DISMG UP IT'S THE TOP STORIES.

JOURNALIST ROUNDTABLE IS NEXT ON ARIZONA HORIZONS.

GOOD EVENING WELCOME TIME TED SIMON OUR GUESTS TONIGHT BRIAN BRODY AND WAYNE.

GENTLEMEN GOD GOOD TO HAVE YOU BOTH HERE.

A LITTLE RADIO TURN TO TV.

WE WILL START WITH YOU AND THE ABORTION MEASURE IS ON THE BALLOT.

YEAH, THE SECRETARY OF STATE CERTIFIED THERE ARE ENOUGH SIGNATURES.

SO THEY END UP WITH FAR MORE THAN WHAT THEY NEEDED.

THERE'S ALSO AN ISSUE WITH THE WORDING OF THE INITIATIVE AND THE PUBLICITY PAMPHLET BUT FOR NOW THERE'S STILL A LAWSUIT ALSO PENDING TRYING TO GET IT REMOVED FROM THE BALLOT.

BUT FOR NOW THIS IS ON THE BALLOT.

>> YEAH, I WANT TO GET TO THE WORDING IN A SECOND.

THERE ARE STILL LEGAL CHALLENGES HERE, AS MARK REFERRED TO?

>> YES, THERE'S AN EABT ABORTION GROUP THAT FILED A CHALLENGE TRYING TO GET IT KNOCKED OFF THE BALLOT CONTAINING THAT THE WORDING OF THE PETITIONS WERE MISLEADING.

OBJECT FEE SKATED SOME OF THE THEY WILL DO OR LOOKED OVER THEM BUT A LOWER COURT JUDGE ALREADY TOSSED THAT OUT AND SAID IT WAS FINE.

SO NOW IT'S UP TO THE SUPREME COURT TO MAKE THE FINAL DETERMINATION.

>> DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE ON THAT?

>> ALL THIS STUFF HAS TO GET CLEARED UP BY THE END OF THE MONTH BECAUSE OF ELECTION DEADLINES.

WE HAVE BEEN SEEING A ROLLING SCAS INDICATED ON ALL THESE PROPOSITIONS SO I WOULD EXPECT IT WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.

>> MARK, ON PROP 139, UNBORN HUMAN BEINGS WINS OUT, HUH.

>> YEAH, THIS WAS A WORD THAT THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL GROUP OF LEGISLATORS HAD PUT INTO THE DESCRIPTION THAT THEY PUT ON SUPPORTERS OF THE INITIATIVE SUED SAYING THAT IS NOT UNBIASED WHICH IS THE STANDARD THAT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL HAS TO USE AND A LOWER COURT AGREED AND SAID YEAH, IT'S NOT OBJECTIVE, IT'S KIND OF A LOADED PHRASE.

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL SPEAKER SUED AND THE SUPREME COURT AGREED.

THEY APPEALED AND THE SUPREME COURT AGREED SAID IT'S OK IT'S IN OTHER AREAS OF LAW AND IT'S NOT YOU KNOW IT'S NOT A PROBLEM.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S IN THE PUBLICITY PAMPHLET THEY SAID THE PEOPLE READ THE PUBLICITY PAMPHLET.

I WONDER ON AN ISSUE OF ABORTION WITH PEOPLE WILL HAVE THEIR MINDS MADE SOUP I WONDER HOW MUCH THEY WILL READ THAT DESCRIPTION VERSUS FOR EXAMPLE THE PRO AND CON ARGUMENTS THAT FOLLOW IT.

>> BUT TO MARK'S POINT IS IT HOW BIG A DEAL IS THIS?

>> .

>> PERSONALLY I DON'T HAVE DATA TO BACK UP THIS I DON'T KNOW HOW BIG OF A DEAL IS IT.

I UNDERSTAND THE CAMPAIGN'S DESIRE TO GO AFTER THIS AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S REPRESENTED IN THE WAY THEY BELIEVE IS BOTH SCIENTIFICALLY AND FACTUALLY CORRECT.

THIS CAMPAIGN HAS OVER $10 MILLION GETTING THE WORD OUT ABOUT THIS CAMPAIGN.

PEOPLE WILL KNOW WHAT THIS CAMPAIGN IS ABOUT.

TO MARK'S POINT PEOPLE WILL VOTE BASED ON WHETHER THEY BELIEVE ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGALIZED OR WEATHER THE 15 WEEK BAN SHOULD STAY IN PLACE.

AND TO THAT POINT, COULD THIS BACKFIRE?

