KJZZ’s Friday NewsCap revisits some of the biggest stories of the week from Arizona and beyond.
To talk about Gov. Katie Hobbs making her running mate pick official, court battles over ballot language and more, The Show sat down with Chuck Coughlin of HighGround and Matt Grodsky of Matters of State Strategies.
Transcript
ANNOUNCER: KJZZ’s original production The Show is supported by Banner Health, Arizona’s largest nonprofit healthcare system. Last year, Banner reinvested more than $1.1 billion in community health and charity care. Banner Health, nonprofit for Arizona.bannerhealth.com/nonprofitforaz.
MARK BRODIE: Hi, I’m Mark Brodie, and this is the Friday NewsCap podcast. Each week, we review the biggest stories week with experts, reporters and commentators to put the news in perspective.
Here’s this week’s episode:
KATIE HOBBS: I’m proud to introduce my running mate, former Mesa Mayor John Giles.
JOHN GILES: I was a lifelong Republican before becoming an independent because extremists shouldn’t stand in the way of getting things done.
SINE KERR: It’s really unfortunate that they don’t want to stand for a debate. They don’t want to answer tough questions. I think it’s very disrespectful to the people, to the voters of Arizona.
TIM LASOTA: It’s really a stunning example of what I think is even implicates criminal statutes that deal with defrauding people into voting for something they didn’t intend to vote for.
WARREN PETERSEN: Their sentiment, the current redistricting commission, was that the lines should be very similar. So a lawsuit probably wouldn’t make much sense.
JOHN MITCHELL: We’re just not seeing evidence of Section 5 being enforced within Arizona, and that means that it’s not the right time to continue litigating.
MARK BRODIE: And with me to talk about Gov. Hobbs making her running mate pick official, court battles over ballot language, and more are Chuck Coughlin of HighGround. Hey Chuck, good morning.
CHUCK COUGHLIN: Good morning, Mark.
MARK BRODIE: And Matt Grodsky of Matters of State Strategies. Matt, good morning to you.
MATT GRODSKY: Good morning.
MARK BRODIE: So, Matt, in a surprise to probably nobody at this point — maybe the worst-kept secret recently in Arizona politics — Gov. Hobbs named former Mesa Mayor John Giles her lieutenant governor pick. We can certainly talk about what he brings to the ticket or if a lieutenant governor actually matters. But I guess let me start with the idea that the governor picked somebody who is not a Democrat. Like, how is this going down in Democratic circles?
MATT GRODSKY: I think it’s being received really well. I mean, Giles has been a well-known name in Democratic circles for a while now. He’s viewed obviously across the political spectrum as somebody that can bring people together and govern on principle, not for party. I love this worst-kept secret. It’s been over a week, and this is who we’re talking about. I don’t even remember who the lieutenant governor pick is for Biggs. So —
MARK BRODIE: Sine Kerr.
MATT GRODSKY: Oh, who? I don’t know. So, this is great. So, we’re super happy about this, and I would expect us to keep talking about it. We can get into the minutiae of what the lieutenant governor will actually do and does it matter and all that stuff, but I think it complements her ticket in a good way, and I think it will add to some of the margin once we get to November.
MARK BRODIE: Is there a danger that some on the left side of the spectrum might not be thrilled enough with this to not vote?
MATT GRODSKY: You know, I’m sure there’s a select few that might be doing some hand-wringing over picking somebody that’s not a traditional Democrat —
MARK BRODIE: Or a Democrat.
MATT GRODSKY: I think most Democrats in this state, especially those that have been working in this space for a while, they’re pragmatic. They understand what it takes to win and how to appeal to independents across the state, those moderate Republicans that you need to win an election. So I think most people appreciate that. But I do think that his record is one that resonates with people all over Arizona, and I think that’s why it’s a great pick.
MARK BRODIE: What do you think, Chuck?
CHUCK COUGHLIN: Well, you know, if you’re going to win as a Democrat, the math problem, as Matt just pointed out, is a significant issue. They have an issue with numbers of voters. There’s significantly fewer Democrats than there are Republicans, and so you have to broaden the base.
