>>> COMING UP NEXT ON ARIZONA MORE RISE SONG...

IT'S THE JOURNALISTS' ROUNDTABLE.

WE'LL LOOK AT THE WEEK'S TOP STORIES, INCLUDING THE RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF THIS WEEK'S PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE ELECTION.

THE JOURNALISTS' ROUNDTABLE IS NEXT, ON ARIZONA HORIZON.

GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO ARIZONA HORIZON.

I'M TED SIMONS.

IT'S FRIDAY AND THAT MEANS IT'S TIME FOR ANOTHER EDITION OF THE JOURNALISTS' ROUNDTABLE.

JOINING US TONIGHT: MARY JO PITZL OF THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC AND AZCENTRAL.COM... JEREMY DUDA OF AXIOS PHOENIX... AND MARK BRODIE OF KJZZ RADIO.

PANEL, GOOD HAVE YOU ALL HERE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

MARY-JO, WE'LL START WITH YOU, AND WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN A BIG STORY WASN'T BECAUSE WE KIND OF KNEW WHAT WAS GOING GOING TO HAPPEN HERE BUT WE DID HAVE A PRESIDENTIAL PREFACE THIS WEEK.

>> YES, WE DID.

THE WINNERS WERE DONALD TRUMP IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY AND JOE BIDEN IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.

>> NIKKI HALEY GETTING 20% OF THE VOTE.

WHAT DO WE MAKE OF THAT ON THE G.O.P.

SIDE?

>> I THINK THAT SHOWS THAT THERE'S SOME ANTI-TRUMP SENTIMENT.

WE'VE SUSTAIN IN OTHER EARLY PRIMARY STATES, AS WELL.

WHETHER THOSE PEOPLE ARE ALL REPUBLICANS OR WHETHER THEY'RE MAYBE INDEPENDENTS WHO REGISTERED TO VOTE AS REPUBLICAN SO THEY COULD CAST A BALLOT IN THIS IT'S HARD TO TELL.

>> I THINK EARLY VOTING, WHEN EARLY VOTING STARTED, SHE WAS STILL ON THE BALLOT, WAS SHE NOT?

>> YES.

SHE DID SUSPEND HER CAMPAIGN UNTIL ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH EARLY VOTING.

SO, IT'S -- TO REALLY SEE IF THERE'S PROBLEMS FOR TRUMP DOWN THE ROAD, YOU KIND OF HAVE TO KNOW WHEN DID A LOT OF THE VOTES COME IN.

WERE PEOPLE STILL VOTING FOR HER AS A PROTEST VOTE AFTER SHE SUSPENDED HER CAMPAIGN?

I KNOW THE INITIAL RESULTS THAT CAME OUT AT 8:00 WERE ALL OF THE EARLY BALLOTS.

YOU KNOW, HALEY'S VOTE TOTAL, HER PERCENTAGE WAS A BIT HIGHER THAN IT ENDED UP BEING WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT THE ELECTION DAY VOTES THAT CAME IN WERE PREDOMINATELY FAVORED TRUMP MORE THAN THE EARLY VOTES.

>> BUT STILL IN ALL, SHE'S OBVIOUSLY ON THE BALLOT.

AND THE EARLY VOTES SHOWED THERE WAS SOME ERROR THERE, TWHREABILITY?

>> IT FEELS LIKE THERE WAS.

THE BIG QUESTION, WHAT I KEEP HEARING IS WHAT WILL ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T VOTE FOR EITHER BIDEN OR TRUMP DO COME SNOW WILL THEY COME HOME TO THEIR PARTY'S NOMINEE.

WILL THEY SIT IT OUT OR JUST SIT OUT THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE?

OR, YOU KNOW, WILL THEY CROSS AND VOTE FOR THE PERSON OF THE OTHER TICKET, AND, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD AFFECT BOTH PRESIDENTIAL RACE AND ALSO DOWN-BALLOT RACES ESPECIALLY IF SOME NUMBER OF THOSE VOTERS DECIDE TO JUST NOT VOTE IN NOVEMBER BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST NOT HAPPY WITH THEIR CHOICES IN THE PRESIDENTIAL TICKET.

>> DID WE HEAR ABOUT ANY ELECTION PROBLEMS, LONG LINES, MACHINES NOT WORKING, ET CETERA, ET CETERA?

>> NO.

I MEAN, THERE WERE LITTLE THINGS, SOMEBODY FORGOT THE KEYS TO THE POLLING PLACE UP IN NAVAJO COUNTY ON THE RESERVATION.

BUT, NO, THE MECHANICS IT APPEARED WORKED PRETTY WELL, QUITE SMOOTHLY, AND THEY EITHER GOT REALLY LUCKY OR WHEN YOU ADD IN A LOT OF PEOPLE, THAT BRINGS ON PROBLEMS.

>> ANY SIGNS, ANY HOWLING OF ELECTION RIGGING OR THAT KIND OF BUSINESS?