>> I MEAN HAVING SOMETHING THE WORDING LIKE THIS WHERE THOSE MAYBE THINK WAIT A MINUTE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS COULD IT BACKFIRE?

>> I GUESS IT COULD, ALTHOUGH AGAIN, I MEAN I REALLY LIKE I HAVE NO DATA TO BACK THIS UP I HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY PEOPLE READ THIS AND REALLY TAKE TO HEART.

800,000 SOME ODD PEOPLE SIGNED THE PETITIONS SO THEY HAD A SENSE OF AT LEAST WHAT THIS INITIATIVE DID AND I THINK AS WAYNE SAID THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY BEHIND THIS CAMPAIGN TO TELL VOTERS EXACTLY WHAT SUPPORTERS WANT THEM TO KNOW BY THE.

SO IT'S THE KIND OF THING WHERE I THINK THEY WANTED EVERYTHING TO JUST BE IN ORDER FOR THEM SUPPORTERS OF THIS INITIATIVE AND THIS ONE WILL NOT BE BUT, IS THAT THE END OF THE WORLD PROBABLY NOT.

>> YOU THINK IT COULD BACKFIRE AT ALL?

>> AGAIN I JUST DON'T THINK THIS IS THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL THING THAT CAN GET THEM KICKED OFF THE BALLOT.

I DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE ANYONE WHO READS IT AND SAY OH, UNBORN HUMAN BEINGS I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT'S WHAT WAS HAPPENING HERE.

I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO CHANGE ANYONE'S MIND.

>> A LITTLE GAMESMANSHIP FROM THE TWO SIDES HERE.

ANYONE SURPRISED THAT THE SAME SUPREME COURT MADE THIS PARTICULAR DECISION AS THE 816 LAW.

>> I DON'T EVEN NEED TO CONNECT IT BACK TO THAT THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WHAT IT CONSIDERS THE WILL OF THE LEGISLATURE THIS IS VERY SIMPLY THE LEGISLATURE WIELDING ONE OF ITS POWERS TO RIGHT THESE DESCRIPTIONS.

>> IT MIGHT BE OPEN PRIMARY MEASURE SURVIVES A SIGNATURES 1.39 TO 140 HERE.

MAKE ELECTIONS FAIR ACT.

THIS WAS INTERESTING FILED BY DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEYS.

>> YEAH, I MEAN BOTH MAJOR PARTIES RESIDENTS SUPER THRILLED WITH THIS WHICH KIND OF MAKES SENSE.

BECAUSE IT DOES AWAY WITH PARTISAN PRIMARIES AND BOTH SIDES ARE A LITTLE BIT WORRIED THAT THEIR PEOPLE MIGHT NOT MAKE IT THROUGH TO THE GENERAL ELECTION.

WE'VE SEEN THIS IN OTHER STATES AS WELL WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES OR PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PRIMARY PARTISAN INVALIDATING THIS WAS BASICALLY A SIGNATURE WHAT WERE THEY SAYING.

THE WRONG TIME, THE WRONG WORDING IT.

>> WAS A HOST OF THINGS THAT YOU SEE IN A LOT OF THESE CASES.

CLAIMING THAT EITHER THE FOLKS COLLECTING THE SIGNATURES DIDN'T CHECK EVERY BOX THEY NEEDED TO WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE.

THERE'S A LOT OF REGISTRATION ISSUES THAT GO INTO THAT.

ULTIMATELY, WHAT THE JUDGE WHO LOOKED AT ALL THIS SAID HE LOOKED AT IT AND TALKED CLOSE TO 17,000 SIGNATURES WHICH WAS NOWHERE NEAR THE 200,000 PLUS THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO INVALIDATE IN ORDER TO SUCCESSFULLY KNOCK THIS OFF THE BALLOT.

YET THERE WILL BE AN APPEAL?

>> THERE MOST SORNL WILL BE.

IT WILL GO TO THE PRETTY WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

TO WAYNE'S POINT, THE SUPREME COURT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT HESITANT TO GO AGAINST THE WILL OF LEGISLATURE AND THEY TEND NOT TO GO AGAINST THE WILL OF, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO LET VOTERS DECIDE ON THING.

BUT AS SOMEONE WISE ONCE TOLD ME A LOT OF PEOPLE LOST A LOT OF MONEY TRYING TO PREDICT WHAT THE COURT WILL DO.

WHO KNOWS.

>> WHAT WOULD THE APPEAL BE BASED ON?

