Other transcripts

Transcripts

January 9, 2002

Host: Michael Grant
Topic: Upcoming state legislation; new district maps
In-Studio Guests: Randall Gnant, senate president; Jim Weiers, speaker of the house.

>> Michael: TONIGHT ON "HORIZON," STATE LAWMAKERS HEAD BACK TO THE CAPITOL NEXT WEEK TO BEGIN THE REGULAR SESSION. WE'LL PREVIEW WITH LEADERSHIP WHAT'S IN STORE, GET A CHECK ON ARIZONA'S NEW CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT MAPS, AND WHAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WILL LOOK FOR ONCE THEY GET THEM.

>>> GOOD EVENING, I'M MICHAEL GRANT.

>>> THE STATE BUDGET SHORTFALL IS ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES THAT LAWMAKERS WILL BE DEALING WITH WHEN THE NEW LEGISLATIVE SESSION BEGINS THIS MONDAY. OTHER ISSUES SURE TO BE ON THE TABLE, EDUCATION FUNDING, INDIAN GAMING, AND HOSPITAL TRAUMA CENTER FUNDING. JOINING ME NOW IS SENATE PRESIDENT RANDALL GNANT AND HOUSE SPEAKER JIM WEIERS.

>> GENTLEMEN, GOOD TO HAVE YOU BACK. HAPPY NEW YEAR.

>> HAPPY NEW YEAR.

>> MR. GNANT, SHOULD I HAVE SAID THE ONLY ISSUE INSTEAD OF ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES ON THE BUDGET WHEN I JUST INTRODUCED YOU?

>> I THINK IF YOU ASK MOST LEGISLATORS WHAT ARE THE ISSUES, THEY WILL TELL YOU IT'S THE BUDGET, THE BUDGET AND THE BUDGET. WE'RE SO FAR LOOKING AT A RECORD LOW NUMBER OF BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED IN BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE, AND I THINK THAT'S INDICATIVE OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF WHICH THE LEGISLATORS ARE TAKING THEIR APPROACH TO THE BUDGET THIS YEAR.

>> Michael: THE LAST NUMBER WE WERE LEFT WITH WAS $875 MILLION, IF MEMORY SERVES. HAS THAT GOTTEN WORSE, BETTER OR LIKE GOLDILOCKS STATED, ABOUT JUST RIGHT?

>> WE'RE STAYING WITH THAT NUMBER. WE'LL SEE WHAT THE DECEMBER NUMBERS COME IN. I THINK PRELIMINARILY WE'RE SHOWING ANOTHER $45 MILLION DOWN BASED ON THE NOVEMBER AND DOWN IN DECEMBER THAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING, SO IT'S GROWING.

>> Michael: PROCEDURALLY, I UNDERSTAND, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, HAVE THE TWO CHAMBERS AGREED TO A 100 DAY SESSION?

>> WE WERE SITTING DOWN AND DOING THAT TODAY AND I THINK WE'VE COME TO AN AGREEMENT HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT.

>> IS THAT WISE? THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT 100 DAYS THAT HAS BECOME THE MAGIC IS MAYBE NOT MUCH MAGIC AT ALL?

>> WELL, I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY QUESTION THAT WE CAN GET THE LEGISLATIVE PORTION OF THE WORK THAT WE HAVE TO DO DONE WITHIN 100 DAYS. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WE'LL GET THE BUDGET PART DONE WITHIN 100 DAYS.

>> Michael: IN FACT, THE TIMELINES IS SHORTER. ISN'T THE TARGET, MARCH 15th ON THAT?

>> WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO THE BUDGET PART IN 65 DAYS, IF WE COULD, SO THAT WE CAN CLOSE OUT THE SESSION WITHIN THE 100 DAYS. THERE'S GOOD NEWS, MIKE, AND BAD NEWS IN THIS. ON THE GOOD NEWS SIDE -- AND I THINK THE SPEAKER WOULD AGREE, WE HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH DEDICATION AND UNANIMITY TOWARDS ONE GOAL IN OUR LEGISLATIVE CAREERS AND THAT IS TO DO THAT WHICH WE NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO BALANCE THE BUDGET FOR '03. THAT'S ON THE PLUS SIDE. ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE -- IF THE GAP GROWS MUCH WIDER, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME VERY CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS WHO WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ENTERTAIN THE NOTION OF DOING THINGS SUCH AS REVENUE BONDING OR K-12 ROLLOVERS OR ACCOUNTING GIMMICKS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

>> Michael: RIGHT.

