♪.

TED: COMING UP NEXT ON "ARIZONA HORIZON," IT'S THE JOURNALISTS' ROUNDTABLE.

WE'LL LOOK AT THE WEEK'S TOP STORIES, INCLUDING THE FEDS RELEASING A FINALIZED PLAN FOR CUTBACKS IN THE USE OF COLORADO RIVER WATER.

THE JOURNALISTS' ROUNDTABLE IS NEXT ON "ARIZONA HORIZON."

.

TED: GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO "ARIZONA HORIZON."

I'M TED SIMONS.

IT'S FRIDAY, AND THAT MEANS IT'S TIME FOR THE JOURNALISTS' ROUNDTABLE.

AND JOINING US TONIGHT, CAMRYN SANCHEZ OF KJZZ RADIO, WAYNE SCHUTSKY ALSO OF KJZZ, AND JIM SMALL OF THE "ARIZONA MIRROR."

PANEL, GOOD TO HAVE YOU ALL HERE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

CAMRYN, START WITH YOU ON WATER WHICH IS APROPOS, WE GOT OURSELVES A FINALIZED PLAN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.

>> FINALLY, THE RECORD OF DECISION IS WHAT WE'RE WAITING ON BASICALLY, WE'RE TAKING CUTS AND SO IS CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA, WHAT WE EXPECTED TO SEE, BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE, IT COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER, ULTIMATELY A 20% CUS FOR US LOWER-BASIN STATES BUT WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO THE TABLE IN A COUPLE OF YEARS AS THE FEDS LAID OUT.

THIS IS WHAT IT IS FOR NOW, BUT THIS IS FAR FROM OVER.

TED: AS CAMRYN MENTIONED, TWO YEAR PLAN FOR A 10-YEAR FRAMEWORK?

>> THESE NUMBERS ARE FOR THE TEN YEARS BUT EVERY TWO YEARS TWEAK BASED ON WHERE THE WATER IS AT IN THE COLORADO RIVER.

THE UPPER BASIN AND LOWER BASIN HAD TWO YEARS TO NEGOTIATE UP TO THIS POINT AND THE FEDS HAVE TO STEP IN BECAUSE THE STATES COULDN'T AGREE.

WE HAVE TO START THE NEGOTIATIONS RIGHT NOW AND WHO KNOWS IF WE COME TO ANY OTHER AGREEMENT.

TED: ONE OF THE STICKING POINTS, THE LOWER BASIN SAID WE CAN DO X, Y AND Z BUT NEED HELP FROM THE UPPER BASIN.

THE LOWER BASIN IS NOT A TOTAL LOSE-LOSE THING HERE.

>> NO, BETTER WHAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN, FOR SURE, BUT THAT REALLY GETS TO THE CRUX OF THE NEGOTIATION AND WHERE EVERYTHING IS BOGGED DOWN IS THE DECISION WHO TAKES MANDATORY CUTS AND WHO DOESN'T.

MANDATORY STATES HAVE BEEN TAKING VOLUNTARY CUTS AND DONE A LOT TO TRY TO KEEP WATER IN THE RIVER, TO KEEP LAKE MEAD AND LAKE POWELL, TO KEEP THE RESERVOIRS WITH AS MUCH WATER IN THEM AS POSSIBLE.

UPPER-BASIN STATES IN THE NEGOTIATIONS HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN ONTO MANDATORY CUTS.

THE POSITION IS WE TAKE CUTS WHEN MOTHER NATURE GIVES US CUTS.

WHEN WE HAVE LOW SNOWPACK, LIKE THIS YEAR, THAT'S WATER THAT DOESN'T RUN DOWN THE MOUNTAINS INTO THE RIVER AND WATER THEY CAN'T TAKE AND DON'T TAKE.

THEIR POSITION IS WE DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TELLING US WHAT TO CUT.

WE'RE AT THE WHIM OF THE NATURE AND CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE LOWER BASIN SAYS THAT PUTS THAT BURDEN ONTO US AND WE'RE THE ONLY ONES TO TAKE THE FORCED CUTS WHEN THE RIVER LEVELS DROP DOWN, AND ARIZONA, IN PARTICULAR, TAKES THE BRUNT OF THE CUTS.

WE WERE THE LAST ONE TO ADD ONTO THE COLORADO RIVER PACT, THE METRO REGIONS, IT IS THE NEWEST USER OF THE WATER, ESSENTIALLY.

IT'S THE LAST IN FIRST OUT, AND THAT'S WHY WE END UP SEEING ARIZONA IN THIS TAKING 760,000 ACRE FEET OF CUTS IN THE SHORT TWO-YEAR TEMPORARY FIX.

