♪.

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

WE'LL LOOK AT THE WEEK'S TOP STORIES, INCLUDING A RULING BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ON VOTER REGISTRATION IN ARIZONA.

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, JEREMY DUDA OF AXIOS PHOENIX, MARY JO PITZL OF "ARIZONA REPUBLIC" AND AZCENTRAL.COM AND JIM SMALL OF THE "ARIZONA MIRROR."

>>> U.S. SUPREME COURT GETTING INVOLVED WITH VOTER REGISTRATION IN ARIZONA BUT A PARTIAL RULING, CORRECT?

>> YEAH, THIS IS A MULTIPRONGED LAW AND AFFECTS ONE PARTICULAR PART.

IT'S A BIZARRE UNIQUE DUAL SYSTEM IN ARIZONA, YOU HAVE TO SHOW PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP TO VOTE.

YOU DON'T HAVE THAT BECAUSE FEDERAL LAW LAKES REQUIREMENT.

YOU CAN VOTE IN RURAL RACES ONLY.

DUAL LAW SAYS PEOPLE CAN REGISTER TO VOTE, BUT CAN'T USE THE STATE FORUM TO REGISTER TO VOTE.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP, YOU CAN'T VOTE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, WHICH WOULD BE HUGE, AND CAN'T VOTE BY MAIL.

THOSE TWO ARE UNENFORCEABLE PER A LOWER COURT RULING BUT ALLOWED THE VOTER REGISTRATION PART WHICH FORM YOU HAVE TO USE.

THAT WILL STILL PLAY OUT IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

TED: IT'S BEEN COMPLICATED FOR A LONG TIME.

>> YEAH, IT GOES BACK -- TO SPARE YOU SOME OF THE HISTORY.

IN 2004, ARIZONA VOTERS WENT TO THE POLLS AND SAID WE WANT PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP IN ORDER TO REGISTER TO VOTE.

THE LAW REQUIRES YOU HAVE TO BE A U.S. CITIZEN BUT ARIZONA PROPOSITION WAY BACK IN THE DAY SAID PROVIDE PROOF.

BIRTH CERTIFICATE, A PASSPORT.

THAT CREATED THIS DUAL SYSTEM AS JEREMY MENTIONED.

THE UPSHOT OF THIS, IT SEEMS IN THE SHORT RUN, IS ANYBODY STARTING NOW DECIDES THEY WANT TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN ARIZONA BECAUSE MAYBE THEY'RE REALLY INTERESTED, I DON'T KNOW, IN THE LEGISLATIVE RACE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE IN THAT RACE UNLESS THEY PROVIDE PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP.

THEY CAN USE THE FEDERAL FORM WOULD AND ALLOW THEM TO VOTE VERY IMPORTANTLY TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RACE, U.S. SENATE RACES.

HOW WILL THEY EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE IF THEY SIGN UP USING THE STATE FORM.

YOU CAN DO THIS OR IS THAT ALL ON THE VOTER.

TED: HOW MANY PEOPLE DOES THIS AFFECT, AND WHO ARE THEY?

>> RIGHT NOW THERE ARE 42,000 OF THE FEDERAL ONLY VOTERS, WHICH ARE FOLKS REGISTERED TO VOTE BUT HAVEN'T PROVIDED PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP TO VOTE IN FEDERAL RACES, PRESIDENT, SENATE, CONGRESS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

THIS RULING ONLY APPLIES TO EVERYONE BASICALLY WHO TRIED TO REGISTER FROM AUGUST 22 THROUGH THE END OF THIS LITIGATION.

SO PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO REGISTER IN THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ARE THE FOLKS WHO CAN BE AFFECTED AND IT COULD HAVE A PRETTY BIG IMPACT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THE LAW SAYS IS THAT COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICIALS WHEN THEY GET THE REGISTRATION THAT DOESN'T HAVE PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP WITH IT, THEY ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO CONTACT THE VOTER AND SAY HEY, WE NEED A COPY OF YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE, COPY OF DRIVER'S LICENSE, IN ARIZONA, YOU NEED A COPY OF THE DRIVER'S LICENSE.

THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO NOW IMMEDIATELY CANCEL THE REGISTRATION AND NOT NOTIFY THE PERSON.

YOU ARE VERY LIKELY GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF FOLKS, STUDENTS IN PARTICULAR WHO COME TO ARIZONA FROM OUT OF STATE, REGISTER TO VOTE HERE.

DON'T BRING THE PASSPORT OR BIRTH CERTIFICATE WITH THEM.

THEY'RE GOING TO SHOW UP ON THE POLLS THINKING THEY'RE ALLOWED TO VOTE BECAUSE THEY ARE CITIZENS, TEMPORARY RESIDENTS OF ARIZONA AND BE TURNED AWAY FROM THE POLLS.

TED: WHAT'S THE POINT OF THAT IDEA, YOU CAN'T CONTACT THEM OR MAKE AN EFFORT?

WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT?

>> MAKES THINGS DIFFICULT, AND YOU HAVE FOLKS REALIZE UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE THEY AREN'T REGISTERED.

>> IN ONE OF THE BRIEFS FILED, AND THIS IS A CHALLENGE THAT WAS BROUGHT BY THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE.

THE STATE REPUBLICANS, REGARDING A LAW THAT WAS PASSED IN ARIZONA IN 2022.

ONE OF THE BRIEFS SAID REPUBLICANS ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY HURT BY THIS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT REGISTER AS FEDERAL ONLY, TEND TO REGISTER AS DEMOCRATS.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO HELP IN AN ELECTION YEAR WHEN YOU'VE GOT A PIVOTAL PRESIDENTIAL RACE AND AN IMPORTANT U.S. SENATE RACE.

TED: INTERESTING, AND HAVE YOU ALL AGREED -- THIS COULD MAKE A REAL IMPACT, COULDN'T IT?

>> ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

IN 2020, ARIZONA WENT TO JOE BIDEN BY ABOUT 11,000 VOTES.

THAT'S ABOUT AS NARROW AS YOU GET IN A PRESIDENTIAL RACE WHERE YOU HAVE A FEW MILLION BALLOTS CAST.

WHO KNOWS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE THIS YEAR.

ABSOLUTELY, WHEN YOU ENTER THE CLOSE RACES YOU WIN ON THE MARGINS AND IT MAY COME DOWN TO A FEW HUNDRED VOTES HERE, FEW THOUSAND VOTES THERE, AND COULD THIS BE ONE THAT DOES HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO PLAY A ROLE.

>> AND I'VE GOT TO SAY, HAVING WRITTEN ABOUT THIS AND YOU HEARD ABOUT THIS AS WELL, THE AVERAGE READER SAYS, OF COURSE, YOU SHOULD SHOW PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP.

THERE IS GREAT CONCERN ILLEGALS ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE IN ARIZONA.

I CHECKED WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

GUESS WHAT?

MOST ELECTION COMPLAINTS OR LAWSUITS RESULTED IN PEOPLE WHO DOUBLE VOTED.

THEY VOTED IN TWO PLACES, BUT THERE'S REALLY NOT EVIDENCE THAT ANYBODY IS ABLE TO PROSECUTE OF ILLEGALS, BUT IT DOES SOUND COMMON SENSE YOU SHOULD SHOW PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP BUT NOT EASY FOR CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

>> SURE, THAT'S THE TALKING POINT FOR OVER TEN YEARS DEALING WITH THIS FEDERAL ONLY, DUAL CITIZENS CAN NONCITIZENS VOTE?

TIME AND TIME AGAIN, WE'VE SEEN STUDY AFTER STUDY, THIS IS EXCEEDINGLY RARE, THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED MUCH, BUT THE BOGEYMAN THAT WE HEAR BROUGHT UP OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITH THE SO-CALLED ELECTION INTEGRITY LAWS.

TED: YEAH, JIM, ABORTION RIGHTS MEASURE, PROP 135 SURVIVES A COURT CHALLENGE.

WHAT WAS THE CHALLENGE?

THIS IS UNANIMOUS DECISION BY THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT?

>> IT WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION.