>> NO.

I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING FROM THE FOLKS WHO MOST LIKELY MIGHT MAKE SUCH CLAIMS, ONE PRETTY HEAVILY, SO THAT PROBABLY HELPS.

>> ALL RIGHT, WE CAN MOVE ON, WITH WE HAVE GOT OUR WINNERS.

MARY-JO, COMING HOBBS VETOES A HOUSING BILL, AND THIS -- GOVERNOR HOBBS, GIVE US AN OVERVIEW ON THE BILL, WHO IS FOR IT AND WHO IS AGAINST IT, AND WHY DID SHE VETO IT?

>> IT WAS CALLED THE ARIZONA STARTER HOMES ACT, AND IT WAS INTENDED TO PEEL BACK SOME OF THE REGULATIONS THAT CAN ADD TO THE COST OF BUILDING A HOME, SUCH AS TAKING AWAY MINIMUM SETBACKS, HOW FAR BACK OFF OF THE STREET MUST A STRUCTURE BE.

ACTUALLY GETTING RID OF A LOT OF THE ZONING CONTROLS TO CONSTRUCTION.

WE THOUGHT THAT'LL LOWER THE PRICE TAG, AND SO WE'LL GET MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND THIS GETS SUPPORT FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.

AN INTERESTING MIX OF REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, AND MOST NOTABLY ON THE OTHER SIDE, WITH THE LEAGUE OF CITIES, YOU KNOW, WHICH WAS STANDING UP SAYING WE JUST CAN'T.

WE CAN'T EVEN NEGOTIATE ON ANYTHING THAT WOULD TAKE AWAY ZONES.

THEY HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS, PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY IN HOMES IN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS THAT, YOU KNOW, WERE WARY OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU TAKE AWAY THAT LOCAL LEVEL OF CONTROL AND LET THE LEGENDERS SET ALL THE RULES.

>> AND WE HEARD BUREAUCRATS ARE AGAINST THIS, BUT ELECTED OFFICIALS AREN'T.

THERE WERE SOME -- >> THE LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS BROUGHT OUT A BUNCH OF MAYORS INCLUDING THE MAYOR OF MESA AND A NUMBER OF OTHERS SAYING BASICALLY WHAT MARY-JO JUST SAID, THAT THIS IS TAKING AWAY WHAT IS OUR JOB, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, GOVERNMENT CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE DEALING WITH WHAT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS WANT, WHAT OUR COMMUNITIES WANT IN MAKING ONE UNIFORM STATEWIDE THING, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE MAYORS, IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE WANT.

>> AS MARY-JO MENTIONED, SOME DEMOCRATS WERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, NOT THE GOVERNOR.

WHERE WAS THAT DIVIDING LINE.

WHAT WAS THAT ALL ABOUT?

>> THE DIVIDING APPLIANCE KIND OF ALL OVER THE MAP HERE, BIPARTISAN SUPPORTERS AND BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION, EVEN WITHIN THE PARTIES, YOU KNOW, YOU COULDN'T NECESSARILY SEE THE USUAL IDEOLOGICAL FAULT LINES YOU WOULD NORMALLY SEE FOR A LOT OF DEMOCRATS.

YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE HOUSING, YOU KNOW, HOUSE SOMETHING IN SHORT SUPPLY.

I THINK THE STATE IS SHORT NEARLY 300,000 HOUSING UNITS, GETTING MORE AND MORE EXPENSIVE ALL THE TIME, AND THEY THOUGHT THIS WOULD HELP, YOU KNOW, LOWER THE PRICE, CREATE MORE OF A SUPPLY.

IN THE END BE ONLY DEMOCRAT'S OPINION THAT MATTERED MOST WAS KATIE HOBBS.

AND WE'VE HEARD SOME GRUMBLING AMONG DEMOCRATS THAT HER OFFICE ADMINISTRATION WAS NOT REALLY INVOLVED IN THIS, AT LEAST UNTIL LATE IN THE GAME, SHE STARTED SIGNALING HER DISAPPROVAL.

AND I ASKED IF SHE WAS GOING TO GET MORE INVOLVED IN THIS ON MONDAY AND SHE SAID I DON'T THINK THIS REALLY NEEDS MY INVOLVEMENT, SOME OTHER BILLS WORK THEIR WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT SHE SIGNALED SHE COULDN'T SUPPORT.

BUT IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE SHE'S GOING TO TAKE A HANDS-ON APPROACH, JUST LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY AND SEE WHAT LANDS ON HER DESK.

>> IS THAT WHY SHE WAITED SO LONG TO VETO THIS?

>> SHE PLAYED OUT THE CLOCK ON THAT, I THINK PROBABLY -- I ASSUME SHE WANTED TO HEAR FROM ALL SIDES ON IT.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALSO -- I MEAN, I'D BE SURPRISED IF SHE JUST LET IT GO.

