>> COMING UP ON ARIZONA HORIZON, DETAILS ON RECENTLY ANNOUNCED CUTS TO ARIZONA'S A LOT THE OF COLORADO RIVER WATER.

THAT'S NEXT ON ARIZONA HORIZON.

THE OFFICIAL CANVAS OF THIS YEAR'S PRIMARY ELECTION WAS CERTIFIED BY SECRETARY OF STATE KATIE HOBBS AND SHOWED THE TURN-OUT WITH A 35% WHICH IS AFFORDABLY HEY FOR A HIGH AND CLOSE TO 135,000135,000135,000 REREPUBLY CAN PARTY THAN DEMOCRATS.

>>> ANTHONY FAUCI WILL BE STEPPING DOWN FROM ALLERGY DISEASES AND JOINED 38 YEARS AGO UNDER PRESIDENT REAGAN AND SAYS HE'S NOT RETIRING BUT MOVING INTO THE NEXT CHAPTER OF HIS CAREER.

>>> NEW STUDY INVOLVING BRAIN STIMULATION AND SHORT-TERM MEMORY.

THE RESEARCH PUBLISHED TODAY SHOWS THAT SENDING ELECTRIC CURRENTS INTO TWO SECTIONS OF THE BRAIN APPEARS TO IMPROVE THE IMMEDIATE RECALL OF WORDS FOR 65 AND OLDER IT'S TOO EARLY TO TELL WHAT THIS MIGHT LEAD TO AND STIMULATING THE BRAIN WITH SMALL BURSTS OF ELECTRICITY IS SAFE AND COULD BE PROMISES TO TREAT COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT INCLUDING ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE.

A DOG'S EYES APPEAR TO WELL UP WITH TEARS OF MANINESS WHEN THE DOG IS REUNITED WITH THE OWNER OF AN ABSENCE.

DOGS LIKE HUMANS PRODUCE TEARS TO KEEP IT CLEAR AND HITY BUT HEALTHY.

PAPER STRIPS PUT UNDER THE EYES AFTER FIVE HOURS OF SEPARATION AND THE SAME TEST CONDUCTED WHEN DOGS WEREREINTRODUCED TO PEOPLE THEY KNEW BUT TEARS ONLY WHEN REUNITED WITH THEIR OWNERS.

>>> CUTS OF A LOTTED COLORADO RIVER OWNER AND TO DATE TO FALLING WATER LEVELS AND CUTS AND WHAT THIS MEANS FOR ARIZONA, WE WELCOME KATHYRN SORENSEN THE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AT THE KYLE CENTER AT ASU'S MORRISON INSTITUTE.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> SO WHAT EXACTLY WAS DECLARED LAST WEEK BY THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION?

>> A TIER TWO SHORTAGE ON THE COLORADO RIVER AND THE WATER WE TAKE OFF THE COLORADO RIVER THROUGH THE CENTRAL PROJECT CANAL IS JUNIOR IN PRIORITY TO THE WATER USED IN WESTERN ARIZONA.

THE BULK OF THE CUTS, THEY FALL ON US IN CENTRAL ARIZONA.

>> YOU MENTIONED TIER 2A AND WHEN WAS THIS DEVELOPED AND WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

>> THE TIER SYSTEM WAS FIRST DEVELOPED IN 2007 AND WE FURTHER REFINED THIS WITH THE DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN AND IN 2019, WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PLANNED CUTS WERE NOT ENOUGH TO STAVE OFF DRAMATICALLY FALLING WATER LEVELS IN LAKE MEADE.

THE BASIN STATES AGREED TO THESE DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLANNED CUTS AND THOSE ARE THE CUTS THAT THE SECRETARY IS IMPLEMENTING NOW.

>> BUT WAS THERE NOT -- I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN INTERNAL PLAN IN ARIZONA, AS WELL, BACK IN 2019.

>> ABSOLUTELY, THERE WAS, A PLAN TO PUT A LOT MORE WATER UP IN LAKE MEADE TO STAVE OFF LEVELS THROUGH CONTRIBUTIONS.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE COLORADO RIVER INDIAN DRIVING, THE CITY OF PHOENIX, CITY OF TUCSON AND VARIOUS ENTITIES WITHIN CENTRAL ARIZONA AND VOLUNTARILY LEFT TO BOOST THE LEVELS.