ESSENTIALLY THE CHALLENGE TO THE DESCRIPTION THAT GOES TO THE NOMINATING PETITIONS, STATE LAW REQUIRES EVERY PETITION HAVE A 200 WORD SUMMARY, BASICALLY OF WHAT THE INITIATIVE IS GOING TO DO, AND SO THAT THE VOTERS ARE INFORMED.

THEY CAN READ IT AND DON'T HAVE TO READ THE ENTIRE -- ALSO HAS TO BE STAPLED TO THE ENTIRE INITIATIVE THEY'RE PROPOSING BUT THAT CAN BE DIFFICULT AND LONG, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE HERE'S WHAT YOU ARE SIGNING AND HERE'S WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE ON THE BALLOT.

ANTIABORTION ACTIVISTS ARGUED IT WAS MISLEADING AND SO MISLEADING THAT IT MADE IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND THE COURT SAID, NO, IT'S NOT.

IT'S PERFECTLY CLEAR WHAT IT DOES, COUPLE OF THE ARGUMENTS THEY REJECTED IS IT WAS UNCLEAR SOMEHOW WHO THE HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL WAS THAT COULD RECOMMEND AN ABORTION PAST THE TERM OF VIABILITY, AND THE OTHER WAS THAT BASICALLY THEY MADE AN ARGUMENT THAT SAID, IF THIS PASSES, VOTERS AREN'T GOING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT LAWS IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE BOOKS AND WHICH LAWS CAN'T BE ON THE BOOKS ANYMORE, AND THE COURT SAID, YEAH, NO, IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS WHAT THAT'S GOING TO BE, AND EVEN TO THE EXTENT IT'S NOT, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE LITIGATED.

THE COURTS HAVEN'T RULED ON IT, SO YOU CAN'T EXPECT AN INITIATIVE CAMPAIGN TO LOOK INTO A CRYSTAL BALL AND SAY IF THIS PASSES, LAWS A, B, C AND D BUT NOT E AND F. TED: ARE THESE LAWS THAT DESCRIBE THE LAW OR WHAT THE LAW WOULD BE?

>> THE LATTER.

THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO.

THIS WOULD BE THE RULE OF THE LAW.

THIS IS IN THE -- THIS WOULD BE IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION.

AS JIM SAID, YOU CAN'T PREDICT THE FUTURE, YOU CAN WORRY ABOUT IT OR YOU CAN BE HOPEFUL ABOUT WHAT THIS MIGHT BRING ABOUT, BUT WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL IT HAPPENS.

>> GO AHEAD, PLEASE.

>> YOU GENERALLY GET WIGGLE ROOM ON THE DESCRIPTIONS AND THERE'S A LOT TO PACK INTO THESE, AND THE COURTS HAVE RULED YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY, THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO DESCRIBE THESE THINGS.

THERE'S NEVER ONE EXACT WAY TO DESCRIBE IT.

YOU RECALL SOMEONE GETTING KICKED OFF THE BALLOT, THERE WAS A GROSS MATHEMATICAL ERROR WHEN THEY SAID PERCENTAGE WHEN THEY MEANT PERCENTAGE POINTS.

AS LONG AS YOU HAD THE THE MAIN POINTS AND IT'S COMMON SENSE IF THIS PASSES IT'S GOING TO INVALIDATE OTHER LAWS THAT CONFLICT WITH IT, IT HITS THE LAW FOR WHAT IT DOES FOR THE MOST PART.

>> THE COURT SAID THE DESCRIPTION IS NOT REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE IMPACT, SO GET IT ADDED.

SO IT'S ON THE BALLOT HERE.

IMPACT ON THE ELECTION?

>> I THINK DEMOCRATS ARE EXPECTING IT'S GOING TO HAVE A LARGE IMPACT ON THE ELECTION.

ARIZONA IS ONE OF I THINK SIX OR SEVEN STATES THIS YEAR -- >> I THINK IT'S UP TO NINE.

>> YEAH, AND THAT HAVE ABORTION RIGHTS MEASURES ON THE BALLOT, AND THIS IS A CONTINUATION WHAT WE'VE SEEN SINCE THE DOBBS RULING IN 2022, AND WE'VE SEEN CONSISTENTLY WHEN THESE GO BEFORE VOTERS, DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THE STATE IS BLUE OR DARK RED, IT IS -- IT PASSES.

VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT PEOPLE THAT ARE CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE CARE, AND THAT INCLUDES ABORTION.

THAT'S WHAT DEMOCRATS EXPECT IN ARIZONA AND HOPE IT'S THE WIND IN THE SAILS THAT PROPEL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES UP AND DOWN THE BALLOT.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> THE MAIN POINT IS NOT ONLY DOES IT PASS, WHICH I THINK EVERYONE EXPECTS IT, TO BUT WHO COMES OUT TO VOTE FOR IT WHO WASN'T BEFORE.

WE SAW THIS IN 2022, YOUNG PEOPLE, YOUNG WOMEN WHO WERE UPSET ABOUT THE DOBBS RULING AND UPSET ABOUT ROE V. WADE BEING OVERTURNED CAME OUT UNEXPECTEDLY, IN A YEAR THAT EVERYONE THOUGHT WAS A RED WAVE AND DEMOCRATS DID WELL HERE IN ARIZONA AND A LOT OF OTHER PLACES.

NOW YOU GOT THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, SO THE STAKES ARE HIGHER AND HOPING IN NEVADA AND ARIZONA, THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN, THE LOW PROPENSITY VOTERS DON'T CARE ABOUT A LOT OF ISSUES BUT CARE ABOUT THIS ISSUE, AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME OUT TO VOTE WHO OTHERWISE WOULDN'T HAVE.

TED: WITH THAT IN MIND, THE OPPOSITION, HOW MUCH ARE THEY GOING TO MAKE NOISE ABOUT THIS?

THE MORE NOISE YOU MAKE, EVEN IN OPPOSITION, IS IT GOING TO BRING OUT MORE PEOPLE?

>> I THINK VOTERS WHO ARE PRETTY SET, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SET IN THEIR VIEWS ON ABORTION, AND PEOPLE THAT ARE ANTIABORTION, THEY WERE GOING TO COME OUT AND VOTE ANYWAY.

I NOTE ANOTHER IMPACT OF HAVING THIS ON THE BALLOT, THEY'RE SITTING ON $9 MILLION FOR THE ARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS CAMPAIGN.

THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND TO GET THE WORD OUT, AND THAT PROBABLY WILL HAVE DOWNBALLOT EFFECTS BUT GOING TO BE A LONG BALLOT, LONG TIME TO GET WAY DOWN BALLOT.

TED: RUSSIAN NOVEL.

JEREMY, WE'VE GOT THE OPEN PRIMARY MEASURE.

IT'S ON THE BALLOT, MAYBE, KINDA SORTA, BUT IT'S ON THE BALLOT.

WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?

>> IT WILL BE ON THE BALLOT BUT THE VOTE MIGHT NOT COUNT.

THAT'S THE PART THE COURTS HAVE TO FIGURE OUT.

THERE WERE TWO OR THREE CHALLENGES TO THIS, SINGLE SUBJECT, SEPARATE AMENDMENT AND OTHER STUFF.

THIS IS ABOUT THE SIGNATURES.

THIS IS ABOUT THE NUTS AND BOLTS WHETHER IT HAS ENOUGH SIGNATURES TO GET ON THE BALLOT.

NOTHING DEADLINED TO THE COUNTIES, I BELIEVE IT TODAY.

WE'VE SEEN WIGGLE ROOM, A COURT ORDER, YOU HAVE TO PUT THIS ON OR OFF.

TODAY IS THE DAY THE COUNTIES ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT THAT BUT NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR THE COURT TO FIGURE OUT THE SIGNATURES.

A LOWER COURT REFUSED TO DO IT AND JUDGE WOULD NOT ADMIT EVIDENCE THAT THERE WERE 40,000 SIGNATURES THAT WERE DUPLICATES THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN COUNTED ON AN INITIATIVE THAT CLEARED THE BAR BY 22,000 SIGNATURES.

THE SUPREME COURT SAID YOU SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE EVIDENCE IN, THE SUPREME COURT SAID THIS IS GOING TO GO ON THE BALLOT BUT HAS TO GO TO THE LOWER COURT AND IT WILL -- VOTES ARE GOING TO BE DISREGARDED ON THE BALLOT BUT NOT ACTUALLY GOING TO COUNT.