TED: CAMRYN, ISN'T THIS SIMILAR OR ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT THE LOWER-BASIN STATES OFFERED AS FAR AS CUTBACKS IS CONCERNED?

>> IT IS INCORPORATING THAT.

TED: WITH THE CAVEAT, THEY WANT THE UPPER BASIN STATES TO DO SOMETHING.

>> OF COURSE, WE DO.

I'M NOT DEFENDING THE UPPER BASIN.

WE DO USE MORE OF OUR ALLOCATION AND THEY HAVE THE POSITION OF HAVING THE HEAD WATERS, HOW THE WATER IS STORED, IT'S NOT IN A GIANT RESERVOIR THAT IS SENT TO COLORADO AND UTAH THE SAME WAY IT'S DOWN TO US, THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS OF CUTS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY DO THAT THE SAME WAY, THEY'RE IN A BETTER POSITION THAN US IN A LOT WAYS.

WE PUT OURSELVES IN THE POSITION WHEN WE GOT THE C.A.P.

GOING, WHICH MADE SENSE AT THE TIME, BUT ARIZONA HAS NEVER BEEN ON THE BEST FOOT IN THIS NEGOTIATION, AND THIS SETS AN INTERESTING PRECEDENT.

THIS THING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PUT OUT THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK IN TWO YEARS AND SAY, WELL, IT WORKED OUT LAST TIME, DON'T KNOW WHY WE SHOULD DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY.

TED: AS FAR AS REACTION, THE GOVERNORS SAY WE CAN DO THIS BUT THE UPPER STATES GOT TO DO SOMETHING.

>> SHE OVERALL CELEBRATED IT BECAUSE IT'S INCORPORATING A LOT OF WHAT THE LOWER BASIN BROUGHT TO THE TABLE BUT THE LOWER BASIN BROUGHT THAT TO THE TABLE BECAUSE THEY WERE AT A DISADVANTAGE WITH THE UPPER BASIN HOLDING FAST ON WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO MUCH OTHER THAN TAKE MOTHER NATURE'S CUTS.

TED: DOES THIS MEAN ARIZONA WILL NOT BE GOING TO COURT OR WAITING FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS TO GO, BECAUSE THERE WAS AGREEMENT IN 1922 OR WHENEVER IT WAS, THAT WE DO GET COLORADO RIVER WATER TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, AND I THINK THEY AT ONE TIME THEY WERE WILLING TO GO TO COURT OVER THIS?

>> I THINK THE STATE'S POSITION HAS BEEN, AND PROBABLY WILL REMAIN, WE WILL GO TO COURT TO FIGHT FOR THE WATER THAT OUR LEADERS AND WATER ADMINISTRATORS THINK THAT WE DESERVE OUT OF THIS PLAN.

I DON'T KNOW THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY, I THINK FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS, WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE NEXT ROUND OF NEGOTIATIONS AND HOW THIS IS GOING TO SHAKE OUT FOR THE REST OF THE DECADE, AND I'M SURE THE LITIGATION WILL BE ON THE TABLE.

TED: WHAT ARE YOU WATCHING FOR IN ALL THIS?

WHAT ARE YOU EXPECTING NEXT, WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?

>> THE BIGGEST QUESTION, THE REACTION WE GOT FROM THE GOVERNOR AND THE STATE LEGISLATORS, ARE PEOPLE SO INFURIATED WE'RE FILING A LAWSUIT TODAY?

I DIDN'T SEE THAT YET, AND DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, THIS ONE IS OF THE MAIN THINGS, IS THIS ALL GOING TO END UP IN A COURTROOM?

IF SO, WHAT DOES THAT END UP FOR ARIZONA?

IN TERMS OF THE WATER FOR THE STATE.

TAP'S NOT DRY.

WE HAVE SEEN THIS COMING FOR A VERY LONG TIME, SO THE CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES WHO ARE LARGE WATER USERS ARE PREPARING TO A DEGREE.

I THINK WATER PRICES WILL INCREASE AS CITIES DIVERSIFY WATER PORTFOLIOS TO PUT THEMSELVES IN A BETTER POSITION GOING FORWARD.

TED: MEANS MORE GROUND WATER PUMPING, RIGHT?

>> A LOT OF IT IS DIVERSIFIED.

WE'RE GOING TO BE PUMPING AND THAT WATER IS DEPLETABLE, NOT AN EVERLASTING RESOURCE.

