♪.

TED: COMING UP NEXT ON "ARIZONA HORIZON," IT'S THE JOURNALISTS' ROUNDTABLE.

WE'LL LOOK AT WEEK'S TOP STORIES INCLUDING ARIZONA'S ROLE IN THE SUPREME COURT STRIKING DOWN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SWEEPING TARIFFS ON U.S.

TRADING PARTNERS.

JOURNALISTS' ROUNDTABLE IS NEXT ON "ARIZONA HORIZON."

.

TED: GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO "ARIZONA HORIZON."

I'M TED SIMONS.

IT'S FRIDAY, AND THAT MEANS IT'S TIME FOR THE JOURNALISTS' ROUNDTABLE.

JOINING US TONIGHT, JAMAR YOUNGER FROM THE "ARIZONA CAPITOL TIMES."

JEREMY DUDA FROM AXIOS PHOENIX AND JIM SMALL FROM THE "ARIZONA MIRROR."

PANEL, GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE.

JAMAR, WELCOME TO THE JOURNALISTS' ROUNDTABLE.

GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE.

START WITH THE SUPREME COURT, BIG RULING.

>> RIGHT, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THEY -- ONE THING THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME TRUMP IMMEDIATELY AFTER SAID HE WAS GOING TO DOUBLE DOWN WITH THE 10% TARIFFS.

TED: YES.

>> HE'S NOT BACKING DOWN, HE HAS UNKIND WORDS FOR THE SUPREME COURT, BUT THEN ALSO ARIZONA PLAYED A PROMINENT ROLE AS WELL WITH LEADING THIS.

IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THIS PROGRESSES NOW THAT HE'S DOUBLING DOWN, AND HE'S SAYING HE DOESN'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THE RULING, AND HE'S JUST GOING TO PUSH FORWARD WITH HIS TARIFFS.

TED: JAMAR MENTIONED ARIZONA AND OREGON WERE THE TAG TEAM LEADERS ON THIS THING BACK IN THE DAY, THIS LAWSUIT, I SHOULD SAY.

>> YEAH, AND KRIS MAYES HAS BEEN PART OF 35 OR SOMETHING DEMOCRATIC LAWSUITS.

TWO DOZEN OR SO A.G.s, THIS IS THE ONE SHE'S IN THE DRIVER SEAT.

POLITICALLY FOR HER, A GOOD ONE TO BE IN THE DRIVER SEAT, SHE GOT TO STAND UP AND DECLARE VICTORY, A VICTORY NOT JUST FOR ARIZONA AND AMERICA, BUT FOR HER NOW.

HOW MUCH THE AVERAGE PERSON WILL NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING THE CO-LEAD ON THE SUIT VERSUS ONE OF TWO DOZEN A.G.s IN THE SUIT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF A DISTINCTION VOTERS ARE GOING TO MAKE.

FOR HER, THIS IS SOMETHING SHE HAS TO STAND UP AND TAKE A VICTORY LAP.

TED: THIS WAS A 6-3 VOTE, IT WASN'T CLOSE.

SUPREME COURT SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO DO THIS.

>> EXACTLY RIGHT.

IT GOES TO THE POINT THERE'S PROBABLY THREE VOTES FOR THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ON ANYTHING, BECAUSE THIS WAS NOT A DIFFICULT CASE FROM A LEGAL STAFF.

YOU LOOK AT ISSUE AT HAND, THIS INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS ACT THAT THE WHITE HOUSE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP USED AS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR JUST IMPLEMENTING TARIFFS WILLY-NILLY, FOR ANY REASON, AT ANY POINT, AT ANY LEVEL, AND THIS IS A LAW, THIS ECONOMIC POWERS ACT THAT DOESN'T MENTION TARIFFS, DOESN'T MENTION TAXING, DOESN'T MENTION ANY OF THE THINGS THEY SAID.

BASICALLY WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT, IN THE CASE OF AN EMERGENCY, CAN DO CERTAIN THINGS, BUT NOTHING ABOUT TARIFFS, AND THE ARGUMENTS IN COURT, I THINK IT WAS APPARENT WATCHING THE ARGUMENT IN COURT SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, THAT THE SUPREME COURT EVEN THE CONSERVATIVES ON THAT COURT SEEM TO BE TAKING A DIM VIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S ARGUMENTS AND THE JUSTIFICATIONS WHY THIS SHOULD BE ALLOWED, AND WE SAW THAT IN THE RULING THAT CAME OUT AND CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS WROTE IT.

