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

WE'LL LOOK AT THE WEEK'S TOP STORIES, INCLUDING ANOTHER "SPIRITED" MEETING BETWEEN CANDIDATES FOR SECRETARY OF STATE.

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.

JOINING US TONIGHT: KEIRA RILEY FROM THE ARIZONA AGENDA AND CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES.

CAMRYN SANCHEZ OF KJZZ RADIO AND DENNIS WELCH FROM CBS 5 AND 3TV.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

I WILL START WITH YOU.

WELCOME THE JOURNALIST ROUNDTABLE.

>> GOOD TO BE HERE.

TED: DID YOU WATCH THE CLEAN ELECTIONS DEBATE FOR SECRETARY OF STATE.

WE HAD OUR CANDIDATES IN CONVERSATION.

OF COURSE, THAT WAS A LITTLE SPIRITED.

THIS SOUNDED LIKE A JERRY SPRINGER SHOW BROKE OUT.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

YEAH.

THERE WAS A LOT OF HEADLINES KIND OF HINTING TOWARD THE FISTFIGHT OF SOME SORT.

YEAH.

I THINK NESTLED IN THERE WERE QUITE A FEW POLICY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MAIL-IN VOTING, VOTER I.D., WHAT HAVE YOU.

BUT I THINK THE MAIN LINE WAS JUST BOTH TRYING TO CONVINCE VOTERS THAT THE OTHER ONE IS NOT DESERVING OF THE KEYS TO STATE ELECTION.

TED: THAT IS A NICE WAY OF SAYING IT 234-6789 THEY WERE GOING AT IT.

THEY WERE CALLING EVERYTHING.

HOCKEY GAME ALMOST BROKE OUT.

>> IT WAS LITTLE CHAOTIC ONE OF THE ACCUSATIONS WAS ACCUSING LAWYER FOR THE DRUG CARTEL AND LIKE YOU BETTER STOP SAYING IT OR WE'LL HAVE A PERSONAL PROBLEM.

UM, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS DEBATE WAS SIMILAR TO YOUR CANDIDATES IN CONVERSATION, AND THAT IT WAS A LOT OF SORT OF NASTINESS, AND ACCUSATIONS, PERSONAL ATTACKS, NAME-CALLING, ANDY VERGING ON THE BIG ISSUE, OF COURSE, OF STOLEN ELECTION CLAIMS, BECAUSE HE HAD HISTORY OF BEING ELECTION DENY YEAR AND KEPT MAKING SURE THAT IS BROUGHT UP AND SAYING OUR ELECTIONS ARE SAFE AND SECURE.

>> RIGHT.

HE HAD TROUBLE HERE WHEN I ASKED THAT QUESTION OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

DID HE DO ANY BETTER WITH THIS?

>> I THINK THE HEADLINE FROM THE CANDIDATES IN CONVERSATION INVOLVE THE TWO CANDIDATES WAS REFUSAL TOLL SAY WHETHER OR NOT OUR ELECTIONS ARE SAFE AND SECURE.

I THINK, THE HEADLINE COMING OUT OF THIS ONE, OTHER THAN IT WAS NASTY AND IT WAS HEATED.

THEY DID GET INTO SOME POLICY DEBATES THERE.

THE DEBATE OVER PROP 144 I THOUGHT WAS PRETTY INTERESTING.

OBVIOUSLY, THAT WAS HIS PROPOSAL THAT THE LEGISLATURE GOT REFERRED TO THE BALLOT THAT WOULD CHANGE POTENTIALLY HOW WE VOTE AND MAIL-IN VOTING HERE IN ARIZONA.

HE IS ALL FOR IT.

ADRIAN FONTES LIKE A LOT OF CRITICS THIS IS A TROJAN HORSE, IF THIS PASSES IN NOVEMBER IS GOING TO END UP KILLING THE MAIL-IN VOTING WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT 80% OF ARIZONA VOTERS USE.

SO I THOUGHT SHALL WHERE YOU KNOW, THERE WAS BIT OF A DIFFERENCE THERE GOING BACK TO YOUR CONVERSATION WITH THOSE TWO CANDIDATES THE HEADLINE WAS THAT HE DID REFUSE TO SAY SAFE AND SECURE.

>> I AM DON'T REMEMBER HEARING HIM SAY, THAT HE STILL BELIEVES THEY ARE SAFE AND SECURE AND IN THIS TEE BAIT.

>> YEAH.

YEAH.

YOU MENTIONED THERE WAS POLICY ISSUES TACKED ABOUT, AT LEAST TOUCHED ON HERE.

WHAT DID YOU SMEAR WHAT HAPPENED?

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE OF THE BIG ONES WAS THE FOX, CHICKEN, HEN PROBLEM OF, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT ELECTIONS TO BE FAST.

