The following is an AZPM original production.

Hello and welcome to this latest edition of "The Press Room" from the radio studios of AZPM.

I'm your host, Steve Goldstein.

Lot of topics to discuss today, including Governor Hobb's State of the State Address.

And we'll do it with this distinguished panel of guests Caitlin Schmidt of the Tucson Spotlight, Dylan Smith of the Tucson Sentinel, Natalie Robbins, also of the Tucson Sentinel, and Steve Jess of AZPM.

Welcome to all of you.

Thanks for being here.

Caitlin, you get to kickus off o What do you think of the premise I mean, I think she had a tough audience this time around compared to two years ago when there were many more Democrats in attendance.

And so, um you know, trying to find a message that will reach both sides is difficult.

Um I think one thing everyone can get behind is quality of life, improved quality of life.

And so it seemed like a safe bet.

If we can live up to it as another story, but, you know, tone the middle line, I think.

What's funny, it seemed to me, and Governor Hobb's gets criticized for this a lot, so I'm not new on this, but I read it and listened to it.

And whoever wrote it, and maybe she contributed to it, it seemed like it was very well written, but there were times where it just didn't feel like she had quite the oomph to get it across the finish line.

Agree, Absolutely.

Yeah.

I mean, it seemed like listening to it, it seemed like there were parts where her heart just wasn't quite in it as well.

But yeah.

Steve thank you for actually taking the time to watch it as well.

So what, what were your first observations about, let's talk about tone, first of all, her approach.

Well, I think that the ghost of Ronald Reagan is smiling because she, she pulled out the let's, let's have the hero stand and applaud them thing.

I think too many times.

It kind of became a punchline about halfway through the speech that she was thanking another random person somewhere in the audience who was going to stand up and get applauded.

I think you can overuse that.

And I think she did.

It kind of drew attention away from the serious policy proposals that were part of the speech addressing serious problems, such as the lack of affordable housing, the lack of affordable childcare, and the other things that she talked about in her, in her address.

Yeah.

We'll get to some of those specifics in a moment.

Natalie, let me go to you cause I'm going style versus substance.

What do you think as far as weighing the importance of one versus the other for a speech like this?

And how do you think Hobbs carried it on?

You know, I mean, Katie Hobbs is not at times not a super charismatic speaker.

I think that's, that's probably fair to say.

I think that sometimes it can get, it can really bury some of the important points that she's making because she, maybe to the untrained eye doesn't seem super interested in the things that she is saying, which, you know, I'm sure she is.

But I think style is something that gets people elected.

In this, in, in the case of our upcoming administration, perhaps, I mean, it's, it's, I don't know that people, style is more important for a lot of the general public, I think.

Well, and Dylan, going to something Caitlin said, when you are trying to have a certain amount of style and you're in a pretty hostile environment, being able to push some of these ideas across is helpful.

And to Natalie's point too, Hobbs doesn't always have that charisma to bring it across.

Even if you were a very dynamic speaker, uh, facing an audience that is mostly from the other political party, you know, well it's fairly evenly split, but you know, it's not the most receptive audience there in the legislature with, you know, being outnumbered by Republicans.

Uh, even if you were the most dynamic speaker, I think you would have to be relying on kind of that Ronald Reagan, a Bill Clinton shtick of basically making everybody clap for somebody else.

So you do get some applause in the chamber because the Republicans are not going to stand up and cheer the policy proposals that Katie Hobbs is putting out there.

Some of which do have some substance, uh, some of which are mostly, you know, kind of slogans.

Uh, we'll, we'll, we'll see.

Really the, the important thing will be what gets hammered out in the budget.

You know, what budget does Hobbs put on the table?

How do the Republicans react to that and what gets negotiated at the state of the state speech is kind of a, you know, here's what we'd like to do in this kind of situation, not here's what we're going to do.

Well, and Steve, what's interesting to me too is that there was a lot of what I have done.

And some of those are things that Democrats wouldn't always necessarily put at the top of their list.

She was very much into, uh, the business aspect of things, helping with semiconductors coming here.

That could go either way sometimes, but there was also some mention of how she was going to help.

The national guard was helping at the border.

She emphasized fentanyl, but there's also some implications there about border security, which some people in her party are not going to be excited about.

I wouldn't think.

Well, let's face it.

Border security is an issue you cannot escape in Arizona since the border is always going to be there.

So she, she has to have something that gives her a sound bite that says, yes, I'm aware of this problem and yes, I've addressed it.

And, uh, rather than, uh, demonizing immigrants, uh, she's, she's talking about the drug problem, the problem of searching the volume of cars and trucks that come across the border every day.

