Other transcripts

Transcripts

September 24, 2002

Host: Michael Grant
Topics:
The latest KAET-ASU Poll with results of a survey on the top statewide races, including governor
· Read the complete results
Election 2002: Proposition 101 which would allow the exchange of state trust lands for other public land
· Learn more about Prop 101
In-Studio Guests:
Dr. Bruce Merrill, Director of the KAET-ASU Poll;
John Wright, Vice-President of the Arizona Education Association;
Geoff Barnard, President of the Grand Canyon Trust

>> MICHAEL: Tonight on "Horizon," who's leading the race for governor? We will tell you as we release the latest results of the KAET-ASU Poll, which also includes numbers on other top state races. Speaking of our next governor, earlier today in Phoenix, the four candidates for governor debated the issues. We'll let you know what they had to say. And our coverage of the ballot propositions continues as we explore both sides of Proposition 101, which would allow the exchange of state trust land for other public land. Good evening. I'm Michael Grant. It's been two weeks since we went to the polls and elected the party nominees to run in the general election. And tonight, we will tell you who is leading the race for Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General and Treasurer, as we release the results of the latest KAET-Walter Cronkite School of journalism and mass Communication Poll. The poll, conducted September 18th through the 22nd, took the opinion of 481 registered voters. Let's go over the results. The race for Governor is a virtual dead heat between State Attorney General Janet Napolitano and former Congressman Matt Salmon. Of all registered voters questioned, 37% would vote for Napolitano, a Democrat, 36% support Salmon, a Republican, 4% would vote for Independent Dick Mahoney, 2% like Libertarian Barry Hess, And 21% are undecided. Among those most likely to vote, Napolitano's support increases to 43%, Salmon goes up slightly to 37%, Mahoney stays at 4%, while Hess dips to 1%. 15% in that category had not decided who to vote for. Napolitano also does better in the crossover vote category. 14% of Republicans would vote for her, while 12% of Democrats support Salmon. Napolitano carries Republican Maricopa County with 39% of the support, compared to 36% for Salmon. She also takes Pima County support 48% to 26%, and support from women 39% to 31 percent. However, Salmon bested her in support from men by 7%, and also holds a 43 to 26% lead in the loyalties of rural voters. Turning to the race for Secretary of State, Republican Jan Brewer leads Democrat Chris Cummiskey 32% to 22% among all voters questioned. Libertarian Sean Nottingham gets four percent of the support, while 42% are undecided. In the race for state Attorney General, former Phoenix mayor and Democrat Terry Goddard takes a big lead over Republican Andrew Thomas, 40 to 25%. Libertarian Ed Kahn gets 5% of the support, while 30% don't know who they will vote for yet. Finally, Republican Tom Horne, a former lawmaker, holds a 32% to 27% lead in the race for Superintendent of Public Instruction over Democratic Senator Jay Blanchard. Libertarian John Zajac gets 4% of the potential votes, while 37% have not made up their minds. However, taking into account those most likely to vote, Blanchard takes the lead with 34 percent of the support, compared to 31% for Horne. The poll had a margin of error of 4.5%, and a margin of error of 5.6% among those most likely to vote. Here now to discuss the results is Dr. Bruce Merrill, the Director of the Poll. I'm sorry, I'm all talked out.

>> Michael: A dead heat --

>> It's a dead heat.

>> Michael: It's a dead heat, also a dead heat in Maricopa County and that's not necessarily good news for Janet Napolitano.

>> They both have their advantages and disadvantages in this election. Basically all Republicans have the advantage of having more Republicans in the state and in the county of Maricopa, and Republicans vote in higher percentages than Democrats do. So everything being equal, the Republicans should win all of the statewide campaigns. But Janet has a couple of strengths going for her, the fact that she's even in Maricopa County, which is heavily Republican this early, is a good sign. She obviously is benefitting from being a -- not a new Democrat, but a conservative Democrat. Matt's pretty conservative. She's got to move into the middle and be as conservative as she can. So she's got that advantage. The other advantage that will even this up as the election goes on is the potential. Because we have three Indian gaming issues on the ballot this time, if the tribal leaders are able to mobilize the Native Americans in Arizona, deliver those people to the polls as they did in 1974, they can do it, then I would have every reason to believe that the Native Americans would tend to vote disproportionately for Janet Napolitano. So, this could be close all the way through.