SHE DID TALK ABOUT NEEDING TO ADDRESS HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS IN HER STATE OF STATE ADDRESS.

AND NOW THERE'S NOT A LOT TO SHOW FOR IT.

MAYBE SOME WILL COME OUT IN THE BUDGET.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE A ROBUST BUDGET YEAR COMING AT US.

SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE.

AND THERE ARE OTHER BUSINESS OUT THERE THAT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, COBBLE TOGETHER AND MAYBE MAKE A LITTLE BIT OF PROGRESS.

AND I MUST SAY ON THE STARTER HOME, I LOOKED AT THAT AND THOUGHT, WELL, I UNDERSTAND YOU REDUCE SETBACKS, ET CETERA, BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY GUARANTEE THAT BUILDERS WILL PUT UP, YOU KNOW, AN AFFORDABLE HOME.

>> AND THEY'RE NOT ALLOWING CITIES TO REQUIRE MINIMUM HOME SIZES NO, HOAs REQUIREMENT, THAT SORT OF THING.

AGAIN, THE PUBLIC IS PUSHING FOR THIS, WE'RE SAYING THE MARKET WILL THEN ALLOW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

BUT THE CRITICS ARE SAYING, YEAH, BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT, AND IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THAT.

>> TO MARY-JO'S POINT, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

THE BILL DID NOT SAY SPECIFICALLY THE HOMES CAN'T BE ABOVE THIS PRICE OR HAS TO BE WITHIN THIS RANGE OF PRICES.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAD ONE OF THE SUPPORTERS OF THIS BILL, ANNALISE ORTISE WHO REPRESENTED ON THIS WEEK, AND SHE MENTIONED THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BASICALLY START OVER AND TRY TO WORK ON SOMETHING NEW BETWEEN THE LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES AND TOWNS AND SUPPORTERS THIS BILL.

AND SHE SEEMED CONFIDENT THAT THEY COULD POTENTIALLY STILL GET SOMETHING DONE THIS YEAR ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THAT.

>> TRUE.

THERE ARE STILL A FEW OTHER HOUSE BILLS, BARRING STRIKING OTHER AMENDMENTS AND OTHER HIJINKS WE MAY SEE LATER IN THE SESSION.

I THINK ONE A LOT OF FOLKS HAVE POINTED TO IS, MISSING -- HOUSING THAT WOULD ALLOW CITIES OVER A CERTAIN SIZE TO ALLOW DUPLEXES, TOWNHOMES ON SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.

THE GOVERNOR MENTIONED THAT IS SOMETHING SHE COULD POTENTIALLY SUPPORT.

I SPOKE THE OTHER DAY WITH DOUG NAPLES, PRESIDENT OF THE LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS POINTED IT WITH MAYBE SOME CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS, SOMETHING THEY'D BE WILLING TO GET BEHIND IF NEGOTIATIONS GO RIGHT.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER BILLS, AS WELL.

BUT THAT CERTAINLY SEEMS KINDS OF PROMISING.

BUT AS REPRESENTATIVE ORTISE POINTED OUT, SHE SAID THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT DEALS WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, KIND OF CUTS TO THE HEART OF WHAT A LOT OF LAWMAKERS ARE TALKING ABOUT, LIKE THIS COULD BE THE AMERICAN DREAM, OWNING YOUR OWN HOME LIKE YOUR PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS DID, AND THAT'S WHAT A LOT OF THESE FOLKS WANT TO SEE.

>> ALL RIGHT, MARY-JO, WHO IS EVA BIRCH AND WHY DID SHE MAKE NATIONAL HEADLINES THIS WEEK?

>> SHE'S A FRESHMAN DEMOCRATIC CENTER FROM MESA.

SHE'S ALSO A NURSE BY TRAINING, AND SHE STOOD UP ON MONDAY AND GAVE A SPEECH ABOUT WHY SHE HAS HE SCHEDULED AN ABORTION.

SHE HAS A PREGNANCY THAT IS NOT GOING WELL AND THAT WILL NOT BE VIABLE, AND TALKED ABOUT THE DECISION THAT SHE AND HER FAMILY MADE TO TAKE THIS STEP.

IT'S NOT AN UNKNOWN THING THAT SHE'S BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE.

SHE WANT TOAD SHARE HER STORY, BECAUSE SHE KEPT SAYING IT'S REALLY -- I DON'T OWE AN EXPLANATION TO ANYBODY FOR THE DECISION THAT I'M MAKING, BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE LAWS THAT WE PASSED OUT THIS PLACE, THE LEGISLATURE, WHAT THAT REQUIRES.

AND SHE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE REQUIREMENT TO TAKE A SECOND -- HAVE A SECOND VAULT SOUND DONE TO GET A LITTLE SPEECH ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ALTERNATIVES TO ABORTION.

YOU KNOW, TO BE ASKED AGAIN, ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO DO THIS.

THESE KINDS OF THINGS.

HER POINT IS THAT THIS ISN'T THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

AND THEY SHOULD STAY OUT IT.

