to the agents we have.”

Arizona’s Tucson sector employs 2,600 agents, and there are more than 13,350 nationwide.

“The issue isn’t the numbers,” said Napolitano spokeswoman Jeanine L’Ecuyer. “(DynCorp) basically has a contract to skim off Border Patrol agents.”

With the launch of Operation Jump Start last spring, the president announced the deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops to the border. He pledged that they’d be replaced within a few years by an equal number of new Border Patrol agents.

But one year later, half of those National Guard troops will soon be pulled from border duty, and fewer than 350 new agents have been hired.

For Napolitano, it’s a matter of priorities and the fear that the DynCorp contract and National Guard draw-down signal the Mexican border is a waning priority for the president.

Gov. Janet Napolitano’s recent statements supporting military operations in Iraq and saying she has no plans to call for a troop withdrawal drew criticism from members of the Democratic Party who have lost patience with the war.

Democrat Napolitano made her first visit to Iraq this month at the invitation of Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

After two days of conversations with soldiers, military commanders and other officials, she came away cautiously optimistic about the country’s security situation and the potential for success with the recent decision to increase troop strength in Baghdad.

“People that I met with were cautiously optimistic that they’re at least seeing improvement,” Napolitano told reporters at the time. “I think we’re restoring stability.”

Her stance, more in line with Republican Sen. Jon Kyl than with Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, both Arizonans, after their February visit to Iraq, is stirring unrest in the party ranks.

That’s especially so as Tuesday marks the country’s fourth year at war in Iraq.

Sherry Bohlen, whose 36-year-old son is preparing for a second Iraq deployment with the Army, said Napolitano’s words have “a lot of conversation going within the party.”

“As a mom whose son is once again going to be asked to put his life on the line, his future on the line, I’m puzzled,” said Bohlen, co-chairwoman of the Arizona Progressive Democratic Caucus.

The caucus generally represents the left wing of the party on issues ranging from the war to health care and economic justice.

“I’m puzzled at our leaders that are not connected with and responding to the will of the American people,” Bohlen said. “The American people spoke very clearly in November of ’06. Any politician or political party that doesn’t heed that message will pay the price in ’08.”

Arizona Democratic Party Vice Chairman Randy Camacho was less pointed but noted just the same that Napolitano “missed a great opportunity to provide a definitive position on the war.”

Napolitano could not be reached for response, but Democratic Party Chairman David Waid called the governor’s position “entirely consistent with Democrats.”

Napolitano provided some context last week when she met with Republican state lawmakers.

“In my view, we got into this war without thinking through everything we should have,” Napolitano said. “We should not get out of this war without thinking everything through. I do think we shouldn’t exit precipitously without giving this one more shot.”

Many Americans and Arizonans appear less willing.

Bohlen pointed to the November general election, in which it’s believed that the Iraq war weighed heavily on the minds of voters who handed control of Congress to Democrats.

More recent polling indicates that a majority of Americans no longer support the war.

But it’s not as simple as all that.

Arizona State University pollster Bruce Merrill noted that the troop surge remains in its infancy, so it’s difficult to gauge public opinion.

A poll of his at the end of January found that 52 percent of Arizona voters opposed the surge, 39 percent were for it and 9 percent had no opinion.

Far from sparking mutiny, though, political consultant and Napolitano confidant Barry Dill said that “the words ‘thoughtful,’ ‘reasoned’ and ‘respectful’ are what I’ve heard from Democrats, Republicans and independents alike” to describe the governor’s position on Iraq.

But Napolitano’s words run counter to the beliefs of Iraq critics.

That’s especially true, Merrill said, among progressives for whom the most important issue “is the war, our decision to go there and getting out immediately.”

Some Democrats, such as Camacho, want to set benchmarks for a phased withdrawal. Others, including Bohlen, favor a deadline of the end of this year.

The key, Waid said, is to “get out in a way that doesn’t compound mistake upon mistake.”