>> COMING UP IN THE NEXT HOUR OF LOCAL NEWS ON ARIZONA PBS.

ON ARIZONA HORIZON: WE'LL TALK ABOUT U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER'S PLANS TO RETIRE AT THE END OF THE COURT'S CURRENT SESSION.

AND ON CRONKITE NEWS: IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS SINCE THE FIRST CASE OF COVID-19 WAS FOUND IN ARIZONA.

THE LATEST IN THE BATTLE AGAINST THE VIRUS.

THAT'S ALL HEALED IN THE NEXT HOUR OF ARIZONA PBS.

GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO ARIZONA HORIZON.

I'M TED SIMONS.

U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER PLANS TO RETIRE AT THE END OF THE HIGH-COURT'S CURRENT TERM THIS SUMMER.

BREYER IS 83-YEARS-OF-AGE AND HAS SERVED ON THE COURT FOR NEARLY THREE DECADES.

HE'S THE SENIOR MEMBER OF THE COURT'S THREE-MEMBER LIBERAL WING AND IS SEEN AS A CONSENSUS BUILDER, WHO AT TIMES SIDED WITH THE COURT'S CONSERVATIVES ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISSUES, YET WAS THE COURT'S STRONGEST OPPONENT TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

BREYER'S RETIREMENT GIVES PRESIDENT BIDEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO NOMINATE A SUCCESSOR.

THE PRESIDENT HAS PLEDGED TO NOMINATE A BLACK WOMAN TO THE COURT.

HE MADE THAT PLEDGE DURING A 2020 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

>> I COMMIT THAT IF I'M ELECTED PRESIDENT AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPOINT SOMEONE TO THE COURTS, I'LL APPOINT A BLACK WOMAN TO THE COURT.

IT'S REQUIRED THAT THEY HAVE REPRESENTATION NOW.

IT'S LONG OVERDUE.

>> AND HERE ARE SOME OF THE POTENTIAL NOMINEES THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL REPORTEDLY BE CONSIDERING, WITH KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, AN APPEALS COURT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONSIDERED THE FRONT-RUNNER.

WE WILL HAVE MORE ON JUSTICE BREYER'S RETIREMENT AND A POSSIBLE SUCCESSOR, IN JUST A MOMENT.

OTHER NEWS: TODAY'S COVID REPORT SHOWS ARIZONA ADDING MORE THAN 18,000 NEW CASES.

THAT'S NOT AS MANY AS WE SAW LAST WEEK, BUT IT'S STILL CLOSE TO PANDEMIC HIGHS.

THE STATE TODAY ALSO RECORDED 275 NEW COVID-RELATED FATALITIES.

THAT'S ALARMINGLY HIGH, BUT THERE'S SOME BACK-FILLING WITH THOSE NUMBERS.

ARIZONA'S 7-DAY COVID DEATH RATE IS NOW 18TH-HIGHEST IN THE COUNTRY.

HOSPITALIZATIONS FOR COVID ARE ABOUT WHERE THEY'VE BEEN THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS, WITH 3500 PATIENTS HOSPITALIZED AROUND THE STATE.

ICU BEDS ARE AGAIN GETTING SQUEEZED, AT JUST 92-BEDS AVAILABLE STATEWIDE.

AND THERE'S ANOTHER CONCERN, ACCORDING TO THE CHIEF CLINICAL OFFICER OF VALLEYWISE HEALTH.

>> WE ARE CONTINUING TO SEE SHORT STAFFING, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE ORGANIZATIONS, REQUIRING US TO, YOU KNOW, DELAY AND DEFER SURGERIES THAT AREN'T URGENT AND EMERGENT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE STAFF THAT'S AVAILABLE TO BE ABLE TO CARE FOR THESE PATIENTS, YOU KNOW, POST THEIR PROCEDURE.

>> ALL OF WHICH IS PROBLEMATIC, AND THE HEAD OF THE CDC TODAY RECOGNIZED THAT THE CONTINUED PRESENCE OF COVID IS WEARING PEOPLE DOWN.