YOU WANT THEM TO BE ACCURATE, OBVIOUSLY, BUT YOU ALSO DON'T WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY, SO I THINK HE MADE SOME HAY ABOUT THE LEGISLATURE'S FAILURE TO FUND ELECTIONS FULLY OR REALLY INVESTED IN CYBER SECURITY, YOU KNOW, ENSURING THAT, YOU KNOW, IT IS LOCKED DOWN, SO I FEEL LIKE THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, THE BIG ONES.

TED: WHAT ABOUT VOTER ROLES?

DID VOTER ROLLS COMING UP?

YEAH.

YOU HAVE DONE A BAD JOB.

I AM GOING TO DO GOOD JOB.

I MEAN ONE OF THE MENTIONED COMMENTS SIDE OF THINGS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FUNDING TO ACCOMPLISH EVERYTHING WE WOULD LIKE TO DO.

NOT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO IT LIKE BEEFING UP THE CYBER SECURITY SOFTWARE AND CLEANING UP BETTER.

THAT STUFF TAKES MONEY.

THE LEGISLATURE CONTROLS THE PURSE STRINGS, THEREFORE, WE NEED MORE MONEY FROM YOU.

YOU ARE IN THE LEGISLATURE.

YOU HAVE NOT BEEN WORKING SUPER HARD TO FUND THE OFFICE BUT THE TAKE WAS LIKE THE MONEY IS THERE IF YOU SPENT IT BETTER ON THE CORRECT THINGS WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND CLEAN UP THE VOTER ROLES.

>> A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO ADD ABOUT THIS AS WELL.

I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT THE ACCUSATIONS THAT WERE FLYING TO KIND OF CLARIFY, UNPACK WHEN HE SAYS A CARTEL LAWYER.

WHAM HE IS REFERRING TO IS, YOU KNOW, THE ROLE, HE WAS A FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER DOWN THERE, YOU WERE ASSIGNED CLIENTS DOWN THERE.

IF YOU ARE DOWN ON THE BORDER, AND YOU ARE PUBLIC DEFENDER, YOU ARE GOING TO GET ASSIGNED A WHOLE BUNCH OF DIFFERENT CLIENT FUSS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR.

SO THAT IS WHAT THAT IS REFERRING TO ON THAT, AGAIN, PUBLIC DEFENDER.

HE WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, ENSURING THE CONSTITUTION IS UPHELD, THAT SOMEBODY HAS THEIR REPUTATION, THINK THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

>> WAS HE PAID BY THOUGH CARTEL?

NO, NO.

HE WAS FEDERAL PROSECUTOR FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

I THINK ANOTHER THING TO POINT OUT, TOO, AFTER THESE DEBATES, UM, THE CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME OUT TO TAKE QUESTIONS FROM THE MEDIA.

HE DID COME OUT.

HE TOOK QUESTIONS THERE.

HE TOOK ALL THE QUESTIONS FROM US FOR FIVE OR SIX MINUTES.

WHATEVER TIME THEY GIVE US.

HE DID NOT COME OUT AND TAKE QUESTIONS FROM US AND, IN FACT, WHEN HE WAS HERE LAST TIME FOR YOUR DEBATE, YOUR CONVERSATION WITH THEM, UM, WE HAD TO KIND OF TRACK HIM DOWN BEFORE HE GOT INTO AN ELEVATOR BEFORE HE SPOKE WITH US.

TED: YEAH.

WAS THERE A WINNER OR WERE ANY MINDS CHANGED HERE, DO YOU THINK?

WAS THIS MORE OF THE SAME?

>> WHAT DO YOU?

I WELL, I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE AS THE HEADLINE SUGGESTED WHERE ASH FISTFIGHT.

MAYBE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE IDEAS ON WHOP WAS THE WINNER?

I DON'T KNOW.

IT IS HARD TO SAY.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, THEY BOTH GOT OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE OPPOSITION THEY WANTED TO THROW OUT THERE ABOUT THEIR OPPONENT.

TED: DID YOU THINK YOU DID A GOOD JOB OF GETTING THE POSITIONS ACROSS?

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW.

I FEEL LIKE THERE COULD HAVE BEEN SOME POINTS OF CLARITY FROM HIM, YOU KNOW, MORE SO, I GUESS, GOING INTO DETAILS AS OPPOSED TO DEFLECTING.

YOU COULD SAY THE SAME OF HIM, TOO.

>> YEAH.

I WOULD JUST ADD ON TOP OF THAT, I THINK, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS, LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEY WERE ARTICULATE OR NOT, PEOPLE ARE WATCHING THAT, YOU ARE GOING TO GET DISTRACTED AND REMEMBER THE MORE INTENSE MOMENTS WHERE YOU CALL ME THAT AGAIN.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A PERSONAL PROBLEM.

I THINK THAT KIND OF OVERTAKES ANY KIND OF POINTS THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE.

I WILL SAY THIS, LIKE AFTERWARDS, I DID IF ARIZONA VOTERS DESERVED BETTER.

