>> Coming up on Arizona PBS on Arizona horizon, the journalist's roundtable and the week's top story include the Texas school massacre and how black music sways much of the popular music.

That's ahead on Arizona PBS.

Good evening and welcome.

It's Friday and that means it's time for journalist's roundtable and our guests welcome to our guests tonight.

And good to have you all here and Laurie, the Texas massacre and just a horrendous story and a variety of responses we'll start with the Arizona lawmakers and talk to us about how Arizona senators and how they responded.

>> Well, I think everybody is grieving and everybody is stunned and shocked and though, why should we be?

>> I thought the most interesting responses came from some of our state senators who took to the senate floor and felt the need to explain the reason that this happened.

It was because of the absence of God in our classrooms and because we're a society that embraces abortion and transgender people and the whole litany of the culture wars they decided to bring into this thing and not once did they mention that guns might have had something to do with it.

So that was a little appalling.

But I do think that everybody is angry.

>> Yeah.

>> Seething.

>> Representative Rubin Guyego at Ted Cruz saying watch, Democrats and media saying they'll politicize.

>> His spicey tone oh lit obliterated saying we need gun control and not gun banning and everybody was upset because of his various strident language.

>> Senator Kelly dropped an F bomb saying it's Fing nuts not to do nothing.

>> Yes, uncharacteristic language and from Democrat's perspective, every time this happens and terrible to sit here and talk about every time this happens that they very much want to see action on guns.

Mark Kelly, that's a part of how he got into politics because of the horrible tragedy more than a decade ago involving his wife former Congresswoman Giffords.

>> It's the same old, same old.

There's a divide and I wonder, is it guns?

No, mental health, no, culture, no, guns and why isn't there a conference to help each other.

>> Why is it one of those things?

>> The NRA, they own the republican party, it seems.

If you look at the shocking amount of money they've given to the Congressmen at the local level, they'll carry their water each and every time.

We are at a point we can't even agree to something that is wildly popular and that's universal background checks.

They won't even consider it.

Of course, it wouldn't have helped in this case, but it would have in other cases and just the same old cycle that we're in, this cycle of horror and we can't find our way out of it and we will re-elect everyone of these people.

>> Senator Sinema was asked, is something to reconsider the filibuster because there's something in the way of gun control legislation and it's locked up because the senate can't get passed it and didn't answer the question and said D.C. solutions are not realistic here.

>> I don't think most people think D.C. solutions are or like the sound of that and this is senator Sinema playing the same role she plays every time and devicive issue comes up where the Democrats want to do something that's, obviously, a 50/50 split with vice president Harris and surrounding up support and we'll get to it at the state level and other stuff, but you can't do that without ten republicans on board with senator Sinema and senator Mancion moving anything and that's questionable.

>> D.C. working is code for not breaking the filibuster because she's been asked to work on a bipartisan effort to get an agreement on guns.

So some kind of approach to this and I hope she doesn't walk away from that.

>> Mitch McConnell asked senator John Cornen to talk about the first person and that's senator Sinema and we have senator Paul Gosar.

>> He decided on the night of horror that it was obvious to him from going onto his far right social media sites that this shooter was a trans transsexual -- >> Illegal alien.

>> Doesn't have a shred of evidence and I don't think that the shooter was any of those things, but he decides to, again, further inflame by throwing that out, like a flame thrower and took it down after a few hours, I believe, or Twitter did, but that was his reaction and that was what he most went to when he heard about 19 children, you know, dead on their classroom floor.

>> Strangely enough, not surprising given what else we hear from Congressman Gosar on a regular basis and if it was him and not Twitter, I'm surprised at that and things like that happen surprisingly often with Paul Gosar.

>> Surprisingly silent is Wendy Rogers who had things to say after the buffalo shooter and not weighing in on what happened in use Valida.

Uvalde.

>> Well getYou mentioned red flag laws and this is something they're looking at and on capitol hill, there's a consideration and this has been a consideration at the state capital for some time and why is this still not happening?

>> Well, first of all, describe a red flag law.

>> There's different varieties and if you believe somebody is in eminent danger and someone exhibiting signs, this person is in eminent danger to harm others and take away guns and get a mental health screening and this is something that governor Ducey proposed, which is surprising to see from a republican governor in 2018 after the parkland shooting after that horrific massacre and didn't go anywhere in 2018 or 2019 when it faded away and.

Republicans thought it went too far and didn't want to infringe on second amendment rights and a lot of Democrats thought it didn't go far enough and wanted background checks and they said it was watered down.

Basically, a lot of the positions were, like, if we don't get in, we won't support this either.

Both things combined really doomed this effort.

>> That sounds like perfect legislation, though.

If both sides are against it, something must be right.

>> When he renewed the call in 2019, it was in the aftermath of the El Paso massacre at the Walmart and when we have a big massacre, we come up with this, but the problem with that law, that he suggested and I thought, you know, something is better than nothing, certainly, but to pass it without also there being a requirement for universal background checks, it doesn't make a lot of sense in that I take away your gun and I say, yeah, you're a danger to yourself or others, all you have to do is go to the classified ads and sell guns out of the trunk and buy another one because we don't require a background check.

