He's Got The Most Campaign Money, But Will Incumbent State Rep. Andy Nichols Survive The Democratic Primary In District 13? By J.E. Relly DISTRICT 13 IS a rare thing in Arizona politics: a district where voter registration is close enough that Democrats and Republicans find themselves on equal footing. With about 31,500 Republicans and 30,500 Democrats, the district is now represented by Republican Patti Noland in the Senate and Democrats George Cunningham and Andy Nichols in the House. Noland, however, has decided to call it quits, leaving the Senate seat open. To avoid a potentially crippling primary, Nichols agreed to let Cunningham take on Republican Dave Turner in the race for the upper chamber. As it worked out, Nichols is now the one with a primary. Cunningham's open House seat has drawn two Democrats into the race: Brian Fagin and Colette Philip, who are both making their first run for public office. As a well-funded incumbent, Nichols has the advantage over the two newcomers. Nichols, known as a consensus builder, has a respectable and outspoken track record on a range of issues in the House; Fagin has been involved in the political process for several years, drafting legislation on consumer and ethics issues; Philip, who is strongly targeting the women's vote, has most of her experience in the business and financial realm--she switched her registration from Republican to the Democrat last summer. Nichols, the 59-year-old director of the University of Arizona's Rural Health office, has put a human face on politics, championing health, environment and education during his two terms in office. In the last year, Nichols, a public health physician, has openly criticized the Republican-controlled committee sitting on tobacco tax funds earmarked for indigent health care. He's opposed the last session's wretched environmental bills, including the environmental audit bill and the legislation that legalized the production of Freon in defiance of the federal law and the Montreal Protocol. Nichols, a Harvard and Stanford grad, introduced some 17 bills last session, including a tax exemption to encourage solar energy development and clean air legislation with tightened emissions restrictions. In the past, Nichols has worked with challenger Fagin on legislation pressing for bicycle helmet laws for kids. While there are a lot of similarities between Nichols and Fagin, the two have clashed in the past over one of Nichol's favorite crusades: lengthening legislative terms from two to four years. Nichols believes the shorter term severely limits legislative accomplishments. In a 1995 op-ed piece, he writes, "...The only major argument for two-year terms appears to be that they make the Legislature more responsive to voter wishes. Recent legislative disagreement with voter-approved initiatives and referenda brings even this conventional wisdom into question." That's where he ran into trouble from Fagin, founder of the non-profit Arizona Public Interest Group, which helped put a successful term limit ballot proposition in front of voters in 1992. Fagin served as vice-chairman for the Arizona Coalition for Limited terms, a statewide umbrella organization that helped pass the proposition by popular vote. Fagin was outraged when Nichols began pushing for longer terms in the last session. Having seen how lawmakers ignore the wishes of constituents, he asks, "If this is the response every two years, what happens if (terms increase to) four years?" Two-year terms force candidates to explain their record to constituents, says Fagin, bringing candidates in touch with the people they are hoping to represent. Fagin also says two-year terms also free seats for women and ethnic minorities more often. Critics of Nichol's bill said the language was vague and could have been interpreted to allow 16 years in the legislature. In his op-ed piece, Nichols wrote if the voters favored the bill, once the current term was completed, the maximum time a legislator could serve would be eight years. But for lawmakers who were already facing extinction from term limits, it would have been a life-saver. TERM LIMITS are number two on Fagin's extensive campaign list. His biggest gripe is what he sees as the lack of government ethics in the state. He proposes six solutions, including: lobbyist gift-giving reform (he worked with Arizona Common Cause on legislation that was vetoed by Gov. J. Fife Symington III), lobbyist legislative disclosure for the multitude of bills written by special interest groups, and a non-partisan legislative redistricting commission for issues of gerrymandering. Fagin, an attorney, has used his own funds for most expenses during the primary. His giant red-and-white signs pale the demure election ads posted by Philip. Fagin's platform is a voluminous yet readable epistle of programs, acts, and solutions to major calamities facing the state. For example, in addressing school financing, Fagin proposes a three-fold approach. After correcting the immediate emergency inequities in the school buildings, he proposes the "low-wealth" districts get first grabs at public monies for building schools and purchasing equipment. Then, to allow wealthier districts to solve their own school funding needs without dipping into state dollars, he suggests bond sales be permitted beyond the current designated capacity. Fagin, who didn't own a car for years, refers to the anti-environmental bills from last spring as coming out of the "legislative house of horrors." THE THIRD candidate in the race doesn't have much of a political track record. Collette Philip, 42, was born in Saudi Arabia, and grew up in the American enclave of ARAMCO oil company. She attended a women's college and secretarial school and moved on from there into real estate and mortgage banking, and founded and managed a legal support services business in Tucson, "The Philip Group," until she sold out in January 1995. She cites the under-funded education system as a prime reason for her candidacy, adding she's also concerned about crime; her north-central home was broken into four times in as many years. She's also staunch supporter of funding for juvenile crime prevention programs. In her campaign literature, Philip addresses the big questions about public education, tax equity, juvenile crime and the "right to choose." Philip has done her homework on specifics, mentioning funding disparities and under-funded programs. In her two-page synopsis of priorities, which is a lot more than candidates from other districts are providing, Philip, unfortunately, doesn't go deeper than presenting the problems without mentioning possible solutions. Philip says raising campaign money has been a struggle. Her last campaign finance report listed $1,809 in cash raised. Fagin, on the other hand, claimed to have raised no funds. Like Fagin, Philip plans to use some of her own resources. Nichols declared $18,701 raised on his last report. But money won't buy volunteers, and Philip has 91 of them. Past employees and former clients stuff envelopes, proofread, call constituents, research, work at the computer, walk neighborhoods and erect signs. An attorney who's worked for other candidates is offering campaign strategies. Philip, endorsed by the Women's Political Caucus, worked on state Rep. Elaine Richardson's '92 and '94 campaigns. She decided to run in District 13 because, at the time, Nichols was the only Democratic candidate. In the November 5 general election, the two winners of the primary will face Republicans Scott Kirtley, a private-school teacher who has worked in and out of politics, and Shane Wikfors, a stauchly pro-life candidate who talks about the importance of using the statehouse as a battleground for a "values war."

		© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth