♪ Music Playing ♪ >> Coming up next on "Arizona Horizon", it's the journalists' roundtable.

We'll look at the week's top stories including a Judge ruling against a name change for the no labels party.

Journalists' roundtable is next on "Arizona Horizon."

>> "Arizona Horizon" is made possible by contributions from the friends of Arizona PBS.

Members of your public television station.

>> Good evening and welcome to "Arizona Horizon."

I am Ted Simons.

It's Friday and that means it's time for the judge assists' roundtable and joining us tonight, Howie Fischer on Capitol media Zeb percent.

Camryn Sánchez from KJZZ radio, and Wayne Schutsky also from KJZZ.

Panel good to have you here, thank you so much for joining us, Howie starting with you, the no labels party doesn't have a label again, what happened?

>> The fun identity thing about that, Paul Johnson who took over no labels which was not really doing much here decided we want a play to independents to run, the technical reason is to be a true independent to get on the ballot you need 40,000 signatures for a statewide race.

If you are in a party it needs 1700, he said we'll call it the Arizona independent party.

A lot of problems with that, number one is, if you say I want to be independent, does that mean large "I" or small "I"?

Number two the issue before the Judge, does the secretary of state have the power to simply say not only do you get a new game, but all the people who registered no labels are now Arizona inch party.

And the court said okay, no, I don't think so, now we'll go to the court of appeals.

And decide is there authority to do this.

>> The authority to do this, also the Judge called it a bait and switch on the voters who thought they were -- they didn't even know who they are voting for anymore.

>> That came down to the semantics is the party the name or is the party the people that make you the party and the name can change?

Because Fontes is arguing -- or his attorneys were arguing rather, that it's not the same thing.

The name matters, but it's not the same as the actual political party.

The Judge was grumbling and mumbling from the bench, like, what if you call them the fascists and people cyber up to be in the no labels party and told they are in the fascist party, that's not okay.

That was ultimately his decision.

He said if you want to change your party, you have to go back and ask the voters their permission to do that.

You can't do it without their consent just on a whim.

>> What happens to all of these candidates that were from the A.I.P?

What are they SOL?

What's going on?

>> We still don't really know.

That's another confusion as primary season is a few months a way as Camryn reported out in is some of our report, you have somebody start our no labels switch to independent Arizona, now back to no labels you have the candidates on who got on the balance up as the Arizona independent party.

You have confused people out there who have signed a bunch of ballots saying they wanted independent party can be on there now they may be no labels or not on the balance out, we don't flow.

>> What about the signature requirements?

>> That's the issue.

On one hand I can make the argument under good faith, the secretary of state says you put an A.I.P.

as your party and it should transfer over, it's the same people as Camryn pointed out.

That does not mean a certainly cube taurean incumbent or the Democratic party or Republican, we won't challenge the thing you submitted under one name, now you are trying to run under another think neither party likes the idea a more powerful third party.

That's why they sued and the Judge decided.

In a lot of ways I think the Democrats have more to lose.

Remember there are more Republicans than Democrats not that everyone stick to their party.

Independents make the difference.

And that means since there are more Republicans that Katie needs more of those independents than does whether it's Andy Biggs or David that wake earth.

>> The arguments under the Republican and Democratic party is it's confusing.

Just from this conversation it's confusing.

>> They have and you in the game.

I think they would say anything That is not really what they leaned on in court.

But it's true that we call unaffiliated voters in Arizona independents think that is a common term.

To call yourself the independent party could it confuse voters who call themselves independent when they see that on the ballot?

For sure it absolutely could.

But they are trying to market themselves as the home for independent voters to avoid those signature requirements, which, by the way, it was Democrats and Republicans who happened to create those really high threshold signature requirements in the first place, but my nightmare as a journalist is that they'll win the appeal going back to the Arizona independent party and we have to quite an article saying we have hopped back and forth for the third too many narrow.

>> And another thing that's confusing is people who maybe want to switch to an independent.

That's where this gets confusing because you might say, no party declared NDP and see Arizona independent party and switch to that.

And that affects lots of choices they can make.

Just not who they are voting for at the ballot but in the primaries in Arizona, lower indicate independent, truly independent gets to choose which ballot they want.

If someone chooses Arizona independent party they don't -- they no longer get to make the choice because they get an Arizona independent party ballot.

There are cascading ramifications for these decisions.

>> What's ironic it was meant to avoid confusion and now I feel like people will be more confused than ever.

>> I am.

This was not a win for the secretary of state but it wasn't that big of loss for him?

>> He said, women issue know, look, it was a little of this and that and I made a decision that I thought was Democratic small "D" and what the judge is said is, you know, particularly to the secretary of state who is an attorney, under Arizona state law the secretary of state only has those powers given to him or her by the legislature.

You did not get those powers.

>> Yeah.

Yeah.

Lets move on here.

Camryn we have the senate passing what looks to be a teacher pay hike headed for the ballot.

>> Yes.

So this is -- the latest iterations of many conversations we have had about racing teacher pay which is a bipartisan issue.

Both Republicans and Democrats are in favor of raising salaries and said that for a while now.

But we have had a lot of issues with them getting to an agreement on especially extending prop 123.

And now Republicans are moving forward with their own plan.

It's also been the subject of governor Hobbs getting fed up with budget negotiations and walking away from the table because they could not come to an agreement on prop 123.

>> But there is also another component of this, something else headed to the ballot.

Every year we get a report from the auditor general's office what personal of dollars is if he wants in classroom instruction, teachers, and some books and a few things and their fringe benefits.

Statewide average has gone down every year that they have written about this the last 20 years.

So this says, you want to get to 60% if you don't they'll be some financial penalties, now, makes sense, 6 cents on the dollar in a classroom, certainly think but what gets lost in all of this is that as the State doesn't fund other things.

Remember, we lost -- the sedate lost that big lawsuit is.

>> Yes.

>> Over capital fund and computers and building repairs.

The school districts have to move money into that which while there is more money going in, higher personal in this.

And so it will be real hard for voters to sort through this and say, 60% sounds great.

But what does it really mean in terms of what else has to be given up.

>> What was the op since on this?

What was the argument on this?

>> Democrats universally oppose this and said, we as a state are underfunding education as I whole as Howie mentioned the lawsuit saying we are doing that.

And so that it's all good and well to say let's get to the 60 percent threshold but if we are under furnishing the whole system how do you expect schools to get there.

Enrollment continues to drop in public schools and they have fixed costs like air-conditioning a cool school you have to keep air-conditioning the school whether you have 500 kids or a thousand kids.

As enrollment drops the personal of money going to the classroom drops, the same amount going to fixed costs, but then you have less kids in a classroom.

>> One other important point.

All of this gets wrapped up with oh, it's all administrative bloat.

That's what Jake Hoffman has been arguing.

But even the auditor general admits, you compare our share of administrative costs in the total with the national.

We are spending less of the personal on administrative.

That's not the issue.

>> But, Howie, that's not been the issue for a while.

I remember doing this story for years now.

The administrative bloat is a small "B."

>> But it comes down to a certain extent what Wayne is talking about.

For example, even assuming you can close schools and cut down on the air-conditioning, you have bus routes, whether there are 30 kids on the buses or 40 kids on the bus, you still run the same bus route.

If you look at the price of gas lately that's an issue.

>> Camryn senate passes, house working on a similar issue?

>> Yes.

Republicans are in lockstep on this and Democrats share the same concerns across the chamber, but, you know, the governor is presumably in lockstep with democrats but if they send to the ballot it's not for her to decide it's a thing where approximate if it goes to the ballot it comes down to how you package and whether voters understand the nitty gritty of the classroom situation it sounds great to increase teacher salaries and if you are not thinking big, you know, whether the roof of the classroom is going to collapse on top of the teacher it sounds look I can a great plan.

>> If it goes to the ballot, Wayne it makes it lack more like a Russian novel.

Are people going to vote for this?

>> It's part of this method that Republicans have used this year and last year sending bills that they think the governor is probably going to veto but then they do companion referrals so in the event the governor vetoes them they have the referral going to the ballot we could have dozens at this point.

>> That ignores what we know to be the fact.

People if they are confused vote no.

You start with six picture voting no on something like that, the more things you have there, particularly getting into you can't do early vote and you have to come in and do that six-page bat ballot standing there people will vote no or won't get to.

>> Won't get to it, yeah.

I want to get on this.

The idea of more people in the House of Representatives like there aren't enough already?

>> No, we should a million more, this is the measure from I believe senator messnard.

He wants to add onto get us in line with other states because well relatively speaking we don't have that many representatives.

60 in the house and 30 in the senate he wants to add on so people have more direct representation, you have one person representing you in a few thousand other people than 10,000 other people it's a more direct line is the content.

It would be a big change for us >> So instead of two for each district he wants three for each district in.

>> Yeah, but it's more complex than that.

Right now, as Camryn points out 30 legislative districts.

One senator, two reps.

They both represent the same group of people.

And so you have a situation where in each district, you have maybe a quarter million people, and that is a lot of folks to get to know.

If you pursue what senator messnard wants you take each 30 district and divide it up in to three.

Snow represent 80,000 people you might get to know your neighbors.

Lower campaign costs because don't have to send out at many mailers.

To a certain extent is makes sense.

Is 90 impossible?

We got 435 U.S.

reps.

I don't say that at that works.

>> That's going great.

>> Yeah.

>> That's a swell example.

But it does provide theoretically closer representation.

>> What do you make of this, Wayne?

>> Who amongst us hasn't been able to shakeout thousand hands I am skeptical of this one, as Howie mentioned before as you get ballot bloat and referrals and all of that much I don't think voters will be confused about this.

And often when you ask people whether it's legislator payer do we want to send more people down there you get a negative reaction.

So I don't know that everyone is going to be like let's create more of these positions and send more people down to the Capitol.

>> Speaking of legislator pay there is a cost to this.

You have to put them people somewhere.

Put their staff somewhere.

Their desks somewhere.

I mean, this isn't going to be like free and easy, is it?

>> Maybe we can put them in condemned school buildings.

>> There is a thought.

>> We are going to have to add on, you know, that's one of the fine fun things about this to he, my Republican say they hate the size of increasing government and this would increase the size of government officials we have to put them somewhere.

And pay them.

Messnard has a different item, he wants to make the population sizes more equal amongst all of those 30 legislative districts.

And that's a separate like reg solution that he's been working on.

If that goes forward it changes the makeup of our legislative districts and I am jazzed about it.

>> One more thing, talk about what's going to be on the ballot.

Senator Kavanaugh has a plan to say, you know, last time we got a pay raise, we got up to $24,000 a year, in '86 or something like that.

And well, we want to keep up with inflation.

But the way he's got it crafted and doesn't say this, you have to look between the lines, is voters pass this they get inflationary index backdated from the last pay raise.

24 add that to 30 Lawmakers and now you are talking real money.

>> We sure are.

Anyone for this.

We have a bit of time here.

>> After the '40 census, 2040.

You have time to mull it over.

Is anyone for it, against it.

Marching and shouting for it, what's going on?

>> I am saying sen more messnard is for it.

Other than that I don't know how many people.

It's one of those that gets lost in the sauce as it makes it onto this big, bloated ballot.

>> I imagine senator messnard sitting at his desk, scheming, planning decades in advance.

>> Remember, this is his last year in office and he's got all of that stuff built up all those years in the house and senate and says this is my last Hoo-rah.

>> Let's talk about a bill, Wayne, regarding migrants having to show legal status when trying to cash a check.

When using banking services and these sorts of things.

>> Yeah, this is senator Wendy Rogers, she basically doesn't want migrants sending money back to the countries they are from and wouldn't lettuce things like documentation they get from the.

>> Consulates.

>> Consulates a bank or credit union, causing concern for those communities and the banks themselves.

>> What are the banks saying about this, do we know?

>> They would like to be left out of it.

Not their circus, not marathon keys, but it's a common thing that migrants do is if they have family back home, that they work here, and they send a portion of their salary back to their families and help take care of them.

>> Banks, credit cashing places >> Anything -- >> Anything, cash, check services, the whole thing.

What would you have to show?

>> Well, theoretically, it doesn't say what you have to show.

The way it's worded says if the I.D.

-- banks are required to get I.D.

under federal law to a certain extent, so are the check cashing services.

It says you may not use any I.D.

that is an indication that the person is not here illegally.

Those are the matricular cards that Wayne was talking about.

It could mean if you have a driver license it's not a real I.D.

can you not cash checks then not have a saving accounts not just talking about saving money the ability -- to open an account.

>> To open an accounts I am working air here I have a paycheck how do you get it cashed.

Go to a check cashing place somewhere like that.

>> Where 'cause federal law where is it in this argument there are already federal laws require this documentation this gets to NBA to the night gritty saying what you can't use to provide that documentation with the senator it says this for regulating security and the money should not be sent out of the country and maybe used for money laundering we are trying to crack down on this.

Ironic given this that's one of the biggest proponents of bit copy which is a form of currency proven to be the favorite of money launderers.

>> How many immigration bills has she filed?

>> As her favorite, I can say it's been a lot.

They have put the squeeze on at different angles, if we recall the hospital bill for example.

Keeping statistics on people who are coming to the hospital and asking them to make a note of theorem Grace status.

Using the data to -- deck contracts speculate it would be used to immigration enforcement purposes.

>> Wayne mentions the nitty gritty.

Is there a lot of nitty gritty going on?

Is there too much going on?

>> You have problems, most banks in the state are federally chartered.

And according to lobbyists the Arizona banking association, what you do here isn't going to afternoon them.

Because we answer to a higher power as the old commercial used to go.

You are left with the community banks which the folks who do a lot of lending to small businesses and such.

And left with the credit unions and with the check cashing services.

So I don't know that -- assuming this will somehow becomes law and I have a feeling there is a big red veto stamp waiting for this one.

Assuming it becomes law, would you have anybody who is here illegally saying I want to go over to bank of America which is federally chartered say.

>> Yeah.

Hey, Wayne, Cesar Chávez day, I mean, every minute that passes, some sign comes down and some monument and some historical building.

Municipal building changes its name.

Sounds like the senate voted to remove the day from state law.

The vote was unanimous, ongoing basis.

>> Nearly.

Senator Sally Ann González gave a vote against it.

Gave an impassioned speech.

Democrats tried hard to amend it rename the holiday as farm workers case, say yes, we all agree the allegations are abhorrent everybody be removed from the holiday but don't erase the history of the movement it wasn't about him it was about the millions of people that participated in movement.

Republicans blocked it didn't allow it.

So, yeah, senator gone stood up and gave an impassioned speech about if and voted no.

>> That was the full vote, correct?

>> Correct.

>> The committee I think was unanimous.

>> Yeah.

And the issue becomes, particularly Sally Ann González she stood up and said as a child I was in the field.

And she had a particular poignant moment where she pulled out the gloves that her mother used to pick cotton.

So you didn't get stickers but had the tips out so you could pull the cotton balls, they said this is my life.

That you're racing.

This is saying that somehow the farmworker movement doesn't matter.

And all of the changes that it took years and years to get.

You know, people like senator talking about her father-in-law, her grandfather and said you're racing these people by refusing to recognize this movement.

>> Is there a way, is there a push, is there even talk of a farm workers day some sort of honor, statewide?

We are seeing it through a lot of cities in the State.

But statewide?

>> Not through legislative Republicans.

I asked senator Peterson about it.

He said we have Labor Day.

They made a point to focus on Caesar Chávez himself and the allegations and said, you know, why on earth would we want to keep this around.

Not let the democrats move any of their amendments forward even to vote on them every time the Democrats brought up the Epstein files which was quite a few they cut them off completely and wouldn't let them speak.

