The Show for July 2, 2026: AZ proof-of-citizenship voting law, comedian Anwar Newton and more

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case over Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship voting law. We’ll hear what a ruling could mean for the upcoming election. Plus, a Valley stand-up comedian is recording a new special on July Fourth.

Transcript

UNDERWRITER: KJZZ’s original production, The Show, is supported by Banner Health, Arizona’s largest nonprofit health care 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, co-host of The Show, an original production from KJZZ. Every weekday, we bring you the latest news and culture from across the state. You can find much more at theshow.kjzz.org. Here’s today’s episode.

MARK BRODIE: Good morning. It’s The Show on KJZZ 91.5 in Phoenix. I’m Mark Brodie. Coming up, why the University of Arizona is moving endowment money under its control. And a Valley stand-up on recording a special on July 4th.

But first, the U.S. Supreme Court says it’ll hear arguments over whether an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote is legal. The state requires Arizona voters to show their citizens when registering, but lower courts have ruled that violates federal law. That’s led to a kind of two systems: one for voters who register using the state form and show proof of citizenship, who are allowed to vote in all races, and another for those who use the federal registration form, which requires voters to attest under penalty of perjury that they’re citizens, but does not require any further proof. Those voters are only allowed to vote in federal races, not state ones.

With me now to talk about this and the new paper that voters in one Arizona county will use this year is Sasha Hupka of Votebeat.

Sasha, good morning.

SASHA HUPKA: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

MARK BRODIE: Thanks for being here. So how significant is it that the Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court, says it’s going to take up this, this Arizona law?

SASHA HUPKA: I think this is a big deal. You know, obviously, nation’s highest court, and this is a case that could have ramifications not just in Arizona, but also outside of it. Arizona was one of the first, and for a very long time, the only state to require documentary proof of citizenship from voters who were registering to vote.

And since then, we’ve seen other states also try to pick that up. So for instance, South Dakota recently had a similar law that went into effect and is now, has this bifurcated system similar to what we have. And so this case will determine whether or not Arizona’s program, essentially, system of doing this, is allowed to continue, but also potentially whether other states are allowed to continue doing it.

If you see Arizona succeed in this case, I think what you might see is a lot of other states very quickly picking this up.

MARK BRODIE: And it’s worth noting that there’s not an immense number of voters who fall into this category of only able to vote, for example, for president or Senate or Congress. But you know, it’s not, it’s not nothing either.

SASHA HUPKA: No, it’s about 50,000 voters here across the state. And to put that in context, that is still a very, very small fraction of our state’s total registered voters. But so yeah, I mean to your point, it’s not nothing.

I think one of the things I’d also bring up, though, is that we know non-citizen voting is actually very, very rare. There have been multiple studies that have confirmed this. If you go to even the Heritage Foundation, right, a conservative group, they have this wonderful, actually, resource where they track every confirmed case of non-citizen voting in the country, and it is a very small number in the grand totality of how many Americans vote every election cycle.

And so because we know that, and also because we know that people in Arizona who are on this federal-only list tend to be students who might not have their documents, or people, you know, living on tribal lands where, until very recently, birth certificates were often not issued when people were born, you know, we have a pretty good idea as to who these people are, and I think that, you know, the evidence suggests very, very strongly that almost all of those 50,000 people, if not all of them, are citizens.

MARK BRODIE: OK. So that will not affect the [2026] election. The Supreme Court’s going to hear it when their new term begins in the fall. So this, whatever happens, will not happen for 20, for 2026, rather, maybe for 2028.

But for 2026, this election, though, as you recently reported, voters in Mohave County, the ballots will be made out of different paper now?

SASHA HUPKA: Yes. So Mohave County is going to be the first in the country to use this new type of paper called Ballot-Guard. It is made by Runbeck Election Services, which is this voting materials company that is actually very large and has customers nationwide, but they’re based here in Phoenix.

And this paper emerged out of, if you remember, Cochise County had actually had this pilot program with the state to test this paper with all of these crazy security features on it. It had watermarks, it had microprint, it had these UV dead zones, it had all this stuff, right? And so in Cochise County, they actually ended up running out of time to really do most of that testing or to fulfill this grant, but they had ordered a bunch of paper for it. And that paper had all been just sitting for years.

MARK BRODIE: Like rolls and rolls of it, right?

SASHA HUPKA: Yes, like 20,000 pounds of paper, if you can imagine.

MARK BRODIE: That’s a lot of paper.

SASHA HUPKA: It’s a lot of paper. Like think like stacks of paper the size of tractor tires, stacked like up to the ceiling amount of paper. And so it’s all been sitting at Runbeck. And Mohave now wants to use it, and they’re going to be the first to use this in a live election.