BUT, SHE SAID, THERE'S A WAY TO GET THIS ALL OVER AND DONE WITH.

>> I KNOW MANY PEOPLE ARE TIRED BUT MANY OF OUR HOSPITALS ARE STILL STRUGGLING BEYOND CAPACITY.

IT'S BEEN A LONG TWO YEARS.

HOWEVER PLEASE NOW DO YOUR PART TO LEAN INTO THIS CURRENT MOMENT.

NOW IS THE TIME TO DO WHAT WE KNOW WORKS, WEAR A MASK, GET VACCINATED AND GET BOOSTED.

>> AS WE MENTIONED, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER IS RETIRING AT THE END OF THE COURT'S CURRENT SESSION.

THAT NEWS FIRST REPORTED EARLIER TODAY.

A FORMAL ANNOUNCEMENT IS EXPECTED TOMORROW.

WE SPOKE WITH ASU LAW PROFESSOR PAUL BENDER ABOUT THE IMPACT OF JUSTICE BREYER'S RETIREMENT ON THE COURT.

PAUL BENDER, ALWAYS A PLEASURE, GOOD TO HAVE YOU ON THE PROGRAM, OR GO-TO GUY FOR BIG SUPREME COURT MATTERS AND THIS IS A BIG SUPREME COURT MATTER HERE.

GIVE ME A RESPONSE ON THIS.

>> WELL, I'M A LITTLE UNHAPPY, BECAUSE I THINK HE'S REALLY GOOD, AND I THINK HE'S REALLY CONTINUING TO DO A GOOD JOB.

HE'S NOT AGING IN ANY NOTICEABLE WAY.

HE'S FULLY CAPABLE, AND SO I DON'T LIKE TO SEE THAT BUT I UNDERSTAND WHY HE'S DOING IT AND IF IT'S OK WITH HIM, IT'S OK WITH ME.

I JUST DIDN'T WANT HIM TO BE FORCED INTO DOING THIS, BUT IF HE FEELS GOOD ABOUT IT, I WON'T COMPLAIN.

>> WHY DO YOU THINK HE'S DOING IT.

>> FOR THE VERY PEOPLE THINK HE SHOULD DO IT, IF THE POLLS WERE DIFFERENT, MAYBE HE WOULDN'T, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE DEMOCRATS MIGHT VERY WELL LOSE THE SENATE, AND HE DOESN'T WANT A SITUATION WHERE HE FINALLY RETIRES AT A TIME WHEN MCCONNELL CAN STOP HIM BEING REPLACED WITH A PERSON HE WOULD LIKE, SO HE'S DOING IT TO MAKE SURE THAT BIDEN GETS A CHANCE TO NOMINATE HIS SUCCESSOR.

>> WITH THAT IN MIND, I'VE HEARD HIM DESCRIBED AS A LIBERAL, A CONSENSUS BUILDER.

>> YES.

HE WAS A CHIEF JUDGE OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT.

WHEN HE WAS THERE, HE DEVELOPED A REPUTATION, WHICH CONTINUED OF BEING A CONSENSUS BUILDER AND HE REALLY TRIED ON THE COURT TO BE THE CENTER OF A GROUP OF MIDDLE JUSTICES WHO WOULD BE THE DOMINANT FORCE ON THE COURT.

THAT DID NOT WORK.

IT WASN'T HIS FAULT.

HE TRIED A LOT, BECAUSE HE REALLY DOES BELIEVE IN THAT.

HE'S NOT A COMBATIVE PERSON AT ALL BUT IT JUST DIDN'T WORK, SO HIS STAY ON THE COURT HAS NOT BEEN AS SUCCESSFUL AS HE WOULD HAVE LIKED IT TO BE, BECAUSE HE HASN'T SUCCEEDED IN DOING THAT BUT HE'S WRITTEN A LOT OF REALLY GOOD OPINIONS, BEEN A STALWART, NEW DEAL TYPE LIBERAL ON THE COURT, WRITTEN A LOT OF GOOD OPINIONS HE AND RIP KINS WERE A GREAT PAIR TO HAVE THERE AND I'M SORRY TO SEE HIM GO, BECAUSE HE REALLY IS GOOD.