THAT IF THIS WAS JUST-- YOU KNOW?

IF HE DESERVED ANY RESPONSIBILITY OR ACCOUNTABILITY BECAUSE IF YOU REMEMBER, FRIGHT THE GET GO, THE OPENING STATEMENT, HE WENT AFTER HIM THERE.

YOU KNOW?

THE RESPONSE TO ME WAS AMERICAN POLITICS HAVE BEEN LIKE THIS FOR 250 YEARS, YOU KNOW, SO AS FAR AS WINNERS AND LOSERS, MAN, I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT A REAL TOUGH ONE TO CALL.

INTERESTING.

BECAUSE I MEAN, THE IMPRESSION THAT I NOT, I DIDN'T SEE IT?

THE IMPRESSION I GOT, HE WON THIS THING.

I AM HARING MAYBE NOT.

MAYBE HE GOT THE POINTS ACROSS.

MAYBE THE PERSONALITY WAS NOT QUITE WHAT?

>> I WOULD SAY, IF YOU ARE A VOTER WHO HAS NEVER SEEN OR HEARD OR READ ANYTHING ABOUT THE TWO CANDIDATES AND YOU WATCHED THE DEBATE, YOU GOT A GOOD SENSE WHO HAVE THE PEOPLE ARE.

I AGREE HE WAS DEFLECTING A BIT MORE THAN HE WAS.

MAYBE COMING ACROSS AS A LITTLE BIT MORE ODD.

BUT I WOULD SAY, THAT FOR ME, AS A JOURNALIST WHO HAS BEEN COVERING THIS RACE FOR HOWEVER LONG, I DIDN'T LEARN ANYTHING NEW.

>> ANY MINDS CHANGED, DO YOU THINK?

>> NOT MY MIND.

>> YEAH.

>> MAYBE HE CAME ACROSS AS A LITTLE BIT MORE CONFIDENT, MORE IN CONTROL.

IN THAT RESPECT, YOU ARE LOOKING AT PURE STYLE TRILLION THE AVERAGE VOTER OUT THERE.

I THINK HE MAYBE CAME ACROSS AS MORE REASONABLE.

>> ATTORNEY GENERAL APPARENTLY GIVEN NO-BID CONTRACT TO ONE OF HER FORMER POLITICAL CONSULTANTS, THIS IS NOW, THE OTHER SIDE, PETERSEN CAMP TRYING TO MAKE HAY OUT OF THIS.

WHAT THIS IS ABOUT?

>> I HEAR THE WORD PAY TO PLAY ONE MORE TIME.

ALL RIGHT.

SO IF THIS SOUNDS FAMILIAR, IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT PAY TO PLAY, CORRUPTION, BRIBERY, WHAT NOT ISSUES FOR THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS REALLY WITH THE HUB CAMPAIGN AND ACCUSATIONS ABOUT SUNSHINE RESIDENTIAL.

BUT THIS IS, THIS IS THE PETERSEN CAMPAIGN GOING AFTER THE CAMPAIGN ON THIS BASICALLY AGREEMENT, THAT SHE HAS WITH THE PERSON STACEY CHAMPION, YOU CAN CALL HER A FRIEND, ALSO, A POLITICAL CONSULTANT, AND THE MAYES TEAM HAS BEEN PAYING, BUT, ALSO REQUIREMENTS IN STATE GOVERNMENT WHEN YOU ARE OFFERING, YOU HAVE TO INTERVIEW AND ALLOW FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO INTERVIEW FOR THE JOB.

YOU CANNOT GIVE IT TO SOMEONE, ASSIGN IT WITHOUT HAVING THE BIDDING PROCESS.

SO THE ACCUSATION IS BASICALLY DOING A PERSONAL FAVOR FOR A FRIEND AND GIVING MONEY FOR NOT THAT MUCH.

>> HOW IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONDING TO THIS?

>> THE WAY I LOOK AT THIS,.

>> IT IS LIKE ONE OF THOSE PRACTICE YOU SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM CAMPAIGNS, AND END UP TRANSITIONING, AND WORKING FOR PEOPLE'S OFFICES AND IN SOME CAPACITY OR ANOTHER.

I REMEMBER, YOU REMEMBER DOUG DUCEY, HIS ENTIRE CAMPAIGN STAFF THEN MOVED OVER AND TOOK JOBS UP THERE.

I QUESTIONED A LITTLE BIT ON THIS.

THAT IS THE TIMING.

YOU KNOW, STACY WORKED, YOU KNOW, ON THE CAMPAIGN, THROUGH THAT CAMPAIGN, AS YOU KNOW, LIKE, THERE IS A BONING THAT OCCURS YOU GO THROUGH THE CRUCIBLE OF THAT.

YOU WANT PEOPLE YOU CAN TRUST.

