>> TED: COMING UP NEXT ON ARIZONA HORIZON.

IT'S A JOURNALIST ROUND TABLE.

WE'LL LOOK AT WEEK'S TOP STORIES INCLUDING THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF RAUL RAHAVA.

ARIZONA HORIZON IS NEXT.

>> GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME.

IT'S FRIDAY AND TIME FOR THE JOURNALIST ROUND TABLE.

JOINING US TONIGHT WAYNE FROM KCGZ RADIO AND JIM SMALL ON THE ARIZONA MIRROR.

GOOD TO HAVE YOU ALL HERE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

WAYNE, WE'LL START WITH YOU, RAUL RAJALVA, HIS DEATH KIND OF A SHOT BUT NOT A SURPRISE.

>> HE'S HAD A BATTLE WITH CANCER FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW.

A FEW MONTH BACK WE HEARD HE HAD RESPONDED WELL TO TREATMENT BUT THEN HE HASN'T BEEN IN CONGRESS FOR A WHILE, SO LIKE YOU SAID, NOT A SHOCK BUT OBVIOUSLY A HUGE LOSS FOR DEMOCRATS, KIND OF THE ELDER STATESMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION, NOT JUST IN ARIZONA BUT AS A WHOLE.

>> AND VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN SOUTHERN ARIZONA POLITICS.

GIVES A LITTLE BACKGROUND HERE.

>> HE GOES BACK TO THE TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD.

IN FACT, HE'S THE ONE THE PEOPLE ON THE BOARD WHO SUED TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS FAIR REPRESENTATION, THAT THERE WASN'T THIS SORT OF GERRYMANDERING WHERE IT WAS CONTROLLED BY WHITE PEOPLE.

HE HAS A LONG HISTORY IN POLITICS.

HIS FAMILY'S BEEN INVOLVED WITH POLITICS.

BUT HIS REAL LEGACY, IF YOU WILL, IS HIS INTEREST IN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.

I MEAN, HE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF HIS POSITION AS CHAIRMAN OF A POWERFUL HOUSE COMMITTEE, PUSHED THROUGH BILLS TO CONSOLE THE PRESIDENT.

HE WAS LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING BIDEN TO NAME THE FOOTPRINTS THAT THE NEW NATIONAL MONUMENT UP THERE AND HE MADE SURE THAT PEOPLE KNEW THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE HIS ISSUES, YOU KNOW.

I'M WILLING TO TALK WITH YOU, I'M WILLING TO NEGOTIATE BUT, YOU KNOW, DON'T ASK ME TO COMPROMISE ON IMPORTANT STUFF.

>> AVENUES LIBERAL THROUGH AND THROUGH, DIDN'T REALLY WAIVER, DID HE?

>> NO.

HE WAS IN FACT THE MERIT TUGS CHAIR OF THE CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS AND HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT EFFORT FOR A LONG TIME.

I DON'T THINK -- HE WAS STRIDE MEANT HIS VIEWS.

I DON'T THINK ANYONE REALLY DOUBT WHERE HE HAD STOOD ON HIS ISSUES AND NO ONE WAS EVER GOING TO CONFUSE HIM WITH, SAY, KYRSTEN SINEMA OR SOMEONE LIKE THAT, WHO WAS A DEMOCRAT, WHO MIGHT BE PERSUADED FROM ISSUE TO ISSUE.

HE WAS ABSOLUTELY ON THE LEFT END OF THE CAUCUS.

>> AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT LOW POINTS FOR HIS CAREER, THE CALL FOR A BOYCOTT OF ARIZONA AFTER SB1070 WHICH HE REVERSED NOT TOO LONG AFTER.

>> I THINK, AGAIN, REMEMBER, HE'S FROM THE BLUE MARBLE DISTRICT FROM MIDTOWN TUCSON ALL THE WAY TOUT YUMA AND IT WAS PROBABLY A VERY SAFE POSITION FOR HIM THERE, SPECIFICALLY WITH A LARGE HISPANIC POPULATION.

BUT ON A LARGER SCALE I THINK HE RECOGNIZED WHO AM I HURTING, HE'S BEING HURT WITH THIS.