IT ESSENTIALY SAYS YOU CAN'T INVENT AND INSERT WORDS INTO THIS LAW.

YOU CAN'T ESSENTIALLY TRY TO BACKTRACK THE LAW TO FIT YOUR POLICY GOALS.

YOU HAVE TO WORK WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF IT.

IF YOU DON'T, THAT'S HOW REPUBLICS FALL.

TED: JAMAR, AS FAR AS THE ASCENT WITH ALITO, THOMAS AND CAVANAUGH SAYING, YES, THIS HAS BEEN USED BY THE PRESIDENT, AS EXECUTIVE, TO GET FOREIGN POLICY DONE, AND IT IS OF NATIONAL INTEREST.

IS THAT KIND OF STUFF GOING TO HOLD OVER REPUBLICANS, OR ARE THERE A LOT OF REPUBLICANS SAYING WHEW, I'M GLAD THIS HAPPENED?

>> YOU LOOKED AT DIVISION ON THE SUPREME COURT, APPEARS THERE MAY BE SOME, GLAD THIS HAPPENED AND EVERYONE WASN'T IN AGREEMENT, AND THERE IS DEFINITELY DIVISION AMONG MOST REPUBLICANS REGARDING WHETHER THESE WERE LEGAL, WHETHER THIS WAS GOOD POLICY, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT AFFORDABILITY CONVERSATIONS TAKING PLACE AND EVERYTHING THAT'S CONNECTING THE TARIFFS TO HIGHER PRICES FOR CONSUMERS AND FOR BUSINESSES AS WELL.

TED: YEAH, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT REPUBLICANS WOULD HAVE TO RUN ON HERE IN A FEW MONTHS.

>> YEAH, THEY COULD PUT THIS BACK TO CONGRESS AND SAY WE WANT TO VOTE ON THIS IN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE, BUT I HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING THIS HAPPEN.

I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF REPUBLICANS VERY HAPPY TO NEVER SEE THIS AGAIN, ANYONE IN THE SWING DISTRICT, JUAN CISCOMANI, DAVID SCHWEIKERT OBVIOUSLY NOT RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION, HAD MUTED WORDS, GOES TO SHOW WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE TAX SYSTEM, AND THERE ARE SUPPORTERS LIKE ANDY BIGGS THERE ARE ALIGNED WITH THE MAGA, AMERICA FIRST AGENDA CLOSELY TIED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS AGENDA, BUT THERE'S STILL A LOT OF FREE TRADE, TRADITIONAL REPUBLICAN SENTIMENTS IN CONGRESS, AND I THINK A LOT OF THE FOLKS WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE THIS ANYWAY AND WOULDN'T WANT TO RUN ON IT.

>> EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT JAMAR MENTIONED EARLIER.

THE PRESIDENT SAID TWO THINGS, I'M NOT GOING TO UNDO THE TARIFFS, WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THEM IN PLACE AND FIND NEW JUSTIFICATION FOR IT, USE THE OTHER LAW AND FIND NEW TARIFFS AND WE'LL BE FINE.

CONGRESS HAS NO ROLE IN THIS WHICH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID, THIS IS A POWER THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION IS VESTED EXCLUSIVELY WITH CONGRESS AND CONGRESS IN THE PAST DELINEATED TARIFF AUTHORITY TO THE PRESIDENT, HAD DONE SO WITH A LOT OF GUARDRAILS AND VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, NONE OF WHICH APPEAR IN THE LAW, AND THE OPINION SAID, LOOK, WHEN CONGRESS DOESN'T SAY SOMETHING, YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT.

TED: JAMAR, ATTORNEY GENERAL MAYES, QUOTE, A GREAT DAY FOR AMERICA, THE COURT HAS SPOKEN CLEARLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TARIFFS WERE ILLEGAL.

IMPACT OF ALL THIS ON THE PROFILE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN AN ELECTION YEAR?

>> I IMAGINE IT'S HUGE IF PEOPLE CATCH ONTO THAT.

SHE'S BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OR INVOLVED IN A LOT OF LITIGATION, LAWSUITS NATIONALLY AS WELL AS STATEWIDE.