>> YEAH, SHE BASICALLY OUTLINED EVERYTHING THAT SHE HAD TO GO THROUGH AND SAID TO THE ALTERNATIVES, THOSE WERE NOT ALTERNATIVES FOR HER IN THIS CASE.

>> RIGHT, SHE HAD SAID HER PREGNANCY WAS NOT VIABLE, IS SOMETHING LIKE ADOPTION IS CLEARLY NOT AN ISSUE FOR HER.

BUT SHE ALSO MENTIONED THAT, YOU KNOW, SHE HOPES THAT VOTERS HAVE A SAY ON THIS IN NOVEMBER WHEN VOTERS VERY WELL COULD DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO PUT ABORTION RIGHTS INTO STATE LAW.

>> SHE CALLED THE LEGISLATURE, THE LAW IS CRUEL, AND THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS FAILED THE PEOPLE.

>> AND TALKING POINTS AT THE LEGISLATURE FOR MANY YEARS AMONG ABORTION RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND NOW IT SEEMS A BIT MORE POIGNANT WHEN HAVE YOU THIS ISSUE MOST LIKELY GOING ON THE BALLOT, YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, LANDMARK SUPERIOR COURT RULINGS HAPPENING AND THESE ARE THINGS THAT I I THINK WILL PROBABLY BECOME FRONT AND CENTER AND SOMETHING THAT HELPED INSPIRE SENATOR BUMPER'S DECISION TO GO BE VERY PUBLIC ABOUT THIS, WHICH WAS REFERRED TO AS CRUEL LAWS, WHICH REALLY ARE OBSTACLES, KIND OF EXTRA STEPS, YOU KNOW, TO DISSUADE OR LIMIT ABORTIONS OR GET THEM TO HAVE SECOND THOUGHTS OR CONVINCE THEM TO DO OTHER THINGS.

AND TO SENATOR BIRCH'S POINT AND HER ALLIES WHO SHARE HER VIEW IS, AS WE SAID, THIS IS NOT -- THEY BELIEVE IT'S NOT THE GOLF'S POSITION TO GET IN THE WAY OF A WOMAN'S DECISION.

IT'S BETWEEN HER AND HER DOCTOR.

>> LAST POINT ON THIS, MARY-JO, SHE SAID IN COURT THE MEANINGFUL CONVERSATIONS ARE NEEDED ABOUT HOW WHAT THE LEGISLATURE DOES IMPACTS PEOPLE IN THE REAL WORLD.

HOW FAR DOES SOMETHING LIKE THAT GO DOWN THERE?

>> OH, HOW FAR DOES IT GO WITH THE LEGISLATURE?

>> YES.

>> WELL, ONE REPUBLICAN SENATOR CAME OVER AND CONSOLED HER, AND EVERYBODY ELSE SORT OF DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, WHILE THE DEMOCRATS CLUSTERED AROUND HER TO SHOW SUPPORT.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING SO VERY PERSONAL WITH PEOPLE THAT YOU WORK WITH EVERY DAY, AND TO SORT OF GET SILENCED AS A REACTION, PERHAPS TELLS US THAT WE'RE PROBABLY NOT GONNA SEE A LOT OF LEGISLATION THAT SHE MIGHT LIKE TO SEE COMING OUT THIS CURRENT LEGISLATURE.

BUT, BOY IT'S SURE TAKEN OFF NATIONALLY.

>> I WAS GONNA SAY, THE NATIONAL PRESS HAS REALLY CAUGHT THIS STORY.

>>> ALL RIGHT, HE LET'S MOVE ON HERE.

GEM MA HUNG, WE PROBABLY KNEW YEE.

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE LEGISLATURE?

>> HE WASN'T HERE VERY LONG, THE STORY THAT MARY JO WROTE, ABOUT HOW HE WAS ACCUSED OF SOME SEXUAL VIOLENCE, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WHEN HE WAS BACK IN COLLEGE AT GEORGE WASHINGTON D.C. AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT HE WASN'T -- THERE ARE HE -- HE WASN'T IN TROUBLE LEGALLY, NECESSARILY.

>> NOTHING WITH POLICE OR LAW.

>> RIGHT.

BUT THERE WAS SOME UNIVERSITY SANCTIONS IN TERMS OF NOT BEING ABLE TO BE THERE AND CERTAINLY A RECORD OF IT NOW.

BUT DEFINITELY NOT A GREAT LOOK, AND IT DID NOT TAKE LONG AFTER YOUR STORY ANNOUNCED HE WAS LEAVING.

>> AND WHAT GOT YOU ON THIS STORY, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN OUT THERE PREVIOUSLY, AND THAT MAY BE WHY HOBBS WASN'T CONSIDERED A CANDIDATE FOR -- I WON'T GO THAT FAR.

BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT GOT YOU ON THIS THING?

>> I GOT A PHONE CALL.