>> THE SINGLE SUBJECT, THE COURT SAID OKAY, FINE BY US.

THE LOWER COURT SHOULD HAVE LOOKED HARDER AT SOME OF THE EVIDENCE, BUT WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT -- IS IT POSSIBLE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT?

WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO PUT A LINE THROUGH IT OR WHAT?

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

IT WILL BE ON THE BALLOT, BUT IF THERE'S AN ORDER FROM THE COURT SAYING IN THE SUCCEEDING WEEKS THEY DECIDE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SIGNATURES, THEN AFTER THE NOVEMBER 5 ELECTION, THAT APPARENTLY THE COURT COULD SAY DISREGARD THE TALLY HERE.

IN THE MEANTIME, TUNE IN IN SEPTEMBER BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT TO GO BACK TO JUDGE MOSKOWITZ'S COURT AND GO BACK TO 40,000 ALLEGED DUPLICATE SIGNATURES AND THE ESTIMATE IS THAT IT COULD TAKE FROM 11 TO 300 HOURS TO PARSE, TO LOOK AT THESE, COMPARE THEM TO THE VOTER REGISTER, ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS.

IS THIS TED SIMONS, JR., WHO IS DIFFERENT FROM TED SIMONS, SR.?

IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE WATCHING PAINT DRY.

TED: YEAH, YEAH, THIS IS -- HAVE WE HAD THIS BEFORE?

I DON'T REMEMBER THIS HAPPENING BEFORE.

HAS IT?

>> I DON'T RECALL THIS EXACT THING HAPPENING BEFORE, AND TYPICALLY THE COURTS TRY TO GET THE STUFF DONE BEFORE THE DEADLINE, AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WAS A LITTLE SURPRISING THAT THIS ORDER CAME OUT BASICALLY THE MORNING OF WHAT WAS ANTICIPATED TO BE THE FINAL DAY OF RULINGS, SENDING IT BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT BEFORE I THINK THAT THEY RULED ON THE SINGLE SUBJECT ISSUE, AND THE COURT SAID IT'S NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION.

>> TWO YEARS AGO THERE WAS DEADLINE DRAMA ABOUT ANOTHER ELECTION-RELATED CITIZEN INITIATIVE, AND THE JUDGE SAID, THERE'S ENOUGH SIGNATURES.

SUPREME COURT SAID WAIT A MINUTE, SHOW US YOUR MATH.

WE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

JUDGE GOES BACK AND LOOKS AT THE MATH AND SAYS WHOOPS, THERE AREN'T ENOUGH SIGNATURES.

AT THE LAST-MINUTE, IT WAS STRUCK OFF.

THERE ARE QUESTIONS THE CURRENT ISSUE WOULD MAKE ELECTIONS FAIR, ARE THEY LOOKING JUST AT THE SAMPLE OF BALLOTS BECAUSE THAT'S HOW ALL THIS SIGNATURE SCRUTINY IS DONE.

YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT EVERY SINGLE SIGNATURE, IT'S LIKE 500,000.

YOU LOOK AT SAMPLE OF THE BALLOT.

IT HAS EXPANDED BEYOND THAT.

TED: IT'S ON THE BALLOT, BUT YOU FIND OUT YOU CAN VOTE FOR IT, IT'S STRUCK.

FORGET IT.

HOW DOES THAT AFFECT TURNOUT?

HOW DOES IT AFFECT OTHER RACES OR DOES IT?

>> DOZEN, 13 PROPOSITIONS ON THE BALLOT THIS YEAR, PROBABLY TWO PAGES TWO, SEPARATE PIECES OF PAPER FOR THE BALLOT.

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS ISSUE FOR THESE REFORMS AND AGAINST THE REFORMS.

I THINK IF YOU HAD THAT STRONG A FEELING ABOUT HOW ELECTIONS ARE ACTUALLY CONDUCTED, YOU'RE PROBABLY COMING OUT TO VOTE ANYWAY.

