>> Ted: COMING UP NEXT ON ARIZONA HORIZON, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HEARS ORAL ARGUMENTS IN THE CASE INVOLVING DONALD TRUMP'S REMOVAL FROM COLORADO'S STATE BALLOT.

AND KATE GALLEGO IN LEADING THE DEMONSTRATION.

>> THIS HOUR OF LOCAL NEWS MADE POSSIBLE FROM THE FRIENDS OF PBS, MEMBERS OF YOUR PBS STATION.

THANK YOU.

>> Ted: GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO ARIZONA HORIZON.

I'M TED SIMONS.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TODAY HEARD ARGUMENTS ON WHETHER OR NOT DONALD TRUMP IS CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE TO HOLD OFFICE AGAIN.

THE CASE INVOLVES A COLORADO SUPREME COURT REMOVING TRUMP FROM THAT STATE'S BALLOT DUE TO TRUMP'S VIOLATING SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT WHICH BARS OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM SERVING IN THE GOVERNMENT IF THEY TOOK PART IN AN INSURRECTION.

QUESTIONS ASKED AND POINTS MADE BY CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS AND THE COURT'S CONSERVATIVE WING SUGGEST THAT THE COURT IS ANGLING TOWARD BACKING TRUMP AND ALLOWING HIM TO RETURN TO THE BALLOT.

JUSTICE ROBERTS AT ONE POINT FOCUSED ON PRECEDENT IF COLORADO'S ACTIONS WERE UPHELD.

>> IF COLORADO'S POSITION IS UPHELD, SURELY THERE WILL BE DISQUALIFICATION PROCEEDINGS ON THE OTHER SIDE AND SOME OF THOSE WILL SUCCEED.

I WOULD EXPECT THAT, YOU KNOW, A GOOD NUMBER OF STATES WILL SAY WHOEVER THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IS, YOU'RE OFF THE BALLOT AND OTHERS FOR THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, YOU'RE OFF THE BALLOT AND COMES DOWN TO JUST A HANDFUL OF STATES TO DECIDE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

THAT'S A PRETTY DAUNTING CONSEQUENCE.

>> Ted: THERE WAS REACTION FROM BOTH SIDES AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF TODAY'S ORAL ARGUMENTS.

>> WE ARE GLAD THAT IT'S GOTTEN TO THIS POINT SO WE CAN GET CLARITY FOR OUR NATION.

DONALD TRUMP IS A QUALIFIED CANDIDATE.

THESE RIDICULOUS AND NOVEL LEGAL THEORIES TO TRY TO ENGAGE IN ELECTION INTERFERENCE ARE GOING TO BE CERTAINLY STRUCK DOWN, AT LEAST WE THINK SO.

WE RESPECT THE INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY AND THIS BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT BUT FEEL STRONGLY WE'LL SUCCEED ON THE MERITS AND LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING DONALD TRUMP ON THE BALLOT IN COLORADO AND CERTAINLY ON THE BALLOT FOR THE NOVEMBER ELECTION SO THAT JOE BIDEN CAN FINALLY BE DEFEATED AND HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

>> WE ARE ONLY HERE BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP DECIDED TO ENGAGE IN INSURRECTION INSTEAD OF ACCEPTING HIS LOSS.

WE ARE ONLY HERE BECAUSE THERE'S AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION, A PRESIDENT WHO DECIDED THAT HE WOULD STEAL THE PRESIDENCY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS A GET-OUT-OF-JAIL FREE CARD AND HOPE THE JUSTICES HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE.

>> Ted: ONE MORE MAJOR HEADLINE, PRESIDENT BIDEN WILL NOT FACE CHARGES FOR KEEPING CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS AT HIS DELAWARE HOME AFTER LEAVING OFFICE.

SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT RELEASED SHOWING BIDEN DID WILLFULLY RETAIN CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION FROM HIS DAYS AS VICE PRESIDENT IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

BUT THE COURT DID FIND THAT THERE WAS NO INTENT ON THE PART OF BIDEN IN KEEPING THOSE DOCUMENTS AND SO, THEY DID NOT FIND THAT HE WAS AT FAULT AND THAT HE WOULD NOT FACE ANY CHARGES.

>>> AS WE MENTIONED, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAD ORAL ARGUMENTS INVOLVING DONALD TRUMP AND THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT.