GOT TO WATCH THAT AND MANAGE THE RESOURCES BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE RELYING ON THEM MORE IN THE FUTURE.

TED: IS THIS AN ELECTION ISSUE?

>> I THINK WATER IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE OF AN ISSUE IN COLORADO RIVER WATER, I THINK, MAYBE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT DRIVES AN ELECTION BUT VOTERS ARE STARTING TO TAKE NOTE OF AFTER WE SPENT THE LAST 10, 15, 20 YEARS HEARING THE WATER EXPERTS TRYING TO RAISE ALARM AND SAY, LOOK, WE HAVE A PROBLEM COMING DOWN AND NEED TO BE PREPARED FOR, AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT I DON'T THINK HAS RESONATED WELL WITH VOTERS, BUT ONCE WE GET INTO A PLACE WHERE WE HAVE SOME RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON WATER USAGE ON HOW MUCH WATER COMES INTO THE URBAN CENTERS, I THINK AT THIS POINT, IT'S GOING TO RESONATE MORE WITH PEOPLE AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TAKE NOTE OF IT.

TED: IF IT IS AN ELECTION ISSUE, HOW?

YOU ARE NOT FOR OR AGAINST WATER HERE.

>> I'M AGAINST WATER.

I THINK EVERYONE IS FOR WATER, I AGREE.

I'M A LITTLE BIASED.

I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING ELECTION ISSUE.

I THINK MAYBE IN THE GOVERNOR'S RACE, HOW YOU HANDLE THIS.

CAN REPUBLICANS AND BIGGS TIE THIS TO BE HOBBS' FAULT?

IT'S HER FAULT WE'RE TAKING WATER CUTS, AND I'VE SEEN SOME OF THAT, BUT ALSO BIGGS TOLD ME WE NEED TO OPEN UP GROUND WATER PUMPING.

WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS MORE GROUND WATER, WHERE HOBBS TOLD ME CLEARLY I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT, I THINK WE NEED TO PROTECT THE GROUND WATER WE HAD.

SHE PUT THE FOCUS ON GROUND WATER CONSERVATION.

WHEN IT COMES TO OPENING UP THE AREAS AND NOT PUTTING EGGS IN ONE BASKET, WHAT DIRECTION IS THE WATER GOING TO COME FROM?

WHAT PROJECTS IS THE GOVERNOR GOING TO PURSUE?

THAT'S THE BIG TICKET.

TED: YEAH.

WAYNE, WE HAD ANOTHER BIG STORY TODAY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GOING AHEAD AND CLOSING OUT INVESTIGATION OF THE GOVERNOR REGARDING SUNSHINE RESIDENTIAL HOMES.

GIVE AN OVERVIEW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.

>> THIS IS A PAY TO PLAY INVESTIGATION WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR TWO YEARS NOW.

SUNSHINE HOMES, LARGEST FOSTER HOME OPERATOR IN THE STATE, GOT A HUGE PAY RAISE YEARS AGO, "ARIZONA REPUBLIC" BROKE THE STORY.

THAT'S AFTER FAMILIES AND ASSOCIATED BUSINESSES GAVE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO HOBBS AND EFFORTS.

WAS THIS A QUID PRO QUO, A PAY TO PLAY?

ATTORNEY GENERAL MAYES HAS LOOKED INTO IT TWO YEARS NOW.

NOTHING UNTOWARD HAPPENED HERE.

SHE BASICALLY REITERATED WHAT THE HOBBS CAMP HAS BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS.

NO, THEY'RE THE BIGGEST GROUP HOME OPERATOR, THEY NEEDED A RATE INCREASE, IF WE LOT OF THEM TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, OTHER ENTITIES THAT UTILIZE GROUP HOMES, WE WOULD BE IN A TOUGH SPOT WITH THE FOSTER CHILDREN WHO WE HAVE NOWHERE TO PUT THEM.

IT WAS A BUSINESS DECISION AND HOBBS DIDN'T INFLUENCE IT.

TED: BASICALLY CLEARED OF THAT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYING SOMETHING NEEDING TO BE DONE WITH ANOTHER ASPECT FOUND DURING THIS INVESTIGATION, AND THAT WAS SUNSHINE DOING MORE DONATIONS THAT EVEN THE REPUBLIC DIDN'T FIND OUT IN THE ORIGINAL REPORT.

>> THAT REFERS TO THE $150,000 THEY HAD GIVEN TO THE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND FOR THE GOVERNOR.

TED: YEAH.

>> ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE A.G.