SHE'S BEEN VERY WILLING TO TAKE ON REPUBLICANS, TAKE ON THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT -- A LOT OF DIFFERENT -- YOU KNOW, THE TARIFFS, OTHER ISSUES, SHE'S BEEN VERY WILLING TO SPEAK OUT.

YOU HAD THE ISSUE WHERE SHE SPOKE ABOUT THE STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS, AND SHE'S HAD A LOT OF BACKBONE.

TED: WHAT DO YOU THINK, JEREMY, IS THIS THE THING THAT, A, ACCELERATES HER CAMPAIGN, AND DOES THE ACCELERATION CONTINUE?

DOES IT MAINTAIN?

>> WHETHER IT MAINTAINS, WE'LL HAVE TO SEE.

IT DOES HELP, THE THREE DOZEN OR SO LAWSUITS SHE'S BEEN PART OF.

THIS IS ONE OF THE MORE HIGH-PROFILE ISSUES.

THERE'S A LOT MORE AWARENESS AMONG AVERAGE VOTERS OF THE TARIFFS, RAISING PRICES.

IF SHE'S GOING TO BE THE CO-LEAD ON SOMETHING, THIS IS SOMETHING YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO SINK YOUR CLAUSE INTO AND RUN ON THAT AND SAY I DID THAT.

TED: JIM, LET'S MOVE ON HERE.

FEDERAL JUDGE THIS WEEK ORDERS A TAKEOVER OF THE STATE PRISONS IN TERMS OF HEALTH OPERATIONS, HEALTH CARE AND THESE SORTS OF THINGS.

I MEAN, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR SO LONG.

THIS IS PRETTY SERIOUS STUFF, THOUGH?

>> THIS IS VERY SERIOUS STUFF.

AND THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED IN ARIZONA.

ONLY HAPPENED ONCE BEFORE, IN CALIFORNIA, A COUPLE DECADES AGO.

ESSENTIALLY THIS IS THE CULMINATION OF A LAWSUIT FILED IN 2012, THAT'S 14 YEARS OF LITIGATING AND ARGUING IN COURT ABOUT THE WAY THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION PROVIDES HEALTH CARE TO INMATES AND THE COURT LONG AGO, LIKE BACK IN 2014, I THINK, DETERMINED THAT IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

IT IS A VIOLATION OF PRISONERS'S 8th AMENDMENT RIGHTS BECAUSE THE STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO PROVIDE THE HEALTH CARE THAT THEY NEED, AND ALONG THE WAY, THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF AGREEMENTS AND RULES AND ORDERS IN PLACE WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AND BENCHMARK TO HIT, AND THE STATE FAILED TO HIT THEM.

SOMETIMES THEY INTENTIONALLY FAILED TO HIT THEM, OR THE LEGISLATURE DIDN'T GIVE THEM THE MONEY AND THE STATE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HAVE BEEN WILLFULLY MISINTERPRETING SOME OF THE ORDERS THE COURT HAS GIVEN.

AT THIS POINT THE COURT THREW UP THEIR HANDS AND SAID WE'VE HAD ENOUGH.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS OVER.

THE STATE CAN'T BE TRUSTED, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO HANDLE THIS.

WE'RE GOING TO APPOINT A RECEIVER WHO HAS FULL AUTHORITY, EVERYTHING FROM HIRING AND FIRING TO SETTING PAY TO OVERRIDING WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SAYS THEY WANT TO DO.

TED: JAMAR, HOW BIG A STORY IS THIS?

>> IT'S HUGE.

IT'S BEEN, LIKE JIM SAID, IT'S BEEN HAPPENING A LONG TIME.

THERE ARE A LOT OF DEATHS, ILLNESSES THAT WERE UNDIAGNOSED OR DIAGNOSED LATE.

THIS IS VERY SIGNIFICANT, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS A PROBLEM THAT NEVER SEEMED TO BE RECTIFIED.

TED: SYSTEMIC DEFICIENCIES, JEREMY, ACCORDING TO THE JUDGE, AND SHE WAS SAYING, IT WOULD BE JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT NOT TO DO SOMETHING HERE CONSIDERING EVERYTHING THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE BEFORE.

>> SHE TOOK THEM OUT TO THE WOODSHED IN THE RULING.

AND THE GOVERNOR OFFERS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS THIS DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE STAFF AND DOCTORS AND NURSE PRACTITIONERS, NEW PROGRAMMING AND STUFF.