OF COURSE, THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT DECIDING TO KEEP TRUMP OFF THE BALLOT IN THAT STATE AND THERE'S SO MUCH TO GO THROUGH REGARDING TODAY'S HEARING AND WHAT WAS SAID WANT WHAT WAS AND WHAT WAS NOT SAID.

WE WELCOME, THE ATTORNEY STEPH EN MONTOYA AND PAUL.

LET'S START WITH YOU, PAUL.

YOUR THOUGHTS FROM WHAT YOU HEARD TODAY ON THIS CASE?

>> WELL, IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT TRUMP WILL BE PUT BACK ON THE BALLOT IN COLORADO.

THAT THE 14th AMENDMENT DOES NOT EXCLUDE HIM FROM THE PLOT BALLOT.

THE REASON FOR THAT IN MY MIND, IS THE 14th AMENDMENT, IT SETS A QUALIFICATION FOR BALLOT, LIKE YOU HAVE TO BE 35 YEARS OLD TO BE PRESIDENT, BUT IT'S NOT THE USUAL QUALIFICATION.

THE QUALIFICATION IS THAT YOU DIDN'T COMMIT INSURRECTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

THAT'S A CRIME.

I THINK YOU NEED TO HAVE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER HE COMMITTED THE CRIME BEFORE YOU KEEP HIM FROM THE BALLOT.

IT'S A WAY TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S A FEDERAL CRIME SO HE CAN BE CHARGED AND PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED.

AND I THINK WHAT THE 14th 14th AMENDMENT MEANS THAT IF YOU'RE CONVICTED OF CREATING AN INSURRECTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, THEN YOU CAN'T SERVE AS PRESIDENT.

IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, THEN YOU HAVE TO LEAVE IT UP TO THE 50 STATES TO PICK THE ELECTORS AND 50 STATES TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER HE COMMITTED AN INSURRECTION.

SOME WILL DECIDE ONE WAY AND ANOTHER WAY AND YOU WON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

THE EASY THING THAT THE FRAMERS MUST HAVE MEANT THAT IF YOU'RE CONVICTED OF COMMITTING AN INSURRECTION, THEN WE KNOW IT'S A FEDERAL CONVICTION BY THE SUPREME COURT AND THEN, YOU'RE EXCLUDED FROM THE BALLOT.

>> Ted: WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS AND THE IDEA OF HOW MUCH PROOF IS NEEDED THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE INSURRECTION AND IS A CONVICTION NEEDED?

PAUL SAYS YES AND WHAT SAY?

>> I SAY NO.

INSURRECTION WASN'T A CRIME IN THE CIVIL WAR PERIOD WHEN ACTION 3 WAS DRAFTED AND RATIFIED IN 1868.

SO THE FRAMERS WERE NOT LOOKING TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF A CLIMB.

CRIME.

IF YOU READ THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, THEY RULE THAT OUT, BUT I DO AGREE WITH PAUL SUBSTANTIVELY.

YOU CAN STILL CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT HE ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION BECAUSE INSURRECTION WAS A COMMON-LAW CRIME, NOT A STATUTORY CRIME AND DESCRIBED BY BLACKSTONE AND OTHERS.

AND THAT ISSUE COULD BE SUBMITTED TO A JURY.

I DON'T THINK IT HAS TO BE SUBMITTED IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.

IT COULD BE SUBMITTED IN ANOTHER TYPE OF PROCEEDING AND I DON'T THINK THAT PROCEEDING COULD BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEFORE A STATE, SECRETARY OF STATE OR BEFORE A STATE TRIAL JUDGE IN A QUASI PROCEEDING, WHICH IS WHAT TOOK PLACE IN COLORADO.

I THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A TRADITIONAL, LEGAL PROCEEDING AND I THINK THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE WITNESSES, DISCOVERY, CONFRONTATION OF ACCUSERS AND SUCH.

SO ULTIMATELY, I DO AGREE WITH PAUL THAT -- I DO THINK THAT TRUMP WAS INSURRECTIONIST, BUT DO THINK YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND I DO THUNDERBAY HE HAS DO THINK HE HAS TO HAVE A PROPER TRIAL AND A CIVIL TRIAL AND THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THIS CASE.

>> Ted: PAUL?