'S OFFICE SAID THERE IS NOTHING TO PROSECUTE HERE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE QUID PRO QUO OR THE SIGN OF PRESSURE FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, BUT THIS DOESN'T LOOK GOOD, AND THERE ARE OBTAIN TRANSPARENCY AND, YOU KNOW, DISCLOSURE THINGS THAT THE GOVERNOR AND THE STATE LEGISLATURE SHOULD WORK TOWARD TO TRY TO RESOLVE.

ESSENTIALLY, IF THERE WAS NO IMPROPRIETY THAT LEADS PEOPLE TO GO, HEY, THIS LOOKS LIKE THERE IS BRIBES HAPPENING OR SOME OTHER UNTOWARD BEHAVIOR.

TED: THE WHOLE HOOK ON THE THING IS PAY TO PLAY.

THAT'S HOW EVERYONE SEEMS TO KNOW THIS.

OBVIOUSLY IT'S A LITTLE CLUNKY HERE.

>> JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE PUT UP LEGISLATION THAT WOULD INCREASE TRANSPARENCY AND REQUIRE THE GOVERNOR TO DISCLOSE MORE ABOUT SITUATIONS LIKE THIS THAT WAS A RESULT OF THE STORY BREAKING AND PUT UP BY T.J.

SHOPE AS A SPONSOR AND SHE KILLED IT, VETOED IT, SHE DIDN'T LIKE IT.

NOTHING SHE PUT UP GOT THROUGH.

I THINK THAT IS A LITTLE BIT POINTED, AND THE WHOLE YOU DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL BUT LOOKS BAD, MEANS YOU SHOULD DO SOMETHING IF YOU DON'T WANT THIS TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.

TED: I WAS GOING TO SAY THE IDEA YOU'RE OKAY, BUT.

NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR THE BUT PART OF IT HERE.

>> GOES BACK TO INFLUENCE IN POLITICS.

WHETHER OR NOT THIS INCREASE WAS THE DIRECT RESULT OF THIS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION, WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID IT IS NOT, IT DOESN'T LOOK GREAT WHEN YOU HAVE THIS PERSON WHO IS NEVER REALLY GIVEN AT THIS LEVEL IN CAMPAIGNS EVER BEFORE, NOW POURING HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND OF DOLLARS INTO A CAMPAIGN, AND NOT JUST INTO THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS WE ALL CAN ACCESS PUBLICLY, BUT INAUGURATION FUNDS, LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDS, STUFF THAT IS COMPLETELY DARK BEHIND THE SCENES.

ONLY REASON WE HAVE IT BECAUSE AFTER PRESSURE, THE HOBBS CAMPAIGN RELEASED THAT INFORMATION, AND IN THIS REPORT WE GOT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

IT'S ALL THE DARK MONEY THAT LEADS PEOPLE TO NOT TRUST THEIR LEADERS, POLITICIANS, OFFICIALS BECAUSE WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH MONEY IS FUNNELED TO THEM.

TED: IMPACT ON THE GOVERNOR'S RACE.

IMPACT ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RACE.

>> REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO MAKE HEY WITH THE ISSUE OF THE ANDY BIGGS CAMPAIGN.

IT'S BEEN A TALKING POINT THIS WHOLE TIME AGAINST KATIE HOBBS, THAT SHE'S GOT CORRUPTION HE'S GOING TO CLEAR OUT.

THIS FINDING, I DON'T THINK, IT MIGHT BLUNT THAT A LITTLE BIT BUT NOT GOING TO STOP IT.

IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE A TALKING POINT OF THEIRS.

ON THE A.G.

SIDE, I'M SURE WARREN PETERSEN WILL GO AFTER MAYES AND ACCUSE HER OF BURYING AND SWEEPING THIS UNDER THE RUG.

IT'S CAMPAIGN POLITICS, WE CAN EXPECT THAT, AND ALL THE SAME I THINK WE CAN EXPECT THE DEMOCRATS, KATIE HOBBS AND KRIS MAYES IN THE CASE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND SAY THAT THE FINDINGS WERE LEGIT, AND THE INVESTIGATION WAS SERIOUS, IT TOOK A LONG TIME.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, HERE'S WHAT WE FOUND.

TED: PETERSEN ALREADY RELEASED SOMETHING, DIDN'T HE?

>> THE DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RACE.

PETERSEN SAID MAYES IS HELPING ANOTHER DEMOCRAT AND GOING TO GO AFTER PARTISAN INTERESTS AND NOT THE OTHER THINGS THAT MATTERED TO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, WHERE I AS ATTORNEY GENERAL, WOULD BE SO MUCH BETTER AND MORE ETHICAL AND FIX THESE PROBLEMS.

