COMING UP NEXT ON ARIZONA HORIZON: A MAJOR NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIGHT OVER THE FUTURE OF PROP 140, WHICH CALLS FOR AN END TO PARTISAN PRIMARIES IN ARIZONA... ALSO TONIGHT, WE'LL SPEAK WITH GREGORY WHITTEN, THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE RUNNING IN ARIZONA'S 8TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT... AND HOW MUCH WILL THE ISSUE OF SOCIAL SECURITY IMPACT THE VOTING DECISIONS OF OLDER ADULTS.

THOSE STORIES AND MORE, NEXT, ON ARIZONA HORIZON.

ARIZONA HORIZON IS MADE POSSIBLE BY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM FRIENDS OF ARIZONA PBS, MEMBERS OF YOUR PUBLIC TELEVISION STATION.

GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO ARIZONA HORIZON.

I'M TED SIMONS.

A JUDGE TODAY REJECTED EFFORTS TO KEEP PROPOSITION 140 OFF THE BALLOT.

PROP 140 CALLS FOR AN END TO PARTISAN PRIMARIES IN ARIZONA.

OPPONENTS CLAIMED THAT 37,000 SIGNATURES TO PUT THE MEASURE ON THE BALLOT WERE DOUBLE-COUNTED, BUT THE JUDGE TODAY RULED AGAINST THAT CHALLENGE.

JOINING US NOW IS CHUCK COUGHLIN OF HIGHGROUND, WHICH IS LEADING THE CAMPAIGN FOR PROP 140.

CHUCK, GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

QUICKLY, PROP 140 DOES WHAT IS THIS.

>> OPENS PRIMARIES, CREATES A NON-PARTISAN OPEN PRIMARY.

IT TREATS EVERY VOTER AND EVERY CANDIDATE EQUALLY.

SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS TO GET ON THE BALLOT AND ALLOWS VOTERS TO VOTE FOR WHOMEVER THEY WANT.

>> ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE.

WHAT DID THE JUDGE RULE TODAY?

BECAUSE YOU GOT THE REQUISITE SIGNATURES.

YOU WERE GONNA BE ON THE BALLOT.

WHAT HAPPENED?

>> WELL, IT WAS A BIG DAY.

THERE WERE THREE ESSENTIAL RULINGS THAT CAME DOWN FROM THE COURT TODAY, THE FIRST OF WHICH WE WERE CHALLENGED THAT WE HAD DUPLICATE SIGNATURES, THAT WE HAD 38,000 OR SO DUPLICATE SIGNATURES THAT -- THE WAY TO GET ON THE BALLOT IN ARIZONA IS YOU HAVE A RANDOM SAMPLE OF ALL THE SIGNATURES THAT YOU SUBMIT, AND THOSE ARE TESTED BY -- 5% OF THOSE ARE SENT TO THE COUNTY RECORDER'S.

COUNTY RECORDERS GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM AND DETERMINE A VALIDATION RATE.

YOU TAKE THAT VALIDATION RATE, YOU POP IT OFF FOR A LARGER NUMBER OF SIGNATURES.

YOU EITHER MAKE IT OR YOU DON'T, AND THAT'S THE WAY THE LAW SAYS THAT YOU GET ON THE BALLOT IN ARIZONA.

OUR OPPONENTS SAID, WHOA, THEY GOT A BUNCH OF DUPLICATE SIGNATURES IN HERE, AND WE SAID, WELL, THOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT IN THE RANDOM SAMPLE ANALYSIS.

WE HAD OUR MATH MA'AM PARTICULAR, MICRO NEIL WHO'S BEEN ON YOUR PROGRAM, PH.D., SMART GUY, SHOW THE MAP THAT SAYS THEY WOULD HAVE LOST 9,000 OF THOSE DUPLICATES BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ILLUMINATED IN THE RANDOM SAMPLE.

THE JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT, AND THEY WERE TRYING TO DOUBLE-COUNT ALL OF THOSE NEGATIVE SIGNATURES.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO FORCE US TO COUNT DOUBLE BECAUSE THAT WOULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES THAT WE NEEDED TO GET.

NUMBER 2, HE SAID THAT THE MOOTNESS OF IT -- SO THE SUPREME COURT LAST WEEK OPENED THE DOOR, ASKED ABOUT IT PRINTING TO CONTINUE TO THIS CHALLENGE.

AND WE SAID, YOU TONIGHT THAT, AND WE ASKED TO ARGUE THAT.

THE SUPREME COURT SAID, GO ARGUE THAT IN FRONT OF JUDGE MOSKOWITZ.