I REALLY LIKE HIM AMOUNTED I HOPE HE FEELS OK ABOUT IT.

I'M REALLY SORRY TO SEE PEOPLE TRYING TO PUSH HIM OUT, SO I HOPE HE REALLY WANTS TO DO THIS, HE DIDN'T FEEL OBLIGATED.

>> THERE WAS AN INTERVIEW WHERE HE WAS QUOTED SAYING I DON'T WANT SOMEBODY APPOINTED WHO WILL REVERSE WHAT I'VE DONE FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS WHAT HE WANTS TO DO.

>> IF THE DEMOCRATS HAD A SOLID MAJORITY, HE MIGHT VERY WELL HAVE STAYED, BUT I DON'T THINK HE FEELS SICK IN ANY WAY OR WEAK.

YOU CERTAINLY CAN'T TELL THAT FROM HIS PERFORMANCE OPT COURT, SO WHY NOT STAY?

IT'S A GREAT JOB.

HE PROBABLY LOVED IT, I'M SURE HE LOVED IT.

I TALKED TO HIM WHILE HE WAS DOING IT AND HE SEEMED TO ENJOY IT A LOT, SO I'M SORRY TO SEE THAT GO BUT HE'S A PRODUCTIVE PERSON, SO HE WILL SPEND HIS LIFE IN A PRODUCTIVE WAY.

>> YOU MENTIONED MODERATE LIBERAL HERE, CLASSIC LIBERAL SUCCESSOR NOW, WHO'S OUT THERE?

OBVIOUSLY PRESIDENT BIDEN PLEDGED HE WAS GOING TO NOMINATE A BLACK WOMAN FOR THE COURT.

DOES LOSING A BRIAR MEAN IT WILL BE MORE POLARIZED BECAUSE IT WON'T BE AS MODERATE A LIBERAL?

>> IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT FOR SURE.

I'M GLADLY YOU RAISED THAT, TED.

THAT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE, BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT BIDEN WOULD TRY NOT TO DO THAT.

THERE ARE BLACK WOMAN, I UNDERSTAND WHY HE WANTS TO PUT A BLACK WOMAN ON THE COURT, THAT IS A GOOD IDEA AND SEVERAL BLACK WOMEN ARE FULLY COMPETENT TO DO THAT AND I HOPE HE PICKS ONE WITH THE HAVING IN MIND THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT PERSON BEING A CONSENSUS BUILDER.

BRIAR WAS THAT AND I THINK HE CAN BE THAT AND MUCH MORE.

PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE CONSERVATIVE COURT HAS REALLY GONE WAY TO THE RIGHT.

THAT MAY BE TRUE BUT RECENT DECISIONS, THERE HAVEN'T BEEN MANY OF THEM BUT RECENT DECISIONS INDICATE THAT MAY NOT BE TRUE, ESPECIALLY CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND JUSTICE KAVANAUGH HAVE SHOWN MAYBE THE TENDENCY OR AT LEAST THE POSSIBILITY OF BREAKING OFF FROM THE STRICT CONSERVATIVES AND JOINING WITH THE LIBERALS IN A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF CASES AND FORMING A MODERATE BLOCK OPT COURT, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE APPOINTMENT HERE HELP THAT ALONG, THAT IS SOMEBODY WHO COULD WORK WITH THEM, WORK WITH EVERYBODY, A CONSENSUS BUILDER.

THAT'S WHAT THE COURT NEEDS.

THERE'S TOO MUCH DIVISION ON THE COURT AND I THINK ROBERTS WANTS A COURT WITH LESS DIVISION, MORE AGREEMENT AND I THINK KAVANAUGH SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE SAME WAY, SO IF YOU HAD ANOTHER PERSON DOING THAT, YOU COULD HAVE THREE OF THEM.

>> BUT WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO HOLD DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE TOGETHER?

WOULD THE LIBERAL WING BE HAPPY WITH A MORE CONSENSUS BUILDING -- YOU KNOW HOW IT WORKS HERE PAUL.