>> THEY COULD THEORETICALLY APPEAL EITHER THE JUDGE DIDN'T GIVE THEM ENOUGH TIME.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES HERE SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS COMING IN CAME IN MUCH TOO LATE AND THE JUDGE WAS KIND OF SUSPECT OF IT.

HE SAYS YOU DIDN'T EMPLOY THE -- PROVIDE A RESPONSE AND THERE'S ALSO A SEPARATE ONE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY.

SO THERE'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT WAYS THIS COULD GET BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

>> YEAH, YEAH, AGAIN, A JUDGE UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONITY OF THE MEASURE AND A LOWER COURT SAYING IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THAT RULE WHICH BASICALLY SAYS YOU GOT STICK TO ONE THING WHEN YOU ARE WRITING THIS STUFF YOU CAN'T GET ALL OVER THE PLACE.

THE SUPREME COURT WILL HAVE TO SEE WHETHER THEY BELIEVE THAT JUDGE WAS CORRECT.

AND PROP 14 THE SECURE THE BORDER ACT.

THAT WAS CHALLENGED.

I THINK THE SINGLE SUBJECT RULE THERE.

>> THAT'S THE BIGGY.

SPECIFICALLY A PROVISION ABOUT FENTANYL WHICH CRITICS HAD SAID REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION OR SECURING THE BORDER OR ANY OF THIS STUFF.

ANOTHER PROVISIONS THAT ARE IN THAT MEASURE BUT THAT NO JUDGE AGREED WITH THAT SO THAT ONE LOOKS LIKE IT WILL BE ON THE BALLOT AS WELL.

>> AND THE MEASURE BASICALLY, LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GIVES THEM THE AUTHORITY TO ARREST THOSE COMING ACROSS THE BORDER WHAT DOES FENTANYL HAVE TO DO WITH THAT.

>> THE FAIRLY BROAD PACKAGE THE HEADLINE IS AS YOU SAID IT WOULD GIVE LIKE LOCAL SHERIFFS THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAW, BASICALLY IF SOMEONE CROSSES THE BORDER ILLEGALLY THEY CAN ARREST THEM RATHER THAN WAITING FOR THE FEDS TO DO IT.

BUT ALSO INCREASING PENALTIES FOR FOLKS CONVICTED OF FENTANYL DEALING IF IT CAUSES THE DEATH OF ANOTHER PERSON AND THEY CONNECT IT TO FENTANYL THAT CAME IN FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY BUT THEN THERE ARE ARGUMENTS ABOUT HOW DO YOU EVEN PROVE THAT.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THESE CHALLENGES CAME IN.

THEY SAID THEY'RE BASICALLY KIND OF FITTING AROUND A ROUND PEG INTO A SQUARE HOLE.

>> BUT THE COURT SAYS IT ALL FALL INTO THE GENERAL IDEA.

>> IT'S A SIMILAR ARGUMENT THAT THE JUDGE MADE IN THE ELECTIONS INITIATIVE SINGLE SUBJECT CHALLENGE WHICH IS THAT THEY'RE NOT THE SAME, BUT IT'S A BIG OVERARCHING TOPIC AND THEY'RE ALL REASONABLY WITHIN, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THAT OVERARCHING UMBRELLA.

>> DOES THIS BRING OUT, NOW THAT WE KNOW IT'S ON THE BALLOT WE KNOW IT SURVIVED THE CHALLENGE, DOES THIS BRING OUT, LET'S SAY THE REPUBLICAN VOTE OR COULD THIS BACKFIRE?

>> WELL, THAT'S REALLY ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS.

LIKE WILL THIS INITIATIVE DO FOR REPUBLICAN TURNOUT WHAT DEMOCRATS HOPE THE ABORTION ACCESS MEASURE DOES FOR DEMOCRATIC TURNOUT.

I REALLY DON'T KNOW.

PEOPLE WHO ARE MUCH SMART BETTER THIS STUFF THAN I AM SUGGEST THAT IT WILL HELP TURNOUT BUT MAYBE WHAT IT WILL DO MORE IS MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE LIKELY VOTERS BUT MAYBE NOT 100% SURE PEOPLE WHO USUALLY VOTE ANYWAY.

MAKE SURE THAT THEY VOTE.

AS OPPOSED TO WHAT THEY SAY IS THAT THE ABORTION ACCESS MEASURE MIGHT BRING OUT PEOPLE WHO DON'T TYPICALLY VOTE.

>> WHO WILL VOTE FOR THAT AND DEMOCRATS HOPE FOR DEMOCRATS UP AND DOWN THE BALLOT AS WELL.

