"Arizona Horizon."

♪ Music Playing ♪ >> Coming up next on "Arizona Horizon", it's a journalist round table.

Looking at the week's tapper to I including Kari Lake monitors her position on elections and abortion.

Journalist roundtable is next on "Arizona Horizon."

>> This hour of local moves is made possible by contributions from the friends of PBS.

Members of your PBS station.

Thank you.

♪ Music Playing ♪ >> Good evening and welcome to the "Arizona Horizon."

I am Ted Simons.

It's Friday.

And that means it's time for another edition of the journalists' roundtable and joining us tonight, mark Brody of K.J.

ZZ radio.

Jeremy Duda of Axios Phoenix.

And Jim small of the Arizona mirror.

Pam, good to have you all here, thank you so much for inning us, radio guy we'll start with you, for radio interview on KTAR interviewed car I like this week and sounded like she wants to be a uniter, what's wrong with that?

>> Nothing is wrong with whopping to be a uniter.

There are some people who maybe dig agree with how she's going about it or her ability to do it.

She talked about A lot of things, things that made news.

A couple including that she couldn't identify the person or persons who were rigging her election that stole election.

She said somebody did it, I don't know who, essentially.

And also was trying to playoff comments she made about ceptor John McCain and about quote, unquote, McCain Republicans that she made during your gubinatorial youngs jokes saying I said it in jest and in McCain was still alive he would have laughed at it because he had a great sense of humor.

Not something his family agreed with.

>> We'll do the grudge match between Meghan that skein Kari lake in a significant.

When you say you can't identify who stole the election that suggests you still think someone stole the election.

>> It does, it's going to be a problem for her, it's really probably one of biggest things that turned center right voters, people who probably normally would be inclined to vote Republican in a statewide race against her in 22.

And coated on for Katie Hobbs is the talk of election rigging and stealing, it was stealing even, I really won, she said it about trouble inch 2020.

And she lost the governor's race saying it about herself.

And this is such a turn off to voters.

She's been -- this is dominated so much of her life for the past, you know, 14 months or so, these repeated lawsuits trying to show that -- they all get tossed out of court or lawyers have gotten sanctioned on a number of them.

Regular campaign attorney represented her all throughout the campaign is nowhere near these things.

But still such a feature of her and she mentions it's not me talking about this, I don't want to look backwards you keep asking about.

Other people keep asking me about this as long as she gives these people will ask her and she gives the same response and it's a problem.

>> Did she do herself anything by say she had to any tails on the rigged election?

>> I mean, no.

Probably not.

I mean, I think it just kind of lays bare the -- just the kind of the -- just how facile this whole thing is.

And there isn't anything there.

They have had plenty of opportunities to go in to court to show what they say is going on they haven't proved it, provided no evidence of it.

They can't even make up a story at this point about who was doing it and why.

Trying to service this idea of moving forward and looking forward, but, you know, I think as Jeremy said when you have built your political identity around this issue, and when Republican voters are so animated about this issue, the Republican primary voters in particular, you know, I think it's difficult -- it's going to be hard for her to walk away from this in any meaningful fashion.

And we -- frankly, I think she has a track record this before.

When she jumped into the senate race she talked about how she was basically made something -- some very similar comments, oh, well, we are not talking about the past.

We don't want to look at that, we don't want to keep relitigate this is stuff at the same time she was actually litigating it continually.

And I think those comments the absence of the comment says lasted 36 hours, 46 hours before she was right back making, you know, similar comments to that she had been on the campaign trailer in the post 20/20 election.

So, you know, I think it's going to require a modicum of discipline on the campaign trail and in terms of campaign talking points that so far we have not seen from her.

And, you know, so I think we'll probably learn a lot about that maybe going forward in the next few months.

>> Mark, this isn't -- we are not talking a policy argument or seeing things differently.

You are talking about serious charges here of purposely changing an election and making sure she lost.

You can't walk that stuff back without saying something is not -- I am wrong.

>> Yeah.

It would have been really interesting if she had said about all of that stuff, I believe the Courts, you know, we have not found any evidence.

I thought it was the case, it turns out it's not.

I would imagine that wouldn't go over that well with, you know, with her base voters but that's to Jeremy and Jim's point, that's not what she's doing.