>> WHAT YOU'LL FIND, THE DEMOCRATS AND THE MORE MODERATES ALL TOO WILLING TO DO, SO THERE IS THE PROSPECT OF SOME POLARIZATION ON BOTH THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT. IF THAT GROUP IN THE MIDDLE, THE MODERATES OF BOTH THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLIC CANS CAN FASHION SOMETHING THAT IS SCRATCHING EVERY OBJECTION BUT GORING NONE, WE'VE GOT A POSSIBILITY OF FINING WITHIN THE WINDOW.

>> Michael: MR. WEIERS, IT'S A TOUGHER ASSIGNMENT?

>> IT'S JUST BIGGER, IT'S NOT TOUGHER.

>> IT WAS NO SECRET THAT THE HOUSE REALLY FELT THAT THE SPENDING CUT BULLET SHOULD HAVE BEEN BITTEN HARDER AND I'LL LET YOU OBJECT TO THAT IN JUST A SECOND. IS THAT GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE THE HOUSE POSITION AND ARE YOU GOING TO SEE THE POLARIZATION THAT THE PRESIDENT JUST REFERRED TO?

>> YOU'VE GOT TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHERE WE WERE. IT WAS A TWO-PART QUESTION. THE FIRST PART WAS WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO IN '02 AND WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO IN '03. THE HOUSE FELT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE IN '02 SO IT WOULD BE EASIER IN '03 BECAUSE SOME THINGS WEREN'T DONE IN THE '02 BUDGET WILL PUT MORE PRESSURE ON THE '03 TO BALANCE THAT OUT. WHAT WE DID, AND AT THE 675, WE DID TAKE MONEY OUT OF THE RAINY DAY. WE DID A LOT OF TRANSFERS FROM THE FUNDS, AND WE JUST DIDN'T CUT. YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T DO THE THINGS THAT WE REALLY SHOULD HAVE DONE IN ORDER TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE PALATABLE. THERE WERE PEOPLE OUT THERE FOR SOME REASON THINKING THAT THINGS ARE GOING TO GET BETTER AND ON THE HOPE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A LOT SOFTER THAN IT IS, THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE THOSE CONCESSIONS. AND IT STILL TAKES 16 AND 31. WE GOT OUT OF BUDGET THAT WAS ABLE TO MUSTER THE VOTES TO GET IT AND HAVE THE ACCEPTANCE WITH THE GOVERNOR.

>> Michael: WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT "POLARIZATION," IS THAT MORE LIKELY IN THE HOUSE THAN IN THE SENATE, PARTICULARLY ON AN ISSUE LIKE HOW DEEP SHOULD THE SPENDING CUTS GO?

>> NO, I DON'T THINK SO, FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. I THINK WE BOTH AGREE THERE ARE MORE OF WHAT WE'LL CALL THE HARD CORE CONSERVATIVES IN THE HOUSE, BUT WE'VE GOT SOME PRETTY MODERATE TO LIBERAL PEOPLE IN THE SENATE. SO YOU'VE GOT A YEN AND YANG ON BOTH SIDES THERE. WHATEVER PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND I KNOW WE TEND TO BE THE FAVORITE WHIPPING POST OF THE PUNDITS, THE COLUMN NUTS AND SOME OF THE NEWS PEOPLE, I THINK MOST PEOPLE WILL AGREE WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT LIKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WE DON'T HAVE FIVE MILLION DOLLARS IN THE BUDGET TO STUDY GROWING MUSHROOMS IN THE SONORAN DESERT. WE DON'T HAVE THREE MILLION DOLLARS FOR ORGANIZING ROSE MOFFORD'S GUBERNATORIAL PAPERS. SO WE DON'T HAVE PORK PROJECTS THAT WE CAN GO TO AND CUT BACK TO BALANCE THE BUDGET. WHEN YOU ADD TO THAT THAT ALMOST TWO-THIRDS OF OUR BUDGET IS EITHER IN K-12 OR UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, WHEN YOU ADD TO THAT THAT WE HAVE SOME HEALTHCARE PORTIONS OF OUR BUDGET THAT THE VOTERS HAVE SAID WE CAN'T TOUCH, THERE ENDS UP NOT BEING A WHOLE LOT LEFT TO MAKE THOSE CUTS. NOW, THE FOLKS ON THE FAR RIGHT ARE FREE TO SAY WE SHOULD CUT, CUT, CUT MORE, BUT THERE IS CONCOMITANT RESPONSIBILITIES THERE TO SAY WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO CUT, WHICH PROGRAMS ARE YOU GOING TO CUT, BECAUSE AT THE NUMBERS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE'VE PASSED BEYOND THE TAKE OUT BUREAUCRATIC WASTE, TAKE OUT THE FLUFF. WE'RE INTO PROGRAMS THAT AFFECT PEOPLE. NOW THOSE PROGRAMS HAVE ALL BEEN PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE. SO THERE'S AN INSINUATION THAT THERE WAS SOME PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR IT, AND THAT'S GOING TO BECOME DIFFICULT FOR SOME PEOPLE TO ADDRESS.