MARK BRODIE: And they’ve done a couple rounds of testing. It sounds like the first round of testing was, maybe not so great. Second round of testing went better, which gave them confidence that that this paper would work in their tabulation machines.

SASHA HUPKA: Yeah, so that first round of testing went really, really badly. The paper had way higher error rates — and to be clear, when I say error rates, I don’t mean that it’s not counting correctly, I just mean that like the paper gets jammed, or you know, there’s a misfeed into the tabulator, the vote counting machine. It had way higher error rates than that of just the regular ballot paper.

But then they went back to Runbeck, and Runbeck said, "Well, hey, it might have been the static." Apparently, when you have stacks of paper, you can have static buildup, and static causes pages, or in this case, ballots, to stick together. And so Runbeck said, "We’re going to like let it sit in a room for 24 to 48 hours and just air out all that static, and then we’ll send it to you, and let’s try it again." And so the county did, and they saw that it went much, much better that time.

Here’s the thing, though: it still did not go quite as well as just regular ballot paper. Now, the county tells me that since that, they’ve also gone through pre-election testing, that the paper performed well, it performed great, they did not notice a difference. They feel they’ve sort of got this issue figured out, and they noted to me that any type of ballot paper is going to have some type of paper jam or misfeed or whatever. That’s a pretty normal thing that happens. This paper might have slightly more, based on the results of the second round of testing, but they don’t feel that it’s of an amount that it’s going to slow down counting.

But I think the thing is, this whole thing is really a big experiment, and it’s a make-or-break moment for this paper. Because if Mohave County can prove that this paper works and it works well, there could be other counties — and they are hoping that there will be other counties — that are inspired to pick it up because they think that it could really improve voter confidence.

On the flip side of that, if it doesn’t go well, well then you’ve got a mess on your hands. But I would also argue, mention that on the flip side of this, the paper isn’t really necessary. There’s plenty of security measures already in place in our elections to ensure that fake ballots aren’t like getting inserted anywhere. There’s no evidence that’s ever happened. And it costs more, so from a taxpayer standpoint, you’re paying more money.

MARK BRODIE: Yeah, it’s up to, I think you were saying, up to $0.15 more per ballot on this paper than the paper they’ve been using before.

SASHA HUPKA: Right, and like in Mohave County, that’s like $20,000, right? So it’s a fairly small number. But if you look at doing this in like a much larger county like Maricopa — and to be clear, Maricopa County tells me they currently have no intention of using this paper — but if you looked at doing it in a larger county like that, I mean you are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars.

MARK BRODIE: And Mohave, will they be using it in the the primary this month? Like early ballots that have gone out is are on this paper?

SASHA HUPKA: Yeah, they’re using it in the primary, and they’re using it in the general. And we’ll see how it goes. You know, the primary, obviously, is typically a lower turnout election than the general, so they’ll sort of get to sort of ramp up to the general. They’ve done all their testing, now the primary will be the first test, and the general will sort of be the second.

MARK BRODIE: Got it. All right, we’ll see what happens. Sasha Hupka with Votebeat, thank you as always for coming in.

SASHA HUPKA: Thank you.

MARK BRODIE: The University of Arizona has transferred $70 million from its endowment to the school’s direct control. The move happened on Tuesday, the last day of the fiscal year. That’s also the day when the university’s days cash on hand is calculated. That refers to the number of days the school can operate with the money it has at that time. At the same time, the U of A has issued $75 million worth of new bonds for the construction of its new medical research building in Phoenix.

Caitlin Schmidt is the editor and publisher of Tucson Spotlight and has written about this. She joins me now to talk more about it. Caitlin, good morning.

CAITLIN SCHMIDT: Hi.

MARK BRODIE: So why exactly did the U of A move this endowment money, which came directly from donors, into its control?

CAITLIN SCHMIDT: So, the university told me that it’s about efficiency and visibility. But in the letter that the foundation sent to donors, it specifically said that the change will help the UA meet the days of cash on hand targets set by the Board of Regents and the bond rating agencies.

MARK BRODIE: So it’s mostly about making sure that the university is able to continue operating, and also, I would imagine, there are some optics there if they’re issuing bonds, if their borrowing costs might go up, right, if it looks like they don’t have enough days of cash on hand.

CAITLIN SCHMIDT: Yes, I mean, that could happen. So the university has said that these two things are not connected. The timing is certainly interesting given how all of this happened. But even if they aren’t connected, this project is really just kind of an example of the things that will not be funded if the university doesn’t have enough days cash on hand to operate or to be issued bonds or improve that credit rating.

Their credit rating was improved from negative to positive outlook in January. But the bond agency said that that could change should the U of A’s situation change. Back in June, CFO John Arnold reported to regents that their cash on hand had improved from 78 to 84 days, but that still is well below the 140-day target set by regents.

MARK BRODIE: So how, how many days, I guess, does this $70 million buy the university in terms of cash on hand?