YOU LOOK AT BENCHMARKS, YEARS AGO JUDGE SILVER ESTABLISHED 100 BENCH MARKS AND 130 HADN'T BEEN MET.

STATE HADN'T MET A SEMBLANCE OF TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE INJUNCTION AND THE IMPOSITION OF THE EXTRAORDINARY IS THE WAY SHE PUT IT WAS THE ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THIS LITIGATION GOING ON FOREVER AND EVER.

TED: I ASKED JAMAR HOW BIG A STORY IS THIS.

SEEMS LIKE STORIES ABOUT PRISON FLY UNDER THE RADAR.

IS THIS GOING TO FLY ABOVE IT, DO YOU THINK?

>> I THINK RIGHT NOW.

WITH THE NEWS, IT DEFINITELY WILL, AND PERHAPS ONCE WE GET TO THE POINT SEVERAL MONTHS FROM NOW ONCE THE RECEIVER GETS APPOINTED, WE'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT IT.

THE MORE DIRECT IMPACT IT HAS AND CERTAINLY ON STATE GOVERNMENT IS THAT THIS RECEIVER-LED HEALTH CARE FOR THE PRISONS IS GOING TO COST SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN WHAT THE STATE IS CURRENTLY SPENDING.

THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SAID, WE'RE SUBJECT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF APPROPRIATION, WE HAVE TO ASK FOR MONEY AND CAN'T SPEND MORE THAN WHAT THEY GIVE US ON THINGS, AND JUDGE SILVER SAID, THAT DOESN'T MATTER, IT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND THE STATE IS WILLINGLY VIOLATING IT.

IT'S GOT TO BE FIXED, AND IT'S GOING TO BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THE LEGISLATURE RESPONDS TO IT, HOW THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE RESPONDS WHEN IT COMES TIME TO PUT MONEY INTO THE PROGRAM, WHEN THERE IS CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THE BUDGET OUTLOOK IS GOING TO BE IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS OR NEXT TWO OR THREE YEARS.

TED: THE RULING DOES NOT COVER 10,000 PRISONERS IN PRIVATE PRISONS IN ARIZONA.

IS THAT A FACTOR HERE?

MAYBE SHIFTING OVER TO MORE PRIVATE PRISONS?

>> UNSURE ABOUT IT, BUT I'M SURE IT WILL BRING MORE SCRUTINY AND ATTENTION TO THE PRIVATE PRISONS.

IF THIS IS HAPPENING IN THE GOVERNMENT PRISONS, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE SOMEBODY WILL POINT OUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THOSE FACILITIES.

>> OR MIGHT BE AN EFFORT TO GET FOLKS INTO THE PRIVATE FACILITIES.

>> EXACTLY.

TED: JEREMY, WE HAD ANOTHER MEETING BETWEEN THE COUNTY RECORDER AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

THEY JUST CAN'T GET ALONG.

AND IN THIS ONE, THOUGH, SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF DAYLIGHT THERE?

>> A LITTLE CATHARSIS, MAYBE.

THIS HAS TO BE CULMINATION OF NOT JUST A YEAR OF FIGHTING AND FEUDING BETWEEN THE RECORDER AND THE SUPERVISOR, BUT THE LAST FEW WEEKS, DEFINITELY THINGS ESCALATED AS THEY FIGHT OVER THE SHARED SERVICES AGREEMENT, THE WAY THEY SEPARATE THE ELECTION DUTIES BETWEEN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE RECORDER'S OFFICE, THE FORCED MARRIAGE, THE WAY ONE OF THE SUPERVISOR'S ATTORNEYS PUT IT.

WHAT SPARKED THIS, RECORDER JUSTIN HEAP, MEMBERS OF HIS STAFF WERE IN COURT AND TALKING ABOUT HOW THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON NOW ARE DISENFRANCHISING VOTERS IN MARICOPA COUNTY.

JUSTIN HEAP VERY QUICKLY WALKED THAT BACK, BUT KATE BROPHY McGEE SAID I WANT ANSWERS FROM THESE PEOPLE, THEY SAID IT IN COURT, HE WENT TO COURT TO BLOCK IT, THE JUDGE PUT A TEMPORARY STOP TO IT.

JUSTIN HEAP, COME ON DOWN, WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR FROM YOUR STAFF.