SHE BROUGHT IN STACEY TO DEVELOP A TEAM THERE AND SET THE COURSE THERE.

SHE WASN'T, THIS WASN'T A SECRET.

SHE WAS OUT THERE ALL THE TIME.

YOU KNOW?

SHE DOESN'T WORK THERE ANY MORE AND MY UNDERSTANDING, SHE DOESN'T LIVEN THE STATE ANY MORE.

SO WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS NOW?

LIKE YOU WERE AWARE THIS WAS HAPPENING FOR YEARS, LIKE, HMMM MAYBE IT HAS GOT TO DO SOMETHING WITH A ELECTION COMING UP THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE HAY OUT OF IT AGAIN, THIS IS SOMEONE THAT IS WELL-KNOWN UTILITY FIGHTS, THESE SORTS OF THINGS, AND I FESS, HELPED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE WITH THE SETTLEMENT AND THE DAIRY FARM, THE BIG DAIRY FARM OUT THERE IN SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA.

SHE WAS INVOLVED IN THAT AS WELL.

THAT WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IS SAYING WHAT?

SH BECAUSE SHE KNOWS STUFF.

WE DON'T HAVE TO DO A BID ON THIS?

>> I MEAN, I GUESS SO.

YEAH.

I THINK WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER, YOU KNOW, WAS NOT JUST LIKE$250-$300,000 NO STRINGS ATTACHED.

SHE WAS WORKING.

SHE WORKED ON THE REVIEW, DAIRY SETTLEMENT, THE EPS CASE, I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT FEES REMEMBER, AND I MEAN, IT MAKES SENSE TO KIND OF BRING HER ALONG IN THIS.

AND, AND I DON'T KNOW.

YEAH.

I GUESS, THE OTHER PIECE OF IT, IT JUST FEELS LIKE, AGAIN, WITH THE TIMING, GRANGE AROUND FOR SOMETHING, LIKE I REMEMBER DURING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PRIMARY DEBATE LIKE PETERSEN HAD STARTED CIRCULATING CLAIMS ABOUT IMPROPER RELATIONSHIP WHICH WAS COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED AND VAGUE AND FOLLOW THE MONEY CLAIMS THEN THIS.

HOW BIG OF AN ISSUE THIS IS?

>> I WOULD GIVE IT LIKE A THREE.

>> THREE OUT AGAIN.

>> WELL, JUST BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE FIRST OR SECOND OR MILLIONth TIME WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT STUFF LIKE IN THE THE RACE.

I THINK THE VOTERS KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON.

THEY KNOW IT IS CAMPAIGN THING.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, SORT OF GOING OFF WHAT DENNIS SAID AND KIMBERLY YEE BEING UPSET WHERE SHE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE CAMPAIGNING OR INVOLVING PEOPLE IN CONTRACTS WHO WORKED ON YOUR CAMPAIGNS.

LIKE SHOULD THERE BE MORE.

IT IS IT FROWNED UPON?

PROBABLY YEAH.

IT IS IT LEGAL?

I DON'T KNOW.

IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

IT IS THAT READY TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY.

WHAT THIS IS SHOCKING THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME.

IT HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE CYCLE WHAT FROM WHAT I CAN TELL THREE OUT OF TEN.

NO BIGGIES AS FAR AS THE RACE IS CONCERNED?

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

NO.

NOT IF I HAD TO GUESS.

ALL RIGHT.

PAY TO PLAY.

I WILL COME TO YOU FIRST.

>> ANOTHER PAY TO PLAY.

>> ANOTHER PAY TO PLAY QUESTION.

CRIMINAL REFERRAL.

IT HAPPENED BACK IN JULY.

CRIMINAL REFERRAL REGARDING THE WHOLE SUNSHINE RESIDENTIAL SITUATION AND ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

>> IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER, THEY ARE REFERRING THIS.

THEY REFERRED THE SUNSHINE PEOPLE OVER TO THE DOJ.

JUST TALK TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.

THEY ARE EXPLICIT ABOUT THIS POINT.

KNOW?

AGAIN, THIS WAS ANOTHER ONE WITH THE TIMING.

YOU KIND OF LOOK AT THIS.

THIS LETTER WAS SENT BACK IN JULY.

WE ARE LEARNING ABOUT IT NOW.

IT IS GETTING LIKE I DON'T KNOW THE PROCESS.

THAT WAS GOOD STORY THAT WAS PUBLISHED ABOUT THIS.

DON'T KNOW THE STORY BEHIND THIS OR HOW IT WAS LEAKED OR FOUND OUT.

UM, BUT THIS IS COMING JUST WHAT?

A WEEK OR SO BEFORE EARLY BALLOTS DROP.

YOU KNOW?

AND THIS HAS BEEN THE CENTRAL FOCUS FRESH, FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, THE BIGGS CAMPAIGN, THEY ARE SAYING THIS GOVERNOR IS CORRUPT, SUNSHINE RESIDENTIAL IS PROOF OF THAT.