Those are relatively safe things for a Democrat to talk about.

Kevin, what'd you make of that?

Yeah, I agree.

Um, when we looked at post-election reaction from Hispanic voters, a fentanyl issue, um, was something that they were very concerned about too.

So I think that that was a safe, that was a safe thing for her to discuss and to bring up when it comes to the border.

The rest of it is just a hot mess that you probably don't want to get into regardless, but everybody can get behind fentanyl as a problem.

Yeah.

Natalie, what about that emphasis?

Um, totally.

I think, um, you know, the fentanyl crisis is a fairly nonpartisan issue, um, that has touched a lot of lives.

Um, I was particularly surprised that she announced a 5% increase for all law enforcement officers, 5% pay increase.

Um, and the firefighters as well, which may have been timed to what's going on in California too.

Yeah.

Um, right.

Yeah.

I think that's a pretty safe, safe bet.

You know, I think it's pretty, um, pretty nonpartisan.

Yeah.

Dylan border and, and also the, the economy, I think I want to come back to that a lot because that was one of those things that her predecessor Doug Ducey talked about with semiconductor chips, but this has become something thanks to Senator Mark Kelly, thanks to former Senator Sinema.

Arizona got a lot of representat to bringing TSMC to the state whatnot.

And Hobbs really emphasized and made it the big point about saying, I was a big advocate for that.

It's a smart move, but will people, people buy it frankly?

I don't know that, uh, that issue, that specific issue really resonates with a whole lot of people.

Yes.

Uh, Arizona did get a whole lot of investment from, you know, those, uh, chip manufacturing companies with the support of the federal government, the Biden administration pushing through the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, what do they call it?

The bipartisan infrastructure law.

You know, there was, uh, you know, chips act and the chips act, there were support for, uh, these companies, and especially moving to Arizona, you know, which creates some jobs.

I don't think it creates the, you know, the number of jobs that really resonates across the state, especially in Tucson.

Yeah.

And one thing to note about the state of the state speech is it kind of continued a pattern of Hobbs, uh, not, uh, throwing many bones to Tucson and Pima County.

And this is something we've seen, you know, throughout her time in office, she doesn't appoint a whole lot of people from Southern Arizona to boards and commissions.

She doesn't, uh, focus on what's going on in Pima County in, you know, in any of her, you know, uh, state of the state speeches, it's, uh, you know, kind of, uh, I think there's a big hole there because usually Democrats in state office realize that running for office and being reelected, you're counting on votes from Tucson and Pima County.

I think that's a great point because that is one of those things where you can almost always count on Pima County to help Democrats.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Um, and she's not doing Pima County any favors by lumping us in with the rest of the state.

Um, Tucson and Pima County are in a very, very different state when it comes to things like water issues.

Um, so by not even mentioning us and focusing it all on Tucson, that gives people from out of state, um, the impression that we're all quite the same, which I know something is something that the business community here has struggled with when trying to recruit people from out of town is making it clear that we are very different than our friends up in the North.

It's one thing to cultivate support across the state in places that maybe are not quite so democratic.

That's probably a good political move, but to not every once in a while say, Hey, Pima County is important too, don't want to think in a very public way and in a meaningful way is, uh, you know, it may pose a problem for her in the future.

Steve, what do you make of that blind spot?

Let's strike you as well.

I think she's, she's trying very hard to be aware of the fact that Arizona is a very closely divided state in terms of political parties and trying to leverage whatever support she can from the Republi majority, uh, throughout the state.

And, uh, that, that probably is part of the reason she's overlooking the democratic stronghold of Pima County that you can sort of take it for granted that Pima County is going to lean that direction, but she's trying to pull Phoenix and the outlying areas of the state in her direction as well.

It seems like the way registrati is going, she should be thinking about any dependency because Democrats have lost a lot.

Natalie, we've got two more topics on the state of the state.

I want to ask you about reproductive freedom, which was obviously a big thing, 1864, how the legislature handled or didn't handle it.

Uh, governor Hobbs talked about that a lot as well and, and, and sort of melded that with childcare.

Right.

Um, yeah.

Um, I mean, the state passed, although, um, the state of Arizona voted for Donald Trump, we also passed proposition 139, which enshrines a right to abortion in the state constitution, um, which indicates, um, I, to me, a very interesting divide, um, in ideologies for, for a lot of people.

Um, and yeah, uh, governor Hobbs did speak about guaranteeing the right to contraception for all women in the state of Arizona and IVF, um, which I thought was interesting because, um, you know, former well upcoming president Donald Trump, um, has talked a lot about IVF and, and attempting to get rid of it.