>> WELL, I AGREE WITH MOST OF WHAT STEVE SAYS, BUT SINCE IT WAS A CRIME THEN AND IS A CRIME NOW, YOU HAVE TO KEEP SOMEBODY FROM THE BALLOT BY COMMITTING A FEDERAL CRIME.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHOULD BE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT RATHER THAN MORE LIKELY THAN NOT.

I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.

SO IF YOU WANT TO KEEP HIM OFF OF THE BALLOT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PROCEEDING WHERE YOU HELD AN INSURRECTION BEYOND A CRIMINAL DOUBT.

IT COULD BE A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, A MADE-UP CIVIL PROCEEDING.

I THINK THE FRAMERS OF THE 14th AMENDMENT WANTED TO KEEP PEOPLE OFF THE BALLOT, BUT WHICH PEOPLE?

THE INSURRECTIONIST, AND HOW?

WE HAVE TO PROSECUTE THEM OR WE DON'T KNOW THEY'RE INSURRECTIONISTS.

>> AS A MATTER OF FACT, CONGRESS PASSED ANOTHER BILL CALLED "THE FIRST ENFORCEMENT ACT" IN 1870 AND CREATED1870 AND IT CREATED A LAW THAT REQUIRED UNITED STATES' ATTORNEYS TO BRING Q UROS INTO ACTIONS BELIEVING WERE HOLDING ACTION OF SECTION 3.

SPANSTHEY WERE NOT CRIMINAL BUT EQUITABLE PROCEEDINGS THAT WAS UNDER THE OLD EQUITABLE RITZ AND KICKED OFF THE BALLOT BY FEDERAL JUDGES.

HOWEVER, ALL OF THAT ENDED IN 1872, BECAUSE IN 1872, CONGRESS PASSED ANOTHER CONTACT CALLED THE AMNESTY ACT THAT REALLY MADE ALL OF THIS A DEAD LETTER.

A LOT OF IT WAS ALREADY A DEAD LETTER BECAUSE ANDREW JOHNSON HAD PARDONED SO MANY CONFEDERATES THAT WERE RUNNING FOR OFFICE THAT THE SCOPE OF SECTION 3 WAS REALLY LIMITED.

>> Ted: AND PAUL, REGARDING DEAD LETTER, CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT, IF THE 14th AMENDMENT AND INSURRECTION CLAUSE DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS CASE, WHAT DOES IT APPLY TO?

ARE YOU SAYING YOU DO NEED PROSECUTION AND YOU NEED PROOF AND YOU JUST CAN'T SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE THINK, X, Y, Z?

>> ARE YOU ASKING ME, TED?

>> Ted: YES, PAUL.

>> YES, SOMEBODY HAS TO DECIDE WERE YOU COMMITTED THE INSURRECTION AND THAT SHOULD BE A LEGAL PROCEEDING WHERE THE BURDEN OF PROOF, WHERE SOMEONE HAS TO PROVE YOU COMMITTED AN INSURRECTION.

THAT'S NOT EASY.

I THINK ONE WAY IS A FEDERAL, CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AND IT'S A FRANKLY CRIME NOW AND HE COULD BE CHARGED IF HE COMMITTED AN INSURRECTION.

IF YOU CONVICT HIM, HE'S OFF THE BALLOT AND IF YOU CAN'T THEN, HOW CAN YOU SAY HE'S AN INSURRECTIONISTS?

BECAUSE YOU SAW IT ON TELEVISION.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PROCEEDING TO DO THAT.

MOST LIKELY, A PROCEEDING IS A FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.

IF THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK, CONGRESS COULD ESTABLISH A CIVIL PROCEEDING TO DO THE SAME THING.

>> Ted: FROM THE QUESTION, STEPHEN, FROM THE JUSTICES, WHERE WERE THEY GO AND HOW WERE THEY GETTING THERE?

>> WELL, I THINK THEY WERE SAYING THE 14th AMENDMENT WAS MEANT TO TAKE POWER AWAY FROM THE STATES AND NOT TO GIVE EACH STATE A LITTLE BIT THAT COULD KICK PEOPLE OFF THE BALLOTS WILLY-NILLY AND EVEN THOUGH YOU COULD APPLY THE INSURRECTION CLAUSE OF SECTION 3, YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IT IN A UNIFORM WAY TO APPLY TO THE NATION AS A WHOLE.