And she -- there are still active cases out there that she continues to litigate.

>> That's a really good point.

Can she say I was wrong?

I made a mistake?

I thought this but it turns out -- she's got herself back interested a corner, doesn't she?

>> That would be extraordinarily different.

She can't even say I said it in jest or hey, it turn out I was wrong, she said it so many times over.

How many lawsuits have there been.

How many lawsuits are still going?

This is something she's constantly said she's the real governor.

You look at her social media.

Her speeches.

All over the place.

As Jim said this has become such a core part of her identity and she's continued -- even while she was ramping up for the senate race last year, she lost that fairly late in the year, all leading up to that she was still on that wagon, about the stolen election that she was the real governor.

>> Jim, as far as abortion she would not back a federal ban on abortion.

It sounds like she's not -- she was at one point I think incredibly thrilled, I think that was her quote, regarding the air territorial law which banned pretty much all abortions.

Now not so much.

What's going on here?

>> So we go back in time to right after the primary election in 2020, two right?

She stands up at a press conference and is asked, are you going to moderate.

Pivot, try to appeal to center right voters to center voters to center left voters who maybe don't like Katie Hobbs and I think her response at the time was basically, like, no, I of course not I am who I am and I am not change paying positions, not changing the way I go and campaign not changing a thing about me and voters will meet me where I am at.

They didn't.

So I think that that's -- you know, it might be an example of a lesson learned and in an attempt to meet voters where they are at.

Those things are, you know, public opinion shows that is those thing are unpopular.

The idea of blank ate borings bans, are unpopular in general.

Even in Arizona, a state with a lot of Republicans and a lot of conservatives.

Things like that much I think this is an attempt to un -- to try to take a different path than what she took in 2022.

I p the proof will be in the pudding as the campaign ramps up and get into the summer.

>> This is a position she's been consistent he want he want since the senate race, she's never supported the territorial bans she said something on KTR to the effect I will support mat voters want, 50 different laws in 50 different stays straits now and that's the way it will be here.

Than an issue where I think she sees also the kind of damage that did in 2022.

As you saw a lot of turn out from folks who maybe wouldn't have normally turned out in response to the roe V Wade ruling to the Dobbs ruling over turning roe V Wade.

You can city from trump at the national level, a lot of national Republicans all over the country seeing kind of the damage that the more hard line stance is going to do with the swing voters the folks maybe inclined to vote Republican not if it's at the cost of abortion rights.

>> Yes, but even the idea of a national abortion ban is potentially toxic on the campaign trail as well we saw that immediately after Roe V Wade fell Lindsey Graham and other Republicans puts out a proposal for a national ban, all after generations of Republicans saying we want to leave it to the states, we'll leave it to the states.

And then suddenly they have the opportunity on and they wanted to Bigfoot the states and do it their open way and I think that that was another thing that was a lot of Republicans and campaign strategists said this is a bad idea we should not do this.

Are you crazy, you are going to tank republican.

And I think even that idea of that national ban was used by Democrats as an example of why you should not put Republicans in congress and in the U.S. senate.

>> Sure.

And you are seeing Democrats and Rubén Gallegos saying the same thing about Kari Lake now don't vote for them because that's what you end up with.

Vote for me all support abortion rights.

>> Regarding Ukraine being she said the war is lost.

It's over, there is no reason to sent any money.

This is a United States senator here, she'll have a lot of clout if they gets back that D.C. and that's a pretty strong position.

>> It is, although in some ways I want kind of reflective of sort of the divide in the Republican caucus in the Republican party in terms of some like Mitch McConnell are continuing to want to send aid and see the importance of trying to, you know, repel the Russian invasion there.

A lot of other Republicans are very much like, okay, we are done.

Like why are we sending money to Ukraine.

Why -- why are we making it the 51st state.

What are we doing here?

>> Another quote was only a fool thinks the war is salvageable.

We are talking the upper chamber here the most deliberative body.

Only a fool.

Does that kind of verbiage, does that -- I mean, obviously the MAGA crowd likes that thing.

Do other people like that kind of thing?

>> I suspect there are some people in the U.S. senate who might not disagree with that.