>> Michael: We've always thought that it would be. So the Salmon strategy at this point in time is paint Janet as far left as you can.

>> Oh, absolutely.

>> Michael: The Napolitano strategy, to probe at weak points, including but not limited to, maybe how comfortable or not moderate Republican women might be with Matt Salmon?

>> Yeah, I think that's true. There's the potential for a gender gap here. Women tend to be supporting her a little bit more. Plus, I think what's really interesting here is that there is a lot of academic research that shows among those most likely to vote in low turnout elections, and this will be a low turnout election again, maybe 40% of the voters, that the voters are increasingly interested in issues, not substance or style, and so in a way, what Matt's got most going for him is young dynamic beautiful kids, beautiful wife. He's got a lot of advantages in terms of his skills as a campaigner. What Janet is going to have to do, is she is going to have to convince the people of Arizona not on the basis of style but on the basis of issues that she's the best person to be governor of Arizona.

>> Michael: Interestingly enough, in the primary campaign, I thought both candidates did a pretty good job of not going too far to either of their party's extremes.

>> I think --

>> Michael: Stayed in the middle, not in the same place, but stayed generally in the middle.

>> I think that's a good observation. I thought both of them ran very intelligent, very competent primary races. And they're both very attractive, intelligent people. I mean, I guess one thing you could look at is that the voters in Arizona this time are -- do have the choice between two really solid good people and, you know, it's not always the case. So we should be pleased with that.

>> Michael: You surprised that Dick Mahoney only pulled 4 points?

>> I am. I would have thought before I did the poll he would have got 6, 7%, largely because he has been running some television, and your percent of the vote is frankly related to how much money you have for media. But there's not much of a culture in Arizona for third-party candidates. They have never gotten more than two or 3% of the vote. Now, it's possible because he gets clean election money that he might edge his percentage up a little bit as it goes on. The interesting thing is, many people have asked me, who will Dick Mahoney hurt? I think the conventional wisdom it hurts Janet Napolitano. So I tried to look at that this time but the ends are pretty small, but what it suggests so far is his vote is coming about 50-50 from Republicans and about 50-50 from Democrats. So far it's not a factor. I think the Indian thing is potentially a much bigger factor.

>> Michael: Terry Goddard with 15-point spread on John Thomas in the Attorney General's race. You're immediately inclined to think that's a function -- I'm sorry, Andrew Thomas -- of name recognition, but you know, Terry has been kind of out of the public eye for eight years or so.

>> Yeah, I was surprised that he did quite that well. I mean, because you're right, there's been a lot of in-migration to Arizona. A lot of people don't know who he is. His family has been here a long time. He's still fairly well-known. Thomas is not well-known and whether it's fair to him or not, he is being painted as a far-right candidate. But that one is interesting. It looks like one that the Democrats could win.

>> Michael: Certainly one of the numbers that I found most surprising was Tom Horne over Jay Blanchard in all voters, but that flipping, which is -- an unusual phenomenon for a Democrat in those most likely to vote.

>> Absolutely. The thing about that race is I thought Horne would have been clearly ahead, largely because he spent a great deal of money in the primary and again, name identification is very, very important. He has much higher name I.D. compared with Blanchard. But I don't totally know what's going on in there yet. It's a little bit early. Maybe it's the fact that Horne changed parties. I know some people felt he ran somewhat of a negative campaign against Molera on the bilingual kind of thing. It could be the AIMS test. They differ on the AIMS test. Whatever reason, though, that is an interesting one.

>> Michael: I didn't go over the results on state treasurer on the copy because I ran out of breath --

>> We threw a lot at him.

>> Michael: David Peterson leading Ruth Solomon there. It is very difficult for a Democrat from Tucson to win a statewide race.