AGAIN, IN SOME WAYS HE WAS BERNIE SANDERS FOR TAZ AZ POLITICALLY.

I MEAN, HE DIDN'T LIKE TO COMPROMISE ON A LOT OF THINGS.

HE SAID HERE'S WHAT I BELIEVE.

PEOPLE KEEP RE-ELECTING ME.

HE'S A FEW CHALLENGES FROM BOTH THE RIGHT AND LEFT.

AND PEOPLE SAID WE LIKE WHAT YOU DO, AND WE WANT YOU HERE.

>> YEAH, WAYNE RE-ELECTED SINCE 2002, WAS HIS FIRST TERM.

>> LONGEST SERVING CONGRESSMAN, RIGHT, IN ARIZONA.

AND AS HE MENTIONED, ONE OF THE OBITUARIES I READ THAT WAS WRITTEN BY A REPORTER WHO STARTED AS A DISH WASHNER D.C. BE KIND OF REALLY LOOKED AT THAT AND SAID HE WAS THE ONLY CONGRESSMAN WHO WOULD COME INTO OUR RESTAURANT WHICH WAS LIKE A REALLY WELL-TRAVELED BAR IN D.C. AND KNEW ALL OF OUR THAMES IN THE BACK AND BUM A CIGARETTE FROM US, BUY US A BEER.

THOSE KIND OF THINGS.

SO IN ADDITION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, HE WAS KIND OF LIKE STANDING UP FOR THE LITTLE GUY, WHO HE VIEWED HIMSELF AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR.

>> ALL RIGHT, JIM, WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT SEAT NOW?

>> WELL, THERE'S GONNA BE A SPECIAL ELECTION.

KATIE HOBBS WILL BE NAMING -- CALLING THE DATE OF THE SPECIAL ELECTION.

BECAUSE WE'RE SO FAR OUT, THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL PRIMARY AND SPECIAL GENERAL, WHOEVER IS THE ULTIMATE WINNER THAT IS GOING TO HANG ON TO THAT SEAT UNTIL 2026 WHEN THERE WILL BE ANOTHER REGULAR ELECTION.

>> AND PERHAPS BEYOND THAT.

THE DATES BEING SET, JULY 15th FOR PRIMARY.

THAT GIVES IT TO PEOPLE WHO ARE LINING UP AND DOING ONE OF THESE THINGS, YOU KNOW, CAN I GET THE SUPPORT, DO I HAVE THE BACKING, ENOUGH TIME DO THAT?

AND THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A GENERAL ON SEPTEMBER 23rd.

NOW, TRUTHFULLY IN THAT DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, UNLESS THE DEMOCRATS NOMINATE SOMEONE TRULY OFFENSIVE OR STUPID, IT'S A DEMOCRATIC DISTRICT, AND THE PRIMARY BECOMES THE ELECTION.

>> RICKY ROMERO, RAUL HAS AN EXTENDED FAMILY.

I THINK HIS DAUGHTER IS ALSO INTERESTED.

>> YEAH, NATALIE, WHO'S A SUPERVISOR DOWN THERE.

ROMERO CONNER WHO'S THE ATTORNEY DOWN IN PIMA COUNTY.

ALL OF THOSE ARE SORT OF BIG NAMES IN TUCSON POLITICS, THOSE GO TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE.

>> YEAH, I'VE HEARD ALL OF THOSE NAMES.

HEARD ANOTHER COUNTY SUPERVISOR MATT HEINZ IS INTERESTED RUNNING FOR THAT, AND DANIELLE HERNANDEZ, FORMER STATE LEGISLATOR, FORMER AIDE TO BEGANY GIVENS.

I THINK -- YOU KNOW, CONGRESSIONAL SEATS DON'T OPEN THAT OFTEN AND I IMAGINE WE'LL SEE SIX, 10, PEOPLE TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK AT IT, HOW MANY THEM WILL ACTUALLY DECIDE THEY REALLY WANT TO RUN A TRUNK KUWAITED CAMPAIGN AND BUILD A COALITION AND TRY TO GET THROUGH, I THINK REMAINS TO BE SEEN BUT WOULDN'T BE SHOCKED IF WE SEE THREE, FOUR, FIVE PEOPLE IN THIS RACE.