TO DO THAT, I THINK YOU NEED A STATUTE.

THAT'S WHY I THINK UNDER SECTION 5, CONGRESS WOULD HAVE TO CREATE A STATUTE THAT CREATED A STANDARDIZED PROCEDURE THAT COULD BE APPLIED NATIONWIDE, WHICH IS WHAT THEY DID IN 1870, IN THE FIRST ENFORCEMENT ACT THAT I WAS REFERRING TO.

>> Ted: AND PAUL, FROM WHAT YOU HEARD FROM TODAY'S QUESTIONS, FROM THE JUSTICES, WHERE ARE THEY GOING AND WHAT WERE THEY ANGLING AT, DO YOU THINK?

>> IN THE DIRECTION STEPHEN WAS JUST GOING IN.

THAT TRUMP WOULD STATE ON THE BALLOT BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING IN AN AUTHORITATIVE DECISION DIRECTION.

THE WAY YOU TELL, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF PROCEEDING, WHETHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL OR WHATEVER.

BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING WHERE YOU'RE CHARGED, TO DEFEND YOURSELF, RIGHTS OF A CRIMINAL OR CIVIL DEFENDANT AND THAT HASN'T HAPPENED HERE.

SO I DON'T THINK YOU CAN TAKE HIM OFF UNLESS YOU CAN SAY HE'S AN INSURRECTIONIST AND I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DO THAT UNLESS YOU PROSECUTE HIM OR SUE HIM AND NOBODY HAS DONE THAT YET.

>> Ted: AS FAR AS A TIME FRAME, WHAT WILL THE SUPREME COURT DO AND WHAT'S NEXT HERE.

STEPHEN?

>> WHAT'S NEXT, IT'S OVER.

THE COLORADO'S SUPREME COURT IS VACATED AND MEANS NOTHING AND TRUMP WILL GO ON THE BALLOT IN COLORADO AND IN MAINE AND I THINK THIS WHOLE ISSUE IS DONE.

UNLESS CONGRESS ROSE RESURRECTS THIS BY PASSING THE STATUTE, WHICH WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

AND PASSING SOMETHING PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 TO ENFORCE SECTION 3.

SECTION 5 OF THE 14th 14th AMENDMENT ENABLES CONGRESS TO PASS LEGISLATION TO AFFECTUATE THE 14th AMENDMENT.

I AGREE WITH PAUL THAT THIS WILL GO TO THE ELECTORATE IN NOVEMBER.

>> Ted: IS THIS IT FOR THE SUPREME COURT AND WHAT KIND OF TIME TABLE BEFORE THEY MAKE THEIR DECISION?

.

>> I AGREE WITH STEPHEN ENTIRELY.

THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT HAD TO BUSINESS THROWING HIM OFF THE BALLOT UNDER THE 14th 14th AMENDMENT BECAUSE HE HASN'T BEEN DECLARED AUTHORITATIVE.

CONGRESS CAN CURE THAT BY SETTING UP A PROCEDURE IF IT WANTS TO AND I THINK ANY U.S. ATTORNEY CAN CURE THAT BY PROSECUTING THAT AND NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

THEREFORE, THIS IS OVER.

>> Ted: GENTLEMEN, GREAT DISCUSSION AND GREAT TO HAVE YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> Ted: UP NEXT ON ARIZONA HORIZON, A CONVERSATION WITH PHOENIX MAYOR, KATE GALLEGO.

>> THESE ARE YOUR ANCESTORS.

>> I'M FOREVER CHANGED.

>> REALLY?

THIS IS CRAZY.

>> TURN THE PAGE.

OH, NO!

>> THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST ARTISTS IN R ANDB&B AND GOSPEL.

>> GOSPEL IS MY FOUNDATION.

>> WE'RE HORNING THE HONORING THE LEGACY.

JOIN ME FOR "GOSPEL LIVE."

>> FRIDAY NIGHT AT 8:00 ARIZONA PBS.

>> I'M JEFF BENNET AND THE SUPREME COURT HEARS ARGUMENTS WHETHER TRUMP CAN BE BARRED FROM COLORADO'S PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT.

COMING UP AT 6:00 ON ARIZONA.

BS.

PBS.

>> Ted: MAYOR GAEGO JOINING US AND WE HAVE A LOT GOING ON.