BUT THAT I THINK WILL BE ONE OF THE REALLY INTERESTING THINGS TO WATCH YOU KNOW BETWEEN EARLY VOTING AND ELECTION DAY IS YOU KNOW, DOES THE ABORTION MEASURE BRING OUT AS MANY OR MORE PEOPLE ON THE LEFT AS THE IMMIGRATION MEASURE DOES ON THE RIGHT?

>> GET OUT THE VOTE YOU SWITCH GETTING OUT OF THE VOTE.

>> AND I COULD SEE A BACKFIRE POTENTIALLY.

I KNOW GROUPS LIKE LUCHO WHICH WAS BORN OUT OF THE MOVEMENT HAS PROMISED TO REGISTER VOTERS.

KNOCK ON A MILLION DOORS TO TRY AND ACTIVATE VOTERS IN RESPONSE TO THIS.

SO, TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT'S SUCCESSFUL YOU COULD SEE THAT HELPING DEMOCRATS.

BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS, I WAS SPEAKING WITH ADVOCATES WHO WARNED AGAINST THINKING OF THE LATINO ELECTORATE ON A MONOLITH ON THIS THERE.

ARE PEOPLE ACROSS THE SPECTRUM ON BORDER SECURITY SOME FOLKS WHO HAD FAMILY MAYBE WENT THROUGH THE LEGAL IMMIGRATION PROCESS WHO BELIEVE OTHERS SHOULD DO THE SAME.

IT'S HARD TO SAY EXACTLY WHICH SECTORS OF THE ELECTORATE ARE GOING TO BE ACTIVATED.

>> YEAH, IT'S GET OUT THE VOTE IT'S WHAT VOTE SHOULD GET OUT.

WE'LL HAVE A DEBATE ON THIS PROP 314 ON MONDAY.

TUNE IN FOR THAT.

ALL RIGHT LET'S GET MOVING HERE.

FINALLY THIS IS SOMETHING WE TALKED ABOUT A WHOLE LOT OVER THE SESSION.

GOVERNOR HOBBS SENATE PRESIDENT LOOKS LIKE THEY'VE COME TO AN AGREEMENT A MEETING OF THE MINDS, MAYBE.

>> MAYBE.

>> MAYBE ABOUT AGENCY HEAD NOMINATIONS AND SUCH?

>> .

>> MAYBE.

BASICALLY THE GOVERNOR SAYS SHE AND GOVERNOR PETERSON HAVE AN AGREEMENT THAT SHE CAN SEND SUBMIT HER NOMINEES TO THE SENATE THEY WILL TREAT THOSE NOMINEES WITH RESPECT AND MAYBE EVEN VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BE CONFIRMED TO LEAD THESE AGENCIES.

PRESIDENT PETERSON THOUGH SAYS SURE GOVERNOR IF YOU SEND US BETTER NOMINEES.

THE GOVERNOR SAYS PROBABLY GOING TO SEND YOU SAME PEOPLE I SENT YOU BEFORE.

SO, I MEAN, MAYBE, MAYBE IT'S GOING TO BE A DIFFERENT RESULT BUT MAYBE NOT.

>> THE AGREEMENT DOES SETTLE A LAWSUIT IN WHICH THE GOVERNOR OR IT AGREES TO END THE LAWSUIT THE JUDGE WILL HAVE THE FINAL WORD ON THAT, REGARDING THE TO GET AROUND THE SENATE CONFIRMATION PROCESS.

NEW FANGLED SENATE CONFIRMATION PROCESS.

>> THE JUDGE ORDERED THE PARTIES BACK TO THE TABLE TO FIGURE IT OUT RATHER THAN KIND OF MAKE HIS OWN DIVISION ON THIS STUFF ASK THEY CAME TO THIS AGREEMENT THAT SHE WOULD BASICALLY GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS AS IT WAS LAID OUT NOW THE JUDGE REJECT THE THEIR AGREEMENT WITH A LOT OF LEGAL EASE WE WILL PROBABLY SEE A JUDGMENT FINALIZING THAT SOON.

THE GOVERNOR HAS BEEN SHORT ON DETAILS ON WHAT EXACTLY THIS AGREEMENT WITH THE SENATE PRESIDENT LOOKS LIKE.

WE CAN HAVE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LEGISLATURE NEXT YEAR SO WE'LL SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

>> JAKE HOFFMAN WILL HE STILL BE THERE, I DON'T KNOW WILL HE STILL BE THERE FIRST OF ALL WILL THAT COMMITTEE STILL BE THERE.