>> That dynamic Jeremy mentioned, is that going on at the capitol?

>> What has changed over the past few years or past week?

>> In the context of the red flag law.

>> The governor's last term, one month until everything is wrapped up at the capitol and you could make this a priority and I don't want to see a budget or anything until we have agreement on some form of red flag legislation and so those dynamics are different than before.

>> Yeah, what do you think Jeremy in.

>> Whether this is something the governor is willing to pursue, his last session and something where they didn't close the door or push it wide open and the governor would be potentially interested in and talked with me and the governor talked with lawmakers all of the time and this will come up and didn't sound like something he would prioritize and part of that would be a lack of support.

Even if you need -- if the Democrats are on board and when I spoke with the senate democratic leader, absolutely, I would be willing to support this as a stand-alone measure.

Still talked about the other stuff and you would lick to like to get to republicans and one of them has to be speaker bowers and a few years ago, the last time, president Fann was hesitant and the committee chairs were hesitant and especially as the governor spokesman pointed out.

The governor doesn't want to rock a lot of boats and you may need Democrats and republicans for the water plants and priorities to get out of there.

>> Well, we'll see how far that goes and Laurie, it sounds like the governor, talking about the governor, he called out Kari lake.

>> He did.

He said she doesn't know what she's talking about in relation to her repeated criticism of his in action as she sees it at the border.

And he laced into her and said she didn't know what she was talking about and for her own border plans she didn't have new or original ideas and I would add to that much in the way of anything constitutional.

But it was a very interesting signal to see him take off after a candidate in a contested republican race and hinted to our report, Stacie Barchner, he might make an endorsement.

>> The fact he was making this during the primary season and pushing it as far as he was, what are we seeing here?

>> Well, I think some concern about, you know, who will succeed him?

He's.

been eight years with the republican governorship and at least one of the G.O.P candidates might knock down that legacy and the 11th command 11th commandment that you don't speak ill, remember, governor Brewer endorsed Scott Smith over Doug Ducey in 2014 and it's happened before.

>> Worth pointing out that the leadership in the state republican party has very clearly come out for Kari lake.

Even though they say they haven't and two former republican party chairmen this week came out and pretty much called out the party saying, you know, traditionally, we stay neutral because we unite this in the campaign and how do you do that if you've chosen your people and they don't care.

[ Laughter ] >> No, for those of us who have covered Doug deucecy, duecy, he sticks to his talking points go after somebody in his own party.

It's worth remembering, Kari lake has been going after him a long time and a lot of criticism on the border, on Covid response, on just a lot of other things and representing very different wings of the party.

One other thing that's worth pointing out, the governor isn't just the governor of Arizona but the head of the governor's association whose job it is to elect republican governors and if she's the nominee and leading the polls and seemingly leading races from day one, it is up to him to direct the efforts out here to help elect her.

He might feel inclined to maybe not help her, as much, or pretty embargessingprettyembarrassle to lose his own state.

>> If that's the case, that doesn't seem unusual anymore.

>> We shall see if he comes out with an endorsement.

>> Ducey is a cautious governor and does way his words and this is a notable exception.

>> He's still a party man and doesn't want to lose his own state.

>> To a number of long-time republican consultants, people working on polls for decades and while this is certainly the headwinds behind the governor, whoever is running as a republican, of the three candidates, the one most likely to be able to lose to Katie Hobbs, it would be Kari lake and may have an element in there, too, if you want to make sure there's a republican who succeeds you, go with the republican who those who are the experts on the sorts of things and has the chance, you know, will nail it.

>> Sticking with you, the attorney general is not going to defend the state against this early voting suit brought by the republican party and is that a surprise to you?

>> No, but it should be.

It's a stunner when you think about it.

Mary Jo Pitzel saw that motion to withdraw from the case.

He is the people's attorneys and by law, the state's lawyer and he is saying that he won't defend the state.

>> Mary Joe, when you found this, attorney generals, sometimes they are at odds with a position and maybe they don't put all of the gusto in defending or pursuing something, but I'm not going to defend the state against this early voting.

>> We don't know the reasons why and we're guessing and maybe these are pretty good guesses, but it was an agreement between the republican party, which has brought the lawsuit saying that early voting is unconstitutional.

And so this is some of the reasoning, that hey, we have 6 16 other departments and they'll be there to defend it and I think Laurie mentioned this in the columns and we're feeding off of each other.

I remember when the minimum wage increase has passed and it was brought to court by critics of higher minimum wage and getting flack for defending the state.

His office said our job is to defend state and how I might feel individually doesn't really matter.

Put that aside and guess what?

He was successful and minimum wage stance.

>> Let's be honest why he's doing this, running for the U.S. senate and he probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in you nowhere of getting a trump's endorsement and I'm sure he would like to come after hum in him in and he will not do his job in a 31-year-old program wildly popular in his state.