I WANT TO GET STARTED WITH THE LETTER TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE PHOENIX OVERSIGHT DIRECTOR.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY HAS SENT SOMETHING TO DOJ SAYING HE RESIGNED AND HERE IS WHY AND WHAT'S BEHIND THE LETTER?

WHAT DID IT SAY?

>> WE TAKE OVERSIGHT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERIOUSLY AND SPENT AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TIME ON IT AND WANTED TO COMMUNICATE THAT THERE WERE SOME UNUSUAL FACTORS IN THIS SITUATION.

THE CITY OF PHOENIX COUNCIL DURING MY TIME AS MAYOR CREATED THIS POLICE OVERSIGHT OFFICE GIVING IT BROAD POWERS.

THE ARIZONA LEGISLATION THEN RESTRICTED WHAT THE OFFICE CAN DO.

OUR DEPARTED EMPLOYEE DID NOT LIKE THOSE RESTRICTIONS AND YOU AND I HAVE TALKED MANY TIMES ABOUT MY FRUSTRATION WITH THE LEGISLATURE, MICROMANAGING CITY GOVERNMENT.

BUT WHAT OUR ATTORNEYS AT THE CITY SAID, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE STATE LAW.

WE CANNOT IGNORE IT AND SO THAT WAS A DEBATE WITH THE INDIVIDUAL WHO DOE PARTED FROM DEPARTED FROM THE CITY OF PHOENIX.

I UNDERSTAND HIS FRUSTRATION, BUT WE ARE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND WE HAVE TO FOLLOW AT AD AT AD VICE OF OUR ATTORNEYS.

.

>> Ted: THE LETTER SAID HE OVERSTEPPED HIS BOUNDS, CORRECT?

>> ONE, HE WANTED TO FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL PARAMETERS OF THE OFFICE AND NOT THE RESTRICTIONS THE STATE LEGISLATURE GAVE US.

THE SECOND ONE WAS AROUND HIRING.

WHEN THE POLICE CREATED THIS OVERSIGHT OFFICE, WE MADE A RULE WE DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE WHO HAD FAMILIES WHO WORKED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.

THE IDEA WAS TO HAVE SEPARATION AND THAT WAS SOMETHING HOTLY DEBATED AND A LOT OF COMMUNITY INPUT WHEN OUR DEPARTED DIRECTOR HIRED AN INDIVIDUAL.

IT WAS SOMEBODY WHO WORKED AS A POLICE OFFICER.

WE THOUGHT THAT DIDN'T MEET THE PARAMETERS OF THE CITY PROGRAM AND INAPPROPRIATE TO MAKE THAT OFFER.

I WISH WE HAD A MORE POSITIVE DISCUSSION.

IF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE ORDINANCE, MAKE YOU CAN HAVE A REAL CONVERSATION, BUT IT WAS VERY INTENTIONAL PART OF THE OVERSIGHT TO HAVE THAT SEPARATION FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT.

>> Ted: DID THE LOTTERTHE LETTER TO DOJ, WE'RE WORKING ON THIS AND STILL TRYING TO THINK WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING AND WE GOT RID OF THIS PERSON BECAUSE OF X, Y AND Z.

>> WE WANTED TO PROVIDE CONTEXT AND INFORMATION.

WE TAKE TRANSPARENCY SERIOUSLY AND WE WANTED TO TELL OUR SIDE OF THE STORY AND, AGAIN, COMMIT TO THE FACT THAT WE DO WANT A VERY STRONG OFFICE IN PLACE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE STATE LAW.

>> Ted: LET'S GET TO OTHER THINGS HAPPENING AROUND THE CITY AND ENCOURAGING TO TALK ABOUT.

THIS RECLAMATION AT CAVE CREEK.

THIS THING IS READY TO GO AND WHAT'S THE LATEST?

>> SO THIS IS AN EXCITING ANNOUNCEMENT THIS WEEK.

PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR GOVERNMENT TO GET THINGS DONE AND WE VOTED AT THE CITY COUNCIL TO INVEST 300 MILLION IN THE MOST ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY.

WE ARE TAKING A FACILITY THAT SHUT DOWN IN 2009 AND UPGRADING IT SO THAT IT HAS BETTER PURIFICATION STANDARDS THAN EVEN BOTTLED WATER PLANTS.

SO HIGH QUALITY WATER.