THAT COMMITTEE DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE NOW IT DOES.

WILL JAKE HOFFMAN STILL BE THE CHAIR OF THAT COMMITTEE?

PROVIDED THE REPUBLICANS ARE IN POWER?

>> PROVIDED THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE IN POWER I WOULD IMAGINE IT WOULD BE.

BECAUSE IF HOBBS GOT A CONFESSION THAT HOFFMAN WOULD BE OFF COMMITTEE SHE WOULD BE SINGING FROM THE ROOFTOPS.

THE FACT SHE'S NOT TELLING SHE GOT SOME AGREEMENT FROM THE SENATE PRESIDENT THAT THE MEETINGS MAY BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CORDIAL.

IN TERMS OF CHANGING THE FUNDAMENTAL MIX OF THE MEETINGS I JUST DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING.

>> IF YOU DON'T SING IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS AND JUST KEEP QUIET MAYBE IT'S PART OF PRESIDENT PETERSON COULD JUST SAY MAYBE WE'LL FIGURE SOMETHING.

TRYING TO GET MORE.

IT'S AN INTERESTING POINT.

>> I THINK THING BOTH POINT BOTH OF YOU MADE IS WE COULD HAVE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LEGISLATURE NEXT YEAR.

IT SEEMS LIKE A HEDGE BY THE GOVERNOR THAT SHE'S PUTTING A LOT OF RESOURCES AND OTHERS ARE PUTTING A LOT OF THE RESOURCES INTO TRYING TO FLIP THE LEGISLATURE AND ONE OF THE SCENARIOS THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT I'M HEARING ARE SAYING IS A LEGITIMATE POSSIBILITY IS A 1515 SPLIT IN THE SENATE WHICH WOULD MEAN SOME KIND OF POWER SHARING AGREEMENT WHO KNOWS WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

HOWEVER, POTENTIALLY ONE OF THE THINGS IT COULD LOOK LIKE IS EITHER THERE COMMITTEE DOESN'T EXIST OR IT DOES AND A DEMOCRAT SHARES IT OR SOMEBODY OTHER THAN SENATOR HOFFMAN CHAIRS IT WHICH IN THEORY COULD BE A WIN FOR THE GOVERNOR.

BUT AGAIN THAT'S PUTTING THE CART PRETTY FAR BEFORE THE HORSE AT THIS POINT.

>> I THINK BOTH SIDES WANT TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE BOTH SIDES WON.

AM I CORRECT ON THAT?

>> YEAH, I THINK ACCORDING TO THE COURT RULING IT'S VERY CLEAR WHO WON WHICH IS SENATE PRESIDENT PETERSON.

BUT AGAIN WINNERS CHANGE WITH ELECTIONS.

>> AS FAR AS THE JUDGE IS CONCERNED THE WORDING HE'S NOT CRAZY ABOUT THE IDEA BASICALLY SAYING THAT THE GOVERNOR BROKE THE LAW WHAT SHE WAS HE DIDN'T REALLY RULE ON THE VALIDITY OF WHAT HAPPENED HE JUST RULED OR -- ON CORRECT?

>> HE DID RULE THAT WHAT SHE DID WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

THE ISSUE WITH THE JUDGMENT THAT HE KIND OF SENT IT BACK HE WAS COMFORTABLE SAYING HE WASN'T GOING TO INVALIDATE THE DECISIONS MADE BY THESE EXECUTIVE DEPUTY WHATEVER SHE CALLED THEM NOMINEES THAT ARE RUNNING THESE DEPARTMENTS BUT HE WASN'T COMFORTABLE GETTING RID OF THE PRECEDENT THAT HE HAD SET WITH THAT RULINGS.

BASICALLY SAYING THAT THE SCHEME SHE UNDERWENT VIOLATED THE LAW.

>> WHAT YOU DID WAS A VIOLATION.

HE BASICALLY SAID GO BACK AND REDO THAT.

>> SOFTEN THE WORDS A LITTLE BIT.

>> AND DO IT QUICK.

WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME.

>> ALL RIGHT, MARK.

IF YOU WERE CALLED A DOORMAT, IF YOU WERE CALLED AN ESTABLISHMENT HACK WOULD YOU ENDORSE SOMEONE LIKE THAT?

>> IT PROBABLY DEPENDS ON WHAT I WANT TO SEE WITH MY LIFE IN THE FUTURE.

I THINK I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS.