CAITLIN SCHMIDT: We’ve been told that it’s about 10 days. So not, you know, I mean, it’s it’s definitely not getting it to that number that it needs to be at, but it sounds like at this point, every little bit helps.

MARK BRODIE: And have, like, what have donors said about this? Like, are they, does it seem like they’re OK with having the money that they thought was going to one place, in fact, going somewhere else?

CAITLIN SCHMIDT: You know, I mean, I’ve seen, I’ve seen some chatter from donors on social media who were either not informed because their endowment does not meet the the specific type that was included in this, and I know that the Arizona Daily Star heard from some donors who were included in this roundup that were not happy about it and had asked, told the university that they wanted to opt out. There was an opt-out option, but again, you know, this was a letter. It’s summertime, people are traveling, so it’s if you didn’t get the letter and you didn’t opt out, you were included in this in this washout.

MARK BRODIE: Right, but it sounds like what you’re saying is this is not the university’s entire endowment.

CAITLIN SCHMIDT: No, not at all. This is just the the payout that they received. So there’s an annual payout at about 4% that comes that is distributed to each department or school that they are supposed to be using as the donor has indicated. And in previous years, the schools were given the opportunity to reinvest that money should they want to in order to continue to grow capital. It’s unclear if they’ll be able to do that. The university told us that they will be allowed to when appropriate, but they didn’t respond to any follow-up questions about what appropriate means.

MARK BRODIE: OK. So, Caitlin, can you tell us a little bit about the building that that the university issued the $75 million worth of bonds for? It’s a medical building here in the Valley, right?

CAITLIN SCHMIDT: Yes, it is a medical building in Phoenix, and it was originally, it’s now called the Medical Innovation Building. It was originally called the Center for Advanced Molecular and Immunological Therapies. So last November, regents approved this $75 million bond to help finance the building. And then in February, the board pretty much doubled a state research fund allocation to the university from $20 [million] to almost $40 million.

And in the board documents, they said that this was to backstop the project’s construction. So as of last September, they had reported no gifts for this project, so it sounds like they were struggling to kind of make ends meet on it.

MARK BRODIE: Yeah, is it surprising that there have been no gifts for it?

CAITLIN SCHMIDT: You know, it’s tough, it’s tough to say. This was a Robert C. Robbins project that started back in 2023.

MARK BRODIE: Former president of the U of A.

CAITLIN SCHMIDT: Former president, yes. He was awarded a bonus tied to fundraising in 2023. Not the full bonus, so he didn’t achieve the full amount. But he did raise some capital towards it. It’s just unclear how much of that was, you know, state funds or federal funds or or gift funds.

MARK BRODIE: And as you as you reported, as you mentioned just a moment ago, the the U of A is saying that the two, even though $70 [million] and $75 million are not that far apart in in value and the timing was fairly similar, these two are not related to each other?

CAITLIN SCHMIDT: Yes, they said that they are not related to each other. You know, they didn’t answer specific questions again about, you know, I’m not, we’re nobody’s suggesting that they are using this donor funds to fund this project, but it certainly does help secure a bond for this project if they’re able to show that they have increased their days of cash on hand. And whether it’s this project or another project, improving that number just helps them to continue to build or finance or fund whatever they’re trying to do to grow their mission.

MARK BRODIE: So maybe a more indirect relationship than a direct one.

CAITLIN SCHMIDT: Definitely.

MARK BRODIE: And does it seem as though the university will eventually end up with the money it needs to to build the medical building?

CAITLIN SCHMIDT: I, you know, again they are not answering more questions than they are answering. So it’s it’s tough to say. They told me that they had they would have secured the funding by this summer to continue and complete construction. Again, you know, if their credit rating improves and they get this bond, that would do it, but they’re saying that they’re going to meet the goal.

MARK BRODIE: All right, we’ll have to see what happens. That is Caitlin Schmidt, editor and publisher of Tucson Spotlight. Caitlin, thanks as always, I appreciate it.

CAITLIN SCHMIDT: Thank you.

MARK BRODIE: Good morning. It’s the show here on KJZZ 91.5, I’m Mark Brodie. Coming up, stand-up comedian Anwar Newton isn’t afraid of making political jokes and social commentary.

ANWAR NEWTON: Whatever darts and swords and and whatever comes my way is is whatever comes my way, because it’s worth speaking up about.

MARK BRODIE: We’ll hear more about his soon-to-be-recorded comedy special.

But first, across tribal communities in northeastern Arizona, one in three homes does not have running water. But now, there’s a way to help fix that. The Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act could bring billions of dollars and more clean water to three tribes in the area. If passed, it would be the largest tribal water settlement in the nation’s history and deliver generational change for the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe and San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe. But four states are trying to block it.