>> AND THE MONEY BECOMES TRULY IMPORTANT.

BECAUSE BETWEEN NOW AND 60 DAYS OUT FROM JULY WHEN YOU HAVE TO ANNOUNCE, YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH DO I NEED TO RAISE.

THE GOOD NEWS IS IT'S BASICALLY ONE-HALF MEDIA MARKETS, IT'S NOT LIKE RUNNING STATEWIDE.

YOU HAVE TO BUY THE TUCSON MARKET AND PERHAPS THE YUMA TV AND RADIO STATIONS BUT IT'S STILL A LOT OF MONEY THAT YOU'VE GOTTA RAISE BECAUSE IT'S A SPRAWLING DISTRICT.

>> DO YOU HAVE TO RAISE MORE MONEY WHEN IT'S JUST YOU ON THE BALLOT AS OPPOSED TO FIGHTING WITH EVERYTHING ELSE ON A GENERAL BALLOT?

>> I THINK YOU DON'T HAVE TO RAISE MORE MONEY ONLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT DRIVING UP THE COST.

PART OF WHAT DRIVES UP THE COST, AND JIM SEES THIS ALL THE TIME IN ADVERTISING, IS YOU'RE COMPETING WITH PRESIDENTIAL, CONGRESSIONAL, SCHOOL BOARD INITIATIVES AND THEY'VE BOUGHT UP ALL THE TIME.

IF YOU ONLY HAVE THAT AS A SPECIAL ELECTION, THEN IT'S PROBABLY EASIER.

NOW, IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH DOES SOMEBODY HAVE TO RAISE IN ORDER HAVE AN ID?

ROMERO PERHAPS DOESN'T HAVE TO RAISES A MUCH AS HERNANDEZ WHO'S BEEN OUT OF THE PUBLIC EYE FOR A FEW YEARS.

>> BUT CURRENTLY RAN A STATE CAMPAIGN AND MIGHT HAVE A LEG-UP.

>> AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE STARTER HOMO -- GOT NOW A COMPROMISE FROM THE GOVERNOR.

GOODNESS GRACIOUS, THIS IS SO CONINVADE LIEUTENANTED.

GETTING FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS INTO HOPES.

>> ALL OF THE EFFORTS HAVE STARTED TO FOCUS ON THE IDEA OF DEREGULATION WE'VE SEEN AT THE CITY LEVEL.

WE'VE SEEN IT FOR YEARS NOW.

THE STARTER HOME HAS ITS HISTORICAL ROOTS GOING BACK SEVERAL YEARS NOW.

AVERSION WAS VETOED LAST YEAR.

THE WHOLE IDEA IS GETTING CITIES TO REQUIRE DIFFERENT ESTHETIC PIECES ON NEW HOMES AND ADDITIONS LIKE GARAGES, TO GET THE BARE BONE STARTER HOME WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT THAT WOULD DRIVE DOWN THE OVERALL COST OF THE HOME TO GET NEW HOMEOWNERS IN.

HOWEVER, NOW THE ARGUMENT IS OVER HOW MUCH REGULATION SHOULD WE GET RID OF.

>> AND JIM, ADD TO THAT, IF YOU WOULD, BECAUSE IT DOES SEEM LIKE -- ARE CITIES AND TOWNS, IF THEY FOUND SOMETHING THEY LIKE SO FAR?

>> NO.

NO.

THEY STILL -- FOR DECIDES TOWNS, THIS IS REALLY ALMOST LIKE AN EXISTENTIAL ISSUE, RIGHT.

LIKE ONE OF THE MAIN FUNCTIONS OF THE CITY AND TOWN IS TO REGULATE AND GOVERN WHAT GETS BUILT IN THAT CITY OR TOWN.

SO THE IDEA OF THE STATE COMING IN AND BASICALLY BIG-FOOTING THIS AND SAYING NO, NO, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DETERMINE LOT SIZES OR HOW MANY HOMES PER ACRE OR WHAT KIND OF OPEN SPACE YOU NEED HAVE OR WHAT OTHER AMENITIES, GARAGES, FASCIAS, ALL OF THAT IS, YOU KNOW, A BIG DEAL TO THE CITY.