>> WITH THE SHORTAGE, THE DEEPEST MANDATORY CUT TO DATE, CORRECT?

>> IT IS.

>> WE LOSE 21% FROM LAKE MEADE, AND THE 21% WE LOSE AND PUTTING ALL OF THAT WATER BACK, DOES THAT MITIGATE THIS AND HOW DID THE FORMULA WORK?

>> RIGHT.

IT'S DIFFICULT.

SO THE CUTS FALL MOSTLY ON CENTRAL ARIZONA BECAUSE, AGAIN, OUR WATER RIGHTS ARE LOWER IN PRIORITY THAN WESTERN ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA.

BUT SOME ENTITIES IN WESTERN ARIZONA ARE TRYING TO PUT WATER UP IN LAKE MEADE TO STAVE OFF LEVELS, AS WELL.

SO IT'S COMPLICATED, YOU'RE RIGHT, AND WE ARE CONTINUING TO BRING WATER OUT OF LAKE MEADE AND WATER LEVELS CONTINUE TO FALL AND BRINGING LESS WATER OUT THAN WE OTHERWISE WOULD.

>> BRINGING LESS WATER OUT BECAUSE WE'RE BRINGING THAT WATER UP THERE.

>> EXACTLY.

>> THE 21%, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

>> SO IT'S 21% OF ARIZONA'S ALLOCATION OF COLORADO RIVER WATER.

SO IT'S A BIG CUT, RIGHT.

A FIFTH OF OUR WATER SUPPLY, BASICALLY, IS STAYING BACK IN LAKE MEADE TO STAVE OFF THE WATER LEVELS.

>> SO WE HAVE NEW MEXICO AT 7% AND NEVADA AT 8% AND CALIFORNIA?

>> CALIFORNIA HAS THE MOST SENIOR RIGHTS TO COLORADO RIVER WATER AND BACK WHEN ARIZONA FIRST BUILT THE CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT CANAL, WE NEEDED FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION TO BUILD IT.

IN 1968, WE GOT THAT FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION, BUT IT CAME WITH A PRICE TAG AND THAT WAS WHEN WE TAKE WATER THROUGH THE CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, IT'S JUNIOR IN PRIORITY TO THE WATER IN CALIFORNIA.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING PLAY OUT NOW.

>> WE'RE SEEING THAT PLAY OUT UNDER 2A.

WHEN WE GET TO 2B, DOES CALIFORNIA DOES PARTICIPATE?

>> IT DOES, BUT A LOT OF THEIR PARTICIPATION INVOLVES THEM AGREEING TO LEAVE SOME WATER IN LAKE MEADE THAT THEY HAVE AN ENTITLEMENT TO BRING DOWN AND THEY DON'T SO MUCH EXPERIENCE A CUT TO THEIR FULL ENTITLEMENT UNTIL WE GET TO VERY LOW LEVELS IN THE RESERVOIR.

>> I SAY 2B, IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF IF, IS IT?

>> I WISH IT WERE, BUT THING LOOK BAD ON THE COLORADO RIVER.

>> SO THE 21% HIT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, PINAL COUNTY, CENTRAL FARMERS, THEY GET NO WATER OR VERY, VERY LITTLE?

>> THAT'S A COMPLICATED QUESTION.

THE FARMERS IN CENTRAL ARIZONA, THEY GAVE UP ENTITLEMENTS A COUPLE OF DECADES AGO AND MADE A BARGAIN AND AGREED TO GIVE UP ENTITLEMENTS FOR DELIVERIES OF WHAT I WILL CALL LEFT-OVER WATER THAT OTHER PEOPLE WERE NOT USING AT THE TIME AT SUBSIDIZED RATES AND LONG-TEM ENTITLEMENTS AND SUBSIDIZED WATER IN THE MEANTIME.

THAT WATER, NOW THERE'S LESS LEFT OVER AND LESS WATER THROUGH THE SYSTEM AND THAT DOES TRANSLATE TO LESS WATER FOR ARIZONA FARMERS.

THEY STILL GET SOME WATER.

CITIES AND INDIAN TRIBES PARTNER WITH IRRIGATION DISTRICTS AND DRIVER SOME OF THEIR ENTITLEMENT TO THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.