>> IS THE LIBERAL WING EVER HAPPY?

I THINK THEY WOULD BE MAKING A BIG MISTAKE IF THEY TRY TO HOLD OUT FOR AS LIBERAL A PERSON THEY COULD FIND, BECAUSE THAT WOULD DIVIDE THE COURT EVEN MORE AND THAT IS NOT TO THE BENEFIT OF LIBERALS.

RIGHT NOW, LIBERALS WANT TO HAVE A MODERATE COURT WITH A CENTER THAT WARRANTS TO GET ALONG WITH THE CONSERVATIVES AND WANTS TO PERSUADE THE CONSERVATIVES.

SOME OF THEM ARE UNPERSUADABLE, THOMAS AND ALITO I DON'T VIEW AS POTENTIAL MEMBERS OF A CENTER BLOCK, BUT THE OTHERS I THINK, TRUMP APPOINTEES ALL ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT RIGID IN WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY IMPORTANT WITH ROBERTS DOING WHAT HE'S DOING AND KAVANAUGH SOUNDING REALLY REASONABLE TO HAVE SOMEBODY WHO WOULD WANT TO WORK WITH THEM AND WITH THE TWO LIBERALS TO FORM A MODERATE BLOCK ON THE COURT, WHICH THE COURT REALLY NEEDS.

>> LAST QUESTION, PAUL, REAL QUICKLY HERE, AMONG THE FRONT RUNNERS, WE SEE DISTRICT JUDGES, WE SEE SOME SITTING JUDGES AS IT WERE, APPEALS COURT JUDGES HERE, THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, DOESN'T IT?

>> IT IS VERY COMMON.

IN THE LAST 30 YEARS OR SO, I THINK EISENHOWER STARTED THIS, EISENHOWER REALIZED THAT THE BEST PEOPLE TO APPOINT IN TERMS OF GETTING THEM CONFIRMED WAS SITTING COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES, ESPECIALLY SITTING COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES WHO RECENTLY JOINED THE COURT OF APPEALS, BECAUSE THEY'VE JUST BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE AND SO THERE WAS A REALLY GOOD CHANCE THAT THEY WOULD SALE THROUGH THE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS AND THAT WORKS AND SINCE THAT TIME, A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE NOMINEES HAVE BEEN COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES.

THERE ARE TWO OR THREE ON THE LIST HERE AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD CHANCE IT WOULD COME FROM THEM.

ONE ON THE LIST IS NOT, SHERRILYN IFILL, SHE'S A WONDERFUL LAWYER BUT NOT A COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE AND WOULD ATTRACT OPPOSITION THAT PEOPLE RECENTLY CONFIRMED WOULD NOT.

>> INTERESTING.

THANKS FOR HELPING WITH THIS.

WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENS WITH SUPREME COURT POST BREYER.

>> IT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE A LOT RIGHT AWAY BUT WE COULD GET A GOOD PERSON WHO WOULD HELP THE COURT BECOME A MORE MODERATE COURT.

>> THANKS, PAUL.

>> OK. >> UP NEXT ON ARIZONA HORIZON, A LEGISLATIVE UPDATE WITH THE STATE SENATE'S MINORITY LEADER.

>> ELECTION REFORM AND EDUCATION BILLS ARE ADVANCING AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

WE HEARD LAST WEEK FROM SENATE PRESIDENT REPUBLICAN KAREN FANN.

THIS WEEK, IT'S THE DEMOCRATS' TURN.

OUR GUEST: SENATE MINORITY LEADER REBECCA RIOS.

SENATOR RIOS, GOOD TO HAVE YOU IN STUDIO, THANKS FOR JOINING US FOR THIS LEGISLATIVE UPDATE.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> THERE ARE SO MANY BILLS, BUT SOME THAT SEEM TO BE HIGHER PROFILE THAN OTHERS.

IN GENERAL, REPUBLICANS BELIEVE WHAT'S BASED ON ALL OF THIS IS A FRAUD HAPPENED IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

HOW DO DEMOCRATS DEAL WITH THAT MINDSET THROUGH THIS LEGISLATION?