And so, just from a math perspective, I’m with you. I had the same question asked me of a lot of people: “Well, isn’t that going to upset the Democrats?” And you’re like, “Well, when they look at who they get to vote for, no, I don’t think it is.”
And then the additional question is, the biggest problem with this now is polling, because do you put this person’s name on the poll? Because it makes the poll a lot longer if you have to put everybody’s, because there’s a Green Party candidate, there’s a No Labels Party candidate, there’s the Democrat, there’s the Republican —
MARK BRODIE: That’s the biggest issue?
CHUCK COUGHLIN: That’s the problem for me, man! Paul [Bentz] and I were talking about it the other day, and we said, “No, don’t put it on there,” because nobody’s voting for the lieutenant governor pick. You’re voting for the governor.
MARK BRODIE: Well, so that kind of raises the question, and Matt, I kind of joked about it with Matt, like, does the lieutenant governor matter in terms of who voters are voting for? Like, will some people look at Andy Biggs and say, “Well, I’m not sure, but Sine Kerr, she really seems to know about water, I like her background, I like she’s done this, she has this experience and that experience. I’m going to vote for them now”? Or somebody look at Gov. Hobbs and say, “I’m not really sure about her, but oh, you know, John Giles, he’s a guy I can get behind, I’m going to vote for that ticket.”
CHUCK COUGHLIN: Yeah, there’s a couple messages that get sent here. John’s also a member of the LDS community. That’s a message to that community that she’s OK, she’s not going to be evil incarnate. That’s a base buster for Biggs. That’s a problem.
And so there’s tactical, textual messages here that will be sent out. But then the question becomes, how are they going to use this person? I mean, are they going to put him — I mean, that’s a big question for a campaign, because staffing the governor is one thing, right? Now you’ve got to staff this other person, too.
So they’re going to be out like campaigning, and so you’re going to have to have people with them, that, you know, the body man, the advance person, all of the people that accompany this. So that becomes an additional problem. So, it’ll be interesting to see how in our inaugural cycle of this, how this all works out.
MATT GRODSKY: And they’ve got the staffing for it. I think the real objective is you want to be additive when you pick a running mate, right? And I think that, as Chuck pointed out, there’s big demographics across the state where you can have Giles speak to them specifically one-on-one and pull them in, and it takes away from the coalition that Biggs needs, right? And I would argue that his pick doesn’t do enough to add to the margin he’s going to need. So, we’ll see, but again, I think it’s a good ... pick.
CHUCK COUGHLIN: I recalled this the other day, so this is going back into the history books again. Remember when Russell Pearce got recalled?
MARK BRODIE: Yeah.
CHUCK COUGHLIN: And he was recalled by members of the Church —
MARK BRODIE: In his legislative district.
CHUCK COUGHLIN: In his legislative district. And lost to a Democrat in a very heavily Republican district because in that race you can get a headshot, you get a one-on-one race in a general election where everybody — there’s no primary. And so, members of the Church — and then they went on, and John was part of this recently, a couple years ago, they expanded in-state college tuition to people who are Dreamers. And they put that on the ballot, they ran that campaign.
So there’s some textual stuff here that I think will help her. I’m not clear what Sine really adds to Mr. Biggs’ ticket. He’s got a native base of support from greater Arizona. He’s got the ag community; she comes from there.
And she was one of the principal reasons we still don’t have a rural groundwater code in Arizona, because as a member of the agricultural community, they oppose that. They like the free-market principles of drop a well and take as much as you want, brother. And so, that’s the status of the law in greater Arizona.
MATT GRODSKY: I think she does add some awkwardness to it, too, because I think one of the big things that’s divided some of the moderate Republicans, from my perspective, is the Jan. 6 issue, right? So, I think not completely shoring up that divide between the two of them, I think, exacerbates existing problems versus helps mend them. So.
MARK BRODIE: So, Matt, before we move on, I do want to ask you about the fact that, as with the governor, they said that John Giles would not be taking part in a debate. The governor obviously said recently that she would not be doing the debate either. Is that a mistake, do you think, on her campaign?