AND I THINK WHAT STARTED IT WAS, IF YOU REMEMBER REPRESENTATIVE ALM OWE N FROM TEMPE HAD RESIGNED SO WE STARTED THIS PROCESS TO REPLACE HER.

I WAS WRITING THE STORIES ABOUT THAT.

SO WERE OTHERS, AND HUSSEIN GOT IN THE PAPER, AND ONE OF THE VICTIM'S FRIENDS SAW IT, AND SORT OF PASSED THAT ALONG.

AND PLUS, I THINK THIS YOUNG WOMAN WAS GOOGLY AND, YOU KNOW, FROM TIME TO TIME JUST A TRAUMATIC EVENT IN HER LIFE AND SHE'S TRIED TO KEEP TRACK THE WHERE SHE WAS AT, SHE WAS GOOGLING.

BUT AS FAR AS I KNOW I WAS THE ONLY JOURNALIST SHE HAS SPOKEN TO.

SHE SAID SHE HAD' FRIEND CALL IN EARLY 2023 AFTER HODGE HAD, YOU KNOW, LOST BUT VERY NARROWLY, A BID FOR CONGRESS.

SO WE GOT ON TO IT THROUGH A PHONE CALL.

AND SINCE WE'VE HEARD, OH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF WHISPERING OUT THERE NOW, BUT I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING BEFORE THAT, AND GIVEN THAT HE RAN FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN 2020 AND CONGRESS THEY 2022 IN A VERY TIGHT RACE, YOU'D THINK IF THIS KIND OF STUFF WAS OUT THERE, IT MIGHT HAVE COME OUT.

>> BUT THE QUESTION WHY HE WASN'T RUNNING IN 2024, AND COULD THAT BE A FACTOR HERE?

OR IS THAT JUST -- >> I MEAN, IT'S HARD TO SAY, I ALWAYS ASSUMED THAT PROBABLY THE REASON WAS THAT THEY WERE STRONGER CANDIDATES IN THE RACE, IN 2022 DEMOCRATS EXPECTED THAT THE REPUBLICANS WERE GOING TO RUN THE TABLE IN THAT MIDTERM AND TURNED OUT TO NOT BE THE CASE.

BUT IT ENDED UP BEING A LITTLE TOO LATE FOR DEMOCRATS WHO MIGHT HAVE OTHERWISE RUN FOR THIS VERY COMPETITIVE SEAT TO KIND OF CHANGE YOUR MIND.

YOU CAN'T CHANGE YOUR MIND RETROACTIVE, SEEMED LIKE HODGE WAS KINDS OF THE UP AND RUNNING NEW GUY IN THE PARTY.

HE GOT IN THE RACE FOR CONGRESS, 2000 VOTES OR SO I THINK HE WON IN THE RACE FOR THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATS.

REALLY DIDN'T SPEND ANY MONEY BECAUSE THEY DID NOT EXPECT TO BE COMPETITIVE THERE.

SO I KIND OF VIEW THAT MORE AS THE REASONS WHY HE WASN'T RUNNING THIS YEAR.

BUT WHO KNOWS IF A WOMAN MADE A CALL AND MAYBE THINGS GOT BACK, MAYBE THERE WERE OMENS AND THINGS COMING UP.

IN THAT CASE, YOU CAN MAYBE -- WHY PUT YOUR NAME IN THE HAT FOR ANYTHING?

>> YEAH, I MEAN, TO HIS CREDIT, HE SAID THAT, NO, HE NEVER HEARD FROM ANYBODY AT THE DCCC AFTER THIS CALL WAS MADE EARLY IN '23.

AND ABOUT 2 MONTHS LATER HE DID ANNOUNCE HE WAS NOT GOING TO RUN AGAIN IN '24.

HE SAYS HE NEVER HEARD FROM ANYBODY AFFILIATED WITH THE DCCC AND THE REASON HE DIDN'T LEARN IS BECAUSE HE'S BROKE.

COST A LOT OF MONEY TO RUN A CAMPAIGN.

>> AND HE UNEQUIVOCALLY DENIES THESE ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS.

>> RIGHT.

IN HIS STATEMENT THAT HE WAS STEPPING DOWN, HE DID SAY, AS YOU SAID, THAT YOUY EQUIVOCALLY DENIED THEM, BUT STILL ALSO SAID, YOU KNOW, IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, TO STEP DOWN.

IT SOUNDS LIKE HE'S GOING TO TRY TO CONTINUE HIS WORK, YOU KNOW, IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

WE'LL SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT HE'S ABLE TO DO THERE, GIVEN ALL OF THESE ALLEGATIONS IN THE REPORTS.

>> YEAH, AS FAR AS A POLITICAL FUTURE IS CONCERNED.

>>> LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON BETWEEN THE SENATE PRESIDENT AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE REGARDING CONTINUUM RESOLUTION 2060, WHICH WOULD HAVE GONE TO THE VOTERS IF IT HAD GOTTEN SOME ATTENTION THERE.

WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT?

>> 2060 PRETTY MUCH THE PREMIER PIECE OF LEGISLATION FROM HOUSE SPEAKER BEN TOMAH, WHO JUST HAPPENS TO BE RUNNING FOR CONGRESS THIS YEAR.

IT'S INTEGRATION RELATED.

IT WOULD TOUGHEN REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T HIRE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT IN THE COUNTRY LEGALLY.

IT SEEMED TO BE SAILING ALONG.

IT'S A PRIME, YOU KNOW -- PRIME PIECE OF LEGISLATION FOR REPUBLICANS, IN AN ELECTION YEAR WHERE IMMIGRATION IS A BIG ISSUE.

BUT IT GOT OVER TO THE SENATE AND JUST STALLED, AND SENATE PRESIDENT PETERSON SAID, WELL, IT NEEDED WORK.

WE'RE HEARING SOME COMPLAINTS FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, WHICH IS UNDERSTANDABLE.

THEY'VE BEEN UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS PROGRAM IN THE PAST.

AND TIME'S RUN OUT, YOU KNOW, ONG -- NOT THAT PETERSON SAID THIS, BUT OTHERS OBSERVED THAT TOMAH WAS OUT OF TOWN FOR A WEEK ON A TRIP THAT A LOT OF HOUSE MEMBERS MADE TO ISRAEL.

SO -- AND THEN THE DEE NAPPICS BEHIND IT IS THAT WHEN PETERSON SAID HE'S NOT -- THE DYNAMICS BEHIND IT IS WHEN PETERSON SAYS HE'S NOT FAVORING ANYBODY IN THE RACE BUT ONE OF THE CKS MEMBERS ARE RUNNING, ANOTHER ENDORSED BY TRUMP IS RUNNING, SO IS TOMAH.

YOU GOTTA WONDER WHERE THE PRESIDENT'S LOYALTIES MIGHT LIE, EVEN THOUGH HE DOESN'T GET TO VOTE IN THAT ONE.

>> YEAH.

THAT'S A LOT OF ENTRY GOING ON THERE, IT SEEMS LIKE.

>> AND I THINK FOR MOST OF US WHO HAVE BEEN AROUND, WHO KNOW WHO THESE FOLKS ARE, WOULD HAVE EXPECTED, YOU KNOW, PETERSON TO MAYBE THE ONE WHO'S PUSHING SOME LEGAL IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION, MAYBE GIVE IT ON SOMEONE ELSE ON PERHAPS OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY.

KIND OF COMES FROM THAT WING OF THE PARTY, NOT NECESSARILY THE FOOD CKS BUT THEY NEED TO BE HEARD FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, HAVEN'T ALWAYS SEEN EYE TO EYE BUT THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY DID HAVE SOME CONCERNS.

THE PROGRAM IS NOT ACTUALLY OPEN FOR THE KINDS OF USES THAT THIS LEGISLATION WOULD PERMIT, MY UNDERSTAND SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO USE IT ONLY FOR HIRING EMPLOYEES, NOT FOR CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, CERTAINLY NOT FOR GOVERNMENT ENTITIES USING THEM FOR BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR LICENSING OR WELFARE BENEFITS.

AND SO THAT'S KIND OF A VERY FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE, AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THAT'S THE, YOU KNOW, PROBLEM HERE, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO WORK AROUND NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME HAVE YOU, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ANYONE HAD MADE ANY PROGRESS TRYING TO FIND ANY KIND OF ALTERNATIVE.

>> YOU ALSO HAD THE BORDER INVASION ACT WHICH WAS STREET OLD, AND NOW THERE'S TALK OF THE BORDER INVASION ACT RE-DO.

WHERE DOES THAT FIT INTO ALL THIS?

>> WELL, I THINK THE REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING, YES, YES AND... TO ALL OF THESE.

THERE'S A NUMBER OF BORDER-RELATED BILLS.

THERE'S AT LEAST ONE, MAYBE MORE OF SIMILAR BILLS TO THE VOTER INVASION ACT THAT THE REPUBLICANS PLAN TO SEND TO THE GOVERNMENT, PRESUMABLY TO VETO AGAIN.

THERE'S BEEN TALK OF MAYBE TURN TALKING INTO A BALLOT REFERRAL TO BYPASS THE GOVERNOR AND LET THE VOTERS VOTE ON IT.

THE THING THAT STRUCK ME ABOUT THIS ISSUE IS THAT IT WAS, YOU KNOW, UNVEILED WITH GREAT FANFARE WHICH HOUSE SPEAKER BEN TOMAH A LITTLE WHILE BACK.

IT EASILY CLEARED THE HOUSE LIKE VERY, VERY QUICKLY.

AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN JUST NOTHING IN THE SENATE.

AND THAT RAISES -- >> WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP LIKE NOW?

HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN -- I MEAN, IS IT WORSENING?