IT WAS A TENSE FEW DAYS TO SEE HOW IT WAS GOING TO PLAY OUT.

DEFINITELY SOME ANGER, NOT A LOT OF BIG FIREWORKS BUT DEFINITELY YOU COULD FEEL THE HOSTILITY AND ACRIMONY THAT SORTED OVER THE SHARED DISPUTE OF SERVICES.

TED: THE BOARD SAID COME ON DOWN OR ELSE.

AN ULTIMATUM THERE, HUH?

>> THEY DID.

AND WE SAW SOME FEAR, I THINK, AMONG HEAP'S ALLIES IN PARTICULAR THAT THE BOARD WAS PREPARING TO INVOKE A STATE LAW THAT REALLY AN OBSCURE STATE LAW BUT THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO REMOVE THE RECORDER, AND THAT IDEA, THAT PROSPECT SPARKED A WHOLE LOT OF, YOU KNOW, A WHOLE LOT OF ANGER, AND, YOU KNOW, IDEAS AND THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE UP TO AND WHO WAS DOING WHAT AND HOW THIS WAS GOING TO PLAY OUT, HAVE THEM COME TO PASS.

CERTAINLY DIDN'T NEED TO, BUT THERE'S NOT -- I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE DONE TALKING ABOUT JUSTIN HEAP AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FIGHTING OVER CONTROL OF ELECTIONS AND OVER WHO GETS TO DO WHAT.

TED: JAMAR, THE FIGHT IS BECAUSE THE BOARD CLAWED BACK BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE, AND HE'S SAYING THAT'S NOT FAIR, DOES HE HAVE A POINT THERE?

>> THIS IS SOMETHING THAT STARTED UNDER THE PRIOR RECORDER.

IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SAY, AT LEAST, BUT YOU HAVE TO WONDER IF HE'S, THEY'VE MADE PROPOSALS MADE FROM COMPROMISE OR THEY'VE BEEN WILLING TO MAKE COMPROMISES, BUT YOU HAVE TO WONDER IF HE'S GOING TO COMPROMISE OR NOT GOING TO STOP UNTIL HE HAS FULL CONTROL.

TED: WELL, UNTIL HIS COURT CASE, HIS SUIT AGAINST THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, UNTIL THAT IS SETTLED, THAT WILL HELP DEFINE TERMS AS WELL, DOES IT?

>> WE HEARD FROM THE SUPERVISOR'S ATTORNEY KORY LANGHOFER WHO SAID WE SENT THIS REVISED PROPOSAL, COMPROMISE TO JUSTIN HEAP'S LAWYERS, WE HAVEN'T HEARD BACK.

THEY WENT TO UNILATERALLY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CHANGES.

BIGGEST PART OF THIS IS THE I.T.

SERVICES THAT THE DEPARTMENT TOOK AWAY THE I.T.

SERVICES THE RECORDER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SAID WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU MORE STAFF, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING BACK, AND THEY HAVEN'T HEARD BACK ON THIS PROPOSAL THEY SENT TO JUSTIN HEAP, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS UNILATERALLY AND SEE WHERE IT GOES.

I WOULD IMAGINE IT'S NOT GOING TO ALLEVIATE THE COURT CASE.

HEAP'S TAKEN MUCH MORE OF AN ALL-OR-NOTHING APPROACH.

HE STAKES A LOT ON THIS FIGHT, AND HARD TO SEE HIM BACKING DOWN AFTER EVERYTHING HE'S PUT INTO IT.

TED: JAMAR, THIS IS HAPPENING AS AN SELECTION COMING UP.

WHAT IS THIS DOING REGARDING ELECTIONS?

PEOPLE THINKING THEY MIGHT BE DISENFRANCHISED.

THIS IS HARDLY ENGENDERING TRUST OUT THERE.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT.

THIS IS SOMETHING WHERE IT HAS TO BE RESOLVED, BUT WONDER IT WILL BE RESOLVE OR WILL THERE BE A RESOLUTION BY THE TIME THE PRIMARIES START THIS SUMMER, BUT YEAH, IT COULD BE FURTHER ENGENDERING MISTRUST AMONGST VOTERS AND ANYBODY PAYING ATTENTION TO IT.

TED: YEAH, JUST THE WRONG TIME.

JIM, SENATOR J.D.