MATT GRODSKY: I don’t. I love the debate stuff here because I think it’s really a “Choose Your Own Adventure” as a political campaign. I think in their camp, the way they look at it is Biggs is a proven liar, right? This is an election denier. You’re not going to gain anything by going and giving him airtime so that he can go on there and spew lies.
I also don’t think the viewership base is gigantic enough where it’s really consequential in terms of people making their decisions. Now, on the flip side, right, candidates can go on there and debate their ideas on the merits, and that’s great, too. But I don’t think that their time is best spent going and giving their opponents airtime. I think it’s much better for them to campaign across the state.
MARK BRODIE: But I mean, the Republicans will still get that airtime.
MATT GRODSKY: They’re going to be on there, I think, with the other gubernatorial candidates from the other parties, too, right? So, they’ll be on there, but I think people would have tuned in to watch the fireworks between Hobbs and Biggs, right? And now they’re getting “robbed” of that. So, again, I don’t think as many people tune in, and Biggs can talk to himself.
CHUCK COUGHLIN: OK, going back old school again. Debates, I’m totally with him. Nobody really cares, nobody really — it’s a, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody’s there, that type of deal. But so what I’m — Bob Robb wrote a column a couple, like five or six weeks ago. What we’re being denied as voters is a legitimate discussion of the issues confronting the state.
For instance, we need a long-term money supply for our long-term future water supply. That’s a significant question.
We have a significant problem on K-12 with Prop 123 and reforming the State Land Department. What are we going to do about that? That’s two years running now that we’ve left $400 million on the table. So, who’s going to do that, and what are you going to do about that?
You got DPS officers that aren’t getting paid as much as a Gilbert police officer. That’s probably a problem. You got a prison healthcare system that is under receivership.
That probably needs to be — I mean, there’s all kinds of issues that I think a journalist such as yourself or — God bless Lauren Gilger — could like have this really good discussion and force a conversation. At least nerds like us would like enjoy that give-and-take there, and it would be fun. And I think we’re being denied that, and I’m disappointed by that.
MATT GRODSKY: I totally agree. We were joking before The Show of the dumb timeline that we’re in, right? I mean, I think too often in these past election cycles, there’s one party — I would argue the Democratic Party — that’s the grown-up in the room that’s trying to talk about these issues, and then there’s the Republican general election nominees that are election deniers and try to talk about things that aren’t real, right? And aren’t necessarily the true issues facing our state.
So I think we’re being denied a conversation about serious issues across the board in this country, right? Not just for this debate, but we got to get out of this timeline first.
CHUCK COUGHLIN: But even that’s a good issue to talk about, right? Because, you know, you could call them out — that’s a liar. You’re a liar. So you’re running for office and you’re lying about the 2020 election.
MATT GRODSKY: There’s going to be some ads that do that, I have a feeling.
MARK BRODIE: I suspect that’s where you’re going to see that. ...
And Chuck, what’s in a name when it comes to the word “vouchers”? Apparently, you can’t say that on the ballot.
CHUCK COUGHLIN: Apparently, it’s a loaded word, and Mr. Fontes tried to stick it into one of the ballot descriptions and was told, “No, no, no, no, no,” because they’re Empowerment Scholarship Accounts.
That’s what we’ve dubbed them in Arizona. And the discussion we’ve been having for over 20 years now is, you know, is there going to be choice in public education? I think as a matter of policy, that decision’s been made. I think the voters have decided we’re going to have choice.
For one, I would love the opportunity to stop this debate, accept choice, but my friends in the Democratic Party refuse to acknowledge that, and I would rather have them talk about maybe funding Title I schools, where kids of poverty are educated. And we all know, matter of policy, it costs more money to educate a kid out of poverty than it does a kid who’s blessed to live in a better environment.
But we don’t have that discussion because we get bottled up in this partisan discussion about choice, and we really don’t do anything. So, I presume everything’s going to fail this fall, and we’ll move on to talk about something else.