AND THE JUDGE SAID, YEAH, THAT'S 80 YEARS OF PRECEDENT.

THAT'S WHAT THE RULE HAS BEEN.

AND TO CHANGE THAT WOULD PERMIT AN OPEN-ENDED CHALLENGE TO ANYTHING THAT WAS ON THE BALLOT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE ELECTION.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

MOSKOWITZ SAYS THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE EITHER.

FINALLY, HE SAID THE REMEDY THAT THEY SOUGHT, THAT THEY SOUGHT, THE REMEDY THAT ORDERED HIM TO TELL THE SECRETARY OF STATE NOT TO COUNT OUR VOTES.

BECAUSE WE'RE ON THE BALLOT, IT'S BEING PRINTED.

AND THE YOUNG RULED, I DON'T THAT.

IT'S NOT IN THE LAW ANYWHERE.

SO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FILED AN ARGUMENT WITH US, SAID THAT IS NOT A REMEDY WERED BY LAW.

HE AGREED WITH THAT TODAY.

>> SO BASICALLY, THE SUPREME COURT SAID, JUDGE, THESE PEOPLE, THEY APPEALED AND THEY SAID THEY'RE NOT TAKING THIS DUPLICATE SIGNATURE THING.

SO THE SUPREME COURT SAYS, OKAY, JUDGE, TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

AND TODAY THE JUDGE SAID I DID TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

IT'S ON THE BALLOT, AND PLEASE DON'T ASK ME TO SAY YOU CAN'T COUNT THE BALLOTS BECAUSE I CAN'T DO THAT.

IS THAT BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

>> BASICALLY.

WHAT HE WAS ASKING THEM TO DO WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON 2 COUNTS AND ILLEGAL ON ANOTHER COUNT.

>> I HAVE TO THINK IT'S GONNA BE APPEALED; IS IT NOT?

>> YES.

THERE'S AN EXPEDITED APPEAL PROCESS WHICH OUR OPPONENTS HAVE ALREADY INSTIGATED AS OF THIS MORNING.

BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THE COURT WOULD TAKE THIS.

THEIR PREVIOUS DECISION WAS RATHER SOLEMN IN LIKE IN THE SENSE THAT THEY KEPT THEIR HANDS CLEAN, THEY TOLD THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE IF YOU FIND THIS EXHIBIT THAT PROVES THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH, YOU ORDERED THE SECRETARY TO NOT COUNT THE BALLOTS.

YOU DON'T, THAT HE'S CONCLUDED THIS.

I CAN'T IMAGINE, THEY HAVE TO LISTEN TO IT, THEY HAVE TO HEAR SOMETHING.

BUT DO THEY ORDER BRIEFS OR JUST SAY WE'RE DONE.

I MEAN, THE BALLOTS ARE BEING PRINTED.

THEY'RE BEING MALED TO OVERSEAS VOTERS AS WE THINK.

SO THERE HAS TO BE A BRIGHTLINE HERE.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK BECAUSE IT SOUNDS TO ME WHETHER IT'S THE SUPREME COURT OR THE TRIAL JUDGE COURT SAYS YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING HERE, COULD I BRING MY PROPOSITION I DON'T LIKE AT THE LAST SECOND AND TIE IT UP IN THE COURTS TO WHERE YOU CAN VOTE FOR IT BUT IT WON'T COUNT.

>> IS CLEARLY A LEGAL STRATEGY BY OPPONENTS OF THE INITIATIVES, OF THESE TYPES OF MEASURES, TO CONTINUE TO SUE, TO LITIGATE AND TO DRAIN US OF CASH.

I AM CONFIDENT OUR COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY SPENT OR WILL HAVE SPENT OVER A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS JUST DEFENDING THIS.

THAT'S THE GOOD IMPACT ON ME, OBVIOUSLY, ON THE CAMPAIGN.

ADDITIONALLY THE CLOUD OF UNCERTAINTY THAT THAT CAST OVER THE INITIATIVE, I HAVE ALL OF MY DONORS CALLING ME SAYING, HEY, LET ME KNOW.

EARLY BALLOTS DROP IN 21 DAYS, I GOTTA HAVE A CAMPAIGN.

I GOTTA HAVE A CAMPAIGN GOING UP AND POSITIVE BY THE 30th OF SEPTEMBER AT THE LATEST BECAUSE EARLY BALLOTS DROP, AND I HAVE TO HAVE THAT FUNDED, SO I'VE GONE THROUGH A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS OVER THE LAST WEEK WITH OUR CREATIVE GROUP ABOUT WHAT THE HELL ARE WE DOING HERE.

>> AND THAT AGAIN IS IN REGARDS TO THE CAMPAIGN.

BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU COULD JUST BASICALLY SHUT DOWN ANYTHING BY BRINGING THE CHALLENGE SO LATE THAT IT GETS TIED UP IN THE COURTS AND EITHER DOESN'T MAKE THE BALLOT OR MAKES THE BALLOTS AND THE COURT SAYS, YOU CAN VOTE ON IT IF YOU WANT BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO COUNT IT.

>> AND THAT WAS THE BRIGHTLINE TEST.

THAT WAS THE 80 YEARS OF PRECEDENT THAT THE COURT HAD ESTABLISHED UP UNTIL A WEEK AGO FRIDAY WHEN THEY SAID, OKAY, CONTINUE TO HEAR THIS BECAUSE THE BRIGHTLINE TEST THROUGHOUT ALL OF ARIZONA LAW WAS ONCE THE BALLOTS ARE PRINTED, WE'RE DONE.

YOU CAN'T INTERFERE WITH THIS ANYMORE.

>> AND AS FAR AS THE CAMPAIGN IS CONCERNED, I GUESS YOU REF IT BACK UP?

YOU HAVE TO GO IN OVERDRIVE NOW... >> GOD BLESS, I'M IRISH, I'M OPTIMISTIC DESPITE MY IRISHNESS.

WE'VE BEEN GOING HARD ANYWAYS.

I WAS PREPARED FOR THIS EVENTUALLY.

I WAS CONFIDENT WE WERE GOING TO SUCCEED.

OUR LAWYERS ARE THE BEST.

WE ARE PREPARED, WE HAVE RAISED MONEY, I'M LOOKING TO RAISE ADDITIONAL MONEY TO AUGMENT THAT BUDGET SO WE CAN AUGMENT THE TELEVISION, THE RADIO, THE TV, THE BILLBOARDS, ALL OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO DO TO COMMUNICATE WITH ARIZONA VOTERS WHAT PROP 140 DOES, WHICH ESSENTIALLY TREATS EVERY VOTER EQUALLY.

YOU KNOW, THE ESSENCE OF JUSTICE.

THERE IS NO JUSTICE, PERIOD, UNLESS EVERYBODY'S TREATED EQUALLY.

THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES.

>> PROPOSITION 140, BUSY DAY FOR YOU?

ENTERTAININGLY BUSY DAY.

>> THANK YOU FOR MAKING TIME FOR US.

>> I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY.

ARIZONA'S 8TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IS ONE OF THE LARGEST IN THE STATE.

THE DISTRICT INCLUDES SUBURBS NORTH AND WEST OF PHOENIX, ALONG WITH AREAS OF YAVAPAI COUNTY.

WE SCHEDULED A DEBATE BETWEEN CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR THE OPEN SEAT, BUT THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE DECLINED OUR INVITATION.

SO EARLIER TODAY, WE SAT DOWN WITH THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, GREGORY WHITTEN.

>> OUR FIRST QUESTION TO YOU IS WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?

THIS IS A HEAVILY REPUBLICAN DISTRICT AND YOU'RE A DEMOCRAT.

>> I THINK MAINLY BECAUSE IT WAS I SPENT MOST OF MY CAREER IN PUBLIC SERVICE AND COULDN'T STAND BY AND WATCH A DISTRICT BEING UNDER-REPRESENTED BY SOMEONE WHO HER TOP BILL WAS, YOU KNOW, SAVING GAS STOVES.

THERE'S SO MUCH WITHIN THIS DISTRICT.

WHEN WE REPRESENT THE PEOPLE, 80,000 JOBS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

I WANT TO CREATE GOOD JOBS.

THEY'RE SENIOR CITIZENS, AS WELL.

THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES INCLUDING MEDICARE.

WE NEED TO GO ABOUT THAT AS WELL.

SO HONESTLY I'M RUNNING BECAUSE I WANT TO SERVE THE CONSTITUENTS AND NOT JUST A PARTY.

>> THE CONSTITUENTS IN THAT DISTRICT THOUGH, AGAIN, LOTS OF CONSERVATIVES OUT THERE.

HEAVILY CONSERVATIVE.

ARE YOU CONSERVE 95.

>> NO.

I AM A MODERATE.

I'M MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.

MY GRANDFATHER -- I'M A THIRD GENERATION ARIZONAN, MY GRANDFATHER CAME HERE CARING FOR ORANGE GROVES.

I WANT TO GET BACK TO THAT MODERATE AND WORK ACROSS THE AISLE TO MAKE SURE I DELIVER WHAT THE CONSTITUENTS NEED.

>> YOU MENTIONED THE ECONOMY.

