Source: Arizona Capitol Times, Arizona Republic, Arizona Daily Star
A proposal to amend the Arizona Constitution to say that marriage is only the union between a man and a woman will be on the ballot this November. But a Democrat who tried to stop the measure in the Arizona Senate charged in an ethics complaint filed this week that the measure made it to the ballot only because of improper parliamentary maneuvers by supporters.

The marriage discrimination amendment passed June 27, the last and stormy night of the session, with the bare minimum 16 votes necessary to put it on the ballot.

Before casting his vote, even one of the Senators who voted for the measure issued direct rebuke of the lobbyists pushing for the marriage amendment, some of whom were in the gallery, Capitol Times reported.

"This issue has permeated this session and has been very divisive," said Senate President Tim Bee, R-Tuscon. "I have been extremely disappointed by those groups lobbying on behalf of this issue. They have confronted members in hostile ways, and have threatened and coerced them in my opinion."

"As members of this chamber had been admonished to ensure that we respect the institution, I admonish lobbyists to do the same," Bee continued. "And I would hope for better in the future."

Democratic Sen. Ken Cheuvront of Phoenix on Monday asked the Senate Ethics Committee to issue a formal reprimand against Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise because of tactics he used during the final vote on the measure.

Cheuvront accuses Harper of conspiring with other Republican leaders to intentionally break the rules of the Senate by turning off microphones and allowing the Republican majority leader to make a motion in the middle of a debate between Democratic senators.

Cheuvront calls the move, which enabled the ban on same-sex marriage to go to a vote, an "unconscionable" violation of Senate rules.

Newspapers in Arizona report that ethics complaints are rare in the state's legislature, but just about everything regarding the bill's complicated legislative history has been rare.

In both the House and Senate, legislators on both sides of the issue pulled out a dizzying array of rarely used parliamentary rules to either sidetrack or advance the measure. It took cutting vacations short, canceling or delaying trips and breaking Senate rules -- at least, according to the Democrats -- to pass the measure aimed at putting marriage discrimination into the constitution. 

The arguments on the floor about the measure in both the House and Senate often had more to do with the proper application of parliamentary rules than on the actual impact of etching the definition of traditional marriage into the Constitution and thereby banning all others.

All Republicans in the Senate, except Sen. Carolyn Allen of Scottsdale, sponsored or co-signed the proposed marriage amendment.

Meanwhile, Sen. Paula Aboud of Tucson and Ken Cheuvront of Phoenix, both openly gay lawmakers, led a small band of Democrats in trying to defeat it.

The final vote on the anti-gay measure and this week's ethics complaint highlight what the press and even some legislators call a lack of decorum in the Arizona statehouse.

Even some Republicans who eventually voted for the measure were disappointed by the tactics used to get it passed, Capitol Times reported.

Sen. Jay Tibshraeny, R-Chandler, said decorum has not been good for a "long time."

Sen. Tom O’Halleran, R-Sedona, called the move "highly wrong." Upset at what happened, Senate President Tim Bee voted against certain procedural motions, which were meant to conclude the session.

Bee was clearly disappointed at the tactic used by his party to force the vote on the marriage proposal. At one point, the mild-mannered Tucson lawmaker admonished members to conduct themselves properly.

"I am extremely disappointed that this has melted down to this level," he said.

Cheuvront acknowledged Monday that the reprimand he seeks would have no actual effect, especially now that the Senate is adjourned for the year.

But Cheuvront said if lawmakers who abuse the rules are not called to task, it will only encourage Senate leadership to ignore other rules in the future.

Capitol Times and Arizona Republic explained what happened during the stormy session:

The dispute began during a Democratic filibuster on the final day of the session. Cheuvront and Sen. Paula Aboud, D-Tucson had control of the floor in a question-and-answer session over an unrelated tax bill.

At that point, Capitol Times reports, it became apparent to everyone that Cheuvront and Aboud had just hijacked the proceeding and that the duo intended to filibuster as a way to sink SCR1042.

Under Senate rules, a senator who has the floor during a Committee of the Whole debate can talk as long as he wants and as long as he stays on topic.

Knowing that the GOP had the 16 votes needed for passage, the only avenue open to Democrats was to find a way to delay the vote on SCR1042 and hope one or two Republicans would leave, dooming the legislation.

But the Republicans had a counter-plan, which Democrats later called a "subversion" of the rules.

As Aboud began to respond to a question from Cheuvront about a tax bill, Harper interrupted and asked her to press the request-to-speak button. Once Aboud pressed her button, Harper took it to mean Aboud had surrendered the floor. He quickly recognized Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor, who moved to retain the tax bill that Cheuvront and Aboud were discussing and consider it at another time.

As Verschoor began to speak, Democrats shouted "point of order" repeatedly - a call that under Senate rules is supposed to be acknowledged immediately by the chairman, Cheuvront said. Instead, Harper announced that Verschoor's motion passed, which ended the debate and allowed the ban on same-sex marriage to come to a vote, Arizona Republic reports.

A Senate attorney later concluded Harper had violated the rules but also concluded that at that point it was too late to go back and fix the problem, Arizona Star reports.

Arizona already has a law, approved in 1996, that limits marriages to heterosexual couples. And the state Court of Appeals has previously rejected a constitutional challenge to the law.

But proponents of the constitutional amendment, on the ballot as Proposition 102, said the recent decision by the California Supreme Court to overturn that state's statutory prohibition on same-sex marriages shows the need to have the ban in the constitution itself.

Full article: Standoff at sine die | Arizona Capitol Times
Senator files ethics complaint | Arizona Republic
Legislator seeks reprimand of colleague | Arizona Star