WHAT'S GOING ON BETWEEN THE SPEAKER AND THE PRESIDENT?

>> IT'S HARD TO SAY.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THEY WORK TOGETHER ON THINGS.

MY GOODNESS THEY ARE COPLAINTIFFS ON A NUMBER OF LAWSUITS OR, YOU KNOW, WITH BRIEFS, BUT THEY HAVE VERY DIFFERENT CAUCUSES.

TOMAH HE'S GOT A REAL JOB TO DO TO TRY TO KEEP HIS CKS TOGETHER, NOT SO DIFFICULT FOR PETERSON OVER THERE, AND THAT GIVES PRESIDENT PETERSON A LITTLE MORE LEEWAY TO MOVE THINGS ALONG AND JUST PERSONALITY WISE, TOMAH IS A LITTLE SOFTER SPOKEN, DOESN'T GET INTO -- DOESN'T SEEM TO ENJOY A LOT OF THE POLITICAL GAMES THAT WE SEE PLAYED AT THE LEGISLATURE, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, PRESIDENT PETERSON IS ENJOYING THE POSITION HE HAS AND THE KIND OF INFLUENCE HE CAN YIELD.

>> WHAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP FROM HERE ON IN BETWEEN THESE TWO?

>> DEFINITELY THROW A WRENCH IN THINGS.

POLICY WIDE, IT FEELS LIKE THEY'VE BEEN ON THE SAME PAGE PRETTY MUCH, YOU KNOW, SINCE THE TWO OF THEM HELD THESE POSITIONS SINCE AFTER THE 2022 ELECTION.

THEY PUT UP A UNITED FRONT AGAINST GOVERNOR HOBBS, YOU KNOW, SEEMS LIKE ALMOST EVERY CHANCE THEY GET.

MAYBE IT'S MORE BEHIND-THE-SCENES, PROCEDURAL STUFF THEY HAVEN'T ALWAYS GOT ALONG.

WE SAW SOME FRICTION LAST YEAR HE OVER THE VERY EXTENDED KIND OF BIZARRE PAUSES THE LEGISLATURE WAS TAKING FOR REASONS THAT STILL DON'T MAKE A HECK OF A LOT OF SENSE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THE SESSIONS'S FAR FROM OVER.

THEY HAVE TO NEGOTIATE A BUDGET.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT UP A UNITE FRONT AGAINST HOBBS ON THAT ONE, AS WELL.

SO IF THEY'RE OUT, THERE THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING PUT THEIR DIFFERENCES ASIDE AND KIND OF MOVE FORWARD AND PUT UP A UNITED FRONT BETWEEN THOSE.

THERE MIGHT BE SOME OTHER ISSUES THAT COME UP AFTER ALL.

>> I THINK WE'LL SEE MORE OF THOSE PAUSES TOO, THIS YEAR WHICH IS GOING TO MAKE IT REALLY HARD TO PLAN TIME OFF, SPEAKING SELFISHLY.

>> AND DIFFICULT TO PLAN A CAMPAIGN FOR FOLKS, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT THE PRIMARY'S A WEEK EARLIER THAN EVERYONE WAS EXPECTING.

>> LET'S END HERE WITH A DUAL LANGUAGE LEARNING LAWSUIT.

WE GOT ONE FROM AN PARENT, BUT THE PARENT'S NOT NECESSARILY IN THE DISTRICT THAT WAS BEING SUED.

>> NO, THEY'RE NOT.

THE MIDNIGHT A CHILD IN THE SCOTTSDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

THE LAWSUIT IS AGAINST THE CREIGHTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY TWO VERY DIFFERENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

THIS STEMS FROM A VOTER INITIATIVE THAT BASICALLY SAID ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDENTS -- STUDENTS WHO NEED TO LEARN ENGLISH NEED TO BE TAUGHT IN ENGLISH, AND THAT'S KIND OF IT.

THERE WERE A LOT OF STUDIES THAT SHOWED AFTER THAT THAT THAT WASN'T THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO TEACH THESE STUDENTS.

THEY WERE GETTING BEHIND IN OTHER ACADEMICS WHILE THEY WERE TRYING TO LEARN ENGLISH, SO THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND THEN GOVERNOR DUCEY APPROVED A LAW ALLOWING THE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO COME UP WITH OTHER MODELS.

ONE OF THOSE IS THIS DUAL LANGUAGE MODEL WHICH A HANDFUL OF DISTRICTS AROUND THE STATE USE AND IS NOW THE SUBJECT THIS LAWSUIT.

>> AND SUPERINTENDENT TOM HORN REALLY, REALLY DOESN'T LIKE THIS MODEL.

>> NO, HE DOES NOT.

HE DISLIKES IT SO MUCH THAT FIRST HE FILED A LAWSUIT HIMSELF TO BLOCK IT AND THAT GOT TOSSED OUT BECAUSE HE?

REALLY HAVE STANDING.