MARK BRODIE: Chuck’s a ray of sunshine this morning, I love it. So, Matt, we should mention before we go any further that you are affiliated with the Fontes campaign, not with his role as Secretary of State, which is what we’re talking about here.
But I wonder, so he is charged with writing up the descriptions that are on the ballot. So when you get your ballot, you go to the polling place, you get it at home, you read sort of like, “Here’s what the initiative does, a yes vote would do this, a no vote would do this.” Like, do people actually read those? Like, how important are these descriptions?
MATT GRODSKY: They read them. They’re always confusing, right? And I think a lot of it is up to interpretation. Now, I think the real takeaway here is a judge made a decision whether we agree with that or not, he’s going to respect the rule of law. Unlike his opponent in the campaign that I’m working on, who was sanctioned by the Arizona State Supreme Court and the Arizona Bar. So, that’s a little fun nugget there.
But look, you know, I think “voucher,” what’s in a name? You know, a tomato is also a fruit, right? I think we can go back and forth on the nuances of that word, but I think —
CHUCK COUGHLIN: Don’t use a tomato in a fruit salad, though.
MATT GRODSKY: That’s true. Yeah, that’s not a fun surprise. But look, you know, I think you can have the debate on the ESAs, the, you know, Empowerment Scholarship that I think empowers a lot more financial corruption. We can have that conversation, but look, it’s a word on the ballot, it’s going to get shifted based on the judge’s ruling, people are going to move on, most people are not paying attention to these types of debates.
MARK BRODIE: All right, so Fontes also was questioned over his description of Prop 144, which is the legislative referral making a lot of changes to election rules. And Chuck, the judge said, “You’re good on that one. What you wrote is fine.”
CHUCK COUGHLIN: Yeah. And these kind of challenges, Matt just said, happen all the time. This is the professional legal kingdom moving in in the world of politics to make sure that commas are in the right spot, the words are in the right spot. People will read these descriptions and decide for themselves.
I would think most of the things that the Legislature’s going to put on the ballot are all going to fail. It’s a base turnout measure for them. But they — and as we know, it’s a minority that actually runs the Legislature. It’s not a majority of voters that decide who these people are, and their predilections reflect that when they put things on the ballot.
MARK BRODIE: So, you think all the legislative referrals are going to fail?
CHUCK COUGHLIN: Ah, God, I hope so. I think that would be really helpful. I mean, they’re just not great ideas. There’s one in there about public school funding that requires like 60% to have a vote. So like, when we did Prop 100 for Jan Brewer when the state had a $3 billion —
MARK BRODIE: The half-cent sales tax increase, yeah.
CHUCK COUGHLIN: Yeah. I mean, we got 63%, but that’s a rarity. You just don’t normally get that. And so, you know, what’s wrong with just a majority? But the Republicans years ago, John Shadegg put it on the ballot that it takes two-thirds to raise taxes at the Legislature. Now they’re going to put that back on the ballot.
And who’s questioning that, “Oh, the state is really had Republican leadership for eons, and is anybody wondering if it’s an adequately funded institution to educate our kids, to — as I was just saying earlier — to pay police officers? Oh, maybe technology updates at the state level.” We’re an underfunded state institution, and yet we’re putting more shackles on our decisions as voters.
MATT GRODSKY: You talk about likelihood of failure, too. Look, you know, the longer this ballot is, the less likelihood that people are going to want to fill out the whole thing. You know, we talked about how many gubernatorial candidates are up there, now you add the lieutenant governor aspect to it, right? Which is a headache for us as Democrats for downballot legislative races, which we’ll talk about later. But yeah, I’m with Chuck on that prognosis, but we’ll see.
MARK BRODIE: All right, so you brought up the Legislature. Let me ask you about that because the group, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, kind of rolls off the tongue, has added two more races to its target list. They say Democrats are, quote, “within striking distance” of flipping control of at least one of the chambers for the first time since the ’60s. These districts, one of them is in the southwestern part of the state, one is in North Phoenix.