THE WATER THAT -- THE GROUNDWATER THAT IS SAVED BECAUSE THE FARMERS ARE USING GROUNDWATER AND THAT BELONGS TO THE CITY OR THE TRIBE.

SO IT IS A IS A WAY FOR CITIES AND TRIBES TO ALLOW IRRIGATION TO USE THIS TODAY.

>> DOES THAT CHANGE TO 2B OR 3A AND ON DOWN THE LINE?

>> IT ABSOLUTELY DOES.

IN THE PAST, IRRIGATION DISTRICTS DEPEND ON THE FEEDS AND INTO THE FUTURE, WE WOULD EXPECT MUCH MORE WATER IS AVAILABLE.

FARMERS HAVE THE OPTION TO FALL BACK ONTO GROUNDWATER AND THE LEGAL ABILITY TO PUMP GROUNDWATER AND PUMP CROPS AND THAT HAS ITS OWN IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE.

>> I THOUGHT JUST IN GENERAL WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE USING GROUNDWATER, NOT LIKE WE USED TO AND IS THAT CHANGING?

>> FARMERS HAVE BEEN EXEMPT FROM THE 1980 GROUNDWATER ACT TO PUMP GROUNDWATER AND SUBJECT TO CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS.

BASICALLY, FARMERS ARE ALLOWED TO RELY ON GROUNDWATER AND CONTINUE TO TO SO.

DO SO.

>> WILL THEY RELY ON IT MORE?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR US, IS IT?

>> MORE OF THE ACT QUESTION AQUA ACT ACT QUESTION FERS, IF YOU'RE NOT PUMPING IT OUT, YOU'RE DEPLETING IT.

>> THE PUMPS AND THE FORMULAS, WHEN DOES THIS START?

>> IN JANUARY, AND THAT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE THE CITIES AND TRIBES IN CENTRAL ARIZONA THAT HAVE ENTITLEMENTS, IT'S DUE OCTOBER 1 AND THEY HAVE TO PREPARE THEIR OPERATIONS THE WHAT THEY RUN THEIR SURFACE WATER AND TREATMENT PLANTS AND THAT HAS TO BE PLANNED AHEAD OF TIME AND PUT THAT IN BY OCTOBER 1st.

>> INTERESTING.

>> SO I'VE READ AND HEARD THAT 21% SOUNDS LIKE COLD FRONT A LOT AND ARIZONA GOT HIT HARD AND COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE AND EXPLAIN THAT.

>> WELL, YEAH, ALL OF THE BASIN STATES HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING IN GOOD FAITH, TRYING TO REACH SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT TO STAVE OFF DEEPER CUTS ON THE COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM.

THE COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM LOOKS REALLY BAD AND MOTHER NATURE HAS NOT BEEN OUR FRIEND.

RUN-OFF YEAR AFTER YEAR HAS BEEN TERRIBLE AND THE VOLUNTARY CUTS THAT WE CAME UP WITH IN 2019 2019, IT'S JUST NOT ENOUGH AND THE SECRETARY, THE INTERIOR AND BUREAU OF RECLAMATION THREATENED MUCH, MUCH DEEPER CUTS ON THE ORDER OF TWO TO FOUR MILLION ACRE FEET IF THE STATES COULD NOT COME UP WITH A PLAN THEMSELVES.

>> AND?

>> AND THE STATES DID NOT COME UP WITH A PLAN AND WE HAVE YET TO HEAR FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO.

>> HOW MUCH CAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CUT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO EVERYTHING IN THE STATES?

I PEOPLE LIKE LIFESTALES, LIFESTYLES, RESIDENTS, FARMING, ALL OF IT?

>> THEY CAN'T AND IT HAS TO COME OUT OF SOMEONE'S HYDE AND I'M SURE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS LOOKING FOR THE LEAST OPTION.

>> ARE THE STATES COOPERATING AND IS THIS A BIT OF A LIGHT-SHINING MOMENT OR IS THIS JUST THE OPPOSITE WHERE ALL OF A SUDDEN EVERYONE WILL START STANDING THEIR GROUND AND COOPERATION BECOMING A MYSTERY?

>> NEGOTIATIONS ARE ALWAYS DIFFICULT, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CUTS OF THIS MAGNITUDE, BUT THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN DOES HAVE A VERY LONG TRADITION OF COLLABORATION.