THE CITY VIEWS THEIR JOB -- AND I THINK RIGHTLY IN A LOT OF WAYS -- AS BEING ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT KIND OF CULTURE AND WHAT THE A LOT LOOK OF THE CITY IS AND WHAT THINGS ARE GOOD AND BAD FOR NEIGHBORHOODS AND FOR THE CITY AS A WHOLE.

SO I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE STILL NOT HAPPY WITH THIS IDEA THAT THE SOLUTION THAT EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE KIND OF KEYING IN ON IS GETTING RID OF THEIR ABILITY TO ZONE THINGS.

>> BUT A LOT OF IT IS -- A LITTLE BIT OF ANYBODYISM IN THERE, BOTH WITH -- NIBISM IN THERE, BOTH WITH THAT BILL AND ANOTHER ONE -- >> YES IN GOD'S BACKYARD.

>> YES.

EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT MATT GRASS SAID NOT IN MY PARADISE VALLEY DISTRICT.

BUT HAVING LOT SIZES AS SMALL AS 3,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE GOVERNOR SAYS WELL, MAYBE ON NEW DEVELOPMENTS OF MORE THAN 10 ACRES, YOU'RE NOT JUST GONNA PLOP ONE DOWN IN ONE PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE QUESTION OF HOW FAR THE HOUSE HAS TO BE SET BACK FROM THE CURB.

IS IT 10 FEET IN THE PROBLEM WITH 10 FEET IS IF YOU HAVE A GARAGE YOU CAN'T GET THE CAR ALL THE WAY UP OFF THE CURB.

ISSUES OF, DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE AMENITIES, DO YOU HAVE A POOL, DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CLUBHOUSE, DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SWING SET FOR THE KIDS THERE?

DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE FENCES BETWEEN PROPERTY AS SOON AS IT ADDS UP TO MONEY.

THE OTHER PIECE WHICH IS CRITICAL IS HOW DO YOU RESTRICT IT?

THERE ARE SOME PROPOSALS THAT SAY A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE SHOULD BE LIMITED TO PEOPLE THE LOWEST IN INCOME.

FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS, 55 YEARS, THAT'S ONE PROPOSAL.

THE OTHER ONE SAYS THAT SOME PERCENTAGE OF HOMES SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR HOMEBUYERS, SO PEOPLE WHO WILL OCCUPY SO YOU DON'T HAVE DEVELOPERS SWEEPING IN, I SEE VACATION RECOMMENDATION.

>> AND OCCUPYING FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES IS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE DRIVING FACTORS IN HOUSING PRICES, IN ARIZONA AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY, HAS BEEN THESE REALLY LARGE INVESTMENT FUNDS.

AND ADVENTURE CAPITAL THAT'S BASICALLY COMING IN, SWOOPING IN, AND PAYING CASH OFFERS TO BUY THESE HOUSES.

I THINK THERE'S A REAL CONCERN THAT IF YOU DO THIS AND YOU SPUR HOME CONSTRUCTION WITH THESE INEXPENSIVE HOMES, IS ALL THIS MONEY, YOU KNOW, GONNA JUST FLOW IN AND SNAP UP THESE HOMES AND SO FOLKS WHO ARE DESPERATELY LOOKING TO BE ABLE TO BUY THEIR OWN FIRST HOME OR MOVE FROM AN APARTMENT TO A HOUSE ARE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO COMPETE WITH THAT.

AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THERE ARE -- THERE HAVE BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS HOW TO KIND OF GO AFTER THAT, HOW TO STOP IT.

AND I THINK AT THAT POINT YOU START TO SEE SOME OF THE COALITION FRACTURE A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FREE MARKET ECONOMIC VERSUS SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN DRIVING IT.