>> Michael: MR. WEIERS, WHY THE OPPOSITION, AND AGAIN, THIS IS A GENERAL STATEMENT, BUT I BELIEVE MORE ON THE HOUSE SIDE, TO REVENUE BONDING FOR SCHOOLS?

>> OKAY. I THINK IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. THE REVENUE BONDING FOR SCHOOLS IS NOT AT THE FRONT END, AND I THINK RANDALL HAS SAID THIS BEST. IN FACT I LIKE HIS EXPLANATION BETTER THAN SOME OF THE THINGS I'VE BEEN SAYING. IT COMES IN THE END. WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SCHOOL AND PEOPLE MORE TIMES WILL NOT REFERENCE TO A MORTGAGE OR TO A CAR, YOU KNOW. IT'S NOT THE SAME. WHEN YOU DO THAT, YOU'RE BUYING A CAR OR A HOUSE, AND WHAT WOULD BE AT THIS POINT, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS AN ONGOING PROGRAM THAT IS NOT GOING TO A PARTICULAR, BUT IT'S GOING TO THE PROMOTION OF A PROGRAM OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHEREVER WE'RE SITTING NOW, MIKE, IT'S A SITUATION OF, IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY, IT'S JUST THAT WE SIMPLY HAVE A BUDGET THAT WE HAVE BUILT THAT EXCEEDS OUR REVENUE. SO WE'VE SPENT TOO MUCH, AND TO COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, DID WE DO A GOOD JOB, WELL, IT WAS THE MONEY WE THOUGHT WE HAD, SO WE BUILT A BUDGET BASED ON THAT ASSUMPTION. SO NOW YOU COME BACK IN AND SAY TO GET OUT OF THAT, DO YOU BORROW? I WOULD ASK A LOT OF PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU EVER HAD GONE TO A DEBT COUNSELOR AND SAY I'VE GOT A PROBLEM HERE, I'VE GOT MORE DEBTS THAN I REALLY LIKE, I DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY OFF MY EXPENSES, WHAT SHOULD I DO, AND THE FIRST THING THEY ARE GOING TO TELL YOU IS TO GO OUT AND BORROW MONEY. I DON'T THINK SO. THE FIRST THING THEY ARE GOING TO DO IS TELL YOU TO COME BACK AND PRIORITIZE, FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN REDUCE ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE. WITH REVENUE BONDING, I'VE NEVER SAID NO TO REVENUE BONDING AND THAT IT'S SOMETHING I WILL NEVER CONSIDER, IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER AS A VERY LAST RESORT. I THINK RANDALL WILL AGREE WITH ME. I DON'T LIKE IT, BECAUSE YOU DON'T BORROW TO GET OUT OF DEBT. WHAT YOU DO IS REDUCE TO GET OUT OF DEBT. IT'S A SIMPLE PHILOSOPHY.

>> Michael: CAN'T YOU, THOUGH, LET'S SAY YOU GO TO THE DEBT COUNSELOR AND YOU SAY I'M UNDER WATER RIGHT NOW, BUT MY INCOME STREAM IS LUMPY, IT'LL COME BACK.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT, MIKE. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE STARTING TO HEAR ABOUT FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS. LOOK, WE KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THAT WE CAN'T BUILD AN ONGOING EXPENSE BASE THAT IS GOING TO BE LARGER THAN THE REVENUE STREAM THAT WE HAVE COMING IN, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IS IT FAIR TO SO AFFECT THE LIVES OF SO MANY ARIZONANS BECAUSE OF A SHORT-TERM BLIP THAT THE AFTERMATH OF 9/11 AND THE RECESSION THAT STARTED BEFORE THEN, THAT WE NEED TO MAKE IT ALL UP IN ONE FISCAL YEAR? IS IT NOT BETTER, IF WE TRY TO GET AS MUCH OF IT AS WE CAN, BUT UNDERSTAND THAT IT MIGHT TAKE US A YEAR OR YEAR AND A HALF TO GET OUT OF THIS AND IF SOME OF IT BLEEDS OVER INTO '04, IT'S BETTER TO KEEP A STEADY STREAMS OF GOODS AND SERVICES RATHER THAN SLASH AND BURN NOW RATHER THAN REBUILD IN THE FUTURE. THERE ARE SOME THAT SAY WE SHOULD SLASH AND BUILD BUT NOT REBUILD, BUT I WOULD POSIT TO YOU THAT'S PROBABLY COUNTER TO WHERE MOST ARIZONANS ARE.