IT'S NOT ALWAYS EASY AND SOMETIMES IT'S EXTREMELY DIFFICULT AND PERSONAL.

BUT THERE IS A STRONG TRADITION, A STRONG FOUNDATION OF COMING TOGETHER AND REACHING CONSENSUS.

CERTAINLY, THIS CURRENT SITUATION WILL TEST OUR ABILITY TO DO SO.

>> INDEED, AND I GUESS THE LAST QUESTION IS, I THOUGHT WE HAD DECENT SNOW PACKET LAST WINTER AND I'M HEARING NOTHING BUT DOOM AND GLOOM HERE.

IS THERE A WAY TO RECTIFY THIS?

IS MOTHER NATURE GOING TO COME TO THE RESCUE ANY TIME SOON?

>> WE CAN'T PLAN FOR THAT, RIGHT?

WE NEED TO PLAN AS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER BAD WINTER AND WE NEED TO INCUR CUTS THAT ARE MUCH DEEPER THAN WE WOULD LIKE, BUT CUT TAZ ARE CUTS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO FORESTALL SITUATIONS IN LAKE MEADE AND HYDROPOWER.

>> YOU'RE GETTING CLOSE TO THAT?

>> WE ARE.

AND THAT'S WHY THE COMMISSIONER THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SAID WE NEED TO CUT TWO TO FOUR MILLION ACRE FEED AND WE NEED TO DO THAT.

THIS LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY, PARTICULARLY WATER, THIS IS NOT TOLERABLE AND WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO COME TOGETHER AND MAKE THESE CUTS HAPPEN.

>> KYLE CENTER FOR WATER, ALWAYS A PLEASURE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> UP NEXT ON ARIZONA HIS, HORIZON, A DEBATE MORE MORE CIRCUMSTANCES.

>> PROPOSITION 128 TO ALLOW LAWMAKERS TO REPEAL VOTER APPROVED MEASURES UNDER CERTAIN SITUATIONS AND JOINING US NOW FOR A DEBATE IS SCOTT MUSEY OF THE ENTERPRISE CLUB AND ROY TATUM JR. SCOTT, WE'LL START WITH YOU, WHY IS THIS A GOOD THING IN.

>> IT'S DESIGNED TO DEAL WITH NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE FOUND TO CONTAIN ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE TRYING TO GO BACK TO THE VOTERS WHICH COULD COST A LOT OF MONEY AND ISN'T A WAY TO ADDRESS IT ON A MORE MEDIA FASHION AND COULD BE YEARS BEFORE POTENTIALLY DOING THAT.

GIVEN THE CURRENT SITUATION WHERE A MEASURE GOES BEFORE THE UNITED STATES' SUPREME COURT AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO INSTANCES IN WHICH THIS WOULD COME INTO EFFECT AND IF THE COURT FINDS THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT IS ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST A MECHANISM TO ADDRESS THAT.

>> WHY IS THAT NOT A GREAT IDEA?

>> BECAUSETHERE ARE TWO WAYS TO MAKE A LAW HERE IN ARIZONA AND ONE IS FOR A A LEGISLATOR IS SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR AND ANOTHER WAY MAKE A LAW IS THE INTRODUCTION OF THE BALLOT MEASURE, WHICH MEANS WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AN ISSUE TO THE PEOPLE.

AND SO THE PEOPLE IN ARIZONA HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY THEY WANT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE TO BE A LAW OF THE LAND.

AND SO IT'S PRETTY MUCH -- TO ME IT'S DEMOCRACY, A HUGE ACROBATUS OF DEMOCRACY IS PURE EXECUTION OF DEMOCRACY BECAUSE PEOPLE-DRIVEN INITIATIVE.

>> HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?

>> I, TOO,I DON'T THINKTHIS IS ABOUT DEALING WITH THE SITUATIONS WHERE SOMETHING IS ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOUND BY THE ARIZONA OR UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAKING SURE PEOPLE ARE BEING HEARD, MOST VOTERS, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES IN OFTEN CASES ARE UNAWARE THAT THE LANGUAGE COULD BE ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IMPACT THEIR THINKING ON THE MEASURE ITSELF.