>> WE KNEW THIS WAS COMING, RIGHT?

WE'VE BEEN SOUNDING THE ALARM SINCE LAST FALL WHEN THEY STARTED TO FUND THE FRAUD AND CLAIMED THAT TRUMP WAS THE WINNER OF THE PRESIDENCY.

WE SEE BILLS BASED ON THAT DOUBT THAT THEY SEWED WITH VOTERS THAT THERE WAS IN FACT FRAUD EVEN THOUGH ALL OF THE COURT CASES WERE THROWN OUT, THERE WAS NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF FRAUD BUT THESE, ALL OF THESE BILLS ARE BASED ON THE BIG LIE AND THE FRAUD THAT OCCURRED IN ARIZONA.

>> THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE GOAL IS TO INCREASE VOTER CONFIDENCE.

THAT'S WHAT LEGISLATION ELECTION REFORM IS DESIGNED TO DO.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND?

>> I WOULD SAY THE REAL INTENT IS TO DECREASE VOTER PARTICIPATION OF THOSE VOTERS THEY DON'T WANT PARTICIPATING.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE KNOW THAT IT WASSON NAVAJO NATION THAT ENDED UP COMING OUT IN LARGE NUMBERS AND ESSENTIALLY ENSURING THAT BIDEN IS PRESIDENT AND A LOT OF THE LEGISLATION THAT THEY'RE INTRODUCING ARE GOING TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR FOLKS IN RURAL AREAS ON RESERVATIONS, LOWER INCOME COMMUNITIES FROM ACTUALLY VOTING, SO THAT IS THE TRUE INTENT.

AGAIN, UNDER THE GUISE OF VOTER CONFIDENCE, BUT IN ESSENCE, WE'RE GOING TO SEE MORE VOTER SUPPRESSION.

>> LETS LOOK AT SOME OF THE BILLS QUICKLY.

ONE RAISES THE THRESHOLD FOR RECOUNTS.

I THINK THERE'S SOME DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT FOR THAT, IS THERE NOT?

>> THERE IS.

IT INCREASES IT A MINIMAL AMOUNT BUT THE NUMBERS, IT'S TIME FOR IT TO BE ADJUSTED, SO THAT IS IN FACT I THINK A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT WILL HAVE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND I THINK THIS DOES IN STILL VOTER CONFIDENCE, SO THERE ARE SOME PRACTICAL MEASURES LIKE THAT THAT WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF.

>> ANOTHER ONE MIGHT BE PUBLISHING DIGITAL IMAGES OF BALLOTS AFTER ELECTIONS.

SOME THY THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD IDEA.

DO YOU?

>> IT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA, RIGHT?

SENATOR BURRELLI IS PROPOSING EVERY BALLOT HAVE A DIGITAL IMAGE UPLOADED ON LINE SO ANYBODY COULD GO ON LINE AND COUNT.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MILLIONS OF BALLOTS, IMAGES AND THE QUESTION BECOMES HOW MUCH IS THIS GOING TO COST AND IS THE DATE GOING TO APPROPRIATE MORE TAX DOLLARS TORT COUNTIES TELLING US THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD, NO CONCERN.

ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WAS RAISED BY ONE OF THE COUNTIES WAS OFTENTIMES FOLKS MAY WRITE ON THEIR BALLOT, MAY WRITE TERRIBLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, WHATEVER LITTLE THEY WRITE.

THE COUNTY IS SAYING WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE POSITION OF GOING IN AND REDACTING THOSE HANDWRITTEN NOTES, BECAUSE GOD FORBID WE ARE ACCUSED OF FRAUD OR HIDING SOMETHING.

IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CREATE MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS.

I THINK FROM MR. FUENTES POSITION, HE RAISED A SOLID ARGUMENT, IF YOU PUT ALL THE BALLOTS ON LINE, COUNT IT FOR YOURSELVES, THAT IT REALLY IS GOING TO ACHE AWAY THE ARGUMENT FROM FOLKS THAT ARE CLAIMING THAT ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN STOLE JUNE LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME OTHER BILLS THAT I'M PRETTY SURE DEMOCRATS AREN'T THAT SUPPORTIVE OF.