KJZZ teamed up with ProPublica and just published a month-long investigation into the reasons why. Our own Alex Hager reported the story and joins me now to talk more about it.

Good morning, Alex.

ALEX HAGER: Thanks for having me, Mark.

MARK BRODIE: So, you spent a lot of time visiting with tribal leaders in these communities. What did you see when you were there?

ALEX HAGER: You know, it’s it’s really quite striking. My colleague Mark Olalde and I, we spent a lot of time with leaders on the Hopi and Navajo reservations. And even today, in the year 2026, a lot of people need to fill up jugs and tanks and buckets and drive them back home from a water pump, just to wash their hands, take showers, cook food, that kind of thing.

You know, this is the case for regular folks. It is the case for elected officials in these communities. We spent time with tribal council members on the Hopi reservation who do not have a sink in their kitchen.

MARK BRODIE: Wow.

ALEX HAGER: Yeah, Marilyn Tewa is one of them. She is in her 80s now, and she still lives in the same little cluster of houses where she grew up, and they are still using, you know, plastic Porta Potties every day because the homes don’t have bathrooms.

MARILYN TEWA: We’re still living like we’re, you know, when I was born, because we still wash our hands in a container, you know, in the morning, wash our face in a wash bowls. And spill it outside, you know, and it hasn't, nothing really has changed for us.

ALEX HAGER: We talked to her at this rusty old well, we're on a dusty, windy plain where it pulls untreated water into an area originally built for livestock. That is where she gets that washing water she was talking about. She has to drive about 10 miles round trip and bring this untreated water back home in 5 gallon plastic buckets.

MARK BRODIE: Well, so, Alex, this proposed settlement that I mentioned would make it, right, so people don’t have to live like that anymore. How would it work?

ALEX HAGER: Yeah, it’s a deal with the government. So tribes in the Colorado River Basin, they legally have access to about a quarter of all the water in the river. But most of the time, those tribes are not using all of their water. They just don’t have the money and infrastructure to pull it out and put it to work.

So in this case, they can enter a kind of compromise. The three Arizona tribes we’re talking about, they would agree to use less water than they might be legally owed, and the federal government would give them $5 billion in exchange. They would use that money to build a huge system of pipelines that would bring water to thousands of homes that do not currently have it.

MARK BRODIE: Well, so it sounds like that’d be a pretty big win for Indigenous justice, environmental justice, but you mentioned a few different states are blocking it. Which states and why?

ALEX HAGER: Yeah, this is a case of something today getting caught up in the big, messy world of Colorado River politics. These are the same kinds of rivalries and tensions that you hear me talking about if you, if you hear my voice in our newscasts every morning and afternoon. That’s what’s at play here.

So, part of the settlement says that Navajo can lease some of its water off-reservation, right. Say you are a city in the Phoenix area that is growing rapidly, maybe you’re seeing cuts to your Colorado River allocation. Navajo Nation is not using all of theirs, so the city in the Phoenix area can pay the tribe to use some of theirs. But not everyone is a fan of that idea.

The Colorado River is split into two halves. You have the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico, and then the Lower Basin states, that’s Arizona, California and Nevada. These two groups have a rivalry going back more than 100 years. They are always fighting over water. That is the root of the hang-up here.

And it’s sort of a quirk of the map that that causes this problem. So, typically, those two camps, they can be very neatly divided by state borders. But technically, the line that splits the river in half is a product of geology. It does not neatly follow the state borders. It is a squiggly line, and it goes right through northern Arizona, and Navajo Nation straddles the line.

MARK BRODIE: Ah.

ALEX HAGER: So the states on the upstream side of that line, they are worried that Navajo could take some of their, you know, quote-unquote "their water" and give it to someone on the other side of that magical line. Because of that, you’ve got those four states — Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico — trying to block the deal. They say they are worried that it could set a precedent for other users to move their water downstream.

MARK BRODIE: All right, with the stipulation that neither one of us are attorneys, do those Upper Basin states have a case? Could this settlement actually set a precedent?

ALEX HAGER: That’s right, I am not a lawyer, but I talked to some, and pretty much all of the experts I talked to said no. Navajo is the only tribe that straddles the line, and it could not create some kind of slippery slope.

I talked about it with Heather Tanana. She is a citizen of the Navajo Nation. She’s also a law professor at the University of Utah.

HEATHER TANANA: I don’t think they have a valid claim. This is a sovereign government who has been prevented from accessing a right that has been recognized since 1908.

ALEX HAGER: Tanana pointed out that this deal has really widespread support. You know, it took a while to get here, but the state of Arizona is behind it now, the federal government seems on board.

HEATHER TANANA: I hope people hold their representatives account, accountable because when I talk to my neighbors, you know, and in all of these different states, colleagues, families, friends, I think everyone agrees everyone deserves water, and this will get much needed water to families who have been without it for a century or more.