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO REALLY WANT TO SEE THIS HAPPEN, AND I THINK IF IT'S ON THE BALLOT AND DOESN'T COUNT OR NOT ON THE BALLOT YOU WOULD BE PRETTY DISAPPOINTED, I EXPECT TO SEE THIS COMING BACK AROUND A COUPLE YEARS OR COUPLE YEARS AFTER THAT, THERE IS A BIG PUSH FOR OPEN PRIMARIES, OPEN CHOICE SETTING, I'M NOT SURE IF IT HAS AN EFFECT ON OTHER RACES.

TED: JIM, THE TIPPED WORKERS MEASURE MADE IT TO THE BALLOTS, IT SURVIVED THE COURT MEASURE BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF A TIPPED WORKER MEASURE.

THEY DON'T LIKE THE TITLE OF IT, RIGHT?

>> THE CHALLENGE IS IT WAS DECEPTIVELY TITLED.

IT PUTS IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT TIPPED WORKERS CAN BE PAID LESS THAN OTHER WORKERS BY 25%, SO LABOR ADVOCATES SUED AND WENT TO COURT AND SAID, HEY, LOOK, THIS THING IS ORWELLIAN, CALLING IT THE TIPPED WORKERS PROTECTION ACT BUT YOU ARE ENSURING YOU PAY TIPPED WORKERS A LOWER WAGE AND THE COURT SAID THAT'S NOT GOING TO APPEAR IN THE BALLOT, IT APPEARS IN THE PUBLICITY PAMPHLET, IT'S THE OFFICIAL NAME IN THE STATUTE BUT VOTERS AREN'T GOING TO SEE THAT WHEN THEY GO TO CAST THEIR BALLOT, SO IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.

TED: APPARENTLY, YOU CUT TIPPED WAGES, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, 25% UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGE IF THE BASE SALARY AND THE TIPS EQUAL MINIMUM WAGE?

>> RIGHT.

BY $2.

SO THE BELIEF IS IF YOU'RE WORKING IN A JOB WHERE YOU GET A LOT OF TIPS AND DO REALLY WELL, COULD THIS HURT YOU?

YOUR BASE SALARY IS LOWER.

TED: BY 25%.

>> BUT IT WILL PROTECT PEOPLE IN INDUSTRIES THAT ARE MORE SEASONAL, WHERE TIPS FALL OFF, BUSINESS FALLS OFF ON A BAD WEEK OR A BAD MONTH.

FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW HOW EMPLOYERS ARE GOING TO -- THEIR ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENTS HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO.

>> KIND OF.

RIGHT NOW, IF YOU EMPLOY TIPPED WORKERS, YOU HAVE TO GUARANTEE THEY MEET MINIMUM WAGE, SO THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BE PAID $3 LESS PER HOUR, MINIMUM WAGE IS $14.35, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO BE PAID $3 LESS PER HOUR AND AS AN EMPLOYER YOU HAVE TO GUARANTEE THAT WHAT THEY ARE MAKING WITH TIPS BRINGS THEM UP TO THE MINIMUM WAGE THRESHOLD.

UP TO $2 MORE THAN THAT.

IT REALLY IS, THIS WAS PUSHED BY THE ARIZONA RESTAURANTS ASSOCIATION.

THEY DID IT AS A WAY TO COUNTER EXPECTED BALLOT INITIATIVE TO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO $18 AND GET RID OF THE LOWER TIPPED WORKERS' PAY.

THIS INITIATIVE THAT WAS STRUCK FROM THE BALLOT WOULD HAVE AFTER FOUR OR FIVE YEARS WOULD HAVE PHASED UP TIPPED WORKERS AND IT WOULD HAVE COST RESTAURANTS AND BARS A LOT OF MONEY.

TED: THAT WAS RAISE THE WAGE ARIZONA.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT?

>> THIS MEASURE THAT THE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION GOT PUT ON THE BALLOT IS EXCLUSIVELY PUT ON THE BALLOT AS A COUNTERWEIGHT TO THE RAISE THE WAGE MEASURE.

THE RESTAURANTS ARE WORRIED THEY HAVE TO PAY SO MUCH MORE TO TIPPED WORKERS.

WORRIED ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE THERE.