MESNARD HAS SOMEONE IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE GENERAL VICINITY THAT SMOKES POT.

HE WANTS TO MAKE IT THAT IT'S AGAINST THE LOT YOUR POT, NOT YOURS, SOMEONE'S POT, IF IT DRIFTS OVER INTO MY BACKYARD, WHAT'S GOING ON?

>> DECLARE MARIJUANA SMOKE, THE SCENT OF MARIJUANA A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND CREATE A NEW LAW FOR, YOU KNOW, I GUESS FOR MESNARD AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE WALKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BEING IN THE BACKYARD AND SMELLING THEIR NEIGHBORS USING LEGAL CANNABIS.

TED: YEAH, CREATION OF EXCESSIVE MARIJUANA SMOKE AND ODOR IS INJURIOUS TO HEALTH, JAMAR, INDECENT FOR THE SENSES AND INTERFERES WITH THE ENJOYMENT OF LIFE OR PROPERTY.

DID YOU THINK YOU WOULD SEE A BILL LIKE THIS?

>> I'M NOT SHOCKED BY ANYTHING, YOU HAVE TO DEFINE WHERE IT BECOMES A PUBLIC NUISANCE, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF IT, WHEN TO CALL LAW ENFORCEMENT, WHETHER THERE COULD BE RACIAL PROFILING.

SOME PEOPLE BROUGHT THAT UP.

TED: AND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY.

THE LAW LETS ME DO THIS IN MY BACKYARD, I CAN'T DO IT IN PUBLIC, IF IT DRIFTS INTO YOUR BACKYARD, I DON'T KNOW, ENJOY THE CONTACT HIGH?

WHAT?

>> THERE ARE QUESTIONS RAISED WHAT CONSTITUTES EXCESSIVE SMOKE, EXCESSIVE ODOR.

IF SOMEONE IS SMOKING POT IN THE BACKYARD, THE NEIGHBOR IS GOING TO SMELL IT, SAME AS IF YOU SMOKE A CIGARETTE OR CIGAR.

THE NEIGHBOR IS GOING TO SMELL THAT.

NOT DOWN THE STREET, SENATOR MESNARD IS SAYING THIS IS NOT THE DIRECT NEIGHBOR, THIS IS CHEECH AND CHONG, WHAT CONSTITUTES EXCESSIVE?

YOUR NEIGHBOR IS SMOKING POT, OF COURSE YOU CAN SMELL IT, IT'S IN THE YARD NEXT TO YOU.

THE STATE CONSTITUTIONALITY CAN YOU PASS SOMETHING LIKE THIS THAT POTENTIALLY ALTERS A VOTER APPROVED BLOC, MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND MEDICINAL MARIJUANA WENT TO THE VOTERS, MESNARD WANTS A BALLOT MEASURE AND A LAW TO SIGN IN CASE IT NEEDS VOTER APPROVAL.

TED: THE LAW NEEDS RECORDERS, DOES IT NOT?

BECAUSE IT WAS PASSED BY THE VOTERS?

>> OSTENSIBLY, WHICH IS A BAR I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HIT.

TED: YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO REFER TO THE BALLOT?

>>IO I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO GET REFERRED TO THE BALLOT.

WHAT WILL END UP HAPPENING IS WE GET TO APRIL OR MAY AND REPUBLICAN LEADERS LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT BALLOT MEASURES AND HEAVENS KNOWS THERE ARE A TON BEING CONSIDERED RIGHT NOW, AND HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH ONES GO ON THE BALLOT.

THEY DON'T WANT TO PUT 15 THINGS ON THE BALLOT.

THEY MIGHT, THEY HAVE BEFORE, BUT DON'T TYPICALLY WANT TO, YOU DON'T WANT TO CROWD THE BALLOT, DON'T WANT THINGS TO FAIL, AND YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S A CAMPAIGN, SOMEONE IN PLACE TO PROMOTE THE BALLOT MEASURE THAT YOU WANT TO SEE PASSED.

I DON'T KNOW WHO WOULD BE PROMOTING THIS ONE.

TED: AS JIM MENTIONED, YOU PUT A LOT OF STUFF UP THERE, PEOPLE AREN'T QUITE SURE, THEY VOTE NO.

THAT SEEMS TO BE THE WAY IT GOES, JAMAR.

DO YOU THINK PEOPLE WOULD PASS THIS?