>> Oh, absolutely. Plus, again, this is a race -- this one and Secretary of State in Arizona usually are voted strictly on the basis of party. The Republicans have huge advantages in those races. Frankly, they should win those races. Now, Chris Cummiskey is a delightful young man, former student of mine and I think he's a delightful guy, but he's going to have a hard time winning that race.

>> Michael: All right. That was some interesting data, not surprisingly undecideds larger, as you drop further down the --

>> Again, you talk about -- the reason there's a high undecided vote for treasurer and for something like Secretary of State is frankly nobody knows who the candidates are. And the clean elections doesn't make enough money available to them to get their names out there. But if you look at the undecideds, overall, particularly for governor, they're pretty low.

>> Michael: Five weeks to go. Our schedule may be another --

>> One more poll. We may do one more.

>> Michael: Sounds good. Bruce Merrill, thank you very much.

>> Good to be here, Mike.

>>> This afternoon the four candidates for governor took part in a debate forum presented by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and KFYI. A panel of journalists, community leaders questioned the candidates about some of the more pressing issues facing the state.

>> The candidates have all been briefed on the rules...

>> Reporter: The four candidates were asked how they would deal with challenges such as what cuts to make to balance the budget.

>> I have $333 million in cuts, that's a 25% cut in the consolidation of five natural resource departments, a 25% cut and consolidation of the banking and insurance, a 15% cut from everything else except health, education, child protective services and I have $624 million of real sales tax closes.

>> Our specific cuts are going to go -- aim themselves directly at anything not outlined in our constitutional charter. That is the safest ground. There is nothing off the table. When we look, for instance, at the educational budget and find that 48% of it is administrative costs. There is a tremendous room for cutting. That, I think, will probably end up being the biggest cut when it comes to reality.

>> We've got to fundamentally change the way we budget, the way we forecast. I am going to demand from the State Legislature that we get a zero-base budget and that means we have to go through the agencies, not the baseline budgeting today where every agency comes in and gets an increase over what they got the year before, formula-driven increase. We've got to look through these budgets with a fine-toothed comb. As far as what's off the table, there's only two things that will be off. Everything else is on the table.

>> I am amazed when I hear candidates say I will not raise tack, I will not close loopholes, even for public education. That's making a choice. That's saying, well, I favor people who operate telemarketing boiler rooms and massage parlors and dating service hotlines over the public education of our children. I will not stand for that.

>> Reporter: The candidates also addressed the issues of health, business growth and education, and with six weeks left until the election, you can bet we'll see many more events like this as voters assess candidates' positions on the issues.

>> You have to get real, Buddy.

>> Michael: As land development in Arizona continues, the loss of open space remains a concern to many. Next month voters will decide if Proposition 101 could help solve that problem.

>> What 101 is trying to do is to allow the State Land Department to exchange lands with other government entities, and the state land being exchanged can only go for preservation. What that allows us to do is then to free up other properties which can -- the monies or benefits of which land can go into the trust.

>> We're opposed to proposition 101 because it would change the Arizona constitution to allow the state to engage in exchanges of state trust lands, and we don't think the provision provides enough accountability relative to the public and we're very concerned it will result in bad land deals overall.

>> Reporter: When the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico enabling act in 1910, millions of acres designated as state trust lands were given to Arizona. The purpose of this Grant was to produce revenue for public institutions such as schools, universities and prisons by leasing or selling the land and its products at auction to the highest bidder. Decades later, the act was broadened to give Arizona greater flexibility in the management of state trust lands by allowing exchanges for other public or private lands. While Arizona enacted statutes to provide for such exchanges, the state constitution was never amended to that end. Over the years, state trust land exchanges took place periodically until 1990 when the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that exchanges must cease in the absence of a state constitutional amendment. If approved by voters, proposition 101 would amend the Arizona constitution to allow the exchange of state trust land for other public land if the exchange is in the best interest of the state land trust and the exchange conserves open space on the trust land offered by the state. For the exchange to take place, there must be public hearings. The appraised value of the land the state receives must be at least equal to the appraised value of the land the state exchanges, and the trust income must not be reduced. There must also be an analysis of local land uses and land use plans. The financial impact on the counties, municipalities and school districts in which the trust lands are located, and the physical, economic and natural resource impacts of the exchange on the surrounding community. Supporters maintain that prop 101 would be a valuable tool for preserving critical open space in populated areas as well as releasing trust property that is surrounded by federal land.