ALEX HAGER: Tribal leaders told me after years of work on the settlement, they are really close. The president of the Navajo Nation used a sports metaphor. He said it feels like they are at the 5-yard line and, from what it looks like, the four states are the main thing, or maybe the biggest thing, standing between this deal’s passage and the end zone.

MARK BRODIE: Interesting. So, Alex, you spent more than four months working on the story. What did you take away from that process?

ALEX HAGER: So, I left with two big impressions. The first is that this is not just about getting water today. You know, obviously, the immediate problem it fixes is getting running water to those kitchen sinks and showers and toilets for people who don’t who don’t have them today.

But it’s also about setting up these tribes for the future. I talked about that with Navajo Council Speaker Crystalyne Curley.

CRYSTALYNE CURLEY: It is a violation to our human right, having access to clean water, having access to having, making sure that our children, future generation have a permanent homeland. And for me, that’s what it stands for.

ALEX HAGER: Navajo leaders said they want to grow the economy there, grow the population of Navajo people who want to live on Navajo land. And it gets a lot easier to do that, easier to convince kids growing up there to stay, if you can guarantee that there will be water in the future.

The second thing I learned, this story is really a lesson about history. The Colorado River right now is at this really pivotal point. You hear about it on KJZZ basically every day.

MARK BRODIE: Yes.

ALEX HAGER: Climate change means there is less water to go around, and every time we have conversations about changing our demand, they are happening in the long shadow of policies that were written more than 100 years ago.

That is especially true for the way that Indigenous people get their water. You know, the need to fix this is very obvious. The way to fix this is becoming clear. There’s a lot of smart people who have put together a plan for how this can happen.

But the tribes involved, they are seeing their ability to get water caught up in these tensions and politics that are all downstream of a century of laws that were designed to exclude them.

MARK BRODIE: All right. That is Alex Hager, who reports on water for KJZZ. He published this story in partnership with ProPublica. You can read the full piece, see photos from across those tribal lands on our website, kjzz.org. Alex, thanks so much.

ALEX HAGER: It’s good to be here. Thanks.

MARK BRODIE: Good morning. It’s the show here on KJZZ 91.5, I’m Mark Brodie.

The new Catholic Pope has made a lot of headlines since his ascension for statements seen as political. From Pope Leo’s back-and-forth with President Trump over the Iran War to his outspoken position on immigration and rebukes of the Trump administration’s quote, "inhumane treatment" of undocumented immigrants. This weekend, as the United States celebrates its 250th anniversary, the Pope will not be in the US, but instead on an Italian island, a main gateway for migrants to Europe.

Late last year, as ice raids were on the rise around the country, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a rare rebuke of what they called the Trump administration’s "indiscriminate mass deportation of people." They echoed that message again in February with a unified statement calling for immigration reform and respect for the dignity of migrants. Our next guest signed on to that letter and helped lead a mass on the Arizona-Mexico border in Nogales late last week called Border Mass 250. Bishop James Misko is the new bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson. My co-host, Lauren Gilger, spoke with him more about it.

LAUREN GILGER: Tell us first just about the experience of leading this cross-border mass right now. I mean, it it I’m sure was hot out there. Did it feel solemn? Did it feel joyous? Did it feel contentious?

JAMES MISKO: Yeah, no, it was a fantastic afternoon and evening. You know, the whole impetus behind this was really as pastors, the bishops who are bishops in border regions, we’re shepherds. We’re ordained to be pastors to people. And so, that’s really how we approached this whole event is to go down to Nogales to be pastors for the people of God. Of course, we know that there are migrants who are there on the border. They’re on the Mexican side of the border, and they have come up from various countries in Central America, and of course, in Mexico, and wanting to improve their lives, wanting to help their families by migrating into a place where they might have better opportunities.

But in addition to that, it’s a much more comprehensive and and complex scenario because not only do you have migrants that are there at the border, but you have people who live at the border, the residents of the United States side of the border, particularly in this case in Nogales, and then the residents who are in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico.

And so, they have a different experience of this this current experience of migration. And then, of course, you have people that are at the border who are employed to manage the border, to functionally operate the border, and that would be Border Patrol and different law enforcement agencies, and they’re people, too, and they need to have ministry. They need to have pastoral accompaniment as well. And then, of course, as we go down there, we think about our elected officials and their responsibility of governing the border. So, to be shepherds, to bring Christ to all of them.

LAUREN GILGER: Yeah. So, so you held this event in the context of the United States’ 250th anniversary, and at this moment in which immigration is such a divisive and heated political issue in the country. And and as you’re outlining there, there was talk of, you know, the rights of nation states to have borders, but also the rights and the dignity of migrants. I wonder, do you think that that kind of underlying humanity of everyone involved in this issue from all those sides that you outlined there is getting lost in the conversation today?