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

IF THEY ALREADY APPROVED RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA, IF THEY LEARNED ABOUT THIS, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD, THERE IS SO MUCH UNCLEAR ABOUT THAT.

DO THEY WANT PEOPLE CALLING THE POLICE BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE SMELLS POT IN YOUR BACKYARD?

BUT IT'S ALSO BEEN COMPARED TO, LIKE, OTHER NUISANCE LIKE LOUD MUSIC, FOR EXAMPLE.

I WAS WATCHING A HEARING MESNARD SAID JUDGMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE USED.

AS FAR AS PEOPLE APPROVING IT, NOT SURE.

TED: YEAH, SOUNDS LIKE A NO THERE.

JEREMY, TALK ABOUT ANOTHER BILL, THIS WOULD CRIMINALIZE ALERTS ABOUT I.C.E.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, NOT SO MUCH THAT I.C.E.

IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I.C.E.

IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO MAKE ARREST.

>> SPEAKING OF VAGUENESS IN PROPOSED LEGISLATION ABOUT CRIMINAL PENALTIES, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SENATOR KAVANAUGH IS PROPOSING TO CRIMINALIZE, INSPIRED LARGELY BY SENATOR ANALISE ORTIZ WHO GOT IN TROUBLE ABOUT WARNING I.C.E.

PRESENCE NEAR A SCHOOL.

SENATOR KAVANAUGH SAYS THIS IS TO WARN SOMEONE THEY ARE GOING TO BE ARRESTED, THAT IS WHERE IT BECOMES THE CRIME, BUT INCLUDING THINGS LIKE BLOWING WHISTLES, AS WE'VE SEEN WITH ANTI-I.C.E.

PROTESTERS DOING, BUT YOU GET INTO A LOT OF GRAY AREA HERE WHERE IT'S NOT QUITE CLEAR WHAT THIS IS DOING OR HOW IT WOULD BE USED.

IF YOU ARE STANDING IN FRONT OF A SCHOOL BLOWING WHISTLES, WARNING PEOPLE THAT I.C.E.

-- ARE YOU WARNING INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE IS UNDOCUMENTED?

ARE YOU WARNING THEM SPECIFICALLY?

AND IF IT IS USED AS INTENDED, HAVE YOU FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES THERE.

TED: THE EXISTING LAW, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

THIS GOES WAY BEYOND THAT.

>> GOES WAY BEYOND THAT.

SENATOR KAVANAGH GAVE HYPOTHETICALS, THERE ARE A LOT OF MISREPORTING ON IT.

ONE OF THE THINGS IT DOESN'T DO IS CRIMINALIZE BLOWING A WHISTLE TO ALERT PEOPLE TO I.C.E.

IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT'S GOING TO DO THAT.

HE GAVE EXAMPLES IF I.C.E.

AGENTS, IMMIGRATION AGENTS HAVE AN ARREST WARRANT AND YOU TRY TO WARN THEM.

THE BILL GOES FAR BEYOND THAT.

IT INCLUDES ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANTS AND AS WE SAW WHAT I.C.E.

DID IN MINNEAPOLIS AND L.A.

AND CHICAGO BEFORE THAT, THEY WOULD JUST GO DOWN THE STREET.

PARTICULARLY IN MINNEAPOLIS, AND ANYONE WHO WASN'T WHITE THEY WOULD STOP AND ASK THEM FOR PAPERS AND TO PROVE CITIZENSHIP AND WHETHER THEY WERE HERE LEGALLY.

AND WE SAW THE PROTESTERS FOLLOWING THE I.C.E.

CONVOYS GOING DOWN THE ROAD AND BLOWING WHISTLES ALERTING FOLKS I.C.E.

IS HERE.

IF YOU'RE NOT WHITE, THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE YOU ARE HAULED AWAY AND HELD FOR SIX HOURS OR SIX DAYS AS WE SAW IN THE INSTANCES.

>> SENATOR KAVANAGH SAYS THAT IS NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS, THE LAW SAYS IF I'M BLOWING A WHISTLE TO ALERT SOMEONE IS GOING TO ARREST JIM, THAT'S WHAT HE'S TARGETING.

AGAIN, THAT SEEMS AWFULLY VAGUE.

>> SOUNDS EERILY SIMILAR ON WHAT SENATOR ORTIZ IS DOING.