WE ARE HEARING ABOUT THIS NOW.

I, AND, AGAIN, I DON'T EVEN KNOW.

I DON'T THINK WE KNOW RIGHT NOW IF THE DOJ IS INVESTIGATING.

>> WE DON'T.

WE DON'T.

BECAUSE WE DON'T.

BECAUSE IT WAS BACK IN JULY, WE ARE JUST FINING OUT MORE ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW.

I THINK THIS SUBPOENAS IS THE SUNSHINE ACTUALLY WITHDRAWN BY THE HOUSING, TOO.

MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THIS IS ANOTHER WAY TO KEEP THIS ON THE FRONT BURNER CORRECT.

>> I THINK ABSOLUTELY.

YEAH.

I MEAN, IT IS THROWING AT THE WALL AND SEE FITTING STICKS BECAUSE THEY CAME OUT WITH A CONCLUSION THAT, YOU KNOW, REPUBLICANS WERE NOT NECESSARILY HAPPY ABOUT AND SO YOU KNOW, YOU GOT THINK HOUSE, YOU GOT THE SENATE INVOLVED NOW AND MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY.

YOU KNOW?

YEAH.

YEAH.

THINK IT IS JUST KIND OF FROM ALL ANGLES AND, I DON'T KNOW.

WE'LL SEE.

HOPEFULLY.

>> THIS IS A THREE OUT OF TEN, TOO, A DO YOU THINK?

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND WITH THE CONTINUAL FOLLOW-UPS WHAT WE ARE GETTING THAT IS NEW OUT OF THIS STUFF.

WE HAD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

WE HAD THE YOU ATTAR TO GENERAL'S THING.

WE HAD THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S THING.

WE HAD THE SENATE.

HOFFMAN.

FARMS WORTH AND WE NOW GOT THE HOUSE, DOJ, I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE LAST ONE OR DOJ ONE IS GOING TO DO THAT THE OTHER ONCE DIDN'T.

YOU KNOW?

TED: YEAH.

I GOT YOU.

>> TO YOUR POINT, TOO.

THIS IS A WAY TO KEEP THIS IN THE HEADLINES.

TED: RIGHT.

>> AS WE ARE GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER.

BY THE WAY, I LOVE WE HAVE A GRADING SCALE NOW.

THAT IS SCAN LOUSE.

>> WE ARE AT THREE NOW.

>> I AM HOPING FOR SOMETHING MORE THAN THREE LATER.

WE'LL FUND OUT IF ONE GETS MORE THAN A THREE.

KEIRA, THEY THERE WERE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT HANDING VOTER ROLLS TO THE FEDS AND THE U.S.

ATTORNEY SAYS I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR CONCERNS OR I GOT YOUR CONCERNS BUT WHO CARES BECAUSE WE ARE GOING ON WITH THIS ANYWAY.

YOU SHOULD NOT BE CONCERNED.

THAT IS THE GIST OF IT.

YEAH.

I THINK, YEAH.

MEAN, U.S.

ATTORNEY KIND OF BLOW IT OFF.

YEAH.

THEY WERE SCARED THAT YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SOME HOLE IN THE BUCKET.

THAT MARICOPA COUNTY VOTER REGISTRATION DATA WITH BIRTH DATES, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBERS AND FOUND THE WAY INTO THE CHECKING OF NONCITIZENS YEAH ESSENTIALLY SAYING NO, AND THEN, KIND OF COVERED FOR DHS AND THEIR ABILITY TO DO THAT ANYWAY.

YEAH.

>> AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THINK BASICALLY SAID I DON'T CARE.

I AM NOT GIG OVER THIS STUFF ANYWAY.

>> WELL, HE HAS BEEN DEAD SET AGAINST GIVING THE STUFF UP FROM THE GETGO.

HE THINKS, YOU KNOW, IT COULD JEOPARDIZE THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE SECRET BALLOT.

PEOPLE NOT KNOWING WHO YOU VOTE FOR.

SO I MEAN, HE HAS NOT CHANGED HIS POSITION.

WELL, HE SAYS IT VIOLATES STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS.

THE SUPREME COURT HAD A SIDEWAYS RULING ON THIS AND NOT SURE IF IT APPLIES TO THIS.

THE BIG QUESTION.

THIS IS A THREE?

>> OK.

I AM NOT GOING TO DODGE THE QUESTION, BUT I WILL SAY IT IS COMPLICATED.

WE REASON THE MIDST OF THIS ISSUE SO I FEEL LIKE THE SCORE, IT NEED TO LIKE EMERGE.

I HAVEN'T DECIDED YET WHAT I AM GOING TO GIVE THIS ONE.

BUZZ YEAH.

I MEAN, HE IS TALKING ABOUT PRIVACY LAWS.

RIGHT?

>> YES.