HOW BEST DO YOU HANDLE GROWTH VERSUS INFLATION?

I'M SURE IF YOUR OPPONENT WERE HERE, YOU WOULD SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS LIVING BEYOND ITS MEANS AND WE'RE NOT PAYING OUR BILLS AND TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT SUSPENDING.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO ALL THAT?

>> I THINK FIRST AND FOREMOST, HE SUPPORTS THE PRESIDENT OVER THE CONSTITUENTS.

AND HE WOULD BE FOR TAX CUTS FOR CORPORATIONS.

WHAT I WOULD WANT TO DO IS I WOULD WANT TO CREATE GOOD JOBS, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO FOOD FOOD ON THE TABLE FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT NEED IT, AND WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO WORK ACROSS THE AISLE, TO BRING THEM THOSE JOBS.

SO LIKE I MENTIONED, GOING BACK TO TMC, 87,000 JOBS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

YOU REALLY WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO THOSE THINGS.

FOR ME, WHAT I WANT TO FOCUS ON IS HOW DO WE CREATE THOSE JOBS SO PEOPLE THEN CAN AFFORD HOUSING AND PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE.

MY OPPONENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, WANTS TO WORK WITH THE PARTY AND GIVE BIG TAX CUTS TO CORPORATIONS WHICH WILL JUST INCREASE INFLATION AND NOT HELP THE MIDDLE A CLASS.

>> BUT COULD BE ARGUED THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO INCREASE GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

WE SAW A LOT OF THAT OBVIOUSLY POST COVID, DURING COVID, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.

MANY BLAME INFLATION ON GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND SOME ARE SAYING WE'RE BANKRUPTING FUTURE GENERATIONS.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND THAT?

>> IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO COVID SPENDING THAT WAS MAINLIENED THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WHICH PUSHED THAT INFLATION DURING THAT TIME.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A TAX CUT FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.

>> I NEED TO STOP YOU RIGHT THERE.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WAS VERY MUCH INVOLVED WITH INFRASTRUCTURE AND ALL OF THESE OTHER SORTS OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS HERE.

YOU'RE NOT BLAMING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION?

>> NO.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS PART OF THE PROBLEM.

YOU CAN LOOK AT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, YOU CAN LOOK AT DEMOCRATS WITH INVESTMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE.

IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHERE THE CHIPS FELL, $4 BILLION INVESTED IN MY DISTRICT, RIGHT.

SO TSMC, CORNERSTONE OF THAT, BUILDING TONIGHT, BUILDING JOBS, BUILDING ROADS, BUILDING THINGS LIKE THAT, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT I THINK HONESTLY WE NEED TO BE FOCUSING ON.

>> DO THEY COME AT A COST WITH INFLATION?

>> NO, I DON'T THINK THEY COME AT A COST FOR INFLATION BECAUSE WHAT I WOULD DO IS LOOK TO THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THE TAX CUTS THAT REPUBLICANS WANT FOR CORPORATIONS, AND I WOULD BE TAXING THEM TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE MIDDLE CLASS THE JOBS THAT THEY WANT.

>> YOU MENTIONED HEALTHCARE EARLIER ON.

HOW DO YOU ENSURE AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE, AND ESPECIALLY IN THAT DISTRICT OUT THERE, MEDICARE IS A BIG CONCERN.

WHAT DO YOU SAY TO FOLKS OUT THERE WHO ARE WORRIED ABOUT MEDICARE?

>> UNLIKE MY OPPONENT WHO'S GOING TO BE FOR TAX CUTS THAT'S GOING TO BANKRUPT THESE PROGRAMS, WHAT I WOULD DO IS CONTINUE THE NEGOTIATIONS ON THE TOP 10 DRUGS.

I WOULD ALSO INCREASE THE MEDICARE TAX 2% SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THESE PROGRAMS.

THE BOTTOMLINE IS I GO IN THAT DISTRICT AND I SIT ACROSS FROM SENIOR CITIZENS EVERY SINGLE DAY AND THEY'RE MAKING DECISIONS BETWEEN THEIR PHARMACEUTICALS AND GROCERIES, AND HONESTLY THOSE PROGRAMS NEED TO BE FUNDED.

FOR ME, WHAT I WOULD DO IS EXPAND ON THE NEGOTIATION TOP 10 DRUGS, 2% INCREASE ON MEDICARE TAX SO THEN WE CAN BE ABLE TO AFFORD THAT AND KEEP THESE PROGRAMS SOLVENT.

>> 2% MEDICARE TAXES, ACROSS THE BOARD?

>> ACROSS THE BOARD.

>> OKAY.