>> AND THAT'S MY QUESTION, THERE COMPROMISE ON THE SIDE OF THE FREE MARKET ASPECT, LIKE, WE GOTTA MAKE SURE STARTER HOMES ARE FOR PEOPLE LOOKING FOR THEIR FIRST -- AND THE GOVERNOR'S SIDE, WHICH SAYS OKAY, MAYBE THE REGULATIONS FOR MUNICIPALITIES MAY NOT BE SO STRICT?

IS THERE A MIDDLE GROUND HERE?

>> THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE LAY OUT ALL OF THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS ON THE TABLE.

THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT BILLS, THE GOVERNOR HAS ITS OWN OPTION.

SO HOW DOES HE WE GUARANTEE THAT THIS IS GOING TO GO?

BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF THE REPUBLICANS IN THE COALITION JUST WANT TO GET RID OF THESE RULES AND THEY'RE SAYING IT WILL TRICKLE DOWN TO THE HOMEBUYERS AND THEN THEY'RE SAYING, WAIT A SECOND, I DON'T KNOW THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

THE OTHER QUESTION IS WHO DOES THIS RULE APPLY TO?

I BELIEVE THE MOST RECENT BILL IS POPULATION OF 70,000 OR MORE.

THE GOVERNOR, WHO'S TYPICALLY AGAINST, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE REGULATIONS ACTUALLY SAID, LET'S BRING IT DOWN.

LET'S GO TO 30,000 BECAUSE IF IT'S GOOD FOR THE CITY, WHY ISN'T IT GOOD FOR RURAL ARIZONA.

>> ALL RIGHT, WE GOTTA KEEP THINGS MOVING HERE.

I SAW THE GOVERNOR WANTS MORE FUNDS FOR A VOUCHER PROGRAM.

WHAT'S GOING ON?

>> WELL, WANTS IS THE TERM.

THIS GOES BACK TO THE FIGHTING FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED.

SHE SAYS THE LEGISLATURE HAD AGREED TO FUND IT AFTER THE FEDERAL FUNDING DRIED OUT, AND REPRESENTATIVE LIVINGSTON SAID NO WE DIDN'T.

MEANWHILE, THEY'VE BEEN SPENDING AS IF IT'S ALL THERE, AND WE'RE ABOUT TO -- YOU KNOW, GET $200,000 WITH A FEW OTHER THINGS IN THE HOLE.

SHE SAYS, WELL, PEOPLE ALWAYS ASK FOR SUPPLEMENTALS.

SO NOW THAT SHE'S GOT THE OPPORTUNITY, I'D SAY WELL, WAIT, IF SUPPLEMENTALS ARE BAD, THEN WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO GO AHEAD AND COVER THESE VOUCHERS, THESE SCHOLARSHIP ACCOUNTS.

THE REPUBLICANS SAYING, THAT'S JUST PART OF THE LARGER EDUCATION BUDGET, IT ISN'T A SPECIFIC LINE.

AS YOU SAY, IT'S ONE IN TERMS OF, WELL, IF YOU WON'T DO MINE, I WON'T DO YOURS.

THE MONEY WILL BE THERE, A, FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED.

THE REPUBLICANS SAID THAT WEEK, YOU KNOW, WE'LL FIND THE MONEY BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND B, IF THERE'S A COST FOR THE VOUCHERS, THEY'RE GONNA PAY IT.

>> YEAH, I THINK THIS NEGOTIATING TACTIC -- WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER.

SO IF YOU'RE GONNA COMPLAIN ABOUT THE PROGRAM THAT I'M TRYING TO GET THE MONEY FOR AFTER THE FACT, THEN, BECAUSE IT'S OVERRUN ITS COST, THEN, BOY, WE SHOULD REALLY LOOK AT YOUR SACRED COW THAT IS ALSO, AGAIN, FOR I DON'T KNOW WHAT, THE THIRD, FOURTH YEAR IN A ROW COMING IN SIGNIFICANTLY OVER BUDGET.

>> IT'S A GREAT HEADLINE TO SEE THAT THE GOVERNOR ASKS FOR MORE MONEY FOR ESA.

LET'S TALK ABOUT ATTORNEY GENERAL CHRIS MAIZE, VERY BUSY CREEK FOR HER.