SO THEN HE FOUND THIS PARENT, AND I GUESS FOUND HIS WIFE, WHO'S AN ATTORNEY, TO HANDLE A CASE.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT NOW.

>> CAN YOU BE A SCOTTSDALE PARENT OF A SCOTTSDALE STUDENT AND HAVE STANDING TO FILE SUIT AGAINST A PHOENIX SCHOOL DISTRICT?

DOES THAT -- IS THAT FAIR?

>> WELL, I'M NOT A LEGAL PERSON, BUT -- >> I BELIEVE ANYONE WOULD HAVE STANDING UNDER THAT LAW BECAUSE -- >> BECAUSE IT WAS AN INITIATIVE STATEWIDE.

>> AND DIFFERENT LAWS AND DIFFERENT STIPULATIONS WITH THAT BUT I THINK ANYONE IN THE STATE CAN SUE AND -- I MEAN, IF NOT, WE'LL FIND OUT AGAIN SOON BECAUSE IT WILL GET TOSSED OUT FOR A SECOND TIME, AND THEN TOM HORN AND ALL OF THEM CAN FIND SOMEBODY IN THE CREIGHTON DISTRICT IF HE WANTS TO GO TO COURT.

>> WELL, EVERYONE'S SPOKEN TO TOM HORN.

HE INSISTS THAT THE ENGLISH-ONLY MODEL, ENGLISH-ONLY PROGRAM, THESE THINGS ARE SIMPLY BETTER.

STUDIES SHOW THEY'RE BETTER.

WHY -- WHEN HAVE YOU BOOTS ON THE GROUND, PEOPLE IN THE CLASSROOM SAYING WE PREFER X, WHY IS HE STICK SO HARD TO Y?

>> THIS HAS BEEN TOM HORN'S ISSUE FOR, YOU KNOW, PRACTICALLY -- MORE THAN 20 YEARS, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT.

HE WAS IN THE LEGISLATURE BACK IN THE '90s, FIRST GOT ELECTED SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION IN 2002, NOT LONG AFTER THIS LAW INITIALLY PASSED, AND HE HAS BEEN ON THAT TRAIN REALLY THE ENTIRE WAY.

I MEAN, THE ENGLISH LEARNER LAWSUITS MAJOR LANDMARK DECISION THAT HE'S BEEN A PART MUCH -- BACK DURING HIS FIRST TENURE AS SUPERINTENDENT AND THIS IS JUST AN ISSUE HE FEELS VERY STRONGLY ABOUT BE OBVIOUSLY, AND EVEN THOUGH THINGS PROGRAMS THAT WERE OKAYED, HE DOES NOT SEE EYE TO EYE WITH THOSE FOLKS.

>> IS THIS SOMETHING THAT COULD POSSIBLY RESONATE AT THE LEGISLATURE?

, WOULD THEY TAKE THIS UP IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM?

OR IS THIS JUST TOM HORN'S WIN?

>> IT'S TOO LATE NOW.

>> SO WERE THERE RUMBLING, YOU KNOW, TOO MANY SCHOOLS ARE GOING WITH THIS MODEL AND THEY CAN'T LET THIS HAPPEN -- >> NO.

I DIDN'T SEE ANY LEGISLATION THAT WAS INTRODUCED THAT ADDRESSED THAT.

IT'S SORT OF HIS GAME.

>> AND THEY DID INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO TRY TO ALLOW THIS KIND OF MODEL, DEFINITELY, YEARS AGO.

AND I THINK ONE OF HORN'S POINTS IS THAT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU NEED TO AMEND A VOTER APPROVED INITIATIVE, WHICH IS A SUPER MAJORITY, AND IT HAS TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE.

HIS POINT IS THAT IF THE VOTERS WANTED TO MAKE SURE STUDENT THATS WHO NEEDED TO LEARN ENGLISH ONLY WERE TAUGHT IN ENGLISH, ALLOWING THEM TO LEARN IN THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE DOES NOT FURTHER THAT.

SO THAT -- ON A LEGAL FRONT, THAT'S ONE OF HIS ARGUMENTS, SORT OF ASIDE FROM WHETHER OR NOT THESE PROGRAMS ARE ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE OR NOT.

>> YEAH.

AND I GUESS SINCE NO ONE HERE IS A PRACTICING ATTORNEY, WE CAN'T FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THE COURTS ARE GOING TO SAY, BUT THIS STAYS IN THE HEADLINES THEN, DOESN'T?

>> YEAH.

IT'LL BE -- IF THIS MOVES FORWARD, IF THIS PARENT MOVES FORWARD, IT'LL BE AN INTERESTING CASE.

YOU SEE EXACTLY HOW FAR THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE LEGISLATURE CAN REALLY GO IN KIND OF TINKERING WITH THE VOTER APPROVED LAW.

PANEL, GOOD HAVE YOU HERE.

THANKS FOR JOINING US.

THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

I'M TIEMS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

YOU HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.