I THINK IT PLAYS BETTER FOR HIS CAMPAIGN THAN ANYONE ELSES.

>> PLAYS BETTER, BUT DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

>> REPUBLICANS MIGHT BE A VICTIM OF THEIR OWN PARTY LEADER.

WE'VE SEEN THAT VOTERS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE ALLEGED CORRUPTION HAPPENING WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, SELF-DEALING, THAT KIND OF THING, AND POLLING RELATED TO THAT HAS SHOWN THAT SO MANY VOTERS EXPECT THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR FROM POLITICIANS THAT I DON'T THINK IT'S A CAMPAIGN ISSUE ANYMORE.

THEY EXPECT POLITICIANS TO TAKE MONEY AND ENRICH THEMSELVES ON THE SIDE, SO ULTIMATELY IF THEY'RE ALL DOING IT, I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON OTHER ISSUES THAT MATTER, INFLATION, GROCERY PRICES, THINGS AFFECTING MY EVERYDAY LIFE.

TED: OPTIMISTIC VIEWPOINT, MOVE ONTO THE NEXT TOPIC, THAT IS THE PROTECT EDUCATION ACT PROP 212.

WE HARDLY KNEW YOU.

WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

>> WHAT HAPPENED IS THEY DID NOT GATHER ENOUGH SIGNATURES.

I THINK THEY TURNED IN 430,000 SIGNATURES.

THEY NEEDED 255,000-ISH TO QUALIFY FOR THE BALLOT, AND AFTER CHALLENGE TO THE SIGNATURES TO VALIDITY AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, THEY CAME OUT WITH A NUMBER, APPLIED THE STATE FORMULA.

ONCE ALL THE CHECKS CAME BACK FROM THE COUNTIES, THEY WERE RIGHT BELOW THE THRESHOLD, 10, 15,000 SIGNATURES BELOW THE THRESHOLD.

ARIZONA SUPREME COURT RULED IN THE CASE AND REJECTED ARGUMENT FROM THE PROTECT EDUCATION ACT FOLKS, TRYING TO CONVINCE THE COURT TO ESSENTIALLY CHANGE THE WAY THEY CONSIDERED THESE SIGNATURES AND IN PARTICULAR DOUBLE COUNTED SIGNATURES.

TED: YEAH.

>> IT'S COMPLICATED.

STATE LAW IMPLEMENTED IN ANOTHER COUPLE CASES DETERMINED HOW COURTS ARE SUPPOSED TO APPLY THE LAW AND EVALUATE SIGNATURES.

ESSENTIALLY THE SUPREME COURT SAID THE TRIAL COURT DID WHAT THE JUDGE TOLD US TO DO, APPLIED OUT IN THE WAY WE SET OUT IN THE PRIOR CASES AND DON'T SEE EVIDENCE HE DID ANYTHING WRONG, OR THAT THE FORMULA AND THE WAY THE COURTS DO THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED UNDER THE EXISTING STATUTE.

SO SEND IT BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT AND THE TRIAL COURT DID THE MATH AND SAID YOU ARE OFF THE BALLOT.

TED: CAMRYN, THE DUPLICATE SIGNATURES HERE.

THAT WAS THE BIG POINT.

WHAT'S GOING ON?

>> THE ONLY POINT.

THEY THREW OUT THE SIGNATURE GATHERERS BECAUSE THEY HAD CRIMINAL HISTORY.

TED: DUPLICATE SIGNATURES?

>> DUPLICATE SIGNATURES.

OKAY, YOU CAN'T HAVE THOSE, BUT A COMMON MISTAKE YOU ARE GATHERING BECAUSE PEOPLE MAY NOT REALIZE THEY SIGNED THE PETITION AND COME OUT AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION.

YOU ARE ONLY SUPPOSED TO THROW OUT ONE OF THOSE, ONLY IF YOU CAN PROVE ONE IS VALID, AND WHAT THE COUNTIES GET TO CHECK IS A SAMPLE OF 5% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SIGNATURES SO THEY CALCULATE HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE CORRECT AND THAT FORMULA IS APPLIED TO THE FINAL COUNT.

DEPENDING WHAT CALCULATION YOU'RE USING, HOW MUCH OF THE DOUBLE SIGNATURES GET THROWN OUT AND THE COURT WENT WITH THE LESS FAVORABLE OPTION TO THIS GROUP OF EDUCATION, PUBLIC EDUCATION ADVOCATES.

>> A LOT OF SIGNATURES THROWN OUT, WAYNE.

>> IT IS.