Whether or not they would say it out loud is another thing.

>> Yeah.

>> I suspect there are some who are probably in agreement on that.

>> Last point, mark, she says that a lot of her Republican opponents are now quietly supporting her.

Did not give any names.

But she says that behind the scenes, they are pushing for her.

You buying that?

>> I mean, it's really hard to know.

I mean, there are a couple of polls out this week that suggest that there are not enough of them if, you know, if that's what she's believing.

>> As far as the candidates, Karen Taylor Robson these folks, the Doug Duceys of the world are they lining up to support Kari Lake?

>> We are not seeing it publically yet.

Behind the scenes is one thing, that's always nice to have.

But if you really want to show people that the -- she rile Walts to show people the wing of the Republican party that is really against her that she was really against a year ago, two years ago is now lining up behind her, she nodes those folks to stand up and say it had you been likely.

She has people raising her money but that's different that having them on the campaign rally saying vote to Kari Lake for senate.

>> Let's get to the octagon, Carey like and Meghan McCain going at it.

The mccabe jabs, she says it was all a joke, it was all in jest.

McCain would have a good chuckle over this.

Meghan McCain says in colorful language I disagree.

>> Yes.

Quite colorful language.

There will be no peace between the clans, right?

This was -- I think clearly we saw some political performance coming out of the Kari Lake.

Not just the idea that this is a joke, which I mean, I don't know, go the a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if anyone thinks those comments anyone at those events and heard this repeatedly thought it was a joke.

I mean, it was a joke, but the joke was HA, HA, we hate McCain it was a joke at his experience not a joke in the sense of like, we are -- I was just trying to have wone with those people who I told to get the hell out of my party.

Right.

So then we saw her reach out.

Kind of extended an olive branch on social media to Meghan McCain saying look we are moms let's have beer and coffee and talk about it.

And see if we can put our differences behind us and you know, work together to unify the party.

You know, again, this idea of trying to present her as a unifier as someone who can bridge the gaps and issue know, extend an olive branch to which Meghan McCain vociferously he rejected it in a very crass way.

I think that the idea is, you know, I think that the they new provoking her, they knew that Meghan McCain would respond in a hostile way it.

Couldn't have worked out better for Kari Lake honestly, it makes her look like the sensible one of the two.

>> But you know what she didn't do, she didn't apologize.

She has yet to apologize to anyone.

>> That did not go unnoticed by Meghan McCain.

She pointed out the fact that you know, there is this extremely long twitter "X" post from Kari Lake in no part of it were the words I am sorry, I apologize.

None of that was in there.

>> Yeah.

And does this move a needle in any direction here?

Or is this a couple of political personalities just going at it?

>> Probably a couple of personalities going at it.

If you are one of this is McCain Republicans who is shaking on her in 2022 and still shaky on lake going into this election, I don't know how much that is going to convince you.

If you can't get, Meghan McCain or other people from the McCain family saying, okay let's talk about this.

Had she apologized said, you know, hey, I meant it in jest but I apologize for what I said maybe that would have provoked a different response.

Meghan McCain would maybe not have been won over no matter what but does not seem like in her personality to make accept that apology after all the things that Kari Lake said that might have gone further and shown more sincerity in trying to reach out it that wing of the party.

>> Jeremy sticking with you.

A couple of polls these are snapshots and not the most scientific of polls.

I don't know what a scientific poll is any my more in this day of age no two-way race, Gallego a 10-point lead over lake in I a three-way race Gallego with a three-point lead over lake with Sinema trailing Gallego by 11-points let's start with that one.

And the independence this that noble, hugely for Sinema.

What's this all mean right now?

The poll is only good for right now.

>> I think "A" right now it means we should stop doing polls that have Kyrsten Sinema in it.

She has five tweak collect more than 42,000 signatures and it sounds like we haven't seen anything now I don't think we'll see it so far.

It goes at this early juncture and the selection a long way away you would packer be Ruben Gallego than Kari Lake, 10-points I have a hard time buying anybody winning by 10 paints especially not in a statewide race in Arizona.

Even still, the Emerson policy think accept-point lead for Gallego.

Ask.

>> Yeah, 46-39.