We were talking before the show, like Democrats have been talking about flipping the Legislature basically forever. I mean, for at least a decade, maybe probably more than that. Is there a realistic chance of this happening?
MATT GRODSKY: Look, we were close in 2020. There’s been no better time than right now, again. It is déjà vu for a lot of us in the consultant world. Look, I think the thing I’d like us to pull on more is: Do you intend to fill out your entire ballot, right? Because unless you do, you know, we’re not going to be able to do that.
And I think we’re in a great position to do it if we message appropriately, if people are fired up enough to turn out. But I think the message, and this is what I certainly relay to my clients, is: Look, you’ve got to make the case to that independent voter in Arizona that, look, if you’re voting for a Democrat at the top of the ticket — as you should — but then you vote against them by going with a straight party ticket for the Republicans, or not voting at all, then you’re literally hamstringing what you just voted for at the top. You’re sacrificing a long-term vision.
And I do think sometimes in the daily bustle of our lives, we kind of forget the connection of that, and so we have to make that case to voters, that it’s all intertwined. If you want the governor to be successful, if you want the Secretary of State to be successful, give them a legislature that can work towards those priorities that clearly you care about, right? So, I think that’s the disconnect.
MARK BRODIE: Chuck, that’s a tough sell, though, I would think, for some, especially Republicans who maybe, like for example four years ago, we heard from a lot of Republicans, “I can’t vote for Kari Lake” —
CHUCK COUGHLIN: Oh there’s a long-term vision there.
MARK BRODIE: But like, so they voted for Katie Hobbs. But like once you get down the ballot, and there was some thought that at least like even once you got to like Superintendent of Public Instruction, like that’s where some number of Republicans were like, “OK, I’m not a Democrat, I can’t vote for all Democrats.”
CHUCK COUGHLIN: So, here’s the mechanics of it. The mechanics of it is, just as we were talking earlier, there’s more Republicans. It’s going to be about a 9% Republican turnout advantage in this cycle. Nine percent more Republicans than Democrats turn out. And about 30% of the electorate will be unaffiliated. And so, those unaffiliated voters are going to decide how these races go.
Currently, Republicans are struggling because of the orange man in the White House is not doing a great job of recruiting these voters, or actually expressing any sympathy for anybody else on the ballot. And so, they’re going to face some serious headwinds here, which brings the aforementioned two seats into play, and brings these legislative discussions, which probably shouldn’t be in play, into play.
And it all comes down to how campaigns get run. Do they run good campaigns? Because those legislative candidates are going to — and who’s going to run the best campaign? And it actually matters. It actually — candidates matter.
MARK BRODIE: As Mitch McConnell famously always said, it really comes down to candidate quality.
CHUCK COUGHLIN: It does. And so, they have a couple of opportunities. I was looking at all this yesterday. There’s five or six districts that you could argue that could be in play. We’ve got them lined up to watch to see how those things happen. And as Matt just said, how these campaigns play out. Who’s going to run a good campaign?
MARK BRODIE: Right. Very quickly, Matt, anything you want to add?
MATT GRODSKY: No, I was just going to say, I think mathematically, from Chuck’s, with the example he just gave, I think there’s additionally more in play that historically probably shouldn’t, right?
But again, it’s going to come down to not just candidate quality, but coming back to that idea of: Do enough of the unaffiliated voters know to turn out to vote their entire ticket? I think we can win those in polling and in things from an ideological perspective — especially given Trump’s popularity — but getting them to turn out, that’s where we’ve struggled, that’s what we need to do next.
MARK BRODIE: Interesting. All right. Matt Grodsky, Chuck Coughlin, thanks to you both. I really appreciate it.
MATT GRODSKY: Thank you.
CHUCK COUGHLIN: God bless you, brother.
MARK BRODIE: You’ve been listening to the Friday NewsCap from KJZZ’s The Show. It’s an original podcast recapping the week's biggest stories with experts, commentators and reporters. You can get the full Show podcast at podcast.kjzz.org. I'm Mark Brodie, thanks for listening.