WHICH IS GOVERNOR DUCEY FORMERLY ENDORSING KARI LAKE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THIS IS WHERE WE ARE IN POLITICS THAT IT'S NOTEWORTHY THAT A REPUBLICAN FORMER GOVERNOR OF THIS STATE IS ENDORSING THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE FROM HIS PARTY FOR THEIR OFFICES.

BUT YEAH, BOTH TRUMP AND LAKE HAD SOME PRETTY NOT NICE THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THE FORMER GOVERNOR AND, YOU KNOW, HERE HE IS.

>> I THINK THEY WERE MOCKING HIM ENDLESSLY AND RELENTLESSLY NOW HE IS SAYING IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN YOU'RE OK BY ME.

>> I HAVE BEEN USING THE MEAN GIRLS ANALOGY RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU HAVE BEEN PERSONALLY VICTIMIZED BY DONALD TRUMP IN WHICH CASE DUCEY HAS AND LAKE AS WELL.

HAS BEEN ON THE RECEIVING END OF A LOT OF CRITICISM.

WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS A BROAD ILLUSTRATION OF THE SCHISM WITHIN THE PARTY THERE'S A SEGMENT ELECTION DENIALISM AND JANUARY 6th AS BIGGER THAN PARTY THOSE ARE BASIC DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS THOSE ARE THE ONES CRITICIZING DUCEY FOR COMING OUT AND ENINTRODUCING THESE FOLKS.

THIS IS A REPUBLICAN ENDORSING REPUBLICANS WHAT IS BIG DEAL.

>> IT'S A REPUBLICAN PROBABLY GOING AGAINST DEMOCRATIC POLICIES AND I CAN GET THAT AND YOU CAN SAY I DON'T SEE MIKE PENCE SAYING THIS.

MIKE PENCE WAS HIS LIFE WAS LITERALLY IN DANGER.

>> HE IS NOT VOTING FOR.

>> HE AND DUCEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BEST FRIENDS?

>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT, TOO.

THEY WERE VERY TIGHT ESPECIALLY WHEN PENCE WAS VICE PRESIDENT.

I MEAN IT KIND OF COMES BACK TO IS WHAT PEOPLE SAID TO ME IS THAT POLITICS IT'S A TEAM SPORT.

YOU ARE ON THE RED TEAM OR THE BLUE TEAM.

DUCEY WAS NEVER, NEVER STRUCK ME, I HAVE NOT EVER SPOKEN WITH HIM ABOUT THIS BUT HE DOESN'T STRIKE ME AS SOMEONE WHO WILL VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT THAT'S JUST NOT WHAT HE BELIEVES THAT'S NOT HIS WORLD VIEW.

HE COULD HAVE DONE WHAT HE DID TWO YEARS AGO WHEN HE ENDORSED BRONSON IN THE G.O.P.

PRIMARY AND THEN BASICALLY DIDN'T SAY THAT MUCH WHEN HE LOST AND KARI LAKE WAS THE NOMINEE.

THIS TIME HE CHOSE TO COME OUT PUBLICLY AND SAY YES, I'M BEHIND TRUMP AND LAKE.

>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

WHY GO PUBLIC WITH THIS.

IT'S ONE THING THAT HE SUPPOSED THE SIDE THAT YOU'RE ON BE MARCHING AND SHOUTING FOR SOMEONE THAT WAS AFTER YOU SO MUCH.

AND FOR LAKE HE CALLED HER CAMPAIGN A SHOW AND AN ACT HE BASICALLY CALLED HER CAMPAIGN A FAKE NOW SHE THINKS HE'S PRETTY SWELL.

>> I THINK A LOT OF FOLKS AREN'T SURPRISED BY THIS MUCH HE HAS ALWAYS PUT PARTY FIRST.

YOU CAN THINK BACK TO SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY TO GET WENDY ROGERS ELECTED TO THE LEGISLATURE TO SECURE THE MAJORITY THERE WHEN, YOU KNOW, SHE SAID A LOT OF OUTLANDISH THINGS HE WASN'T TOO KEEN TO TRY TO DEFEND HIMSELF FOR SUPPORTING HER AFTER SHE SAID THOSE THINGS BUT HE DID DEFEND HIMSELF BY SAYING WE GOT OUR MAJORITY.

>> DOES IT MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE?

>> THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO THINK ABOUT AND DON'T REALLY HAVE A GREAT ANSWER FOR.