>> Michael: LET ME SHIFT GEARS. INDIAN GAMING, DOES IT PROMISE TO BE THE HOT BUTTON GENERALLY, POLITICALLY AND CERTAINLY THE BIG LEGISLATIVE ISSUE, SECOND TO THE BUDGET THIS YEAR?

>> WELL, I BET IT WILL. THAT'S A JOKE. GEEZ. NO, IT TRULY IS, AND A COUPLE OF OPTIONS ARE LAYING ON THE TABLE. WE'VE GOT A MEMBER THAT CAME TO ME MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO, STEVE TULLY, ASKED ME IF HE COULD TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS, AN ATTORNEY, VERY, VERY BRIGHT, I PLACED A GREAT DEAL OF CONFIDENCE IN HIM, AND HE TOLD ME YESTERDAY THAT HE'S DRAFTED LEGISLATION THAT HE'LL BE SHARING WITH ME THIS WEEK THAT IS HIS IDEA OF WHAT THE SOLUTION IS. THE GOVERNOR HAS ALSO TOLD US THAT SHE WILL BE DROPPING A BILL. SHE CAN'T DO THAT PERSONALLY, SHE'LL GET SOMEBODY TO DO IT WITHIN TWO WEEKS. SO, YOU KNOW, I GUESS WHAT I HAVE HEARD, I HAVEN'T TALKED TO THE TRIBES ONE-ON-ONE, BUT I THINK WHAT THEY ARE GIVING US IS ONE BITE AT THE APPLE TO SEE WHAT THE SOLUTION IS, SEE IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S PALATABLE. IF NOT, THEY'RE WILLING TO GO TO THE BALLOT. BUT MOST CERTAINLY IF THERE IS A BLOT ISSUE PRESENTED BY THE TRIBES, YOU CAN BET THAT THE TRACKS WILL COUNTER WITH ANOTHER ONE OF THEIRS, AND IF THAT HAPPENS, I CAN GUARANTEE YOU, I WILL BE AT THAT POINT ATTEMPTING TO PUT A REFERENDUM ON THE BALLOT TO COUNTER THE TWO. SO WHAT YOU'LL HAVE IS ONE ISSUE.

>> Michael: WE'VE NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE IN THIS STATE.

>> WELL, WHEN YOU HAVE ONE ISSUE AND YOU HAVE THREE COMPETING SOLUTIONS, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY, VERY CONFUSING.

>> Michael: DOES THE LEGISLATURE BASICALLY HAVE TO DO THIS? DOES IT HAVE TO GET A COMPACT FROM THE GOVERNOR AND THEN VOTE ON IT?

>> NO, THE LEGISLATURE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING, BUT ON THE ONE HAND, YOU'VE GOT THE LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY THE TRACKS, WHICH IS PROCEEDING IN THE COURTS, AND ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU'VE GOT THE VERY REAL DESIRE, I THINK, ON THE PART OF THE TRIBES, TO GET SOMETHING THAT IS MORE ENDURING THAN THE UNCERTAINTIES OF THE EXISTING COMPACTS. SO LEGALLY, THE LEGISLATURE NEED NOT DO ANYTHING, BUT WE'VE GOT A MORAL OBLIGATION, I THINK, TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION AS BEST WE CAN. THE BEST SITUATION TO ME, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME, IS TO ADDRESS SOME FAIRLY REASONABLE REQUESTS ON THE PART OF THE TRIBES TO REDISTRIBUTE SOME OF THE MACHINES SO THAT THEY CAN MAXIMIZE THEIR REVENUE AND MOST PEOPLE IN THE STATE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THAT.

>> Michael: SO, FOR EXAMPLE, A TRIBE NOT USING THEM IN THE HINTERLANDS COULD MOVE THEM DOWN TO PHOENIX?