But every Democrat the vote took I think a few hours because people in the committee of the whole and on the third revote tried time and again and again and again speech after speech and people were emotion and crying and talking about family history.

My grandma did that too.

She was picking cotton with the gloves and it was no cigar.

>> Yeah.

>> There are a couple of options here, number one, is the governor who will get the bill probably Monday.

Can sign it and then simply say, I am declaring Cesar Chávez day.

It won't be in the statute books.

But, you know, and won't have any legal effect but issue a problem laying what.

>> Farm workers day.

>> Sorry, thank you, for correcting me on that.

Number two is that senator Tim Dunn who represents the Yuma area recognized this is an important issue.

And the best he could come up with since he was bound politically to vote with the Republicans, is say, look, I am willing to sit down and talk over the interim for next year to create a farmworker day, because I think he recognized, I think a lot of Republicans recognize that this could be a political liability in terms of November.

>> We are seeing it across the State as you mixed.

Phoenix renamed theirs farm workers day.

Down in Tucson renamed it after Delores Huerta the co-leader of the movement who made some of the shocking allegations against Cesar Chávez, there is I think support for doing that more broadly it's just a matter of whether you can get it through the process.

>> Howie four-year moratorium city taxes, fee hikes, these things, they are not amused by this.

>> This is a case of big footer we know better, we are the State government.

The federal government does it to us think that's different.

The argument that cities have certain abilities to particularly, fees, water rate hikes in Gilbert.

You have other issues fees for parks certain taxes to raise.

As the legislature we are keeping track of things, not raising expenses, we can't even raise taxes or fees without a 2/3 vote.

Why let cities get away with it Well, cities 92 incorporated cities in the state.

Each have different needs, Mesa's needs are not the same as Kingman or bull head city.

We are elected people.

We deserve that right and we -- and the places we have cut over the years we need to catch up now and this would lock us in for four years.

>> Freezing of local food taxes the ban on rental tax a lot of cities are stick struggling with that.

>> Right.

This comes down to one the fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans at the core.

The idea of higher taxes versus lower taxes and Republicans in control of the State legislature are often trying to find ways to cut down taxes especially when it comes to local control over their own taxes and what they are used for.

So in this case, their argument is it would help out Arizonans overall because it would allow more affordability.

Because everyone would be saving money in the cities and towns say yeah, Put, we actually need the tax dollars and if would affect your citizens negatively if we were not allowed to collect taxes because things go poorly like when you go to the park and there is dog poop or a pot role or seemed your kid to school and there are issues because the traffic light turned turn on or the school isn't funded.

And so it's those less tangible costs that people end up paying is the other argument.

>> And even some bigger issues that be that.

As we are facing a water crisis and the Colorado river water is getting cut.

Cities are trying to prepare for that.

They are say we need water infrastructure and that's what we use this to pay for.

>> Another game that industries play here.

Cities say on the ballot we need to pass this override.

We need to pass this tax or we won't have police and fire.

It's amazing they don't put parks or swimming pools or anything else, there is a recognition that what the cities say people will die unless you pass the tax.

We have to pass it to keep the police on the street.

>> I have seen a few pool bonds >> What about property taxes is that in anyone's sights that's a big gain they have an equalization tax for schools.

>> As far as what cities can do with their property taxes?

>> Part of the issue becomes we have a system going back to 1980.

And how much they can go up every year.

The big issue is sales tax.

That's where they get the real money from sometimes 4% for cities.

If you have a city with a lot of retail.

Which is why they fight over the location of the next WalMart that's the issue.

>> Time for a yea or a Nay Is this going anywhere this proposing in.

>> If it comes do the governor it's a no.

She decides with the stays and towns if they want to add this to the litany of things on the ballot it's a possibility Put not super enthusiastic.

>> We'll stop it right there.

Panel good to have you here, thanks for joining us, that's it for now, I am Ted Simons, thank you so much for joining us you have a great weekend.

♪ Music Playing ♪