THERE'S NO MECHANISM TO DEAL WITH THAT BECAUSE PRIOR TO SOMETHING PASSING, VOTERS WOULD NOT KNOW IT CONTAINS ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE.

>> IS IT LIMITED TO ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONALUNCONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE?

>> THOSE WOULD THE ONLY MEASURES IT WOULD APPLY TO?

>> THE MEASURE AS A WHOLE, LET'S SAY THIS IS THE LEGAL PART, BUT THE REST OF THIS IS NOT, THIS IS THE ONLY THING AFFECTED OR IS IT ENTIRE MEASURE IS AFFECTED?

>> THE ENTIRE MEASURE WOULD BE ENCAPSULATED AND THIS ONE PORTION DOESN'T APPLY AND A LOT OF IT WILL BE INNER RELATED AND IN THOSE SITUATIONS, AGAIN, WITH THOSE TYPES OF MEASURES, THAT'S WHAT IT DEALS WITH.

>> IF SOMETHING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR ILLEGAL OR JUST CLUMSILY WRITTEN AND THE WHOLE BALLOT MEASURE IS HELD UP, WHY SHOULDN'T THE LEGISLATURE BE ALLOWED TO GO AND GET IT RIGHT?

>> THIS IS WHERE THINGS GET TRICKY AND WE TALK ABOUT THE STATE LEGISLATURE, JUST THIS PAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, WE'VE WITNESSED OVER 100 PIECES OF VOTER SUPPRESSION LEGISLATION AND SOME ARE ADDRESSING THE EXISTING OF A BALLOT MEASURE.

THE ARIZONA BALLOT INITIATIVE WAS CREATED TO ADDRESS THE ATTEMPTS TO CURB PEOPLE FROM VOTING.

AND I MEAN, TO GO BACK FURTHER, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE 2020 ELECTION AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STOP-THE-STEAL RALLY CRY, THIS IS A MEASURE TO GIVE THE POWER TO THE LEGISLATORS TO OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

SO IF A BALLOT MEASURE PASSES, THEY CAN KNIT-PICK OR TRY TO OVERTURN THE BALLOT MEASURE JUST BECAUSE OF A SENTENCE OR BECAUSE OF A WORD.

AND THAT IS TRULY UNDERMINING THE WILL OF THE VOTERS.

>> BUT IF IT KEEPS THAT BALLOT MEASURE FROM BEING STRUCK DOWN, NOT A GOOD THING?

>> NO, I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD THING.

I DON'T THINK IT'S A HARDWOOD GOOD THING AT ALL.

I BELIEVE THIS IS THE, GIVE AN INCH AND THEY'LL TAKE A I'M.

>> THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH IS AFFECTED.

FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE MEASURE COULD BE ENTIRELY REWRITTEN IS THIS WERE TO GO THROUGH, CORRECT?

>> UNDER THE MEASURE ITSELF, YES.

WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING, IF IT IS FOUND TO CONTAIN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE AMENDMENT.

I THINK IT ENSURES IT'S UPHELD BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NO MECHANISM TO DEAL WITH THESE SITUATIONS.

>> IT'S TOO AMBIGUOUS.

SO SAY THE LANGUAGE IS ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL, I MEAN, NOW WE'RE DEALING WITH THE SITUATION WHERE WOMEN'S RIGHTS TO CHOOSE ARE DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CERTAIN BOOKS ARE BANNED IN SCHOOLS AND DEEMED ILLEGAL AND TO USE THE LANGUAGE ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONALUNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT'S NOT THE TRUE NATURE OF THIS INITIATIVE.

>> WELL, WHAT'S DESCRIBED THERE, IT WOULDN'T BE US SAYING IT'S ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT WON'T BE THE UNITED STATES' SUPREME COURT OR THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT MAKING THAT DETERMINATION.

>> IF THE COURT MAKES THAT DETERMINATION, WHICHEVER COURT MIGHT BE, WHY NOT LET THE COURTS DO WHAT THEY MIGHT DO WHO COULD REWRITE THE ENTIRE PROCESS?

>> IN A LOT OF THE SITUATIONS, THEY STRIKE DOWN A CERTAIN PROVISION AND IT MIGHT RENDER THAT DYSFUNCTIONAL OR INOPERATIVE.

THE COURT MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW HOW TO REMEDY THAT SITUATION.