He should resign.

If you don't want to be the attorney general and you want to run full time for the senate, fine, I can respect that.

But you shouldn't act as if you're really an attorney general because you're just not.

He received flack because he wasn't the representative of the secretary of state which is the job of the attorney general.

>> Sure, I remember during his first campaign for attorney general in 2014, he was running and one of the lines he used, he pressed on, are you going to be willing to defend laws you disagree with and pointing to answerantiabortion right's laws which laws restricting that and to defend the the laws of the state.

This is certainly not the first time we've seen that and there's a law about precinct committee men that went to court and filed in Yavapai county and we agree this law is not constitutional and agree with the plaintiffs and there was no one who would speak up and criticize for that.

This is something that 80% plus of people in Arizona vote early and it's a really contrived legal argument in the first place if you talk to attorneys who are experts in election law issues.

We've seen him embrace the big lie, stop of the steel movement and predominant in the republican primary do not like early voting.

>> The fact is the suit says, they're saying the constitution says you have to vote at a polling place and has to be in secret.

The constitution -- I don't know, how far do you take something like that?

And does the republican party realize that a bunch of republicans like early voting?

>> I'm sure they know that.

They run early voting campaigns for three decades.

So how far do you take it?

We'll see what judge Jansen in Mohave county has to say?

>> Do you know why they went there?

>> Because it's friendly to the faction of the party, but I will say that Brnovich took another case to there and got a tongue lashing.

>> I think, you know, the legal argument here, it has to be pointed out, there's elections and voting and that election does not appear anywhere in that section.

The language of the AZ move is hanging its hat on, it in 1912 when this is written, the only way folks voted and not considered but has to but that people will vote at the polling place and on the assumption that the only way people voted.

>> And the constitution recognizes the legislature has the authority to set the manner of elections.

>> Which they have.

>> Let's face it, we've had early voting since 1991 and republicans loved it and in the '90s, in the 2000's and teens and loved it in 2020, when Democrats finally figured out, a good way to get people to get out the vote and Democrats came out in record numbers.

Not as many still as republicans, but record numbers and we all know what happened in that election and that's what this is about.

They've come up with this and this contrived legal argument to try to get the law thrown out, but I think they should be careful what they wish for.

People are stuck in November, standing in hour long lines and heck with it, I give up which is maybe what they want and people will be mad.

>> The current excuse early voting law but the first absentee law which was back in 1918 which was people in Arizona and people wrote the constitution, were in charge of the state and some in the legislature that they prohibited it.

>> And Mary Jo, a bill of race and this has been revived at the legislature and you can't blame or judge anyone based on race and how does this work?

>> This applies to school lessons and all the way from the earliest grades through university and pertains to get speakers to bring in and the restriction is that you cannot offer any instruction placing blame or makes judgment on any group based on race or ethnicity.

So that's raising all kinds of questions, how do we teach the holocaust?

An exception for big events like that and slavery in America and Indian replacement or removal?

It was a very, very robust and heated debate in the house on the same day everybody was reeling from the shootings in Texas.

And a lot of people were saying, this will further penalize teachers and representative Judy Shebert on a day like this we should be on our hands and threes thanking teachers and now we threaten them with punishment.

>> This is not a great recruitment.

>> We have vacancies and lowered the standards of what it takes to be a teacher in this state to be licensed.

And now we're going to put the teachers under a microscope in case they say anything that one parent might misperceive their point and running, I guess, to the attorney general, I don't know.

The interesting thing, republicans are calling to arm treesteachers and we trust teachers to be armed and we don't trust them to teacher history?

>> How do you teach history without having to mention that at one point in Italy there was a fascist ruler and at one pointspointin Germany, and how do you do that and with anyone parent doing that?

>> Nobody knows and muddies the waters to the point where maybe it's unclear you can and can't see.

On its face, most people would say, you can't say one race is superior to another and all people -- all members of one race bear collective guilt and goes a lot further than that where people feel something blaming them for being white or whatever and can a parent stand up?

I thought the sponsor of this bill said something on the floor where someone asked her the last shooting before this, could you tell your students that this happened because the shooter had a racist motivations and wanted to kill black people and he posted a manifesto online?

And Michelle Udall said I don't think that would be appropriate.

That seems like something if a week ago, if a Democrat had something said that, no what they would ban that, but the sponsor of that is saying that and that raises questions about what you can and can't say.

>> Quickly.

>> I talked to the representative after that to try to understand her point of view and I think she maybe didn't quite express herself the way she did to me.

Because when I asked her, she said I don't think it would be an appropriate thing to come up in the curriculum.

I said what if this week -- kids are hurting and they want to talk about this, of course, they could bring it up because it's an individual instance and racially motivated and would have no problem and it seems like an individual instance was OK. >> Good conversation and good to have you all here and thanks for joining us.

That's it for now and thank you so much for joining us and you have a great weekend!