So, um, I thought that was a smart move on her part.

Was she strong enough on that Caitlin?

Do you think?

I mean, can you ever be strong enough on that stuff?

Right?

I mean, she was for some voters certainly, but I think others will notice probably not.

Okay.

Steve, any thoughts on that?

I thought that, uh, her bringing up the 1864 abortion ban and successfully getting rid of it, uh, was, was a pure applause line in, in, in the speech, because, uh, at this point it's, it's a dead letter.

It's not open for discussion anymore, but, but she wanted to have something that, that called out a victory for her.

And, and it obviously got a wild round of applause from at least the democratic side on, on, in, in the floor.

It also prompted a pretty significant negative reaction from the Republicans in the chamber who are listening to this speech.

You know, even though that, uh, that measure, uh, that amendment to the state constitution passed, you know, so overwhelmingly, uh, there are people who are still kind of, you know, pegging a lot of their politics to being opposed to abortion.

Kayla, I'm going to do my quick Haiti hubs impersonation because I kind of buried the lead, the one area of great conflict.

ESAs members of the legislature must ask themselves, do we finally put guardrails around ESAs to protect against fraud, waste, and abuse?

Or do we continue to write a blank check with taxpayer money?

Do we lower costs by investing in childcare and housing, or do we continue to subsidize the rich?

And then we go down and it says, today it is ballooned into a billion dollar boondoggle, increasingly scamming Arizonans.

So that was pretty strong.

That was pretty strong.

Um, yeah.

And I'm actually speaking with Tom Horn later today, so I'll be thrilled to know what he thinks about that.

But yeah, I mean, I think it's impossible to ignore the fact that ESAs has turned into quite the issue, um, much more than we thought it would for both sides.

Um, it's not just to the detriment of the state, but right now we are writing checks for people for $2,000 or less and then saying, but we can come back in a few years and tell you that you owe us this money back.

I mean, that will bankrupt families if we let that go on.

So I think something has to be done for sure.

Well, it's, you know, I think it's interesting that this is one of those, it is such a almost all Republicans, certainly elected Republicans in this state have dug their heels in.

And this is one where, so part of me, I feel Hobbs is standing up for something she believes in it appears, but she has to know with the legislature, the makeup of it, she's not going to be able to do anything.

She's not going to be able to get these guardrails.

So what did you make of that from a political stamp?

I think she has to take a stand.

She has to wave the flag against ESAs, particularly with regard to the financial waste or the abuse that's occurring.

But I think she and probably some of the Republicans in the legislature recognize they've they put themselves in kind of a trap that they can't really get out of in one move.

The best they can hope to do is to try to eat away at some of the more abusive parts of the ESA law around the edges.

But I don't think we're going to see any major change to that program until and unless Republicans are no longer in the majority in the legislature.

And that's, you know, who knows when that will happen.

Right.

Hobbs really did use her strongest, most definitive language in that entire speech when she was talking about school vouchers and how they are affecting the state budget.

Will we see any changes?

I mean, we did see many years ago now, you know, when the state had to completely reverse supporting, you know, what did they call it?

They about the vehicles.

All fuels.

Oh, yes.

The all fuels scandal.

Jeff Groscost who was there.

Yeah.

Where we, you know, it blew a massive hole in the state budget, which was very unintentional, but affected us for quite a long time.

And, you know, it was a, the entire legislature got together and agreed that, Hey, we need to change this somehow.

And if we see ESA's continue to have so much money flow out of the state budget to, you know, private schools and homeschooling and in many cases, things as you mentioned that are basically abuses of taxpayer money, I think even some Republicans will decide that maybe we need to fix this.

Well, Caitlin, this is a topic to where it feels like the voice of the voter didn't matter because a few years ago, not too many years ago now, a majority of the state's voters said we don't want to expand the ESA program.

And the legislature just decided no, we're going to do it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um, I mean, and is it really working?

I don't know any private schools that cost $7,000 a year to attend.

And that's what you're getting if you're not on the disability system.

So who are we helping?

Yeah.

Natalie, any comments on that one?

As far as the education goes, that's a pretty interesting topic for Hobbs.

Right.

I do.

I mean, I agree.

That was certainly her most definitive stance in the whole speech.

Um, Arizona's public education consistently ranks, um, among the lowest in the country.

Um, you know, since I was in school here, and I think that, um, maybe this means people are finally paying attention and money will, well, I mean, who's to say what actually will happen, what she's able to get done, but we'll see.

There are too many kids in Arizona who can't even count that low to how far down the rankings we are in education.