>> I thought what was most interesting about the Emerson poll it had a 3-point lead for trump over Biden among the same people giving Gallego a 7-point lead and I think one thing we have to keep in mind a lot of voters do not really know a lot about Rubén Gallego right now.

Kari Lake say known Kahn quantity anybody following politics for the last few years has seen and heard a lot of her.

Gallego much less so still more time for him to define himself and Kari Lake and the Republicans to define him I'll be more interested in the polls down the road once that starts happening.

And the money starts flowing.

>> I think to Jeremy as point the one thing that these two polls had in common is that they are not great news for senator Sinema.

Even with independents going for her by a lot.

She is still in third mace in both.

Not close night like within a point or two.

>> I think it will be really interesting to Jeremy's point over next several weeks to see does she take steps to file and collect signatures?

Does she decide to say she's not?

Does she just not say anything?

>> As far as polls are concern and again, we are talking about right now, still very early, but is this the kind of thing that the lake campaign sees and say let's go ahead and try and smooth things over with -- you know, take away 5 points in either direction here, it's still not very good.

>> Yeah, New York it is a snapshot it's so early.

People are not engaged in politics right now and they are following maybe the presidential race.

But politics hasn't really heated up yet.

We don't have an election getting anywhere closer we have not seen people really hitting the campaign trail, not being bombarded with ads on TV and on, you know okay their phones and on their social media and everything like that much so, you know, I think you know, take these -- take any poll that you see right now, with a couple of scoops of salt, you can look the trends and big picture things.

But to put stock in any numbers 10 points, 7 points, 3-points I personally think it's a little folly.

>> One thing that's interesting, as you look at Deposition Exhibit one thing you learn from seeing the three-way race with Kyrsten Sinema seeing what happens with the voters once she's no longer in the picture.

Some become undecided others the noble poll she was getting six type% of Republicans in that poll and the two-way he's between Gallego and lake half within to Gallego, that's -- and I think the pollster attributed that to McCain Republicans which goes to show probably why she's trying to -- the unity trying to win those folks over, we'll see once millions of dollars are spent lie lake and NRSC against ruby Gallego we'll see who six with him.

But for now that's a sobering number I think.

>> Let's get to the state Capitol here mark and prop one would a three, drawing straight land trust for education, three measures now to extend this thing for another 10.

What is going on?

>> Two is not enough apparently.

There was a plan from the legislative Republicans and a plan from the governor.

And then the house.

Then the house flu its own plan in the mix.

The burner doesn't have to get a say these bypass her office.

That's thing one.

Thing two, you have for remember early on the straight treasurer came out with a great deal of concern especially about the governor's proposal taking out the most now of these three proposals from the land trust saying it's not sustainable.

She also said that she didn't think it was a great idea to take out the amount that legislative Republicans at that time were also proposing.

So the house proposal is less than that.

And one of the arguments is this seems maybe more sustainable if we take out less, that leaves more in the trust to continue to grow and fund things in the future.

>> Yeah, seems like that was kind of a bridge between the two.

Is that the leader in the clubhouse here?

>> I think it's tough to say.

I think we'll see negotiations that will happen certainly between house and senate Republicans is try to figure out where they want to Land.

I think there is an outside chance the governor's office could have some input here.

But it would have to be tied behind the scenes to something else, right?

Where for the governor to get something on the prop 123 extension she has to give up something else maybe in the budget, maybe, you know, maybe on another piece of -- another policy issue or something like that.

I wouldn't put much stock in that given the way the relationship has been going so far, but I think that is certainly possible.

>> I was going ask about governor having any traction in this at all.

>> It's really what hard to see it happening.

One of the points of doing these legislative ballot revels is you don't have to deal with the governor 143 vetoes later the legislative Republicans are fine and dandy side stepping her in any situation where they can.

And in addition, the problem for her is that what she's proposing is going to be so unpalatable to legislative Republicans.

The reason we are talking about this is right now is because the original legislative Republican plan of 6.9%, some Republicans said that's too high.

That's what the original prop 123 that's expiring was, we need to go lower than that.

Hobbs wants 8.9%.