>> YEAH, SHE HAS SIGNED TONIGHT ANOTHER LAWSUIT AGAINST THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

THIS ONE GOING AFTER THE CUTTING OF ABOUT 50% OF THE EMPLOYEES THERE.

AND BASICALLY THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THIS IS AN END-AROUND, TRYING GO AROUND CONGRESS TO SHUT DOWN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WHY BEEN A STATED GOAL OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

BUT CONGRESS A HAS TO APPROVE ANY DEPARTMENT BEING SHUT DOWN COMPLETELY, SO INSTEAD THEY'RE KIND OF GUTTING IT, IS THE ARGUMENT THAT THESE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ARE MAKING.

>> SHE HAS NEVER FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SHE DOESN'T LIKE.

>> A COUPLE OF JUDGES SAID YOU GOT A POINT, WE'RE GONNA BLOCK THINGS.

>> SOME WITH BIRTH RIGHT CITIZENSHIP, SOME IT WAS THE ACROSS THE BOARD LAYOFFS OF PEOPLE ON PROBATION.

>> BUT THE MASS FIRINGS, AS WELL.

>> EXACTLY.

>> THAT JUDGE YESTERDAY BASICALLY CALLED THE WHOLE THING A SHAM.

>> I THOUGH.

AND THE FACT IS, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY.

I PLAY ONE OCCASIONALLY HERE ON FRIDAY NIGHTS, BUT SHE'S RIGHT.

I MEAN, IF A PROGRAM IS APPROVED BY CONGRESS, IF THEY HAVE FUNDED SOMETHING, YOU CAN'T JUST DECIDE AS THE PRESIDENT, WELL, I'M JUST NOT GONNA FUND IT.

IMAGINE THE HORROR THAT WOULD OCCUR AT CAPITOL, THE STATE CAPITOL IF GOVERNOR KATIE HOBBS WERE TO SAY, YES, YOU APPROVED THIS PROGRAM FOR VETERANS OR THIS PROGRAM FOR VOUCHERS AND I'M JUST NOT GONNA FUND IT.

SO THEY DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM WILL.

>> WHAT DO YOU GOT HERE, GLIM.

>> WELL, YEAH, AND I THINK ONE OF THE -- THE POINTS THAT HAS BEEN MADE IN A LOT OF THESE LAWSUITS IS THERE IS A FEDERAL LAW THAT SAYS THE PRESIDENT SPECIFICALLY CANNOT DO THIS EXACT THING.

I THINK THE ARGUMENT FROM REPUBLICANS HAS BEEN, WELL, THAT LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

THAT'S THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WHO SAYS DON'T CARE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO FOLLOW IT, WE'RE GONNA DO WHATEVER WE WANT.

AND THE COURT SO FAR HAVE LARGELY SIDED, I THINK, WITH THE COALISE OF DEMOCRATIC AGs IN PUTTING A STOP TO A LOT OF THESE MANEUVERS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE, OR IF THEY HAVEN'T YET, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO IN A NUMBER OF THESE CASES.

ALL OF THESE WILL RISE TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

WHAT THEY DO IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK RIGHT NOW A MYSTERY, AND EVEN IF THEY RULE AGAINST DONALD TRUMP, HOW HE RESPONDS TO THAT I THINK -- >> THE PROBLEM IS EVEN WHEN THE COURTS ARE RULING AGAINST HIM, LIKE A LOT OF THESE ACTIONS HAVE ALREADY STARTED, AND PEOPLE BEING TOLD THEY'RE FIRED SO THEY HAVE TO GO BACK AND TELL THEM THEY'RE NOT FIRED AND THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION AND CHAOS AND WE'VE ALREADY HEARD THAT WITH SOME OF THE OTHER RULINGS REFERENCED IN SOME OF THE OTHER EMPLOYEES BEING LET GO.

AND A LOT OF THEM ARE COMING FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS OFFICE, THE OFFICES THAT PROVIDE SERVICES FOR DISABLED STUDENTS, AND SO WHETHER OR NOT THE COURTS RULE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IN THIS RESPECT, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE DISRUPTION TO A LOT OF SERVICES.