JAMES MISKO: Well, I think that it’s my job as a shepherd and it’s our job as bishops to make sure it doesn’t get lost, and that’s why we were there. Because really, the the most important teaching of Christianity and Christ himself embodied it in his three-year ministry was and is the dignity of the human person. Now, the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence was just an opportunity for us to go down there and as one of the reasons for being there, to actually amplify and to highlight the great contribution that migrants have made to the United States for the last two and a half centuries. I mean, think about how migrants have actually participated and contributed to the culture of the United States. I mean, it’s incredible.

You know, it’s interesting, Lauren, the church teaches what the church holds to be true, that migration is just simply part of the human experience. How long have people been migrating? Well, forever. And then, the church holds to be true that nations do have a right and a responsibility to manage their borders. I mean, that’s part of being a nation. And the church has always been clear that we don’t, we’re not for open borders. We’re for well-managed and borders that are managed with the underlying foundation of protecting human dignity.

LAUREN GILGER: So, I want to talk more about the role of the church and religious leaders more broadly, like yourself, in in talking about and going kind of head-on for these very controversial issues like immigration. Like, many will view that as a political issue and only really view it through a political lens. It sounds like you think it is a moral one more than a political one.

JAMES MISKO: Well, I certainly think it’s a spiritual one. You know, as a as a priest, and now as a bishop, my role is to help people encounter the presence of God. It’s really, so to your question, it’s really spiritual and theological. So, when we encounter people in all sorts of different situations in life, as pastors, as shepherds, we’re here to form the people of God to see the other as the mystical body of Christ, as as this spiritual place where Christ makes himself present. And that’s where we get the theology of the dignity of the human person. And it actually comes from the Bible as well, where it says that we’re created in the image and likeness of God.

I mean, Pope Leo has been just so spot on, he has said very clearly, "I don’t come to this place or that place," wherever he’s traveling, "I don’t come as a politician. I come as a pastor." And so, that’s really, that’s really what we did down there so. My preference is to not, I don’t, I don’t enter into political conversations. My role is to be a pastor, and that’s why we were there, to be pastors.

LAUREN GILGER: So, what do you make of, you know, the chatter around things like this or around the pope being outspoken about defending migrants and their dignity, right? Like, some saying, you know, religious leaders should stay in their lane, should stay out of politics. You’re saying we are in our lane?

JAMES MISKO: Absolutely. I mean, I can’t imagine anything other than he is in his lane when he says that because he actually was ordained as a priest and ordained as a bishop, and he was chosen as the pope to actually help people to see the world through the lens of the gospel. And when we see the world through the lens of the gospel, I mean, just go back to Jesus’s ministry for three years. How did he do his ministry? He walked around and talked to people. And he found people, as Pope Francis of happy memory would say, "on the margins," people struggling with life, people with no support.

So, I think that that actually is the Holy Father’s lane, and it certainly is our lane as bishops, and it’s really every Christian person’s lane to go out there and to meet people where they are and to help them find and appreciate their human dignity.

LAUREN GILGER: The U.S. bishops recently released a statement expressing concern about the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement activities when it comes to immigration of late. You signed on to that statement. What are some of the issues that you’re concerned about here? I know asylum was part of the conversation, the treatment of migrants, detention facilities, things like that.

JAMES MISKO: Well, I certainly think that the bishops have been very clear over the last several years that we’re asking for comprehensive immigration reform, so that people can migrate in a functional way that not only honors their human dignity but also respects the state, respects a nation.

To your question, you know, if people are living in fear because of things that are happening in the country when it comes to migration, well, this is a difficult way for them to live. And if we could get some immigration reform, maybe that fear would be lessened. We certainly think that due process is very important for people whenever they’re working throughout here in the United States.

If something were to arise where they were to be detained, it’s very important to have due process. We certainly think that we need to help people when it comes to asylum. You know, one of the things about the recent statement that came out from the U.S. bishops about the asylum judgment was the fact that there are people who are seeking asylum and they’re actually fleeing from dangerous situations. And so, for them to have to go back into a dangerous situation is something that certainly is not honoring or cultivating human dignity.

LAUREN GILGER: OK, we’ll leave it there. Bishop James Misko, bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson, joining us to talk about Border Mass 250. Bishop, thank you very much for coming on the show. Thank you for taking the time to talk to me about this, I very much appreciate it.

JAMES MISKO: You bet. Enjoyed it, Lauren, thank you.

MARK BRODIE: Good morning. It’s the show on KJZZ 91.5, I’m Mark Brodie.

The July Fourth holiday will feature all of the usual kinds of celebrations: fireworks, barbecues, parades. But my next guest will spend the holiday recording a stand-up comedy special. Anwar Newton is a local comedian. He’ll be doing a show on the Fourth and recording it. He joins me to talk about that show, and Anwar, what will you be doing for this one?