HE IS SAYING IF I WANTED TO HAND OVER THIS INFORMATION, WHICH I DON'T.

I THINK IT COULD WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF VOTER PRIVACY LAWS AND PROVIDING THAT TO YOU.

CALLING IN THE DEBATE THE RESPONSE TO THAT CONCERN IS TO BRUSH IT OFF.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND HE IS LIKE, YEAH, WELL, THAT INFORMATION IS IT.

IF THEY HAD ALL OF THE INFORMATION THEY ARE ASKING FOR IN THE WAY THEY WANT IT.

THEY WOULDN'T BE ASKING FOR IT IN THE FIRST MACE.

HE HAS SAID, KNOW, COURT ORDER, DIFFERENT BALL GAME.

NOT GOING TO DO IT.

THINK HE WILL STICK TO THAT.

YOU THINK SO?

>> YEAH.

HE DOUBLE DOWNED ON THAT ACTUALLY DURING THE DEBATE SAYING HE IS GOING TO BE ON THE SIDE OF VOTERS EVEN, EVEN WITH THE COURTS, ABOUT EVEN, THE COURTS, THE COURTS RULE A CERTAIN WAY.

ALWAYS GOING TO COME DOESN'T ON THE SIDE OF THE VOTERS.

TED: RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT.

THIS ONE IS KIND OF-- THIS COULD, THIS COULD REACH A FOUR.

I AM NOT SURE.

BUT WE'LL START WITH YOU ON THIS, THE NINTH CIRCUIT UPHELD THE DARK MONEY, THE RIGHT TO KNOW LAW, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO SHOW MAJOR POLITICAL DONORS AND THE ORIGINAL, YOU KNOW, SOURCE OF THE MAJOR POLITICAL TONERS THE CAMPAIGNS.

WAS THIS A SURPRISE AT ALL?

>> YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW.

NOT REALLY TO ME.

THIS WAS NINTH CIRCUIT.

A 2-1 DECISION OUT THERE.

UPHOLDING THE LAW, VOTER APPROVED OUT THERE.

YOU DON'T THINK IT WAS REALLY SURPRISING.

WAS SURPRISED A LITTLE BIT WITH DESCENT ON THIS.

THE DECENT WAS, YOU KNOW, I FORGET THE NAME OF THE JUDGE, BUT SAID, YOU KNOW, IT COULD END UP SOME OF THE HIGH DOLLAR DONORS THROUGHOUT WHICH I KIND OF, LETS ME SCRATCHING MY HEAD, GOING, WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT DOCKING THESE, THESE, THESE FOLKS, AND YOU KNOW?

THEY HAVE GOT MEANS.

THEY GOT MEANS.

THEY GOT IT.

IF THEY WANT TO BE PROTECTED THEY DON'T WANT THEIR NAME OUT THERE.

THEN MAYBE THEY SHOULD NOT BE DONATING BIG MONEY.

>> THIS UPHELD ARIZONA DISTRICT COURT OPINION, I BELIEVE?

TRUE?

>> YEAH.

AND IT WAS IN LINE WITH WHAT THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT RULED AS WELL.

I MEAN, THERE IS NOT, YOU KNOW, EITHER LIKE AS APPLIED TO CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE SUING LIKE ANY BIG HARM, YOU KNOW?

REVEALED YET, AT LEAST.

>> DO YOU NO THE STATE'S SUPREME COURT, THOUGH?

I BELIEVE THEY STATED IS A FREE SPEECH ASPECT OF THIS AND SEND IT BACK DOWN.

THAT IS TRUE?

>> THAT IS AS APPLIED TO THE CENTER FOR ARIZONA POLICY AND THE ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE AND THEY COULD PROVE THAT THEY ARE BEING THREATENED OR HARMED IN SOME SERIOUS WAY.

THEY CAN WORK IT THAT WAY AND STRIKE DONE THE SEAL.

THE FACT IT PASSED BY 72% OF THE VOTE HERE, UM, MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A FACTOR THE DECISION.

BUT CERTAINLY CANNOT BE IGNORED?

>> YEAH.

I THINK THE COURTS DO END TEND TO GIVE FAVOR TOWARD VOTE ARE APPROVED MEASURES RIGHT.

THAT E THEY TAKE THAT WITH A LOT OF WEIGHT.

I DIDN'T FIND THE RULING TOO SURPRISING.

ALL BECAUSE I THINK THEY HAD ROLLED THE OTHER WAY, I WOULD HAVE GIVEN IT A TEN.

THAT WOULD BE INSANELY HUGE DEAL.

THERE ARE STILL SOME OPEN LEGAL CASES RELATING TO PROP WHAT IT WAS CALLED.

TED: YEAH.

122?

>> 211?

>> IT HAS BEEN SO LONG.

>> SO MANY NUMBERS.

I KNOW.

IT IS GETTING LATE.

>> LET'S GIVE IT A THREE.