SOCIAL SECURITY.

DOES THAT NEED A TAX INCREASE?

>> SOCIAL SECURITY ALSO NEEDS A TAX INCREASE, AND ON TOP OF, THAT WE NEED LOOK AT MEANS TESTING FOR BOTH OF THESE PROGRAMS, RIGHT.

I WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET IT TO THE PEOPLE THAT NEED IT THE MOST.

SO IF YOU WERE A MILLIONAIRE, A BILLIONAIRE, YOU SHOULD NOT BE TAPPING INTO THESE PROGRAMS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN MY DISTRICT THAT ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE OF THIS.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT MAKING THOSE CHOICES OVER GROCERIES AND PHARMACEUTICALS.

>> WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIAL SECURITY, WHEN YOU SAY MEANS TEST, YOU WANT TO RAISE THE AGE OF RETIREMENT.

HOW DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT?

>> FOR SOCIAL SECURITY WHAT I WOULD SAY I WOULDN'T RAISE THE AGE.

WHAT I WOULD SAY IS WHO'S PULLING SOCIAL SECURITY?

ACROSS THE BOARD, WHAT ARE THE INCOME BRACKET AS SOON AS RIGHT NOW IT IS CAPPED AT ABOUT $250,000.

WE GOTTA GO FARTHER UP ON THAT AND FIGURE OUT WHO ARE THE PEOPLE THAT NEED BE AING INTO SOCIAL SECURITY SO THAT THEY ARE SOLVENT IN RETIREMENT, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE LIVING LONGER AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

>> IS THAT A MESSAGE YOU THINK RESONATES WITH FOLKS OUT THERE.

I WOULD IMAGINE A LOT OF FOLKS WE HEAR ARE LIKE, HUH-UH, I'M NOT INTO THAT.

>> I THINK WHAT RESONATES IN THAT DISTRICT IS THE BOTTOMLINE I'M TRYING TO DELIVER FOR MY CONSTITUENTS AND MAKE SURE THAT THESE PROGRAMS ARE AROUND.

PEOPLE ARE LIVING LONGER, SO HONESTLY THEY DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT BEING HOMELESS.

FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN I'M TALKING TO CONSTITUENTS ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS THEY TALK ABOUT IS ELDERLY HOMELESSNESS BECAUSE SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT COVERING THEIR BILLS.

HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THOSE PEOPLE ARE GETTING IT AND THE PEOPLE THAT MAYBE DON'T NEED IT DON'T.

>> YOU'RE RUNNING FOR CONGRESS.

SHOULD CONGRESS IN ANY WAY ACT ON ABORTION?

>> YES, 100%.

I WOULD BE MORE CODIFYING ROE AT THE TOP.

MY PHONE ELSE SAID HE WOULD THROW DOCTORS AND NURSES IN JAIL.

HE SAYS THAT IT'S ABOUT THE STATES.

BUT HONESTLY HE JUST ATTENDED TWO WEEKS AGO A PRO-LIFE DINNER.

HE WILL, WHEN HE GOES TO CONGRESS, TRY TO BAN ABORTION WITH NO EXCEPTIONS.

IN MY OPINION I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE BETWEEN A WOMAN, A DOCTOR AND HER FAMILY, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

>> WHAT ABOUT A TIME LIMIT?

>> I THINK ROE, 21 WEEKS, IT'S BEEN PROVEN BY MEDICAL EXPERTS THAT IS OAK.

I SUPPORT THE BALLOT INITIATIVE AT THE TOP OF THE BALLOT.

>> 21 WEEKS AS OPPOSED TO WHAT ARIZONA HAS, WHICH WOULD BE 15 WEEKS.

RAPE AND INCEST YOU WOULD HAVE EXCEPTIONS FOR THAT AS WELL, I WOULD IMAGINE.

>> YES.

>> IMMIGRATION.

HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THE ISSUE, THE BORDER, ACCORDING TO YOUR PHONE PENALTY AND ACCORDING TO REPUBLICANS IS A COMPLETE DISASTER.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

>> I THINK IT'S REALLY FUNNY THAT REPUBLICANS WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE HONESTLY THEY PLAY POLITICS WITH THE BORDER.

WE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE BORDER BILL SINCE REAGAN SPONSORED BY ONE OF THE MOST CONSERVATIVE SENATORS IN THE SENATE.

WE HAD A BIPARTISAN BILL, THEY KILLED IT, JUST LIKE MY OPPONENT HE'S GOING TO FOLLOW DONALD TRUMP, WHATEVER HE SAYS.

THEY KILLED IT SO THAT DONALD TRUMP HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING.

