As the veto of SB 1062 proved, not everything that the Center for Arizona policy wants gets enacted. But the organization also has sometimes – though not often – found itself railing unsuccessfully against legislative support for changes in law.
Consider the decision by Gov. Jane Hull in 2001 to sign a law repealing what she called “archaic” sex laws, many on the books since territorial days, which dealt with who can have sex with whom, and how.
Hull said that it was not the government's concern whether people were living in “open and notorious cohabitation,” one of the laws that she said should go away. Nor did she find a compelling reason to keep statutes on the books which ban not only sodomy but – use your imagination here – any sexual act not designed to create a baby.
“People should not interpret my signature on this bill as a signal that I condone all the conduct that this bill makes lawful,” Hull said at the time. “But I choose not to judge the conduct of others, even when I know others will judge me for signing this bill.”
Among those judging was Cathi Herrod, then just an attorney and lobbyist for CAP. She said the governor ignored the will of the people.
Herrod, using a theme that would become a regular CAP staple, said Hull's decision to sign the measure showed “the media campaign of misinformation was successful.”
CAP also was unsuccessful in convincing voters that they should not approve any measure that gave Native American tribes the exclusive right to operate casinos. The organization, which is opposed to any form of legalized gaming, failed to convince voters to repeal the state Lottery.
CAP also has had no luck in diluting the current merit selection system for choosing judges for the state Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and superior courts of Pima, Maricopa and Pinal counties.
CAP has lobbied for everything from giving the state Senate final approval of nominees to giving the governor who make the final decision more names from which to choose. Among those opposing the effort was former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who had at one time been a state senator and later a judge in the state appellate court.
The organization also has been opposed to Arizona's “no-fault” divorce statutes and supported a longer waiting period before a marriage can be ended, though lawmakers have declined to adopt those changes.