ANWAR NEWTON: July Fourth, the the nation’s 250th birthday, I’m just recording a comedy special. I’ve been performing comedy for like I said, over 10 years, and you always think that there’s going to be this big neon sign that says, “You’re ready. It’s time to record the special.” And after over 10 years in the business, I realized that’s never going to come and I need to just do it.

MARK BRODIE: So like how did you, how did you decide, like, sans neon sign saying, “Anwar, you are ready,” how did you come to that conclusion?

ANWAR NEWTON: I think I came to the conclusion in the same way that I do most of my projects. I got backed into a corner. So, it’s at Valley Bar, and I’ve been doing shows at Valley Bar since they opened. I had several showcase-style shows or creative concept shows, and I love putting on shows. I love coming up with new shows and putting them on.

And earlier this year, the venue asked me if I wanted to put on a show for July Fourth because I’ve done American-themed, social-political commentary, comedy around this time of year. And I said, “Sure.”

I knew it was just them throwing me a dead night to make something of it, but you know, that’s the business. And as the months went along, they were checking in. They were like, “Hey, so what are you going to do? Let’s put it on the website, let’s do it.” I finally was like, “You know what? I’m going to record a comedy special.” There were no months of planning or anything, I just decided to do it.

MARK BRODIE: Wow. So this is all new material?

ANWAR NEWTON: This is all — it’s new material, and it’s material I’ve been doing for, working on for a few years. And the cool thing about it is that I realized that the material I’m doing now is relevant to right now. And the one thing I didn’t want to do is hold onto it for another year, sharpening it up, finding new things to put in it, and then the moment that um the relevance is kind of glued to passes.

I have a lot of material about the state of AI and how it’s affecting people, the president, social commentary. And all that’s going to change in a year, and these jokes are going to have to be changed too. And I like doing the jokes, and I want to put it in something that goes, “Hey, this was happening in 2026, and this is the album I made about it.”

MARK BRODIE: I guess it’s tougher to say, “Hey, remember like 18 months ago when we were all talking about this? Laugh about this now.”

ANWAR NEWTON: Right, and I see comedians do that. Like, they have jokes that they’ve written three, four years ago, and now they have to say, “Remember?” I’ve seen comedians they still talk about Black Lives Matter summer 2020, and it’s like that happened six years ago. But the joke is still good, but they do have to start it with like, “Remember.”

MARK BRODIE: Yeah, there’s more setup to it, right?

ANWAR NEWTON: Yeah, there’s more like work to get the crowd to go, “Oh, yeah, that did happen,” and it’s not it’s no longer like in their brain as fresh.

MARK BRODIE: What is it like doing political and social comedy satire right now in the summer of 2026?

ANWAR NEWTON: It’s a lot of fun. People are real squirrely about it. And I think that’s the fun in it all is because the public consciousness about the current state of of the country is so fragile, it’s more fun doing the tightrope walk. Whereas like, if you had like a universally accepted perspective on anything, you know, it’s kind of easy to make people laugh about it because you know they’re all kind of thinking the same thing.

But especially here in Arizona, you don’t really know what kind of Arizona is going to show up. Which makes it fun doing comedy here, because you kind of have to be ready for whoever’s in the crowd. But the fragility of everyone’s lives right now is what makes the comedy more fun for me to do.

MARK BRODIE: Do you find that you have to be, or do you find yourself sort of being cognizant of like walking up to that line but not crossing it and being maybe more conscious of it now because of that fragility? Or does that give you like license to just sort of smash through that line?

ANWAR NEWTON: I think you can do whatever you want, and then the people will let you know if they like it or not.

MARK BRODIE: OK, so you mentioned you have some jokes about AI. What else will you be talking about at the special?

ANWAR NEWTON: I’ll be talking about how everything is kind of coming to an end. [LAUGHTER]

MARK BRODIE: Wow, it’s that kind of show. OK.

ANWAR NEWTON: How things are real bad. I talk about my life. I’m a father. I’ve got kids. And that was another reason to do this special is because the jokes about my kids, they’re getting older than when the jokes were really crafted. I have a joke about my son, and he’s gotten old enough that um I’m like, “Oh, that happened a long time ago.”

MARK BRODIE: With with his life.

ANWAR NEWTON: With his life, it’s like, “Oh, yeah, I should I’m still doing this joke about when you were this age, and you’re like this age now.” So that was one of the other things, like, “Oh, right, there’s more life and more experiences that my kids are going through that I can build new funny perspectives on.”

And it just kind of made me think of how to create these jokes I guess quicker. Because some people just sit and they they they fine-tune these jokes for like a year. And that they always say like, “That’s how you should do it. You should spend like this many sets like crafting this joke.” And and now that I’ve seen the passage of time through the lens of my kids, I just want to get to it quicker.