I KNOW IT'S NOT THE SAME, BUT SOUNDS SIMILAR TO WHAT SENATOR ORTIZ GOT IN TROUBLE FOR DOING, POSTING INSTAGRAM STORIES THIS SUMMER AS WELL AS AROUND THE STATE AND THE COUNTRY, SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT AND NIP THAT IN THE BUD WITH THE LAW.

TED: JEREMY, THIS HAS ZERO POINT WHAT CHANCE OF BEING SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR?

>> IS THERE A NEGATIVE NUMBER, THAT WOULD BE THE NUMBER OF CHANCES BEING SIGNED.

THIS IS GOING STRAIGHT INTO THE WOOD CHIPPER THAT IS GOVERNOR HOBBS' VETO STAMP.

TED: JIM, QUICKLY, A BIG STORY THAT'S GOTTEN LOST WITH EVERYTHING ELSE, THE COLORADO RIVER, THE SEVEN STATES GOT TOGETHER, SUPPOSED TO HAVE A DEADLINE.

NEVER HAPPENED.

ONCE AGAIN A DEADLINE IS MISSED.

WE'RE GETTING CLOSE HERE, JIM, SOMETHING'S GOT TO GET DONE.

>> HAS TO BE A FRAMEWORK IN PLACE BY OCTOBER, WHEN THE RUBBER IS GOING TO REALLY MEET THE ROAD, BUT WE'RE ON TRACK RIGHT NOW.

IF THE STATES CAN'T GET TO A DEAL, WE'RE ON TRACK TO HAVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PUT ONE OF ITS PROPOSALS IN PLACE, AND THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF DRAFT PROPOSALS PUT OUT THERE.

THEY'RE ALL REALLY BAD FOR ARIZONA.

ARIZONA HAS THE WORST RIGHTS ON THE RIVER.

WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE BIGGEST CUTS NO MATTER WHAT, EVEN IN NEGOTIATED DEAL, BUT THE ONES FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE NOT GOOD FOR ARIZONA AND ARIZONA AND LOWER BASIN STATES WANT TO AVOID THAT, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

TED: THIS IS UPPER BASIN, LOWER BASIN FIGHT, RIGHT, JAMAR?

>> THE DEADLINE WAS VALENTINE'S DAY AND COULDN'T REACH IT.

IN ARIZONA, WE TALK TO LEADERS HERE AND THEY'VE BEEN THE ONES MAKING CONCESSIONS LEADING DISCUSSIONS AND THE UPPER BASIN HASN'T BEEN BUDGING.

THAT'S WHAT IT'S COME DOWN TO.

WE TALKED TO PEOPLE INVOLVED AND IT'S A MATTER OF IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED, COULD THAT PUSH NEGOTIATIONS FORWARD TO WHERE THERE IS A COMPROMISE.

>> THE UPPER BASINS ARE SAYING WE DON'T WANT MANDATED CUTS.

WE CAN WORK SOMETHING OUT BUT THE MANDATED CUTS, NO GO.

IT'S A 1922 AGREEMENT THAT ARIZONA COULD PUSH LEGALLY THAT REQUIRES THOSE STATES TO DELIVER WATER.

>> POTENTIALLY.

NO MATTER WHAT GETS DECIDED HERE, ESPECIALLY IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAKES A DECISION, WE'RE GOING TO END UP IN COURT ON THIS.

SEEMS INEVITABLE THAT THE FEDS ARE GOING TO MAKE THE DECISION.

WE HAD THE FEBRUARY 14 DEADLINE.

BEFORE THAT ANOTHER DEADLINE.

THEY HAVEN'T SET A NEW DEADLINE, AND JIM MENTIONED OCTOBER 1 IS THE HARD AND FAST DEADLINE FOR WHEN SOMETHING NEW HAS TO BE IN PLACE, WHEN THE NEW WATER YEAR STARTS.

REALISTICALLY, YOU NEED A FEW MONTHS LEAD TIME FOR THE FINAL DECISION TO BE MADE BEFORE IT IS IMPLEMENTED.

THE TIME HAS RUN OUT.

THERE IS THE FIVE OPTIONS THAT WILL BE CHOSEN, COBBLED TOGETHER OR SOMETHING, PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE GREAT FOR US.

TED: OUR TIME HAS RUN OUT.

PANEL, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

I'M TED SIMONS.

YOU HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.