>> AND QUICKLY, ATTORNEY GENERAL MAIZE HAD NOTED HOW MUCH ARIZONA DEPENDS ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ITS SCHOOLS.

>> ARIZONA DEPENDS ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR EVERYTHING.

ESPECIALLY SCHOOLS, YES.

FEDERAL MONEY FLOWS IN, BUT A RECENT ANALYSIS, I SAW ARIZONA IS ONE OF THE STATES THAT RELIES THE MOST ON FEDERAL MONEY.

BUT THE PRINCIPLE IS, AND IT'S NOT ENTIRELY WRONG, WE WOULDN'T BE DEPENDENT ON THE FEDS TO GIVE US BACK OUR MONEY IF WE GOT TO KEEP SOMETHING HERE.

NOW, IT GOES TO WASHINGTON AND FINSNESSED AND DIVIDED UP ACCORDING TO NEED AND THEN OF COURSE AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE AND THIS HAS TO HAPPEN...

BUT, YOU KNOW, DO WE NEED EXTEND TO EVERYTHING OFF TO WASHINGTON TO HAVE IT COME BACK?

IF YOU SOMEHOW DID LOWER THE FEDERAL TAX RATE AND THE STATE WAS ABLE TO PICK IT UP, LEGISLATION WILLING TO DO THAT, COULD YOU PAY FOR IT HERE?

>> THAT'S A REALLY BIG ASSUMPTION, HOWIE.

HOW OFTEN DO THEY SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'VE GOT A BIG PILE OF MONEY, LET'S GIVE IT TO SCHOOLS?

>> I UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM, BUT THE PRINCIPLE IS, YOU KNOW, DOES EVERYTHING NEED TO RUN THROUGH WASHINGTON?

>> AND LET'S TIE IT ALL BACK TOGETHER.

SUPERINTENDENT TOM HORN HAS SAID IN THE PAST HOW HE NEEDS MORE PEOPLE JUST TO RUN THE VOUCHER PROGRAM SO WHO'S TO SAY THAT HIS DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS A FRACTION OF THE SIZE, EVEN IF IT HAD THAT MONEY, WOULD HAVE THE EMPLOYEES, THE EXPERIENCE, THE PEOPLE WHO ADMINISTER ALL OF THIS THAT THEY'VE NEVER DONE BEFORE.

>> AND OF COURSE HORN IS SUPPORTING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GETTING DISBANNED.

HE'S LONG HATED THE DEPARTMENT OF ED CAN OCCASION SINCE THE EARLY 2000'S AND UNDER NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND AND ALL THAT.

BUT, HE SAYS, YEAH, WE SHOULD GET RID IT AND LET THE STATE DO IT.

AND, YOU KNOW, CHRIS MAIZE MADE A SPECIFIC POINT ABOUT THAT AND EVEN BROUGHT UP THAT ESA STUFF, IT WAS LIKE, LOOK, THIS IS AN AGENCY THAT HAS BEEN UNABLE TO MANAGE THIS, THAT THEY BASICALLY GOT TO THE POINT WHERE THEY SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT WE'VE GOTTA DO, WE'VE GOT SO MANY BACKLOGS WE'LL APPROVE IT ALL AND LET LAW ENFORCEMENT SORT IT OUT AT THE END OF THE DAY.

>> HOWIE, BEFORE WE GO HERE, THIS IS VERY INTERESTING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND HOW IT IMPACTS ARIZONA BUT WE CAN'T GO WITHOUT YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT.

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE SEEN THESE ATTEMPTSES TO RAISE THE SALARY OF STATE LAWMAKERS?

WHAT'S THIS ONE ALL ABOUT?

>> THIS ONE IS -- UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THEIR SALARIES CAN ONLY BE RAISED BY VOTERS.

AND YOU HAVE A COMMISSIONER ON SALARIES THAT USED TO MEET -- THEY HAVEN'T FOR A FEW YEARS, AND THAT'S A LONG STORY -- IT GOES TO THE VOTERS AND HAS BEEN $24,000 NOW SINCE 1998.

AND WENT TO THE VOTERS, THEY TRIED $36,000.