>> AND THEY WOULD HAVE AN ARM'S LENGTH AGREEMENT WITH THAT TRIBE TO LEASE OR RENT THOSE MACHINES. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE SOME POLITICAL PROBLEMS WITH, BUT IT'S PROBABLY A REASONABLE REQUEST ON THE PART OF THE TRIBES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE TRACKS ARE EITHER RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, BUT NONETHELESS, MAKING THE CASE THAT THEY ARE SLOWLY BEING PUT OUT OF BUSINESS BY THE SUCCESS THAT THE TRIBES ARE HAVING, AND THEY HAVE ASKED FOR A MODICUM OF RELIEF IN THE FORM OF EITHER SLOT MACHINES OR VIDEO-LOTTERY TERMINALS WHICH ARE ALMOST LIKE SLOT MACHINES, NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY BE TURNED INTO A FULL-BLOWN CASINO, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL REVENUE TO OFFSET THAT WHICH THEY THINK HAS BEEN LOST. WELL, THE POSITIVE SIDE TO THAT IS FOR A VIRTUAL MINUSCULE INCREASE IN INDIAN GAMING, YOU HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF PICKING UP A HUGE REVENUE STREAM, BECAUSE THE TRACKS ARE WILLING TO CONTRIBUTE A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE REVENUE IN THE 40% RANGE, AND WITH A MODEST REVENUE STREAM FROM THE TRIBES, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF $100 MILLION OR MORE EVERY YEAR COMING UP.

>> Michael: CONSENSUS FEELING IN THE HOUSE AT ALL ON THIS?

>> THERE IS NO CONSENSUS. THIS HASN'T BEEN AN ISSUE THAT'S BEEN OPENLY DISCUSSED. WHEN YOU HAVE A MEMBER THAT'S WILLING TO GIVE HIS TIME THAT YOU HAVE A TREMENDOUS -- I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF FAITH IN MR. TULLY, AND HE HAS BEEN HOLDING THE MEETINGS. HE'S BEEN TALKING TO ALL OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES, AND HE THINKS HE'S COME UP WITH SOMETHING IN HIS MIND AND ANY PIECE OF LEGISLATION, WHAT IT ENDS UP WITH IS WHERE IT STARTED. THERE'S NORMALLY A LOT OF DIFFERENCE IN BETWEEN.

>> Michael: YEAH.

>> AND IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT YOU START THE CONVERSATION WITH, YOU KNOW, FROM MY OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS, IS THAT GAMING IS VERY POPULAR HERE. WOULD YOU EVER BE ABLE TO GET RID OF IT? NO, REGARDLESS OF WHAT SOME PERSONAL BELIEFS ARE OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS.

>> Michael: DO YOU STOP IT AT THE TRIBAL BOUNDARY?

>> YOU KNOW, AND I -- I THINK FROM A BUSINESS PERSON'S PERSPECTIVE, YOU HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT WHAT COMPETITION DOES. FIRST OF ALL, COMPETITION IS GOOD UNTIL YOU HAVE TOO MUCH, AND YOU KNOW, I GREW UP IN A LITTLE TOWN IN SOUTH DAKOTA, WHICH WAS THE VERY FIRST TOWN THAT LEGALIZED GAMING WHICH WAS GREAT. THEY WANTED IT TO --

>> BUT IF YOU PLAY CARDS THERE, YOU CAN GET SHOT.

>> YEAH, WELL, WHAT ULTIMATELY HAPPENED IN THE END IS YOU HAD THE ENTIRE DOWNTOWN THAT DISAPPEARED BECAUSE STORE FRONTS BECAME MORE VALUABLE AS CASINOS THAN THEY DID AS THE SHOE STORE, AND WHATNOT. YOU HAD NO DOWNTOWN ANYMORE. A TOWN THAT USED TO BE A TOWN NO LONGER EXISTED. WHAT ALSO HAPPENED IN THE END IS THAT THE COMPETITION BECAME SO FIERCE THAT NOBODY COULD MAKE ANY MONEY. I'VE GOT A COUSIN THAT HAPPENS TO BE THE JUDGE UP IN THAT AREA, AND I TALKED TO HIM A FEW YEARS AGO. THE VAST MAJORITY OF BANKRUPTCIES WERE THOSE OF THE CASINOS. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY --

>> THE ACTUAL ENTITY.

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ENTITIES THEMSELVES.

>> IN THE INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE, THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL IS A CODIFICATION OF THE STATUS QUO, WHICH IS THOSE COMPACTS AS THEY EXIST. REPRESENTATIVE TULLY WOULD REMEDY THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE TRACKS COURT CASE BY HAVING THE STATUS QUO SIMPLY NOW RECODIFIED. WHETHER THAT'S SATISFACTORY TO THE GOVERNOR, TO THE TRIBES, TO THE TRACKS, IS YET TO BE DETERMINED. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'LL BE DECIDING.