MARK BRODIE: Interesting.

ANWAR NEWTON: And and through that, it’s like, it’s scary because like, I do like spending a year like testing and testing and testing and doing it in front of different audiences, and now it’s just like, just go out there joyfully and put everything on stage, put the mess on stage and and figure it out. And I’ve been doing it long enough that I am not afraid of that.

MARK BRODIE: Do you get nervous at all doing political comedy right now? Do you worry about — you mentioned how you kind of never know who’s going to be in your audience. But I wonder if like, this is one you’re going to be taping, so people who aren’t in the audience are going to see it, hopefully, as well. What is that like to to do that kind of thing knowing what’s going to happen with folks like (Stephen) Colbert, folks like Jimmy Kimmel, folks like Kill Tony?

ANWAR NEWTON: You just kind of have to be fearless. And I think if you’re afraid of the fight that comes with saying something that needs to be said, then I don’t know, I have bad words to say about people who do that. I have pejoratives to describe people who are too cowardly to speak up.

And I think what’s going on on a large scale — not just in America but globally, some of the strife you’re experiencing, especially with AI coming around, people just being afraid of losing everything — it’s like, if I’m afraid to say something, then it’s like, all right, then maybe it should just ravage us and like wipe score the earth of society.

And if if I’m going to let that happen, well, let’s say I’m not afraid to speak up about that not happening. And whatever darts and swords and whatever comes my way is whatever comes my way, because it’s worth speaking up about.

MARK BRODIE: All right. That is Valley comedian Anwar Newton. He’ll be recording a stand-up special at Valley Bar on July Fourth. Anwar, always nice to talk to you. Thank you.

ANWAR NEWTON: Thank you.

MARK BRODIE: Ayana Hamilton kept looking, but never did find herself on any of the road trips her family took when she was growing up. Turns out she was looking in the wrong place, Hamilton explains in the latest essay in our summer SOAPBOX collection.

AYANA HAMILTON: It felt like my family and I traveled to Las Vegas every other year growing up because it was my dad’s favorite place. He had one strict rule on road trips, though: no attractions. I remember visiting the Hoover Dam once, but that was about as adventurous as we got. The only real stops were for food or gas.

I have a complicated relationship with gas stations. I refuse to use the bathrooms for obvious reasons. I would get the candy bar Snickers. But my favorite part was the souvenir racks. You know, personalized fridge magnets, key chains, mugs and even jewelry. The best souvenirs were displayed on a spinning carousel. Every time our family stopped, I’d flip through — hoping my name would magically appear.

It never did.

My name is Ayana, spelled A-Y-A-N-A. At 25, I’ve only met a handful of other Ayanas, and none of them spell it with one N, which I think designates me as the one true Ayana. On those carousels, the closest I ever got was ANYA. Meanwhile my brother and dad, who share the name Tony, could find a Nevada license plate keychain without even trying.

For a long time I thought my mom understood my struggle of not being a part of the name souvenir club because I never saw her name on those racks, either. Her name is Verna, V-E-R-N-A.

Then one year, everything changed.

I was around 12 years old when we were on our usual drive to Vegas. We stopped at a gas station that had a fast food spot attached to it, so we stayed longer than usual. I did my ritual scan of the carousel and came up empty as always.

But there was VERNA, sitting right between some other names like it had always belonged there. I grabbed it and ran to my mom. She was genuinely surprised, almost in disbelief, because she’d spent her whole life not finding her name, either.

I felt joy and jealousy in equal measure. She must have noticed the look on my face because she got quiet for a moment and said she remembered something. Something she had made for me a long time ago. She told me to remind her when we got home. It was the only thing on my mind the whole drive back.

When we got home, my mom went into the garage and pulled out a cardstock sign about the size of my torso. It was a little crinkled from years of being tucked away, but my name was hand-painted, still bright in rainbow colors. She told me she had it custom made during a stop in Vegas when our family was traveling from Alaska to Arizona, back when I was barely a toddler. She said she forgot she had it, but she made it because my name was unique and she wanted me to have something special.

I still spin through the name souvenirs, sometimes, out of habit, knowing I won't find myself there. But I don't need to anymore. I already have something better than a keychain, proof that my name was always worth the extra effort.

MARK BRODIE: That was Ayana Hamilton, assistant producer for The Show. You can hear her story again and find more Soapbox essays at kjzz.org.

Thanks for listening to The Show’s podcast. The Show is produced by Sativa Peterson, Nick Sanchez, Amber Victoria Singer, Athena Ankrah and Ayana Hamilton. The Show was created by John Hoban. Our executive producer is Amy Silverman. You can find more of The Show and sign up for our newsletter at theshow.kjzz.org. You can also find us on Instagram at @kjzztheshow.