YEAH.

>> YOU KNOW, PROPOSITION THAT PASSED.

THERE ARE STILL SOME OPEN CASES NEW ARE GOING FORWARDED WITH THE LOWER COURTS AND LIKE SPECIFIC ISSUES.

ONE OF THOSE IS IN THE SUPREME COURT, THE STATE SUPREME COURT, I BELIEVE, WHICH TALKS ABOUT THAT KIND OF ALLEGATION, YOU KNOW, IF DONORS HAVE TO GIVE UP PERSONAL INFORMATION THAT VIOLATES THEIR PERSONAL RIGHTS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THIS IS GOING TO HAVE LIKE MUCH OF AN EFFECT ON THAT EITHER.

GOING TO BE APPEALED FURTHER, WHAT DO YOU THINK.

>> NOT THAT I KNOW OF.

YOU CAN GET IT TO FULL, THE FULL SUR KIT.

YOU MIGHT AS WELL.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE, IF YOU ARE BEHIND THIS, YOU ARE OPPOSED TO WHAT HAPPENED THEN YOU GO THE MEANS AND THE MONEY WHERE NOT TRY TO APPEAL THIS TO GET TO THE HIGH COURT.

RIGHT.

THIS IS A COURT THAT MAKES INTERESTING DECISIONS THESE DAYS.

>> YES, YES IT DOES.

YES.

DENNIS STICKING WITH YOU.

INTERESTING SURVEY OF HOUSE MEMBERS AND WHAT THEY PAY, YOU KNOW, LIVING CONDITIONS FOR FOOD STUFF AND THESE SORTS OF THINGS.

ABE IS NUMBER TWO ON THE LIST.

LIKE $40,000 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> I BELIEVE THAT.

>> YEAH.

HE WAS ASKED FOR LIVING EXPENSES TO BE, YOU KNOW, REIMBURSED, PART OF A PROGRAM IN THE HOUSE THEY ARE GOING TO REIMBURSE EBB FOR THE LIVING EXPENSES BY THE WAY WE DON'T NEED TO SEE ANY RECEIPTS OR ANYTHING LIKE TO.

WHAT COULD GO WRONG, THAT IS WHAT I WAS INTERESTED IN THIS.

IT IS INTERESTING$10,000 FOR MEALS FOR REPRESENTATIVE HOLIDAY,$39,000 FOR HOUSING.

OK.

WE GET NUMBER 2.

THAT IS A LOT.

DON'T WORRY ABOUT RECEIPTS?

WHAT KIND OF.

WHAT IS GOING ON SNEER I THINK THE WHOLE TRUST ME, YOU KNOW, RATIONAL, I MEAN, WE GOT TO BE SMARTER THAN THAT.

I THINK.

BUT YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW?

I DON'T KNOW.

YEAH.

IT DEFINITELY RAISES SOME QUESTIONS ESPECIALLY, I MEAN, LAUGHING OUR STATE LAWMAKERS PAY BY QUITE A BIT, JUST LODGING AND FOOD COSTS.

>> OF COURSE, HE IS IN A VERY SAFE DISTRICT THROUGHOUT.

THERE IS NO ONE TO RUN THIS.

OF COURSE THE SENATE HAS SIMILAR PROGRAM, BUT THE SENATE IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, TRUST BUT VERIFY.

THEY DO WANT RECEIPTS OVER IN THIS HE IN THE STATE.

THEN ANOTHER ONE OF THE THOUGHTS WAS, TOO, LIKE TO BE FAIR.

IT IS EXPENSIVE FOR A LOT OF CONGRESSMAN FROM ARIZONA.

DO YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR ESSENTIAL HOUSING OUT THERE, AND D.C.

IS NOT THE CHEAPEST PLACE IN THE WORLD TO LIVE AND I GET THAT AND CONGRESSMAN AND WOMEN HAVE NOT SEEN A RAISE IN OVER 20 YEARS, SO, SO, SO JUST TO BE FAIR ON THAT, BUT MY OTHER THOUGHT WAS, MAN, INFLATION IS HITTING EVERYBODY THESE DAYS.

>> YEAH R. YEAH.

YEAH.

EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS TRUE.

IT IS TRUE.

BUY IS STILL, HE IS NUMBER TWO.

>> WELL, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHY.

HE HAS NEVER RESPONDED TO REQUESTS FOR COMMENT IS SO HAVE TO DIE WITH THIS QUESTION UNANSWERED?

WOW.

ALL RIGHT.

ANOTHER THING, LIKE, OH, YEAH.

WE GOT IT.

WE NEVER HEAR FROM HIM.

NEVER SEE HIM.

WELL, THAT IS WHY I BROUGHT IT UP TODAY.

IT SEEMS LIKE HE IS IN THE HEADLINE FOR SOMETHING.

YOU GET TO TALK ABOUT HIM.