>> Michael: THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS OF GETTING FROM POINT A TO POINT B

>> POINT A TO POINT B. I'D ALSO POINT OUT, ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS THAT I HAVE WITH THIS WHOLE INDIAN GAMING IS THERE IS NO DISCLOSURE. NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON. THERE WAS AN ARTICLE IN THE PAPER, I THINK IT WAS THE TOHONO O'ODHAM, THEY WERE EXPECTING A STIPEND AND NOBODY GOT IT. I WOULD WANT AN ACCOUNTING. NOBODY KNOWS HOW MUCH COMES IN AT THE TOP OR THE BOTTOM AND WHAT HAPPENS IN BETWEEN. IF WE'RE PUT IN A POSITION OF QUOTING -- PUTTING THIS TO THE BALLOT, THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES THAT I INSIST THAT GOES IN THERE. I WANT FULL DISCLOSURE. I WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW.

>> Michael: HOUSE SPEAKER JIM WEIERS, THANKS FOR JOINING US, BEST OF LUCK ON THE SESSION. SENATE PRESIDENT RANDALL GNANT, OUR BEST TO YOU AS WELL.

>>> IT'S BEEN TEN WEEKS SINCE THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ADOPTED FINAL MAPS FOR NEW STATE CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS. THE NEXT STEP, THOSE MAPS GO TO THE U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. IN A MOMENT, WE'LL TALK ABOUT WHY THE MAPS NEED TO GO TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND WHAT THEY WILL BE LOOKING FOR. FIRST, MERRY LUCERO HAS SOME BACKGROUND ON THE MAPS.

>> Reporter: IN MID-SEPTEMBER, THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSIONS REGIONAL PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE COMPLETED. THE COMMISSION TRAVELED ACROSS ARIZONA GETTING PUBLIC INPUT AND PRESENTING INFORMATION AND DRAFT MAPS ON NEW CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS. IN OCTOBER, THE COMMISSION ADOPTED FINAL CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT MAPS. THOSE MAPS CAN BE SEEN ON THEIR WEB SITE... THE MAPS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BEFORE THEY CAN BE IMPLEMENTED AS ARIZONA'S NEW CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS. ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION'S SPOKESPERSON, THEIR LEGAL TEAM IS STILL PREPARING THE HUGE PUBLIC DOCUMENT FOR THEIR SUBMISSION TO JUSTICE. STAY TUNED. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CAN ACCEPT, REJECT OR QUESTION THE DISTRICT MAPS AND MAY TAKE UP TO 60 DAYS TO APPROVE THEM.

>> Michael: JOINING ME NOW, ATTORNEY SCOTT BALES, CURRENTLY WITH THE FIRM OF LEWIS AND ROCA, WHO WAS FORMERLY STATE SOLICITOR GENERAL WITH THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

>> Michael: SCOTT, HELLO.

>> GOOD EVENING, MICHAEL.

>> Michael: EVERYBODY IS SAYING BASICALLY, YES, I UNDERSTAND IT'S A BIG RECORD, BUT YIKES, 10 WEEKS? WHY IS IT TAKING SO LONG?

>> WELL, I THINK THE TIME THAT'S BEEN SPENT, PARTLY REFLECTS THAT UNDER THE FEDERAL LAW, IT'S THE STATE'S BURDEN TO CONVINCE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT THE NEW PLANS DON'T PUT MINORITY VOTERS IN A PORES POSITION THAN THEY WOULD BE UNDER THE EXISTING DISTRICTING PLANS. AND MEETING THAT BURDEN IS A FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL TASK.

>> Michael: SCOTT, WHY ISN'T IT THIS SIMPLE. WE HAD SEVEN MINORITY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS BEFORE, WE'VE GOT NINE NOW, WE HAD ONE OUT OF SIX CONGRESSIONAL BEFORE, WE HAVE TWO OF EIGHT NOW, JUSTICE SHOULD TAKE YOU 15 MINUTES AND WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO TO WRITE YOU A BRIEF LETTER ON THAT SUBJECT. WHY IS IT NOT THAT SIMPLE?

>> WELL, THOSE ARE IMPORTANT FACTS AND CERTAINLY WE'LL GO A WAYS TOWARDS CONVINCING THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE PLAN SHOULD BE APPROVED. BUT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THAT KIND OF CENSUS INFORMATION IS JUST THE STARTING POINT. WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO LOOK AT IS WHETHER THE ACTUAL EFFECTIVE VOTING POWER OF MINORITIES IS REDUCED OR INCREASED UNDER THE NEW PLANS, AND WHAT THE FEDERAL LAW DOES IS IT PREVENTS ARIZONA AND CERTAIN OTHER STATES FROM IMPLEMENTING ANY CHANGE IN ELECTION PRACTICES AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE DISTRICT PLANS. IF IT WOULD PUT MINORITY VOTERS IN A WORSE POSITION. SO, TO GAGE THAT, THEY'LL LOOK AT THINGS LIKE THE REGISTRATION HISTORY IN PARTICULAR AREAS, ACTUAL VOTING TURNOUT.