Well, one thing that occurs to me is that the voters of Arizona took the matter of abortion into their own hands with a constitutional amendment.

When they knew the legislature was basically stuck on doing anything about it, I wonder if some people might see the same track with the ESA program, that it might come down to a constitutional amendment approved by voters.

Finally, to do what the Republicans in the legislature, uh, won't do.

Especially if it comes down to the issue of fairness and if people are saying, wait a second, why is this person getting this?

And then able to write off $2,000 for a lot of people, $2,000 is a good amount of money.

Um, all right.

Let's talk a little bit about, um, Steve, let me go to you on this one.

South Tucson, not enforcing mass deportation.

The fact that South Tucson did it may or may not be significant, but the fact that it's following the footsteps of what Tucson is feeling and the fact that this indicates more of a divide really, uh, between Pima County and Southern Arizona versus a lot of the rest of the state and a lot of the rest of the country with the Trump administration coming in.

What do you make of that generally?

The fact that South Tucson issued a statement saying, listen, we're not going to support this.

I think they are adding their names to the list of a lot of local governments who say not only is this contrary to our, our thoughts regarding immigrati but it's an unfunded mandate.

And no, we're not, we're not going to participate.

It's worth noting though, that what South Tucson city council did was more of a statement of intent than an actual binding resolution.

So there's nothing for some arm of the Trump administration to reach in and say, well, you're violating the law or you're, you're violating an executive order.

There's, there's no actual accountability for it, but it's a, it's a clear statement of what, what they intend to do.

And, and really it's, it's also a statement that, uh, that talks to both parties because yes, uh, they're rejecting the notion that immigrants are all people who must be deported immediately.

They're also rejecting the idea that the federal government is forcing local governments to do immigration work when it's not part of the, uh, the mission of local governments.

So where does prop 13th passage, prop three 14th passage plan to this, Don, you know, we're going to have to see how that works out to the specific point about South Tucson.

They did discuss setting a very specific policy about the, the issue and got some advice from their attorneys and realized that it may, especially put them in conflict with state law and, you know, subject them to the state law that allows legislators to basically start pulling back money from the city.

And they didn't want to do that.

There were questions about some of the policies about, uh, specifically how police pull people over and, uh, you know, things that would be logistically a little bit difficult.

So the police chief of South Houston said he was not in favor of that, but he did join in the, the general statement that no, they're not going to cooperate with any of this.

If the Trump administration tries to start doing mass deportations, this raises some of the same issues that came up with SB 10 70, uh, how much authority does law enforcement have to make someone arrested or pulled over for some other reason prove that they are in the country legally, you know, and is that, is that even something that's doable without creating some sort of a fifth amendment violation where you have to prove you're innocent before you can be released.

Yeah.

And it was only 15 years ago, short memories about things like SB 10 70.

So, uh, Kaitlin in the same sort of general realm, I would feel bad if I didn't get, give you a chance to talk about sheriff Nanos.

Um, cause when you're on it, that's part of really what you want to do.

Uh, so he says he will not enforce the lake and Riley act.

The house has passed it.

We'll see if the Senate does or not.

I did not have the staff and out of the resources, the funds, and more importantly, the desire to do the job of the federal government.

If I did, I guess I could run for Congress.

I actually love that line by him.

I mean, I would love to see him run for Congress too.

Wouldn't we all love to see a congressional run by sheriff Nanos.

Um, but you know, good for him.

Um, he has said throughout the campaign before the campaign that staffing is an issue.

So he's not exactly changing his tune.

Um, this came up multiple times.

His opponent Heather Lapin said the same thing that they did not having the staffing to do this.

But I mean, I think voters here, I think undocumented members of the community here, certainly appreciate our sheriff standing up and saying that, um, and it's not just about staffing to him.

I mean, he straight up said, I don't want to be a federal immigration officer.

So, so good for you, Sheriff, Nanos.

Significant now.

Um, I think it's unclear as to whether it's a principled stand or simply, you know, he doesn't think it's his business, but I kind of don't think it matters at the end of the day.

Okay.

That's, that's a fair statement.

Um, state Senator John Cavanaugh, who I have the pleasure of knowing very well in our couple of County four of you don't have to deal with him quite in the same way.

Uh, he says he can introduce a bill this year at the state legislature offering the federal immigration and customs enforcement bureau ice, the use of two now closed Arizona prisons quote.

So they have places to put these people and quote, including one of them, the Marana community correctional treatment facility, which Dylan I understand was closed because it's not actually usable.