>> So this allows us an opportunity to save sections of land like what we have here in a highly urbanizing area and exchange them perhaps for checker boarded federal lands.

>> Reporter: Opponents of 101 counter that the same end can be accomplished in a much simpler fashion.

>> Based on research and based on the history of land exchanges, for the public generally speaking, it's better if there is an outright sale of lands and an outright purchase of lands.

>> Michael: Joining me to talk about proposition 101 is John Wright, Vice-President of the Arizona Education Association, and Geoff Barnard, President of the Grand Canyon Trust. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. John, this proposal to amounted constitution to allow exchanges has been defeated by the voters on four prior occasions. What's different about this proposal that should cause voters to vote for it?

>> I think some of the differences were described in the piece we just heard, and that is the public input and the oversight for such exchanges, the fact that these exchanges would be public to public exchanges only and there are requirements to ensure that the exchange is in the best interest of the trust. It's not -- it wouldn't be out of line for viewers to be wondering why is a school teacher here talking about land exchange, but as representatives of the highest beneficiary of the state trust lands, K-12 public education, we see this as a good land use tool, a land management tool that allows the best possible investment of our state trust lands to bring the best return for K-12 education.

>> Michael: So you think proposition 101 enhances the overall value of the trust?

>> Yes, I think it enhances the overall value of the trust. It looks for increased revenues in a well managed planned way for the future as well as ensuring conservation and open spaces where land is exchanged.

>> Michael: All right. Jeff, tell me why you think this is a bad idea.

>> Well, John and I were talking before the show, and we actually agree that education needs greater and more stable funding here in Arizona. It's just shameful the kind of on the cheap educational system we try to run in this state, but this is the wrong way to do it. This just doesn't make any sense. Maybe it made sense in 1912 when Arizona became a state to sell your land to pay your teachers, but it's a terrible idea now. Our open space is so critical to our quality of life that we're saddled with this archaic system which after 90 years of statehood and steeling public lands it accounts for less than two% of the -- 2% of the state educational budget. Selling our open space to pay for teach certificates a terrible idea in this millennium for this state.

>> Michael: Jeff, I thought that one of the provisions of this is that the exchanged trust land will be open space or preservation protected. Am I incorrect in that?

>> Well, there's two parts of it. What happens to the state lands that are acquired by the state in the exchange and what happens to the state lands that are relinquished in the exchange. The Prop 101 does not guarantee that all the land relinquished by the state go into open space. It says that the exchange must protect open space. Well, suppose somebody gets ahold of a thousand acres of land and he protects 50 acres of open space. Would that technically qualify under here. So that is not an ironclad provision. The other part of that is that the state land that is acquired is all open for development, and the reason the Grand Canyon trust is particularly concerned about this is that there are 200,000 acres that the state would acquire under this provision, they're not telling this, but it's a negotiated land exchange already in the books, being cooked right now, that would give 200,000 acres to the state near the Grand Canyon for development, near the Grand Canyon for development.

>> Michael: John, what about those points? I think there's two of them there, number one, development of state lands and also the potential of allowing development near the Grand Canyon.

>> Right. The first point that the state land that does get exchanged, that is required to retain its open space stat us and it's required to be conserved for public use as well as the land that the state does get. The state would want to get land that was useful for development. It would not want to get pristine land to develop willy-nilly. We want to be clear here. This is not an effort to sell off land and increase the sprawl across the state. Our members are educators. They're idealists, environmentalists, that's not something they would stand for. As Jeff said, we agree on much more than we disagree. It's a matter of the particular plan we would want to put into place. I think that the provisions that we have learned voters expect from any sort of exchange provision require oversight input to make sure that the exchange would benefit the trust, would conserve open space and would not necessarily simply be a developers dream to go and blade all the land. We want to make sure that land is protected, and when it is put into develop use, it's appropriate development paid for appropriately.