>> Michael: VOTING EFFICACY?

>> YES, YES. SO YOU'RE ALREADY PAST JUST THE RAW NUMBER OF MINORITY PERSONS IN A PARTICULAR DISTRICT, LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN PARTICULAR DISTRICTS BECAUSE OF AGE FOR EXAMPLE.

>> Michael: IS PART OF THIS ASSIGNMENT AS WELL, AND CERTAINLY THE REDISTRICTING COMMISSION SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THE ROAD, COLLECTED A LOT OF PUBLIC INPUT, IS PART OF THE ASSIGNMENT AS WELL SAYING, YOU KNOW, HERE'S THE COMPLAINT WE GOT HERE, HERE'S THE COMPLAINT WE GOT HERE, HERE'S THE COMPLAINT WE GOT HERE, HERE'S HOW WE HANDLED IT, HERE'S THE ADJUSTMENTS WE MADE TO THE MAP TO ADDRESS THIS SITUATION, OR HERE'S WHY WE DIDN'T, HERE'S WHY WE DIDN'T GIVE CREDENCE TO IT, IS THERE AN ELEMENT OF THAT AS WELL?

>> THERE IS, AND THAT'S ANOTHER REASON IT TAKES A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME TO ASSEMBLE THE MATERIALS THAT ARE SENT ON. THE DEPARTMENT NOT ONLY LOOKS AT THE END RESULT, IT LOOKS AT HOW A PARTICULAR JURISDICTION GOT THERE. SO THEY WILL REVIEW THE DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE CONSIDERED ALONG THE WAY. THEY'LL BE INTERESTED IN THE STATE'S EXPLANATION FOR WHY ONE PROPOSAL WAS SELECTED OVER ANOTHER. ONCE THEY GET THE INFORMATION, THEY WILL SOLICIT COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE IN THE STATE, ON THE PLAN. SO PART OF WHAT GOES INTO A SUBMISSION, AND THIS IS TRUE FOR ANY VOTING RIGHTS SUBMISSION IS IF YOU'VE RECEIVED CRITICISMS ALONG THE WAY, PROVIDING A RECORD OF WHY YOU DID OR DID NOT ACCEPT THOSE PROPOSALS, AND ALSO UNDER THE LAW, THE STATE HAS TO SHOW THAT NOT ONLY DID THE PLAN NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF LEAVING MINORITY VOTERS WORSE OFF, IT ALSO CANNOT HAVE HAD THAT PURPOSE, AND THESE KINDS OF THINGS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, CAN GO TO THAT QUESTION TO SHOW THAT THERE WASN'T A PURPOSE TO PUT MINORITY VOTERS IN A WORSE POSITION.

>> Michael: OKAY, LET'S SAY IT'S ANYWHERE FROM TWO DAYS TO TWO WEEKS FROM NOW, BECAUSE THAT'S THE TIME RANGE WE'VE HEARD ON THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUBMISSION. 60 DAYS IS MENTIONED AS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REVIEW TIME, BUT IF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT COMES BACK FOR SOME QUERIES, DO THEY GET A ROLL TO THAT PERIOD?

>> THEY DO IF IF THEY ASK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IT AUTOMATICALLY GIVES THEM 60 ADDITIONAL DAYS AFTER THE JURISDICTION RESPONSE. SO IF THEY CAME BACK IN SIX WEEKS AND SAID WE NEED MORE DATA ON THIS, THIS AND THAT, ONLY AFTER THE STATE RESPONDED TO THAT WOULD THEY THEN TRIGGER THEIR NEXT 60-DAY PERIOD.

>> Michael: NOW, LET ME SHIFT TO THE COURT ASPECT OF THIS. THERE HAVE BEEN LAWSUITS PROMISED, AND I THINK THOSE ARE PROMISED OR THREATENED AS THE CASE MAY BE, IN GOOD FAITH, BUT WE HAVEN'T SEEN THOSE YET, IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT THAT A LITIGANT BE DISSATISFIED WITH THE SET OF MAPS HOLD OFF LITIGATION PENDING REVIEW OR IS THAT A TACTICAL DECISION?