>> HE IS CERTAINLY LIKE DOING STUFF IN HIS POST GUBERNATORIAL LIFE BUT IT'S NOT LIKE HE'S ON TV ALL THE TIME OR GIVING SPEECHES TO ROOMS FULL OF PEOPLE ALL THE TIME HE HAS BEEN FAIRLY BEHIND THE SCENES IT SEEMS TO ME SINCE HE LEFT.

I SUSPECT THERE'S STILL A GOOD NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO LIKE AND RESPECT HIM AND WILL TAKE THIS AND SAY OH, OK, BUT I DON'T REALLY KNOW.

>> HE COULD MAKE A LOT OF MONEY BEHIND THE SCENES.

>> YOU CAN AND HE'S DOING THAT AT THE MOMENT.

I WILL STICK WITH WHAT I SAID ON THE SHOW BEFORE REPUBLICAN POLITICS I STILL DON'T THINK ANY ENDORSEMENT -- WE SAW ANOTHER FORMER GOVERNOR HANDOUT A BUNCH OF ENDORSEMENTS FOR PRODEMOCRACY ANTI-ELECTION DENIERS WHO CAME HERE FOR THE PRIMARY.

BUT -- YOU ARE THINKING OF SHIPS THERE.

DEMOCRATIC SPENDING AS FAR AS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THEY ARE FOCUSED IN ON ARIZONA.

A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS INTO 12 PARTICULAR RACES, HUH?

>> KIND OF GOING INTO WHAT WE HAVE ALL BEEN TALKING ABOUT HERE.

WE HAVE A VERY EVENLY DIVIDED LURE.

REPUBLICANS HAVE CONTROLLED IT FOR A LONG TIME BUT HOLD VERY SMALL MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES.

I THINK DEMOCRATS EVERY YEAR THEY SAY THIS IS THEIR YEAR IT SEEMS LIKE.

I'LL BELIEVE IT WHEN WE SEE IT.

BUT THEY ARE PUTTING THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS TO TRY AND FLIP IT'S THE HANDFUL OF DISTRICTS THAT COULD ULTIMATELY DETERMINE WHO CONTROLS EACH CHAMBER IN THE LEGISLATURE OR EVEN WE GET A TIE IN THE SENATE WHICH AS WE SAID HERE COULD STILL HAVE MAJOR CONSEQUENCES.

>> I WOULD IMAGINE IF YOU CAN'T GET THAT ACROSS THE FINISH LINE IN THIS PARTICULAR ELECTION YEAR WITH DONALD TRUMP AS THE OPPOSING AND ABORTION MEASURE ON THE BALLOT AND WHOLE NINE YARDS YOU GOT SOME SOUL SEARCHING TO DO.

>> THAT'S PROBABLY TRUE BUT I THINK IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT THAT SOME OF THIS ALSO INCLUDES MONEY TO DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENTS IN NOT SAFE DEMOCRATIC DISTRICTS.

PEOPLE WHO HAD WON SEATS TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE WHERE THEY ARE PLAYING DEFENSE TO MAKE SURE THEIR DEMOCRATIC INCOME STAY ON IT'S NOT JUST GOING AFTER REPUBLICANS TRYING TO GET DRUG ADDICTS ELECTEDS ARE YES TO WAYNE'S POINT I CAN REMEMBER 10, 15 YEARS AGO DEMOCRATS SAYING THIS IS THE YEAR WE'RE GOING TO WIN THE HOUSE OR THE SENATE AND IT HASN'T HAPPENED.

SO, IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY INTERESTING ESPECIALLY IN A REALLY LONG BALLOT TO SEE WHAT THE RESULTS LOOK LIKE WHEN PEOPLE GET PAST PRESIDENT, AND TO THE LEGISLATIVE RACES.

>> IT DOES SEEM TO SHOW THAT POLLING INDICATES AT LEAST IF YOU CAN ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE YOU GOT INTERNAL POLLING SAYING SPEND THE MONEY HERE AND DO IT NOW.

>> YEAH, WE CAN EVEN JUST LOOK AT THE VERY BASIC VOTER REGISTRATION THEY'RE VERY CLOSE.

THEN I THINK THEY'RE BANKING ON A LOT OF THOSE MODERATE REPUBLICANS AND INDEPENDENT VOTERS WHO MAKE UP A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF OUR ELECTORATE, ARE KIND OF PUT OFF BY THESE MORE MAGA FURTHER RIGHT CANDIDATES MIGHT GO OVER TO THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE.