ON ONE SIDE, YOU CAN SAY WE'VE GOT THE OVERLY AGGRESSIVE LAWS THAT REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE PASSED FOR YEARS THAT GO AFTER INITIATIVES, THEY DON'T LIKE THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE PROCESS.

ON THE OTHER SIDE, YOU CAN SAY THE LAWS ARE IN PLACE FOR A LONG TIME.

YOU KNOW THE LAY OF THE LAND, YOU HAVE TO COLLECT WELL MORE THAN YOU NEED AND PLAY BY THESE RULES AS LONG AS THEY EXIST, AND SO THE FOLKS BEHIND THE CAMPAIGN ULTIMATELY ARE THE ONES WHO DIDN'T MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE BEING EXTRA CAREFUL AND TURNING IN ENOUGH SIGNATURES TO COVER FOR ALL THOSE THAT CAN BE TOSSED OUT.

TED: AND JIM, PROP 145 PROTECTED AGAINST MEASURES LIKE THE LONG GONE PROP 212, THAT ONE'S GONE, TOO.

THEY'RE ALL ADIOS?

>> NO VOUCHERS, WE HAD THREE VOUCHER PROPOSALS, TWO INITIATIVES AND THE ONE FROM THE LEGISLATURE, PROP 145, ALL ARE NO LONGER ON THE BALLOT.

VOTERS GET NO SAY ON ANY ASPECT OF THE STATE'S UNIVERSAL SCHOOL VOUCHER SYSTEM.

TED: SO ALL THAT FUSSING AND FIGHTING AND WHEELING AND DEALING AND TIME WE DISCUSSED IT HERE, POOF?

>> POOF, AND AN EXPENSIVE POOF.

THERE WAS A LOT OF MONEY POURED INTO THE INITIATIVE CAMPAIGNS COLLECTIVELY, NORTH OF $12 MILLION BETWEEN OF TWO DIFFERENT CAMPAIGNS AND THE LITIGATION AND THE FIGHTING OVER THE PAST FOUR WEEKS ABOUT WHAT SHOULD AND SHOULDN'T OBTAIN BALLOT.

YEAH, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT MELT LIKE AN ICE CUBE ON THE SIDEWALK.

TED: WE SHOULD MENTION -- VERY NICE.

WE SHOULD MENTION, THE VOUCHER PROTECTION MEASURE WAS OFF OF IT BECAUSE IT HAD SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS ON IT.

WASN'T A SINGLE ISSUE, CORRECT?

>> IT WAS A SINGLE-SUBJECT ISSUE.

FOR THIS REASON, IF YOU ARE VOTING ON SOMETHING, YOU CAN'T INCLUDE A BUNCH OF STUFF, WE HAVE TO AGREE TO ALL THE STUFF UNRELATED IS THE REASON FOR THE LAW.

IT DOESN'T MATTER NOW BECAUSE THE THING IT'S GOING TO ATTACK ISN'T THERE, AND AN IMPRESSIVE FAILURE.

REALLY, WHAT I HEARD THIS WEEK, SMASHING DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY.

TED: ESAs, WHERE DO THEY STAND?

NOVEMBER'S ELECTION IS THE KEY TO THE ESA?

>> THAT WOULD SHIFT TO THE OVERALL CANDIDATES WE'RE ELECTING IN NOVEMBER.

I IMAGINE ALL THESE GROUPS PLANNING TO BACK ONE SIDE OR THE ON OTHER THIS ARE GOING TO BACK THEIR CANDIDATES FOR THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE THAT BACK THEIR POINT OF VIEW ON THE SCHOOL VOUCHER PROGRAM BECAUSE PUBLIC SCHOOL ADVOCATES HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR YEARS TO GET IT ON THE BALLOT BECAUSE IT'S A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED LEGISLATURE.

AFTER DEMOCRATS AFTER TRYING FOR DECADES MANAGE TO GET THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, THEY CAN KEEP IT IN THE LEGISLATURE.

TED: BUSY TIME FOR THE COURTS.

THE ELECTION LAW CHANGES, THIS IS PROP 144 IN YOUR PROGRAM, THIS ONE NOW SURVIVES.

THIS STAYS ON THE BALLOT.

>> THIS DID STAY ON THE BALLOT, IT FACE AID SIMILAR LEGAL CHALLENGE TO WHAT CAMRYN WAS TALKING ABOUT, THE SEPARATE AMENDMENT RULE, AND THE CRITICS OF IT HAD FILED LAWSUIT AND SAID, LOOK, THIS THINGS THAT SEVEN OR EIGHT DIFFERENT PROVISIONS.