THIS ELIMINATES THE EARLY VOTE.

REQUIRES HAND COUNTING I THINK WITHIN 24 HOURS, AS WELL, BUT JUST ELIMINATING THE EARLY VOTE.

YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT.

>> AGAIN, WHEN YOU ARE ELIMINATING THE EARLY VOTE, YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR ARIZONANS TO VOTE.

MOST PEOPLE DON'T GET ELECTION DAY OFF, THEY'RE WORKING, IT'S A TUESDAY, THEY'VE GOT TO RUN AROUND AND PICK UP KIDS AND DROP OFF KIDS.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE EARLY VOTING, WHETHER BY MAIL, WHETHER GOING TO A POLLING PLACE A WEEK OR TWO BEFORE THE ELECTION, DRIVING BY AND HANDING YOUR BALLOT TO AN OFFICIAL, THOSE ARE ALL WAYS IN WHICH WE HAVE INCREASED PARTICIPATION.

AGAIN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT RURAL AND NATIVE AMERICAN RESERVATIONS AND SAYING YOU'VE GOT ONE DAY TO VOTE AND IT'S A TUESDAY AND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE A RIDE TO THE POLL OR YOU MIGHT HAVE TO WORK, WHAT ARE WE REALLY DOING?

MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR MORE TO VOTE, LIMITING WHO IS GOING TO SHOW UP ON ELECTION DAY.

>> CAN IT BE ARGUED THAT THIS WILL LIMIT THE VOTE IN SOME REPUBLICAN STRONG HOLDS ESPECIALLY SENIOR AREAS.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

THAT'S THE PART THAT IS SO BEFUDDLING TO ME IS THIS SHOULDN'T BE A PARTISAN ISSUE.

REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS, INDEPENDENTS, ALL ENJOY VOTING BY MAIL.

TYPICALLY SENIORS WILL VOTE BY MAIL BECAUSE IT IS EASIER, AND SO I WONDER TO WHAT EXTENT THIS IS GOING TO BACKFIRE AND KIND OF BITE THEM IN THE BOTTOM, BECAUSE THESE ARE THEIR VOTERS, AS WELL, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS, THE VOTING PROCESS MORE DIFFICULT FOR.

>> I BELIEVE THAT SAME LEGISLATION CALLS FOR THE LEGISLATURE APPROVING OR REJECTING RESULTS BEFORE CERTIFICATION.

THOUGHTS?

>> THAT'S DOWN RIGHT SCARY, BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A VERY POLITICAL PROCESS, AND IF THE LEGISLATURE HAD BEEN ABLE TO CERTIFY WHETHER OR NOT BIDEN HAD WON THE ELECTION, I GUARANTEE YOU, THIS REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED LEGISLATURE WOULD HAVE SAID NOPE, IT ACTUALLY WENT TO TRUMP, SO THAT IS A VERY DANGEROUS.

>> ONE REQUIRES SPECIAL ANTI FRAUD PAPER FOR BALLOTS AND THE OTHER BANS ALL MAIL-IN VOTES IN CITY AND SCHOOL ELECTIONS.

DEMOCRATS AT ALL SUPPORTIVE OF EITHER OF THOSE?

>> THE QUESTION ABOUT SPECIFIC TYPE OF PAPER, AGAIN, BASED UPON WHAT?

IT'S NOT BASED UPON ANY FOUNDED EVIDENCE OF FRAUD AND IN FACT, THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT WERE LOOKING FOR PIECES OF BAMBOO IN THE LAST BATCH OF BALLOTS WHEN THEY WERE RECOUNTING DURING THIS WHOLE FRAUD IT.

THE OTHER QUESTION RAISED WHICH IS LEGITIMATE, THERE'S ONLY ONE COMPANY WE CAN BUY THIS SPECIAL PAPER FROM.

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SPECIAL INTEREST LEGISLATION THAT IS GOING TO BENEFIT ONE COMPANY AND THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF DOING THAT.