>> WELL, THERE MIGHT BE ELEMENTS OF BOTH IN PLAY, BECAUSE UNDER THE LAW, ARIZONA LAW CANNOT IMPLEMENT THE NEW PLANS UNTIL THEY'VE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT AND BEEN APPROVED. IF SOMEONE WERE TO TRY TO BRING A LAWSUIT NOW, THERE WOULD AT LEAST BE AN ARGUMENT THAT IT WAS PREMATURE, BECAUSE THESE PLANS, IN A SENSE, ARE NOT FINAL. ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE MAY BE STRATEGIC CONSIDERATION. SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CRITICAL OF THE PLAN MAY BE WAITING TO SEE IF THE DEPARTMENT RAISES OBJECTIONS OR WAITING TO SEE WHAT EXACTLY THE STATE SUBMITS BY WAY OF JUSTIFICATIONS.

>> Michael: COULD SAFE COSTLY TIME-CONSUMING LITIGATION. IT MAKES SENSE TO WAIT, ON THE OTHER HAND. BY WAITING, THEY PUT THEMSELVES ALSO IN A TIME BOX.

>> SURE, THERE IS A REAL PRACTICAL PROBLEM, I THINK, FOR EVERYBODY RELATED TO THE TIMING, AND THAT IS AS YOU GET CLOSER TO THE DEADLINES THAT CANDIDATES FACE FOR GETTING THEIR NOMINATION PETITIONS IN, IT MAKES THE UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE MAPS A REAL CONCERN. AND BY THAT, I'M REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT FOR BOTH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT THE CONGRESSIONAL LEVEL AND FOR THE STATE LEGISLATURE, IN ORDER TO BE NOMINATED, A CANDIDATE HAS TO GET SIGNATURES FROM VOTERS IN HIS OR HER DISTRICT, AND UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ARE, THERE'S THAT UNCERTAINTY.

>> Michael: STATED ANOTHER WAY, IF YOU'RE COLLECTING ON ASH STREET AND IT TURNS OUT THAT MAPLE IS THE BOUNDARY OF YOUR DISTRICT, YOU MAY BE 50 SIGNATURES SHORT. IT ALSO HAS A CLEAN -- FOR THOSE HOPING TO RUN AS PUBLICLY FINANCED CANDIDATES, IT HAS AN IMPACT AS WELL.

>> IT DOES. OF COURSE, THAT ONLY APPLIES TO STATE CANDIDATES, BUT IN THE LEGISLATURE, TO QUALIFY, YOU NEED 200 QUALIFYING CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT THOSE HAVE TO COME FROM REGISTERED VOTERS IN YOUR DISTRICT. SO YOU HAVE A SIMILAR PROBLEM THAT IF YOU AREN'T SURE WHERE THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ARE, YOU CAN'T BE CERTAIN THAT THEY ARE PROPER QUALIFYING CONTRIBUTIONS.

>> Michael: I REALIZE THIS IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PEER INTO THE MIND OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, BUT YOU HAVE EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE IN THE AREA. GIVEN IT'S AN INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTS COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC PROCESS FOLLOWED, WOULD YOU -- AND THE APPARENT RESULTS, WOULD YOU EXPECT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THIS?

>> WELL, FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN, I THINK IT'S LIKELY THAT THE DEPARTMENT WILL PRECLEAR THE PLANS. BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND, THEY ONLY LOOK AT ONE LEGAL ISSUE, THEY JUST LOOK AT ONE PARTICULAR PART OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE PLANS ARE IMMUNE TO LEGAL CHALLENGE ON OTHER GROUNDS.

>> Michael: OKAY, SCOTT BALES, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU.

>> Michael: FOR INFORMATION ABOUT FUTURE "HORIZON" SEGMENTS, OR TO SHARE YOUR OPINION ABOUT TONIGHT'S PROGRAM, PLEASE VISIT CHANNEL 8'S WEB SITE AT WWW.KAET.ASU.EDU. CLICK ON "HORIZON" AND FOLLOW THE LINKS.

>>> TOMORROW ON "HORIZON," THE LENGTH OF THE TEMPE MAYOR'S TERM IN OFFICE IS THE SUBJECT OF ORAL ARGUMENTS TOMORROW IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT. WE'LL HAVE AN UPDATE.

>>> AND ON FRIDAY, JOIN US FOR "HORIZON"'S FIRST JOURNALISTS' ROUNDTABLE OF THE NEW YEAR.

>>> THANKS VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US ON A WEDNESDAY EVENING PARAMEDIC I'M MICHAEL GRANT. HAVE A GREAT ONE. GOOD NIGHT.