A COUPLE DON'T APPLY TO THE REST OF THEM.

THEY STAND INDEPENDENT OF THE OTHERS AND DON'T FIT THE MILLIEU OF TRYING TO MAKE SECURE ELECTIONS OR MAKE FASTER RESULTS, AND THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE TOSSED OFF.

THE SUPREME COURT ULTIMATELY CAME BACK AND SAID, NO, THESE ALL WORK TOGETHER.

THEY'RE ALL KIND OF IN THE SAME TOPIC.

THEY'LL MOVE ELECTIONS IN THE SAME DIRECTION, SO THEREFORE, THEY'RE NOT WORTHY OF SEPARATING.

TWO OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES DISAGREED AND SAID, NO, WE THINK IT SHOULD BE KICKED OFF THE BALLOT AND THESE ARE SEPARATE QUESTIONS, BUT THEY WERE IN THE MINORITY AND SO THAT VIEW DIDN'T HOLD.

TED: YEAH, THE IDEA OF IT BEING SEPARATE QUESTIONS, THE COURT BASICALLY SAID, THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT, THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE SEPARATE THINGS CAN YOU VOTE ON AS LONG AS THEY ARE SEPARATE THINGS WITHIN THE UMBRELLA OF A SINGLE SUBJECT.

>> A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BECAUSE ARIZONA STATE LAW SAYS EVERYTHING IS FINE IF IT FALLS INTO REVISED STATUTES.

THE POISON PILL WAS CRAFTED TOO IN PREPARATION OF A SINGLE-SUBJECT ISSUE, THIS IS ABOUT FUNDING FOR MILITARY FAMILIES, THAT'S WHAT THE TITLE OF THE BILL IS.

THAT WASN'T NARROW ENOUGH FOR THE CASE BECAUSE HOW IT WAS CRAFTED.

ELECTION REFORM IS A WIDER UMBRELLA, BUT IN THE SAME VEIN, IT'S DIFFERENT, IT'S NOT TWO THINGS THAT CONTRADICT ANOTHER BALLOT MEASURE, FOR EXAMPLE.

TED: WE'RE GOING TO TALK MORE ABOUT PROP 144 ON MONDAY AS A PROGRAMMING NOTE HERE.

THE LANGUAGE DESCRIBING PROP 144, THAT'S A DEBATE, RIGHT?

STILL BEING CONSIDERED?

>> THE LANGUAGE ON THE BALLOT ITSELF WAS ACTUALLY UPHELD.

TED: IT WAS?

>> YEAH.

SECRETARY FONTES'S LANGUAGE IS GOING TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT ITSELF.

THE OPPONENTS WERE CRITICAL OF THE LANGUAGE HE CHOSE BECAUSE NOWHERE IN THERE -- TED: YOU ARE RIGHT, YOU ARE RIGHT.

THEY BASICALLY SAID, THEY THOUGHT HE WAS ADVOCATING AND THE COURT SAID NOT SO FAST.

>> HE DIDN'T INCLUDE ANYTHING IN THERE ABOUT YOU NEED TO BE A CITIZEN TO VOTE, THOUGH IT'S MENTIONED TWICE IN THE LAW, IT'S MENTIONED IN THE TITLE THE LAWMAKERS CHOSE, IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL AND WE HAVE 50 WORDS HERE, WE GOT TO FOCUS ON THE ACTUAL CHANGES TO INFORM VOTERS WHAT'S GOING TO CHANGE.

THE SUPREME COURT MADE TWO DECISIONS, THEY SAID THE VOTERS WHO SUED DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE BASICALLY THEY'RE DISAGREEING THAT THE DESCRIPTION WAS TOO FAR FROM THE COMPLAINT.

IF YOU DID HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE, WE WOULD THROW IT OUT BECAUSE, AND AGAIN ANOTHER SPLIT DECISION BECAUSE THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS THE POWER TO WRITE THESE, BARRING IT BEING EXTREMELY MISLEADING, THE COURT IS NOT GOING TO STEP IN.

IN THIS CASE THEY SAID IT WASN'T.

TED: WAS NOT FALSE AND NOT MISLEADING?

>> CORRECT.

AND THEY ESSENTIALLY DEFER TO THE DISCRETION OF SECRETARY OF STATE ADRIAN FONTES, SAID, LOOK, THE LAW ALLOWS THEM TO DECIDE WHAT NEEDS TO BE PUT BEFORE VOTERS IN A 50-WORD -- TWO OR THREE SENTENCES TO PUT ON THE BALLOT, WHAT IS IT THAT NEEDS TO GO THERE?