REPUBLICANS ALSO WANT TO ELIMINATE ALL MAIL-IN BALLOT ELECTIONS FOR CITIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT OCCUR IN OFF ELECTION YEARS.

THAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING WITHOUT A HITCH FOR 30 YEARS.

THERE'S NO PROBLEM HERE AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, THEY WANT TO ELIMINATE IT.

AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS PLAYING TO A FAR RIGHT BASE THAT HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT IS SOMEHOW, YOU KNOW, THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN.

ALL OF THIS HAS BECOME I THINK JUST RED MEAT FOR THE UPCOMING CAMPAIGNS AND IT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE, BECAUSE LITTLE GOING TO HAVE A DEVASTATING EFFECT ON ALL PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO VOTE.

>> THE BILL THAT WOULD BAN TRANSGENDER STUDENTS FROM FEMALE SPORTS TEAMS I ALSO ADVANCING THERE.

WHY ARE DEMOCRATS AGAINST THIS?

>> THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE THERE.

I THINK WHEN WE -- THE LOBBYISTS GOT UP AND SPOKE THEIR MIND, THERE HAVE BEEN 12 COMPLAINTS IN THE LAST 12 YEARS.

THOSE ISSUES CAN THEN BE ADDRESSED BY THE AIA.

WHAT I HAVE FOUND IS A REAL OVER CONCERN OVER INDULGENCE IN ANTI LGBTQ, ANTI TRANSGENDER, A LOT OF DIFFERENT BILLS THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY REALLY FOCUSING ON THIS POPULATION AND YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF WHY.

I THINK IT'S VERY CONCERNING TO DEMOCRATS, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT TRANSGENDER VIEWS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY AT HIGHER RISK FOR SUICIDE, AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING NO, YOU CAN'T PLAY WHATEVER SPORT, BECAUSE YOU DON'T FIT IN, AND I THINK IT'S A BILL IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T EXIST AND THE CONSEQUENCES I THINK CAN BE VERY DAMAGING FOR CHILDREN.

>> I BELIEVE THERE WAS A TRANSGENDER WOMAN TESTIFIED IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL AND BASICALLY SAID IF YOU'RE BORN MALE, YOU HAVE BIOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE, YOU'RE BIGGER, YOUR BONES ARE BIGGER, YOUR MUSCLES ARE BIGGER, YOU HAVE BIOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE IN SUPPORTS.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?

IN THE QUESTION OF FAIRNESS.

>> I WOULD LEAVE THAT UP TO THE EXPERTS, WHETHER THAT'S THE AIA OR WHATEVER OTHER BODY COMES UP WITH THE RULES FOR SPORTS, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE LEAVING IT IN THEIR HANDS, BECAUSE THIS IS A LEGISLATURE THAT IS VERY CONCERNED WITH ANYTHING THAT IS OUT OF WHAT THEY QUOTE THE NORM, AND THAT'S TRANSGENDER FOLKS, THAT'S HOMOSEXUAL FOLKS SO THAT IS MY CONCERN THAT THE IMPETUS FOR THIS IS NOT PURE AND IT'S VERY CONCERNING AND SO I DON'T BELIEVE THIS BODY IS THE BODY THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE MAKING THOSE DECISIONS.

>> DO YOU BELIEVE GUNS SHOULD BE ON COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES?

BECAUSE THERE IS A BILL, WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE IN THE LEGISLATURE, YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE NUMEROUS TIMES.

THIS ONE SEEMS TO BE MOVING.

YOUR THOUGHTS.

>> THIS IS A RECYCLED BILL.

AT ONE POINT, ONE GOVERNOR VETOED IT AND NUMEROUS YEARS IT'S BEEN RECYCLED BUT NEVER MANAGES TO GARNER ENOUGH SUPPORT.

I THINK IN THIS LEGISLATURE, THIS LEGISLATIVE YEAR IT CAN AND BASICALLY SAYS IF YOU HAVE YOUR CONCEALED PERMIT WHICH ANYBODY CAN GET IN AN HOUR, YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO USE A GUN, YOU CAN TAKE YOUR GUN ON ANY PUBLIC CAMPUS.