THEY DIDN'T LIKE THAT.

THEY DIDN'T LIKE $35,000.

SO IT SORT OF LAID THERE.

JOHN KAVANAUGH, WHO HAS PROBABLY BEEN AT THE CAPITOL LONGER THAN ANYBODY ELSE AND RETIRED AND PROBABLY DOESN'T NEED THE MONEY, BUT THAT TOO IS ANOTHER STORY, SAYS, LOOK, LET'S AT LEAST KEEP PACE WITH INFLATION, WHICH SOUNDS FINE UNTIL YOU LOOK AT THE BILL THAT HE SENT THROUGH THE SENATE.

IT'D BE ONE THING IF HE SAID LET'S TAKE OUR $24,000, WE'LL INDEX IT EVERY YEAR TO INFLATION.

THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR THAT.

WE HAVE A MINIMUM WAGE THAT'S LINKED TO INFLATION.

HE SET IT UP SO IT'S LINKED TO INFLATION BACK TO THE LAST TIME VOTERS SAID WE'LL GIVE YOU A PAY RAISE, WHICH IS 1998.

SO I DID A LITTLE BIT OF MATH, EVEN AS A JOURNALIST CAN DO THAT.

YOU TAKE THAT $24,000, IF APPROVED BY VOTERS, IT WOULD BE ABOUT $48,000.

HE THINKS HE CAN SELL THAT TO VOTERS.

>> HE CAN SELL THAT TO VOTERS, JIM?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK THE PROBLEM YOU ALWAYS HAVE WITH THIS IS, YOU KNOW, LAWMAKERS ARE UNDERPAID.

THAT $24,000 IN 1998 HOLDS NOTHING RIGHT NOW, RIGHT.

WE'VE SEEN A STREAM OF LAWMAKERS QUIT IN THE LAST THREE YEARS SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THE PAY, THE PAY IS SO BAD.

AND SO YOU HAVE -- THE ISSUE IS THEY NEED MORE MONEY, AND THEY SHOULD PROBABLY BE PAID MORE, AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THIS HE ALSO GO, WAIT A SECOND, ARE WE REWARDING BAD BEHAVIOR?

LOOK AT WHAT THESE PEOPLE INTRODUCE, LOOK AT BILLS THEY SPONSOR LOOK, AT VOTES THEY TAKE.

WHY DO WE WANT TO GIVE THIS CROP OF LAWMAKERS MORE MONEY?

>> AND THE OTHER SAID SAYS, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

>> YEAH.

WE JUST HAD SENATOR RESIGN AND SHE'S NOT ON THE LEGISLATURE ALL THE TIME AND CAN'T BE A NURSE AND TAKE CARE OF HER FAMILY ON $24,000.

SO THERE'S A VALID ARGUMENT TO BE MADE IN IF YOU WANT MORE DIVERSE GROUP LEGISLATORS THAT REPRESENT ARIZONANS AND NOT JUST A BUNCH OF RETIRED RICH PEOPLE, THEN WE SHOULD PROBABLY PAY THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, VOTERS SEE IT ON THE BALLOT AND SAY, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.

>> LAST WORD, VOTERS SEE THIS ON THE BALLOT WHAT DO THEY SAN JOSE.

>> THEY SAY NO TO THIS, I THINK IT SHOULD GO BACK TO WHERE THEY WERE AND HAVE THE COMMISSION COME BACK AND SAY, LOOK, LET'S TRY $30,000 AGAIN AND DO A LITTLE A LITTLE MORE MODERATE AND NOT HAVE THE AUTOMATIC.

OR MAYBE TRY IT WITH AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS, GOING DIRECTLY TO $48,000, AND HAVING AN INDEX FROM THERE.

>> ALL RIGHT, GENTLEMEN.

GOOD DISCUSSION.

GOOD TO HAVE YOU ALL HERE.

THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

I'M TED SIMONS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

YOU HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.

- Hello, I'm Alice Ferris, and we hope you enjoyed "Arizona Horizon."

>> HELLO, I'M ALICE FERRIS AND WE HOPE YOU ENJOYED ARIZONA HORIZON.