I DON'T WANT TO POLITICIZE THE BORDER ANYMORE.

I WANT TO DELIVER A SAFE, SECURE BORDER TO ARIZONANS AND NOT PLAY POLITICS ANYMORE.

>> AND THEY WILL TELL YOU THEY DID KILL IT BECAUSE OF DONALD TRUMP BUT BECAUSE IT WASN'T ENOUGH, AND IT WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH AND IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

>> WELL, IT WASN'T -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY CAN SAY IT WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

THE PRESIDENT HAD THE ABILITY TO SHUT THE BORDER.

THEY ALSO WOULD EXTEND AMNESTY TO BE DONE AT THE BORDER.

HONESTLY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM CONSIDERING THAT IT WASN'T ENOUGH.

>> DO YOU THINK THAT ARIZONA HAS AN IMMIGRATION CRISIS?

>> YES.

>> AND YOU THINK THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE IS?

>> GOING BACK TO THAT FRAMEWORK AND WORKING ACROSS THE AISLE TO BE ABLE TO DELIVER THAT BILL, AND THEN ALSO ON TOP OF THAT, EXTENDING FUNDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SO THAT WE CAN GET CONTROL OF THIS.

UNLIKE PROJECT 2025 WHICH WANTS TO DEFUND THE D DHA.

I WOULD HAVE IT DO THEIR AMNESTY HEARINGS AT THE BORDER, GET FUNDING TO HIRE MORE JUDGES, AND I ALSO WOULD WANT THE ABILITY TO DHS TO BE ABLE TO DO SOME OF THIS SO THAT WHEN THEY COME TO THE BORDER THIS VERY A HEARING WITHIN 48 HOURS AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE TOLD YES OR NO AND MOVE ON IN THE SYSTEM.

>> BUILD A WALL, YES OR NO?

>> NO.

WHY?

>> BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SOLVE ANYTHING.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT -- YOU KNOW, THERE'S PIECES OF WALL AND EVERYTHING ELSE IT'S UNPROVEN, DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

IT'S A POLITICAL STUNT AND I'M SICK OF THE REPUBLICANS DOING THAT.

>> WHAT WOULD YOU DO, WE'VE GOT THE FRAMEWORK IDEA, ALL THAT BITS, BUT WHAT WOULD DO YOU TO ENHANCE SECURITY AT -- YOU SAID WE WERE AT A CRISIS HERE.

DO YOU PUT MORE PEOPLE DOWN THERE?

DO YOU PUT MORE MACHINERY DOWN THERE?

>> SO I ACTUALLY WORKED ON THIS AT THE PENTAGON.

WHAT WE NEED TOE DO IS INCREASE FUNDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

WE ARE NEED THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO PUT MORE AGENTS AT THE BORDER.

WE NEED TO EXTEND THE DOJ FOR THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO HEAR CASES IN A TIMELY MANNER.

WE NEED FUNDING AND WE NEED PEOPLE AND A THIRD THING, TECHNOLOGY, RIGHT.

SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S A LOT OF UNDERFUNDING.

SO WITH DHS THERE USED TO BE SOMETHING CALLED THE DOJ-DHS AGREEMENT WHERE COULD YOU DO TECH TRANSFERS ALL THE TIME.

I I THINK WE NEED TO ESTABLISH FRAMEWORK SO WE'D BE ABLE TO BRING THE TECHNOLOGY THAT OUR MILITARY HAS TO THE BORDER TO BE ABLE TO HELP DHS STOP THIS PROBLEM.

>>> AND LAST QUESTION, YOU SAID THE MILITARY.

MILITARY AID FOR ISRAEL, GOOD OR BAD?

>> MILITARY AID FOR ISRAEL, I THINK THAT ISRAEL HAS A RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF AT THE END OF THE DAY, BUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN GAZA IS A HUMANITARIAN CRISIS AND NEED TO COME TO A SOLUTION ACROSS THE BOARD.

I WORKED ON THIS WHEN I WAS IN THE PENTAGON, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS.

WE NEED TO STOP THIS RIGHT NOW, AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO STILL FUND OUR ALLY, BECAUSE THEY ARE OUR ALLY AT END OF THE DAY, ONE OF THE LONGEST STANDING.

AND AT THE SAME TIME WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO STOP THE CRISIS AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.

>> LAST QUESTION, MILITARY AID AND FUNDING FOR UKRAINE, GOOD OR BAD?

>> 100% WE NEED TO FUND UKRAINE.

YOU KNOW, UNLIKE MY PHONE PENALTY AND HIS PARTY WHO WANT TO BUDDY UP TO TRUMP, I HONESTLY THINK WE NEED TO STAND WITH OUR ALLIES.