I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK AND THEY ARE CONCERNED AND OPPOSED.

THIS IS DANGEROUS.

YOU EVEN HAD CAMPUS POLICE COMING AND SAYING PLEASE DON'T AND YET THESE SELF PROFESSED, YOU KNOW, PRO POLICE LEGISLATORS COMPLETELY IGNORED WHAT THEY WERE TOLD AND PROCEEDED TO VOTE FOR THIS.

>> REPUBLICANS SAY THAT STUDENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

HAVE THEY GOT A POINT?

>> I REALLY -- YOU KNOW, THEY ALWAYS SAY IF ONLY THERE HAD BEEN A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN IN X SITUATION.

I THINK IT'S RHETORIC THAT THEY THINK GAINS TRACTION AMONGST THEIR BASE.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE MAJORITY OF STUDENTS WANT THEIR COUNTER PARTS WALKING AROUND WITH A CONCEALED WEAPON.

IT'S DANGEROUS, IT'S NOT NECESSARY, IT'S OPPOSED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT.

AGAIN, A BAD IDEA THAT'S BEEN REJECTED FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

WE'LL SEE WHERE IT GOES THIS YEAR.

>> WE'VE GOT TO TALK ABOUT THE EDUCATION SPENDING LIMIT.

THIS WAS WE THOUGHT WHEN SESSION STARTED THIS WAS GOING TO BE A VERY BIG ISSUE, NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED QUICKLY.

I'M NOT HEARING MUCH ABOUT THIS AT ALL DOWN THERE.

WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THIS?

>> DESPITE EFFORTS EVERY DAY BOTH ON THE HOUSE AND SENATE SIDE, YOU HAVE DEMOCRATS STANDING UP EVERY DAY REMINDING REPUBLICANS WE NOW HAVE 17 LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AND AGAIN AT THE END OF THE DAY, ALL WE'RE DOING IS AN OVERRIDE ON A LIMIT TO ALLOW SCHOOLS TO SPEND THE MONEY THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE IN THEIR BUDGETS AND WHEN WE DON'T BY MARCH 1, IT'S OVER A BILLION DOLLAR CUT.

ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES MENTIONED HE'S ON A SCHOOL BOARD THAT HE WAS NOTIFIED IF THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN, THEY ARE LOOKING AT FOUR SCHOOLS CLOSING.

THAT IS THE END RESULT.

IF YOU REQUIRE SCHOOLS TO ESSENTIALLY CUT $1,400 PER STUDENT IS WHAT IT EQUATES TO, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE FIRING OF TEACHERS, CLOSING OF SCHOOLS, AND AGAIN, WE'VE DONE THIS IN THE PAST, THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO BE ACTING.

OUR CONCERN THAT IS IF AND WHEN REPUBLICANS ACTUALLY PUT SOMETHING FORWARD, THEY'RE GOING TO TRY AND TIE TO IT SOMETHING LIKE UNIVERSAL VOUCHERS, AND DARE, DEMOCRATS, WE DARE TO YOU VOTE AGAINST IT.

THIS SHOULD BE A CLEAN OVERRIDE AS IT HAS BEEN IN YEARS PAST.

>> 1.1, 1.2 MAYBE BILLION DOLLARS HERE WOULD BE LOST.

DOLLARS THAT ARE ALREADY BUDGETED IN THE COFFERS.

IT WOULD SEEM LIKE SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

IT'S A BILLION DOLLARS CUT TO SCHOOLS THAT ARE ALREADY UNDERFUNDED.

>> IT'S AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, WELL I GUESS WE'LL FIND OUT NEXT WEEK.

ALWAYS A PLEASURE, GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THAT IS IT FOR NOW.

I'M TED SIMONS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

YOU HAVE A GREAT EVENING.

>> COMING UP IN THE NEXT HALF-HOUR ON ARIZONA PBS: ON CRONKITE NEWS: WHY IT'S INCREASINGLY MORE DIFFICULT TO FIND VETERINARY