IT WILL ALLOW US TO TAKE WATER IN THE SYSTEM AND REPURIFY IT SO IT EFFECTIVELY IS A NEW WATER SUPPLY THAT WILL HELP 25,000 HOMES WHEN IT'S FULLY BUILT OUT.

>> Ted: WHEN WILL IT BE FULLY BUILT OUT AGAIN IN.

>> ?

>> THE PLANT STARTS OPERATIONS IN 2026 AND THERE'S A LENGTHY TESTING PROCESS AND A FEW STEPS BEFORE YOU WOULD SEE ANY WATER.

>> Ted: SOMETHING ELSE ALONG THOSE LINES.

I NOTICE WE HAVE $14 MILLION FOR TREES OUT THERE.

WHAT KIND OF TREES AND WHERE WILL THEY BE PLANTED?

WHERE IS THE FOCUS HERE?

>> WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE CITY OF FEEDBACK AND FOUND OUR WEALTHIER AREAS HAVE AMAZING TREE COVER, GRADE SHADE AND TEN DEGREES COOLER THAN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY.

WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT WITH NONPROFIT PARTNERS.

WE RECEIVED THE BULK OF THE FUNDING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SO THEY DID GRANTS FOCUSED ON TREES AND THIS WEEK, THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED TO ENTER TO PARTNERSHIPS TO PURCHASE THE TREES AND MAINTAIN THEM.

IF YOU ARE AN EDUCATOR, WE WANT TO WORK WITH YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO MAKE SURE THE STUDENTS PLANT THESE AMAZING TREES.

WE HAVE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS AND THIS IS AN EXCITING PARTNERSHIP AND IF YOU'RE WATCHING TODAY AND YOU KNOW AN AREA THAT NEEDS MORE TREES, CHECK OUT PHOENIX.GOV.

>> Ted: WHAT ABOUT MAINTENANCE HERE AND WATER?

DO YOU HAVE THE WATER FOR THIS?

>> SO WE ARE PLANTING NATIVE DROUGHT TOLERANT SHADE TREES AND BEING VERY SPECIFIC TO PICK TREES THAT MAKE SENSE IN THE ECOSYSTEM.

WE ALSO HAVE LOOKING AT TREES THAT HAVE WHAT'S CALLED "A LONG TAP ROOT" AND THEY ARE GROWN IN A SPECIFIC WAY TO MAKE THEM MORE DROUGHT TOLERANT AND DON'T NEED AS MUCH WATER.

>> Ted: THE WIND TODAY WAS CRAZY.

>> IT WAS.

>> Ted: THERE'S ALSO MICROPLASTIC FACTORY.

WHAT WILL THIS TAKE, PLASTIC WASTE AND MAKE STUFF OUT OF THIS?

>> A FIRST OF IT'S KIND PARTNERSHIP ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

WE'RE TAKING A RECOVERY MATERIAL FACILITY PUTTING IT WITH AN ADVANCED FACTORY.

SO WE'RE TAKING STUFF YOU USED TO THROW AWAY AND NOW THEY CAN BE MADE INTO FURNITURE, SKATEBOARDS, AND ALL SORTS OF USEFUL PRODUCTS.

NOW WE'LL WORK WITH LOCAL ENTREPRENEURS THROUGH "HUSTLE PHOENIX WELCOME TO MAKE COOL PROJECTS LOCALLY.

IT'S A SMALL FACTORY AND WE THINK IT'S SEVERAL OF THEM THROUGHOUT A COMMUNITY AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL GO FROM PHOENIX WORLD-WIDE.

>> Ted: WE'VE HAD A LETTER TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO A PLASTIC FACTORY.

A LOT GOING ON AND YOU'RE THE DEMOCRATIC MAYOR'S ASSOCIATION AND YOU HAVE TIME TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC MAYOR'S ASSOCIATION?

>> IT'S A GREAT CHANCE TO LIFT UP THE SUCCESS STORIES THAT WE HAVE AS MAYORS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.

I THINK WE'RE THE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT GETTING THINGS DONE.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THREE THINGS HAPPENING IN THE LAST TWO DAYS.

PEOPLE ARE FRUSTRATED WITH GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW, BUT HOPEFULLY, IF WE TALK MORE ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING AT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOW WE ARE SOLVING PROBLEMS, THEY'LL SEE THAT IT IS WORTH PARTNERING WITH.