YOU NEVER GET TO TALK ABOUT HIM.

HE IS BEING WELL-FED.

>> YEAH.

YEAH.

WELL, IMPORTANT.

>> BEFORE WE GO, DID WE HAVE A PROP 144 DEBATE OR SO?

WHAT WOULD HAPPENED?

WHAT WAS THIS ABOUT?

>> WE HAD THE PROP 144 DEBATE LAST MIGHT F. FOR ANY WHO WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE NUMBERS OR NAMES IT IS FAIR NOT TO BE.

THIS IS THE ELECTION ONE AND REFERRED TO THE BALLOT ON PARTY LINES WOULD DO A COUPLE OF CHANGES TO THE ELECTIONS.

IT IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT CAME UP OBVIOUSLY IN THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S DEBATE BECAUSE OF THE MEASURE BECAUSE IT WOULD AFFECT MAIL-IN VOTING.

NOW WE HAVE HEARD SORT OF MIXED INFORMATION AND VAGUE STUFF ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD AFFECT MAIL-IN VOTE SO IT IS VERY SIMPLE BILL.

IT SAYS, YOU HAVE TO SHOW I.D.

EVERY TIME YOU CAST A BALLOT WHICH SEEMS SIMPLE, RIGHT?

BUT HOW DOES THAT WORK FOR MAIL-IN VOTE SOG THE SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW, YOU HAVE TO SHOW I.D.

WHEN YOU REGISTER TO VOTE.

IF YOU ARE MAILING IN THE BALLOT, WHAT YOU DO IS SIGN IN THE ELECTION WORKERS VERIFY THE SIGNATURE.

THAT IS THE SECURE TESTIMONY SYSTEM.

NO, THIS IS NOT TO KILL IN MAIL-IN VOTING.

THIS IS TO KILL MAIL-IN VOTING WHAT WE HEARD IN THE DEBATE WHO IS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB IN FAVOR OF PROP 144 IS WELL THERE IS LOTS OF DIFFERENT WAYS THIS COULD BE IMPLEMENT BOOED LIKE MAYBE YOU WOULD INCLUDE SECRET CODE ON THE BALLOT THAT WOULD BE THEN MAYBE YOU GO TO A WEBSITE TO UPLOAD A PICTURE OF THE FACE I.D.

TON IT.

THAT IS HOW WE VERIFY.

THAT DOESN'T EXIST THE SYSTEM YET AND THE BILL DOESN'T CLARIFY WOULD BE HANDLED THERE IS NO FUNDING MECHANISM FOR IT EITHER.

IT IS INTERESTING TO ME TO HEAR THE POSSIBLE SOLUTION FOR WHAT THEY ARE ENVISIONING.

YES YET THE BILL AS WRITTEN YOU ARE NOT THE MOST INFORMED VOTER BUT INFORMED ENOUGH AND DON'T HAVE TO READ THE PROPOSITION BEFORE YOU VOTE FOR I. IF YOU READ IT AS IT IS.

DO YOU GET EVERYTHING THE CALM SAID.

I THINK THE VOTERS MAY READ THAT AND SAY THEY LIKE THIS IDEA OR THEY DON'T.

THAT IS THE INTENT OF THIS I THINK.

AND LIKE YOU KNOW, WHEN GOT THE OTHER SIDE, YOU KNOW?

REIMAGINING OR IMAGINING HOW ALL OF THESE WAYS TO VERIFY YOUR IDENTIFICATION.

I THINK ANYTHING IS ON THE TABLE OUT THERE BECAUSE IT IS SAVAGE AND SO OPEN OUT THERE.

YOU KNOW?

I SUSPECT THE MORE PEOPLE HEAR AND LEARN ABOUT THIS AND IT EDUCATED ABOUT THIS THE MORE HESITANT THEY COULD BE.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

THIS HAS SHOT I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, I THINK, ESPECIALLY WITH A LOT OF JUST QUESTIONS IN THE AIR ABOUT HOW IT IS IMPLEMENTED I AM SURE ELECTION DEPARTMENTS ARE SHIFTING THEIR SEATS IN HOW THIS GOES.

I MEAN, I AM SURE IT LININGS HERDING CATS ALREADY.

YOU GOT 15 COUNTIES ALL KIND OF, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWING UNIFORM PROCEDURES AND APPROACHING IT.

>> CAN YOU MAKE IT QUICK?

>> YEAH.

VOTERS REJECTED THE MEASURE IN 2022 I THINK IT WAS PROP 322 WHICH WOULD HAVE ADDED MAIL-IN I.D.

REQUIRES SO THIS IS KIND OF SNEAKING SOME OF THAT LEGISLATION INTO A DIFFERENT MEASURE.

ALL RIGHT.

PANEL.

GOOD HAVE YOU HERE.

GOOD HAVE YOU HERE AS WELL.

THAT IS IT FOR NOW.

I AM TED SIMONS THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.