THEY PUT THIS ON THERE TO COMPETE, AND THEN RAISE THE WAGE DOESN'T GET THE SIGNATURES.

THERE IS NO COMPETING MEASURE SO ALL YOU HAVE IS ONE MEASURE TO PAY TIPPED WORKERS A LITTLE LOWER AND IF THAT ENDS UP PASSING, WHO KNOWS HOW IT WILL PLAY OUT IN THE ELECTION.

IF IT PASSES, THE FOLKS INADVERTENTLY BROUGHT THAT ABOUT.

TED: AS WE GO DOWN AND DOWN THE BALLOT, IS THIS THE THING WHERE PEOPLE'S EYES GLAZE OVER AND GO NO?

>> COULD BE.

THERE WILL BE A CAMPAIGN FOR IT AND AGAINST IT, AS JIM MENTIONED, LABOR WAS VERY OPPOSED TO THE MEASURE.

IT WILL GET SOME ATTENTION.

THAT WILL HELP.

TED: YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

>> YEAH, NO, IT DEFINITELY WILL.

THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IT.

PUTS THE LOWER WAGE FOR TIPPED EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION, WHICH MEANS THAT IN THE FUTURE, IF LABOR UNIONS AND LABOR ADVOCATES WANT TO COME BACK AND RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE, WHICH THEY TRIED TO DO THAT -- THEY HAVE TO DO THAT THROUGH STATE LAW.

THAT'S WHERE YOU MAKE THE STAGE.

THE CONSTITUTION TRUMPS WHATEVER THEY PUT INTO THE STATE LAW.

IT WOULD PRETTY MUCH MAKE PERMANENT THE FACT THAT TIPPED WORKERS IN ARIZONA MAKE 25% LESS THAN PEOPLE WITHOUT TIPS.

>> ARE WE GOING TO FEEL MORE PRESSURE AS CONSUMERS TO BE MORE GENEROUS WITH OUR TIPS?

>> GOOD POINT.

>> I IMAGINE THEY ARE GOING TO PUT ALL THE EFFORT INTO FIGHTING.

THIS THE BIGGER QUESTION IS IT WORTH ENOUGH FOR THE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION, FOR THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY TO GET THIS PASSED BECAUSE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WAGES IS NOT A HECK OF A LOT, $3 OVER 25%, I THINK IT'S 55, 60 CENTS, NOT ENOUGH FOR THE FOLKS WHO ARE WRITING THE CHECKS TO GET THAT EXCITED ABOUT, SO WE'LL HAVE TO SEE HOW WELL FUNDED THE CAMPAIGN IS BECAUSE THE VOTE NO CAMPAIGN IS GOING TO BE VIGOROUS.

>> YOU ARE SHADOW BOXING INSTEAD OF BOXING OPPONENT.

YASSAMIN ANSARI, WINNER OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 3. WHO WANTS TO TAKE THIS?

FROM 39 TO 42 AND 42 TO 39.

>> THIS IS OUR THIRD MANDATORY RECOUNT WE'VE HAD SINCE THE LAW WAS CHANGED, AND NOTHING CHANGED.

SHE WON WHEN THE RESULTS WERE ANNOUNCED FROM THE PRIMARY, THE RECOUNT FOUND, PICKED UP A FEW MORE VOTES FOR RAQUEL TERAN, NOT ENOUGH TO WIN, AND ANSARI MAINTAINED THE LEAD.

TED: WE'RE EXPECT RAQUEL TERAN TO CALL HERSELF AS THE WINNER AND GOING TO COURT 14 TIMES, NO?

>> NO, IN FACT.

[LAUGHTER] >> THEY MADE A CALL FOR UNITY AND I THINK SAID CONGRATULATIONS ON A HARD-FOUGHT RACE, THIS SHOWS THAT OUR ELECTIONS ARE SAFE AND SECURE AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND GO ONTO BIGGER AND BRIGHTER THINGS.

TED: JEFF ZINK HAS A LESS THAN 0 CHANCE OF WINNING THE ELECTION.

>> PROBABLY.

ZINC'S OPPONENT WAS PUTTING OUT TEXT MESSAGE BASTS SAYING WE NEED A NEW CANDIDATE, JEFF ZINK LOST BY 55 POINTS.