>> IF THE PATIENT DIES BECAUSE IF IT GETS FIXED, IS IT NOT BETTER TO HAVE SOME SURGERY DONE BY THE LEGISLATURE?

>> IF THE LEGISLATURE WAS TRUSTWORTHY?

WE'VE SEEN THE LEGISLATURE INTRODUCE OR MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE INTRODUCE OVER 100 PIECES OF VOTER SUPPRESSION.

THEY WANTED TO TAKE IT BACK TO 1948 WHICH SET A LOSS BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE THAT LOOK LIKE MANY AND MANY WOMEN WERE NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN 1958 AND THAT SENT AN ALARMING MESSAGE ABOUT THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS "WE THE PEOPLE."

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA ARE THE ONLY STATES THAT PROHIBIT THIS ALTERATION BY STATE LEGISLATORS.

YOU SEE THIS HAPPENING AROUND THE COUNTRY IN OTHER STATES.

AGAIN, A BAD THING FOR ARIZONA?

>> BAD THIN FOR THING FOR ARIZONA BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE LEGISLATURE.

WE'RE SEEING LEGISLATORS SAY THEY WERE WILLING TO OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE VOTERS DURING THE 2020 ELECTION.

AS WE TALK ABOUT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, JOE BIDEN WON THE ELECTORAL VOTES, THERE WERE LEGISLATORS THAT WERE WILLING TO OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IF THE LEGISLATURE HAD THAT POWER TO DO SO.

>> WHY SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE BE INVOLVED WITH THIS AT ALL WHEN IT WASN'T INVOLVED WITH THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?

>> AS FAR AS DEALING WITH THESE MEASURES?

>> WHY SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE GET INVOLVED?

>> THERE'S BEEN NO MECHANISM AND WE'VE BEEN SEEN IN THE LAST COUPLE OF CYCLES WHERE STATES PUT IN HIGHER PAID SICK CYCLES THAT INCLUDE THIS AND IT'S POINTED OUT AND THEY INCLUDE THAT LANGUAGE ANYWAY.

THE REALITY IS ON THE FRONT-END BEFORE AN INITIATIVE IS APPROVED, HOW DO YOU FIX IT BEFORE IT GOES IN PANT OF FRONT OF THE VOTERS?

MOST MEASURES ARE FOUND NOT TO CONTAIN ILLEGAL MEASURES AND NOT IMPACTED.

>> BUT CRITICS SAY IT'S NOT NARROW AND CRITICS SAY INITIALLY THE IDEA WAS TO BE NARROW AND THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, THE WHOLE THING CAN BE WRITTEN OUT AND CHANGED.

THAT'S NOT TRUE.

>> WE DON'T BELIEVE IT DOESN'T INFRINGE ON THE INITIATIVE PROCESS AT ALL.

WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE -- WE DON'T BELIEVE VOTERS WOULD BELIEVE IT CONTAINS THIS LANGUAGE IF AWARE.

THERE'S TO MECHANISM ON THE FRONT-END TO REMEDY THAT SITUATION AND THEN THERE'S NO WAY TO FIX IT IF A COURT DOES STRIKE IT DOWN.

>> THIS IS A NARROW AMENDMENT AND BASICALLY A NARROW AMENDMENT TO THE VOTER PROTECTION ACT.

>> IT'S SLIM TO NONE THAT THIS ISSUE IS VERY SMALL AND SO WHY GO THROUGH THIS PROPOSITION?

WHY ADDRESS SUCH A SMALL ISSUE AND SO THIS IS OVERREACH AND IT WILL GIVE THE LEGISLATURE WAY TOO MUCH POWER TO OVERRIDE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND THAT'S WHERE PANE MANY OF THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS STAND THAT PROMOTE BALLOT MEASURES, THAT PROMOTE TRUE ELECTION INTEGRITY AND SUPPORT THE ELECTION PRACTICES HERE IN ARIZONA.

AND SO WE'VE HAD AMAZING VOTER PROCESS AND TURN-OUT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF LEGISLATURE SESSIONS.

>> GOOD DEBATE AND GOOD DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU BOTH.

>> AND THAT IS IT FOR NOW.

I'M TED SIMONS THANK YOU MORE JOINING US AND YOU HAVE A GREAT EVENING.