Um, that facility and there was one in a Florence he was talking about and which, uh, governor Doug Ducey shut down because the, uh, the physical plant there is just, you know, basically not usable anymore.

I think this is more than a, you know, a, a, a serious proposal, another kind of a signaling bill from Cavanaugh who is also introducing bills to, uh, go after trans kids and things like that.

You know, it's basically, I, I, my take is that it is a culture war bill more than anything.

Yeah.

Steve, what do you make of that?

I mean we had three in a row after talking about governor Hobbs, three things related to immigrat border security in this state.

And I, I guess the appetite is back for this kind of thing, but it does feel like cultural war all over again.

It does.

And what, what occurs to me is that maybe one of the things Cavanaugh was trying to avoid is the optics of crying kids, you know, inside a chain link fence, you know, that we had during the first Trump administration with all the family separation policies.

Uh, if you, if they're behind a prison wall, then they're harder to take pictures of.

Uh, but I, everybody is, is trying to anticipate what uh, Donald Trump is going to do in his second term.

Uh, and I, I personally view the whole mass deportation promise as this year's version of Mexico will pay for the wall.

Well, let's see how that turns out.

You know, it may or may not really happen.

Well, he has a little bit more control over this.

It's an interesting point, but he has more control over this and he does tell Mexico what to do.

I think.

That's true.

That's true.

But the mass deportation part I think is going to be very difficult.

I, I wonder how many, how many people he can force immigration officials to essentially put on planes and fly out of the country based on an executive order under the present budget, under the present laws.

Yeah.

I mean the mass deportations are supposed to start on day one, right?

Which is coming up Monday.

Um, and I mean his, he Donald Trump and his administration have not provided clear answers as to how it's going to work for, for a while now.

And a lot of local governments, including ours have said they will not enforce them.

So, um, I mean, I'm curious as to how it's going to play out logistically.

Yeah.

Last couple of minutes.

Dylan I'm going to turn to you on this one only took 50 years.

Just 50.

Yeah.

But after more than 50 years of legal battles, 90 U S circuit court of appeals has upheld a ruling finally releasing TUSD from court over a set of efforts to right the wrongs of segregation.

We have about two minutes left.

So of course you can wrap up 50 years in that, but what there were a lot of ups and downs over the course of this different federal judges took over.

What really finally made this go away for TUSD?

You know, TUSD was under a series of court orders, but the suit was filed in 1974 before the current TUSD board president, Natalie Luna Rose was even born.

This thing's been going on for awhile.

A long series of, you know, shifting court orders to address the lingering effects of what back in the 1950s was legally enforced segregation.

And then many, many years of, you know, systemic underinvestment in areas where, uh, you know, that are low income or where people of color live across Tucson by TUSD.

And one of the judges, you know, repeatedly says, yes, you, you have been living up to this.

Uh, you, you should be done with court supervision.

Then the ninth circuit would disagree and say, no, you need to go fix these other couple of things.

Finally, uh, to the excitement of a number of folks in TUSD, the ninth circuit just decided based on an arg oral arguments were held in this two years ago back in 2023 that yes, you're finally done.

You know, the court order is dissolved.

You have to keep doing the things that you are doing.

You can't, you know, suddenly stop doing them, but you're, you are finished.

The board member Sadie Shaw was not quite so excited by this.

You know, she says that there are still problems that need to be addressed.

And you know, she's going to push to make sure that those things happen.

Yeah.

And that's the very short version.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And those was, it was federal.

Maybe that's a question.

Caitlin can ask Tom Horne about.

Yeah, that's right.

Love to.

Don't let me close it out with this though.

So just to give people the idea of this and we only have a few seconds, obviously, I think people think about drinking fountains back in the pre civil rights days, two drinking fountains.

The initial lawsuit was related to having what?

Three, three layers of education, one for white folks, one for Latinos and one for African Americans.

Correct.

Okay.

So that was just this, I feel like why did it take 50 years to solve all this, but it was about, you know, TUSD failing to live up to promises, to invest properly in areas that had been basically unfunded or sometimes defunded and make sure that kids everywhere in the district have the same level of opportunities.

Okay.

Well, great reporting.

Thank you.

Dylan Smith with Tucson Sentinel, Natalie Robbins of the Tucson Sentinel, Steve Jess of ACPM, Caitlin Schmidt, Tucson Spotlight.

Good luck with Tom Horne.

Thank you all for being here today.

Very much appreciate your time.

I'm Steve Goldstein.

Thank you for watching.

Thank you for listening as well.

Next edition of the press room comes up next Friday.

We will be with us then as well.

Thank you very much and have a great rest of your day.

Thanks very much.