>> Ted: SO WHAT DOES THE GROUP DO AND WHAT WILL YOU DO AS PRESIDENT?

>> SO WE REPRESENT MAYORS AND STIES CITIES ABOVE 30,000.

WE SHARE THE SUB CESS SUCCESS STORIES AND PROVIDE RESOURCES, WHETHER IT'S GOOD POLICY IDEAS OR BRIEFINGS AND TALKING ABOUT YOUR ACHIEVE THES AS FOLKS RUN FOR REELECTION.

>> Ted: IT'S YOUR JOB TO HELP SOME OF THESE FOLKS GET ELECTED AND RE-ELECTED, TRUE?

>> PART OF IT IS SHARING STORIES.

ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, WE'VE SEEN A MAJOR DECREASE IN CRIME.

HOW DO PEOPLE TELL THAT STORY?

NOT ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS ARE FEELING THAT?

SO WHAT ARE THE RIGHT POLICY TOOLS AND CONVERSATIONS TO HAVE?

>> Ted: YOU REFERRED TO THIS EARLIER ABOUT THE IDEA OF THE STATE CONSTANTLY MICROMANAGING, WANTING TO MICROMANAGE CITY AFFAIRS.

IS THAT CHANGING?

IS THE MOOD CHANGING IN ONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER?

WHAT ARE YOU SEEING OUT THERE AND HOW IS IT IMPACTING WHAT YOU DO?

>> WE SEE A LOT OF BILLS AT THE LEGISLATURE THAT GET INTO HOW WE RIP OUR WATER SYSTEM WHICH IS RUN BY HIGHLY TRAINED PROFESSIONALS AND HOW WE DO LOCAL DECISIONS LIKE LAND USE.

THE MOST DIFFICULT ONE FOR MAYORS HAS BEEN THE MAJOR CUT THE LEGISLATURE DID IN OUR TAXES LAST YEAR.

SO IN THE CASE OF PHOENIX, IT'S $90 MILLION, WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A LARGE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT.

SO THEY PASS ON MORE COSTS TO US AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE SEEING CUTS.

THAT'S DIFFICULT.

>> Ted: THAT RENTAL TAX, I KNOW THERE'S CONCERN AMONG MAYORS, YOU AND OTHER MAYORS, THAT THE GOVERNOR PROMISED.

THE BACKFILL HAS HELPED OUT AND HAS SHE DONE THAT?

>> I THINK THE GOVERNOR VALUES CITIES AND WANTS TO HELP US AND MISHAPS MY SENSE IS THE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE DOESN'T WANT TO DEFUND THE POLICE WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED IN PHOENIX.

THIS MONEY WAS ALLOCATED TO PUBLIC SAFETY IN A VERY EXHIBIT AMOUNT.

SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT.

WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE CRISIS WE'RE FACING, FENTANYL OR OTHER CHALLENGES, CITIES ARE ON THE FRONTLINE AND WE NEED A PARTNERSHIP.

>> Ted: I KNOW WHAT REPUBLICANS WOULD SAY.

REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP WOULD SAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO CUT SECURITY OR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO CUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT MONEY FROM RENTAL TAX.

DO THEY HAVE A POINT?

>> PUBLIC SAFETY IS 70% OF OUR FUNDING.

I BELIEVE GREAT CITIES NEED TO HAVE LIBRARIES, PARKS AND OTHER SERVICES, BUT JUST GIVEN THE MAGNITUDE OF THE CUT, PUBLIC SAFETY HAS TO BE IMPACTED AND IN THIS CASE, THERE WERE FUNDING SPECIFICALLY PASSED BY OUR VOTERS AT THE BALLOT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY.

>> Ted: ARE YOU OPT MIDST OPTIMISTIC SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN?

>> WE'LL TELL THE STORY AND HOPEFULLY THE RESIDENTS WILL SAY, LEGISLATURE, PLEASE THINK ABOUT DELAYING THIS AND CUTTING SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN OUR NEXT BUDGET YEAR DOESN'T GIVE US MUCH FLEXIBILITY AND TIME TO GET THINGS DONE.

>> Ted: PHOENIX MAYOR, KATE GALLEGO, GOOD TO SEE YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> Ted: THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

I'M TED SIMONS.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US AND YOU HAVE A GREAT EVENING.