IF ONE CANDIDATE LOSES BY 50 POINTS, THE PROBLEM AIN'T THE CANDIDATE.

TED: SOMETHING IS GOING TO IN QUEEN CREEK THEY WOULD LIKE YOU TO EXPLAIN AS FAR AS A CANDIDATE.

I NEVER KNEW THAT QUEEN CREEK AND CAROLINA HAD A BOND.

>> WE FOUND AT THE REPUBLICAN BACKGROUNDING ON LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES, MICHAEL WAY, RUNNING FOR STATE HOUSE SEAT, HAD A NORTH CAROLINA ADDRESS, GOING THROUGH HIS PROPERTY RECORDS, BUT ALSO FOUND VOTER REGISTRATION -- I'M SORRY, NORTH CAROLINA ADDRESSES, SO WE LOOKED AND SAW HE VOTED IN NORTH CAROLINA IN 2022.

THE STATE CONSTITUTION SAYS IF YOU RUN FOR THE LEGISLATURE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE LIVED IN THE STATE FOR THE THREE YEARS PRIOR, IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.

THIS IS 24, HE VOTED THERE IN 22.

THAT'S A TWO-YEAR GAP, NOT A THREE-YEAR GAP.

AND WE FOUND OUT ALSO HE DID NOT VOTE IN ARIZONA.

SO EITHER HE VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTION, OR HE FRAUDULENTLY VOTED IN NORTH CAROLINA.

I ONLY SPOKE TO HIM BRIEFLY.

HE SAYS HE CAN'T RECALL IF HE VOTED IN NORTH CAROLINA BUT HE WAS THERE BRIEFLY DURING THE PANDEMIC, BUT THE TIME FRAMES ARE UNCLEAR, AND HE'S BEEN QUIET EVER SINCE.

TED: THIS IS ONE OF THE DEALS WHERE WE DON'T KNOW WHERE PEOPLE LIVE.

WHY DO WE HAVE THE PROBLEMS, JEREMY?

WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT RESIDENCY?

>> THIS IS UNIQUE WITH POLITICIANS OUT HERE.

THERE'S A LOT OF GIVE TO RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS.

I'VE SEEN THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

THIS IS A THREE-YEAR REQUIREMENT, IRONCLAD IN THE CONSTITUTION.

BEEN THERE SINCE 1912.

THIS IS POTENTIALLY PROBLEMATIC, IF REPUBLICANS END UP WITH ONE CANDIDATE FOR TWO SEATS IN A DISTRICT THAT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR REPUBLICANS TO LOSE.

SUCH A DEEP RED AREA, BUT THERE'S A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR THE HOUSE THERE, SO THIS IS POTENTIALLY WORRISOME IN A YEAR WHERE WHOEVER WINS CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT BE A ONE-VOTE MARGIN.

TED: CAN THEY REPLACE HIM?

IS THERE A RULE THAT YOU CAN'T REPLACE HIM?

>> THERE'S A LAWSUIT THAT HAS BEEN FILED TO HAVE THE COURT DECLARE HIM INELIGIBLE TO SERVE.

HIS NAME IS GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT.

COUNT ALL OF THE BALLOTS.

IF HE GETS ENOUGH TO WIN A HOUSE SEAT, HE'LL BE FOUND TO BE INELIGIBLE, BECAUSE HE WAS ELECTED AS A REPUBLICAN, THE COUNTY BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS HAVE TO APPOINT A REPUBLICAN TO REPLACE HIM.

I THINK THE INITIAL THOUGHT IS THIS COULD BE AN EASY PICKUP FOR DEMOCRATS.

IF THE LAWSUIT PROCEEDS, MAYBE NOT.

TED: SO IF YOU LIVE IN QUEEN CREEK, YOU COULD VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WON'T SERVE AND MAYBE VOTE FOR A BALLOT MEASURE THAT WON'T BE ALLOWED TO GO INTO EFFECT.

[LAUGHTER] >> SO MUCH FOR EVERY VOTE MATTERS.

TED: PANEL, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

I'M TED SIMONS.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

YOU HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.