>> Michael: Jeff, why isn't it a protection that you can only go public agency to public agency? As you know, much of the west is a checker board of stuff, the Forest Service is here, then you've got state land maybe next to it, and you have BLM land and all these kinds of things, and agencies consolidating their holdings can make a lot of sense. Why doesn't it make sense sneer.

>> We'd feel a lot more comfortable if this proposition were targeted as solving a specific problem, such as the state trust land that's inside the new national monuments. There's about 90,000 acres. Why not go for a proposition that specifically deals with those lands which are state lands that have sort of been landlocked? Now, within a monument. We would be very supportive of that. That's no problem. But this is carte blanche and not only does it create the ability to exchange forever for the state trust land, but it actually facilitates an exchange which has been negotiated between secretary Babbitt, when he was in, and Governor Hull, that reduces by a quarter of a million acres the public land open space in Arizona. This land exchange, the one that I referred to, the state gets 372,000 acres, including the 200,000 acres near the Grand Canyon. The state gets that. And it gives up 146,000 acres. There's a deficit of almost a quarter of million acres in open space that van issues in the State of Arizona if prop 101 passes.

>> Michael: And you don't see any protection at all in some of the public input and other safeguards that are built into proposition 101?

>> It's pretty inadequate analysis. Requires two public meetings. It doesn't require a thorough environmental analysis. It doesn't require really taking the public into account. It requires two public meetings, one in Phoenix and one out there somewhere.

>> I think --

>> Michael: John, that has been a concern as to whether or not there's sufficient public involvement in the process.

>> A couple of things. On this particular arrangement that Jeff is describing, I can't imagine that the people would really believe is this is all set and done as a done deal. Governor Babbitt was a steward of the lands of Arizona as governor and in his federal role he protected lands across the country and the idea of him giving up land and making sure that there were new development opportunities, I think, is just not the case. In terms of public input, I think the public input is what the public will demand. I think however many meetings are scheduled or where they're located on an issue such as land around the Grand Canyon or pristine land in the wilderness of Arizona or land that borders our towns and cities, that matters to neighbors, that matters to people and they will take advantage of that public input and make sure that decisions are made based on their own needs and their expressed will.

>> Michael: John, we're almost out of time, but one thing I am puzzled about, if you're really going for a preservation motif in proposition 101, I don't quite understand how that enhances the value of the trust. What am I missing?

>> A couple ways. First, when you get larger consolidated packages of land that are preserved, whatever land is available for auction that is state trust land around that has its value immediately boosted because of its relationship to pristine land as well as land that might be developed in appropriate areas where there is a community and town development plan in residential urban areas, then you have an increased value for land that would go to auction and the trust benefits from those.

>> Michael: Jeff?

>> Well, you know, Governor Hull has us right where she wants us, the environmental community and education community are fighting over the crumbs here. This isn't going to solve the educational problem, if all this state land were sold, it's still not going to save the educational funding problem in Arizona and it's going to wreck our open space. I would love to shake hands with John and get to work together on a stable, reliable funding source for education for our kids in Arizona that doesn't wreck our quality of life by selling off our open spaces. That's the issue. Governor Hull has us arguing over the crumbs, and the fact of the matter is that Arizona is spiralling downward in our educational funding because the legislature won't deal with it.

>> Michael: Jeff, thank you very much for joining us, John, good to see you again. For more information about all the election issues, please visit Channel 8's website at www.kaet.asu.edu, click on "Horizon," or election 2002. Tomorrow night we begin our ad watch for election 2002. On Thursday we'll hear the pros and the cons of propositions 203 and 302, those deal, of course, with the state's marijuana laws. And Friday our journalists are going to be here with their weekly roundtable discussion held surprisingly weekly on Fridays. Thank you very much for joining us on a Tuesday. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.