Signing Arizona immigration law was never a question for governor
Despite report Brewer agonized over SB 1070, she had no doubts

by Ginger Rough - Jun. 1, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

When Gov. Jan Brewer stepped to the podium in front of a national television audience on April 23, she was resolute and unwavering in her declaration.

Signing Senate Bill 1070, she said, "represents what's best for Arizona."

In the days and weeks prior, there was much speculation about the governor's intentions for the tough and controversial immigration measure passed by the state Legislature.

Would she sign the bill? Would she veto it? What, exactly, was she thinking?

Brewer stayed mostly silent during that time, fueling rumors that perhaps she was hesitating, that she wouldn't allow it to become law. One of her advisers said she was "agonizing" over the decision. Brewer told the media she had "concerns" about certain aspects of the legislation.

Today, however, it's clear that Brewer never really questioned whether signing the bill was, as she puts it, "the right move" for the state - despite the furor, the outside pressure and the divergent viewpoints on its impact and merits.

In interviews with The Republic, she and members of her inner circle say the four-day period between when the bill arrived in her office and when she signed it into law was more about ensuring the legislation was constitutionally sound, worded appropriately and clear in its intent.

Brewer said there wasn't really a "defining moment" when she decided to sign. She and her advisers provided input and direction on its language well before the legislation reached her desk.

"We had policy people working . . . and making adjustments as it moved through," she said. "When it came up here, we sat here and went over it. We wanted to be perfectly clear that it mirrored federal law and that it would be used as another tool to address illegal immigration.

"Once we got through (that process), I felt very comfortable signing it."

Sen. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican and sponsor of the bill, is more blunt: "I expected her to sign it. I don't think she ever really had hesitation, but there was the perception that maybe she did."

A rancher's murder

In March, the day after Cochise County rancher Robert Krentz was murdered by an individual who authorities said may have been a drug smuggler or illegal immigrant, Brewer called county Sheriff Larry Dever.

The killing reignited the smoldering debate over border security and illegal immigration, and the governor moved quickly to offer state assistance.

About 10 days later, she traveled to meet with Dever. It was about two weeks before she would sign SB 1070.

Brewer and Dever had an hourlong closed-door meeting, during which he briefed her on border-security issues and challenges he faced. Dever said he doesn't recall whether the pending immigration legislation came up, but he believes the talk had an impact.

"I am not trying to suggest that it had anything to do with her signing the bill necessarily," Dever said. "But I do think she left that meeting with the clear idea of the urgency of the situation."

Ask Brewer about her reasons for signing the legislation, and she talks at length about border security, associated crime and costs to the state, and how she has dealt with such issues throughout her political career.

"I certainly was very cognizant of the impact (of the bill) but also cognizant of what the impact of illegal immigration was doing to the state of Arizona in relation to cost and education and health services and certainly incarceration," Brewer said.

"I know when you go down to our borders and you meet with the people down there and you drive around and see what's happening . . . it's just simply got to stop."

Grant Woods, a longtime friend and co-chairman of her election campaign, spent a lot of time trying to convince the governor that SB 1070 was a bad bill. Ultimately, he believes Brewer's views on the costs of illegal immigration drove her decision making.

"It really, for her, kept coming back to the idea that the problem is so immense now that we have to take action," Woods said. "And that backdrop ended up carrying the day."

Brewer has a long history of advocating for tough immigration measures. As secretary of state, she backed Proposition 200, which requires proof of identification to vote and proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Last year, she worked with the Arizona Department of Economic Security to ensure that funds the state spent on social-welfare programs went only to those legally eligible.

Strategy meetings

Almost every week, Brewer holds strategy meetings with advisers from her gubernatorial staff and her campaign to discuss pressing and long-term issues on her calendar.

For at least a month prior to her signing the immigration law, Woods attended those meetings and detailed his concerns about the legislation, which makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

It states that an officer engaged in a lawful stop, detention or arrest shall, when practicable, ask about a person's legal status when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally.

"I was always coming from the perspective that I didn't think this was the right thing, and I didn't think it solved any problems and that it would be extremely divisive," said Woods, a former Republican state attorney general. "But she was always coming from the perspective, 'How do we make it better? If there were problems, how do we fix the legislation?' "

According to the governor, key players in the bill-review process included several members of her executive team, among them chief of staff Eileen Klein, general counsel Joe Kanefield, legislative-affairs director Scott Smith and Richard Bark, deputy chief of staff for policy.

All declined requests to discuss their role in reviewing the legislation.

But Pearce confirmed that he sought and received input from the Governor's Office on language in both SB 1070 and in House Bill 2162, which sought to clarify the original legislation.

In particular, the governor was concerned about racial profiling, and she wanted to ensure the legislation specifically prohibited that, said Mary Peters, a friend and co-chairman of Brewer's election campaign.

Among other things, Brewer successfully pushed to have the word "solely" removed from this sentence: "A law enforcement official or agency . . . may not solely consider race, or color or national origin" in establishing reasonable suspicion someone is in the country illegally.

"She asked whether it was really necessary," Pearce said. "I had a debate with her office, and I conceded that it was not."

An opponent's view

The day after the bill was sent to the Governor's Office, Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox stood in front of the state Capitol and said it "is literally designed to terrorize undocumented immigrants."

After the rally, she and several other opponents met with Brewer's spokesman Paul Senseman. Wilcox said she tried repeatedly that week to get in touch with the governor to discuss her concerns about the bill, but her calls were not returned.

Wilcox, who has known Brewer for at least 30 years and described their relationship as a "political friendship," said she now believes the governor had made up her mind and decided to sign the bill long before she actually put pen to paper.

"She didn't really talk to any of us who were really involved with (the opposition)," Wilcox said. "So, I don't know how she could have judged the impact."

Wilcox said she believes the governor's decision was as much about political gain as anything else.

"She is running in a primary that leans heavily to the right," Wilcox said. "She had to outright the right, and that's what she did."

Telephone polling since Brewer signed SB 1070 suggests her decision sat well with would-be voters in the August Republican primary.

Both her job-approval ratings and her lead over her opponents appeared to have gotten a boost in Rasmussen Reports surveys released over the past month.

But both Brewer and her campaign deny political favor had anything to do with her decision.

"She did not make a decision that was politically expedient," Peters said. "She is doing what she thought was best for Arizona. She's not a political opportunist."

Still, in doing "what is right for Arizona," Brewer opened the state up to a widespread economic backlash, including business boycotts and a loss of vital tourism revenue.

She also opened herself up to what she says were unanticipated personal attacks.

"The Nazi comments . . . they are awful," she said, her voice dropping. "Knowing that my father died fighting the Nazi regime in Germany, that I lost him when I was 11 because of that . . . and then to have them call me Hitler's daughter. It hurts. It's ugliness beyond anything I've ever experienced."

Multiple lawsuits have been filed seeking to stop the law before it goes into effect on July 29.

Brewer believes the state will successfully defend them and points to Prop. 200 as a reason.

"We were able to implement it, no one became disenfranchised, and we became a model of the country," she said.

"And I think that's where we are headed this time."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... rewer.html