BUT THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT IS WHAT I HEARD LAST TIME AROUND WHEN DEMOCRATS WERE ON TOP OF THE TICKET WHILE THE REPUBLICANS WERE BITING THEIR LIP THAT THEY FINALLY EX-WHALED THEY GOT TO THE LEGISLATIVE RACES AND WERE ABLE TO VOTE FOR THEIR REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE.

SO IT'S HARD TO GET A REPUBLICAN TO VOTE BLUE ALL THE WAY DOWN.

>> BEFORE WE GO, AND WE ARE I THINK, I THINK YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT THIS REGARDING TOM HORN.

IT SEEMS LIKE HE'S BACK IN THE NEWS HERE THIS TIME FOR SPENDING UP MONEY, OR NOT SPENDING FEDERAL MONEY HE SAYS HE KIND OF BLAMING THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION ON THIS.

I THINK HE CONTINUES TO SAY.

WHAT'S THIS ALL ABOUT?

>> A LOT OF HE SAID AND SHE SAID A LOT OF CREDIT TO THE REPUBLIC FOR REPORTING THE STORY.

THERE'S MONEY FOR ONE SCHOOL UNDERACHIEVING SCHOOLS THAT THEY GET EVERY YEAR IT HAS TO BE OBLIGATED, YOU KNOW, DETERMINED WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND ON BY A CERTAIN TIME EVERY YEAR.

SO THEY MISS THE DEADLINE.

$29 MILLION THEY MISS THE DEADLINE ON WHICH IS EVENTUALLY GOING TO HAVE TO GET SENT BACK TO THE FEDS SO EVERYONE IS ASKING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HOW DID YOU LET THESE SCHOOLS LIFT THE DEADLINE.

FIRST SAYING THEY DIDN'T NOTIFY US OF THE DEADLINE THEN THE MONEY HAD TO GET ALLOCATED WHILE IN OFFICE, OBLIGATED WHILE WE WERE IN OFFICE.

A LOT OF FINGER-POINTING.

ULTIMATELY THEY APPLIED FOR A WAIVER TO KEEP THIS MONEY BUT IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THEY KNEW THEY COULD DO THAT UNTIL SOME REPORTERS, INCLUDING NICK SULLIVAN AND MYSELF SAID HEY, CAN'T THEY STILL GET THIS WAIVER AND THE FED'S RESPONDED BY SAYING YOU SHOULD STILL APPLY FOR THIS WAIVER.

>> IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE NOT QUITE THERE, NOT THE SHARPEST ACTIONS HERE.

AM I MISSING SOMETHING?

>> I MEAN IT SEEMS LIKE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY SHOULD KNOW.

WITH RESPECT TO YOU KNOW REPORTERS AND HOUND YOU WOULD THINK PEOPLE AT THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT WOULD KNOW THIS MAYBE BEFORE BORDERS HAD TO CALL THE U.S. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SAY HEY, WHAT ABOUT THIS AND HAVE THEM CONTACT THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

TOM HORN HAS BEEN OUT AND ABOUT VERY FOCAL.

IT'S NOT MY FAULT.

IT'S NOT MY FAULT I'M NOT RESPONSIBLE.

>> THEY HAVE BEEN PRETTY HARD-LINE ON THAT IT'S THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION'S FAULT.

BUT I WILL SAY THERE WAS A LOT OF TURNOVER BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION.

A LOT OF PEOPLE LEFT OR WERE FIRED.

YOU CAN SEE HOW THINGS WOULD HAVE FALLEN THROUGH THE CRACKS.

I DID CONFIRM WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THAT THEY DO SEND OUT NOTIFICATIONS IN ABOUT AUGUST OR EARLY SEPTEMBER BEFORE THE END OF SEPTEMBER DEADLINE FOR THESE THINGS.

THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THIS THING WAS COMING.

>> THE PASSING OF THE BATON WASN'T AS CLEAN.

>> YEAH, LIKE THE U.S. MEN'S -- [LAUGHTER] >> LAST QUESTION.

ARE YOU SURPRISED TOM HORN IS SAYING HE'S GOING TO RUN AGAIN?

>> I'M NEVER SURPRISED WHEN POLITICIANS SAY THEY'RE GOING TO RUN AGAIN.

I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.

>> I.

>> I THINK I WILL AGREE WITH WAYNE.

POLITICIANS VERY RARELY VOLUNTARILY SAY I'M DONE.

>> YEAH, WELL, WE'RE DONE.

GENTLEMEN GOOD TO HAVE YOU BOTH HERE.

THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

I'M TED SIMONS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

YOU HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.