UP TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO DETERMINE, AND IN THIS CASE, HE EMPHASIZED THE NEW CHANGES ADDED TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND NOT THINGS THAT ARE JUST INCLUDING LAWS ESSENTIALLY THAT WE ALREADY HAVE HAD ON THE BOOKS FOR 100 YEARS.

>> WANT TO GENTLY NOTE, SECRETARY OF STATE FONTES RUNNING AGAINST REPUBLICAN ALEXANDER KOLODIN WHO WROTE THE BALLOT MEASURE AND IS CAMPAIGNING ON IT.

TED: WE ARE GOING TO BRING IT UP.

THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING IT.

LAST POINT BEFORE WE GO, SOUNDS LIKE JOHN GILES MET THE MEDIA, WE KNOW A LITTLE BIT -- BEEN ON THE SHOW NUMEROUS TIMES, AS FAR AS DOING THIS, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, WHAT DO WE TAKE FROM WHAT WE HEARD FROM MR.

GILES, FORMER MAYOR OF MESA?

>> WAYNE FOR WRITING A DAMN GOOD STORY ABOUT IT.

WE'RE PUTTING ARIZONA OVER PARTY AND THIS IS A SIGN GOVERNOR HOBBS IS WILLING TO DO THAT BECAUSE SHE'S A GREAT GOVERNOR, AND THEY HAVE SO MANY IDEALS THEY SHARE EVEN THOUGH THEY COME FROM DIFFERENT POLITICAL BACKGROUNDS.

WE'RE ALL QUESTIONING WHAT DOES IT MEAN ON SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT ARE PARTISAN FOR HIM WHO USED TO BE REPUBLICAN IS NO PARTY AFFILIATION BUT RUNNING ON A TICKET WITH A DEMOCRAT.

HAS HE DONE A 180?

TED: WAYNE, GO FOR IT.

>> THE PRESS POOL, WE PUSHED HIM ON THAT.

NAME SPECIFIC ISSUES YOU DISAGREE WITH THE GOVERNOR.

IF THE PITCH IS I PICKED THIS FORMER REPUBLICAN TO SHOW ARIZONANS THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO AGREE ON EVERYTHING AS LONG AS WE AGREE ON THE BROADER IDEALS.

WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC THINGS YOU DISAGREE?

JOHN GILES SAID ALMOST NOTHING.

AND ON ABORTION ISSUES, THE TRANSGENDER RIGHTS ISSUES THAT ARE LIGHTNING ROD ISSUES THAT DIVIDE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, HE FELL IN LINE WITH ALL OF THE GOVERNOR'S POSITIONS.

IT LENDS CREDENCE TO THE BIGGS CAMPAIGN'S CRITICISM THAT JOHN GILES HAS NOT REALLY BEEN A REPUBLICAN FOR LONGER THAN HE SAID BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY ON THE MAJOR ISSUES, HE'S FALLING IN LINE WITH THE DEMOCRAT LINE.

TED: HE SAID ABOUT SCHOOL CHOICE?

>> HE SUPPORTS SCHOOL CHOICE, EVERY TIME WE ASKED THAT QUESTION, HE CONTINUED TO SAY WE NEED STRONG PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

THAT IS A LINE MOST DEMOCRATS HAVE TAKEN RECENTLY.

YES, GOVERNOR HOBBS WANTS TO PULL BACK THE EXPANSION, WHEN SHE FIRST TOOK OFFICE.

IN THE PAST FEW YEARS, DEMOCRATS IN GENERAL, HAVE BEEN WE WANT REFORMS AND HE AGREED FOR THE GOVERNOR'S CALL FOR REFORMS.

ON THAT TOPIC, HE'S NOT DEPARTING FROM HER LINE OF THINKING.

TED: ALL RIGHT, VERY BRIEFLY, JIM.

SO THE CLUNKY DEBUT HAS BEEN SMOOTHED OVER A BIT?

>> I THINK SO.

AGAIN, INASMUCH AS IT MATTERS, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, IT'S NOVEL AND IT'S NEW AND WHATEVER, BUT REALLY AT THE END OF THE DAY, I DON'T KNOW, WHEN VOTERS GO TO THE POLLS, I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A WHOLE LOT OF VOTERS OF JOHN GILES AND SINE KERR, THAT'S GOING TO DECIDE MY VOTE.

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT KATIE HOBBS AND ANDY BIGGS AND BE CLEAR.

TED: THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

I'M TED SIMONS.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

YOU HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.