Because she kind of wants this to be everything to everyone and say, we won't need to continue the funding that will be discontinued if we mutual teachers salaries like the Republicans want but we want the salaries and the support staff and these other things and you run out of money, and you have to figure out exactly what you are going to use this for.

That and nothing more.

That will be a problem if she's really trying to negotiate this.

>> The one thing to keep in mind when prop 123 went on the ballot originally it didn't pass by very much and everybody said it was an all hands on deck thing.

The legislature was behind it.

Gift.

Governor almost everybody except jest DeWitt the State treasurer.

It will be interesting see how much stock the legislature puts in having the governor support once it's on the ballot if they are going it need Democrats and the governor supporters to vote for it.

>> With that in mind, does this take any of the three versions right now, do they all pass?

Do they all fail?

I mean, will it be as close as it was the last time around?

>> That's -- that's a really, really good question.

>> What do you think, Jim?

>> Last time as was a special election and that changes the dynamics for your campaigning.

It was -- it definitely had a lot -- the pro campaigns that Doug Ducey was kind of the face of, had a lot of money and a lot of stuff behind it, but it did barely, barely pass.

I can foresee a scenario where politically, it might work out to the benefit of Republicans if these things go up and fail on the ballot.

Because then they can come back to legislature and saying look, voters said they don't want to raise money, they don't want it raise pay for teachers they don't want to us spend money on teachers.

Particle of it was intended to set a lawsuit some funning has to be made up that way.

But, you know, there is a lot of -- I think there is a lot of different pieces to this.

And a lot of different ways you can look at it and I don't think it is as cut and dried as last time.

>> I think last time the original prop 123, one of the problems for the pro campaign was such a complicated things, people don't know was what was going on this is easier messaging we have to make hundreds of millions of dollars of cuts to K-12 education if it doesn't past.

Now it's money spent.

It was it was new money and land trust that voters probably don't know what it is.

The Republican plan is strict teacher salary.

Just say you want to give teachers a raise vote yes, sir on prop whatever it will be if you want to cut hundreds of billions of dollars that we are already spending vote no.

That will make it easier for whatever it is.

>> Mark account I want to talk quickly about a bill, Kavanaugh bill regarding elections.

The idea if you don't have 25% turn out for any local election, the election never happened.

>> Yeah, that's an interesting one, isn't it.

>>> Yeah.

>> Seems like one that the gulf wore not be super in favor of.

I also -- I have nod asked a lawyer about this but it seems uncontusion toll declare an election null and void because of turn out.

>> What is this all about, Jim?

>> This is not the only one either, there is another proposal, that we wrote about recently having to do with bond elections for cities and school districts that would required 2nd% stern out.

The way these things work, though, is they turn into a -- the people who don't vote get to veto the people who do vote.

That's ultimately what this allows.

If an election has lower turn out than whatever the designer of the law wants, then we just pretend the election didn't happen.

I don't -- I am sure the legislature probably has the authority to do that under state law and maybe you were the State constitution, I don't know.

But it seems anti-democratic with the -- anti-small "D" Democratic and really goes against the sense of hey, we have elections to decide issues.

>> Isn't the goal here, though, is to get these special elections and these off-year elections and off-month elections get them out of the way and get them to -- get these on ballots when everything sells on the ballot.

Isn't that what Kavanaugh is doing here?

>> I think so.

And there is a legitimate argument to make that these off-cycle may of an odd numbered year when, you know, 21% of the electorate vote is on something that is going to cost, hundreds of millions of dollars, there is an argument to be made that is not very Democratic either you want these things on the ballot when most people are voting oven look at the general elections they don't get 60% turn out.

2014, there was not 60% turn out in the general election, 2010 there wasn't.

And this is just going to happen sometimes.

So I think making it like the absolute drop dead bar for whether something count that is problematic.

>> That was a point that was made during floor debate of one of these bills, basically there are members of the legislature in even year general elections election ed in districts where they did not get 50% turn outlet alone 60 they are looking at for some of this legislation, what's good for the good is good for the gander make it that say so you can't serve if you don't get enough voters to turn out.

>> We'll let that irony stick as we have run out of time.

Gentlemen, thank you so much.

That is it for now.

I am Ted Simons, thank you for joining us you have a great weekend.

♪ Music Playing ♪