PEOPLE FORGET THAT IN THE 1940s, EUROPE WAS PULLING APART.

WE NEED TO HOLD THAT TOGETHER, HAVE A UNIFIED FRONT AND FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY ACROSS THE WORLD.

I'M NOT SAYING WE NEED TO BE A POLICE ACROSS THE WORLD BUT FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY ACROSS THE WORLD.

>> GREGORY WHITEN, CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 8, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

TONIGHT, WE'RE HOSTING THE FIRST OF THREE VOTER EDUCATION SEGMENTS DESIGNED TO LEARN MORE ON THE ISSUES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO OLDER VOTERS IN ARIZONA.

THE FOCUS TONIGHT IS ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

AND WE HAVE A PANEL OF THREE REGISTARED VOTERS: MARY LYNN KELLY, LISA KUBIE AND MIKE MORGAN.

GOOD TO HAVE YOU ALL HERE.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US ON HORIZON.

HOW IMPORTANT IS IS THE ISSUE OF SOCIAL SECURITY TO YOU.

>> WELL, SOCIAL SECURITY IMPORTANT TO EVERYBODY BECAUSE IT GIVES YOU MONEY.

AND EVERYBODY IS SENSITIVE ABOUT THAT AND WANTS TO BE AWARE.

WHEN I STARTED TO THINK ABOUT WHAT I TRULY UNDERSTOOD ABOUT IT.

>> I WENT BACK TO MY RESEARCH THINKING I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IS EXCEPT FOR WHEN I HEARD IT COME UP AND HOW IT'S GOING TO BE TREATED OR THE FACT THAT IT WOULD DISAPPEAR IN THE YEAR 2032, IS THAT THE YEAR THAT THEY'RE -- >> YEAH, IT DOES KIND OF FLUCTUATE.

I STARTED TO PAY ATTENTION.

>> LISA, HOW IMPORTANT TO YOU?

>> I WOULD SAVE IT.

SO IT IS.

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT.

AND I THINK THAT WHAT PEOPLE FORGET IS THAT SINCE I WAS, WHAT, 16, I'VE BEEN PAYING INTO IT.

IT IS REALLY NOT AN ENTITLEMENT.

WE'VE -- IT'S OUR MONEY.

AND THAT'S WHAT WORRIES ME, BECAUSE PEOPLE LOSE TRACK OF THAT.

>> YEAH.

MIKE, IS THIS A SINGLE ISSUE TO YOU OR IS IT PRETTY CLOSE?

>> IT'S PRETTY CLOSE.

I MEAN, I THINK IN GENERAL I'M VERY -- IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S KIND OF THE FAIR THING TO DO.

AND ALSO QUITE A BIT OF MONEY THAT GOES RIGHT BACK INTO THE ECONOMY.

SO... >> THE SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDING NEEDS TO BE OVERHAULED, THE IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO HEAR?

>> I'D BE HESS TONIGHT SEE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT, RIGHT.

BECAUSE ONCE THEY START GETTING INTO A DEBATE ABOUT THAT AND OTHER THINGS START TO FALL OFF AND YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK.

>> LISA, THAT KIND OF TALK INTERESTING TO YOU?

>> I THINK IT'S VITAL.

RIGHT NOW, THE CAP, WE GET I THINK 6.2% TAXED FROM OUR INCOME.

AND IT STOPS AT $160,000.

SO IF YOU'RE A WEALTHY PERSON WHO MAKES MORE THAN $160,000, IT'S A GRAVY TRAIN FOR THEM.

SO I FEEL THAT THE LIMIT SHOULD BE RAISED.

>> OKAY.

SO DOES THIS SOUND ATTRACTIVE TO YOU, A COMPLETE OVERHAUL?

>> I'M HESS AT THAT TIME TO SAY AN OVERHAUL BECAUSE WHENEVER YOU HAVE AN ISSUE, LET'S SAY YOU'RE A HEALTHY PERSON, YOU GO TO THE DOCTOR, AND THEY TELL YOU HAVE AN ISSUE, YOU START TO PAY ATTENTION TO HOW YOU WOULD FIX IT.

YOU DON'T SAY I'M JUST GONNA CUT OFF YOUR LEGS BECAUSE YOU NEED KNEE SURGERY.

THAT'S HOW I VIEW THIS.

I FEEL MYSELF TO BE MORE OF A SCIENTIST.

SO I WOULD STUDY IT AND KIND OF PAY ATTENTION TO, WE'VE GOT SOME EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.

REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, INDEPENDENT, IF YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE GOALS OF IT AND THE OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT, BETTER, IN EVERY WAY THAT WE'VE EVER TRIED TO FIX A PROBLEM, I DON'T MIND FIXING IT, BUT BEING LEGITIMATELY.

I DON'T LIKE THIS BUMPER STICKER FIGHTING.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT A WAY TO FIX IT BECAUSE A LOT OF FOLKS THINK THAT PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY IS THE WAY TO GO.

I'M A CANDIDATE AND I ESPOUSE THAT.

WHAT DO YOU ANY.

>> I AM UPSET.

PRIVATIZE SOMETHING A VERY ODD THING TO ME BECAUSE IT'S ALMOST LIKE WHAT THEY'RE DOING RIGHT NOW WITH HEALTHCARE.

IF YOU HAVE A VENTURE CAPITAL COMPANY THAT IS INVESTING IN A HOSPITAL, THEY'RE AT ODDS WITH THE GOAL OF THE HOSPITAL.

AND I FEEL THAT THAT MAY BE THE CASE.

>> THE PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DOES THAT ATTRACT YOU, LISA?

>> NOT AT ALL.

I THINK IT MAKES IT VERY RISKY.

AT THIS POINT NOW WE HAVE THE CERTAIN AMOUNT GUARANTEED EVERY YEAR.

AND THE STOCK MARKET RIGHT NOW IS BOOMING, BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T BOOM.

AND THEN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?

>> MIKE, PRIVATIZATION, THAT A TURN-OFF TO YOU?

>> THAT'S A TURN-OFF, ABSOLUTELY.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE IDEA OF INCREASING THE RETIREMENT AGE?

>> THAT'S AN INTERESTING THING.

I THINK ACTUALLY INCREASING RETIREMENT AGE FROM ONE TO TWO TO THREE YEARS AUTO ACTUALLY BE REASONABLE, CONSIDERING THE HEALTH OF PEOPLE NOW IS OLDER.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD ALSO HELP IS PEOPLE HIRING OTHER PEOPLE.

RIGHT NOW 65 IS THE MAGIC NUMBER, BEING THE TIME THAT YOU KINDS OF ROLL PEOPLE OUT.

IF YOU HAD IT TO ACTUALLY 68, RIGHT, THEN THE MINDSET WOULD BE DIFFERENT AND THEY'D SAY, OH, I CAN STILL USE 68-YEAR-OLDS.

>> YEAH.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> THAT'S A FASCINATING POINT.

I DO LIKE THAT.

BUT IN GENERAL, I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA BECAUSE I AM A NURSE, AND PEOPLE SAY OUR LIFE EXPECTANCY IS HIGHER, AND SO THAT'S THE RATIONAL, AND ACTUALLY OUR LIFE EXPECTANCY IS GOING DOWN.

AND THE OTHER THING IS MOST PEOPLE WHO TAKE AN EARLIER RETIREMENT IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT DOING WHITE COLLAR JOBS.

>> YES, THE IDEA OF RAISING THE RETIREMENT AGE... >> I DON'T LIKE IT BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE YOU'RE JUST TOSSING IN A RANDOM SOLUTION TO -- NOT LOOKING AT THE FACTORS.

JUST RAISING IT JUST MAKES MOVES THE BAR AROUND.

AND WE MIGHT GET TO THE POINT WHERE OUR AVERAGE LIFESPAN IS 100.

SO THEN WHERE DO WE MOVE IT?

JUST LIKE LISA SAID, IT FEELS A LITTLE BIT MORE LIKE OUR SAVINGS ACCOUNT.

SO PLAYING AROUND WITH IT SEEMS ODD.

>> REAL QUICKLY HERE, I NEED A REALLY BRIEF ANSWER.

ANYTHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT RIGHT HERE WHERE YOU TWO ARE AGAINST A CANDIDATE?

>> YES.

PRIVATIZATION WOULD MAKE ME NOD VOTED.

>> DEFINITELY.

>> SO THAT IS A BIG MOVER?

>> OH, YEAH.

>> YEAH.

ANYTHING WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WOULD REALLY MOVE YOU FOR OR AGAINST A CANDIDATE?

>> I HAVE TO AGREE HERE.

I MEAN, PRIVATIZATION WOULD DEFINITELY TURN ME OFF.

>> YEAH.

AND IT SOUNDS LIKE AN IMPORTANT ISSUE TO ALL THREE OF YOU.

GOOD CONVERSATION.

>> THANKS.

>> GOOD TO HAVE YOU ALONG.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT AND YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU.

>>> THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

I'M TED SIMONS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

YOU HAVE A GREAT EVENING.

Support for Arizona.

PBS comes from viewers like you and from