Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> Coming up next on "Arizona
Horizon" -- the U.S. Supreme
Court strikes down a key
provision of the voting rights
act.
We'll hear from both sides of
the issue.
>>> Also we look back at legend
city.
Arizona's only theme park which
debuted 50 years ago this
summer.
Those stories next on "Arizona
Horizon."
>> "Arizona Horizon" is made
possible by contributions from
the friends of 8, members of
your Arizona PBS station.
Thank you.
>>> Good evening.
Welcome to "Arizona Horizon."
I'm Ted Simons.
The U.S. Supreme Court today
struck down a key part of the
1965 voting rights act.
The provision required nine
states including Arizona to get
pre-clearance from the Justice
Department for changes in voting
laws.
We'll hear from opponents.
But first we welcome Arizona
Attorney General Tom Horne, who
filed court documents in support
of Alabama's successful
challenge to the law.
Good to see you.
Why is this decision good for
Arizona?
>> It's good for Arizona because
we're in a federal system where
there's shared sovereignty
between the federal and state
government.
State government should not have
to say mother may I for every
law it passes that might
tangentially affect elections.
We're talking about moving a
precinct across the street,
talking about changing the hours
for the voter -- the motor
vehicle department because when
you pull up your license you can
register to vote.
We have had to submit 40 to 50
laws a year for approval to the
Justice Department.
For me it takes two lawyers and
a parallel during that part of
the year to go through all their
forms.
It's dumb bureaucracy and really
an imposition on the sovereignty
of the state.
We shouldn't have to ask the
federal government for
permission to pass laws.
>> this provision has been in
effect for Arizona since the
early '70s.
Why was it put into effect to
begin with?
>> In 1965, Arizona was not
included.
That's when the voting rights at
was first passed.
It included just southern states
that had a history of over 100
years of serious discrimination
against african-americans in
voting.
The U.S. Supreme Court
considered at that time whether
it was imposition on state
sovereignty.
They said this is severe but
we're going to approve it
because it deals with a severe
problem.
Arizona was not part of that.
In 1975, they added a provision
for what they called language
minorities and they said if you
had 5% of your population or
more that belonged to a language
minority you had to institute
bilingual voting by 1972 you
would be subject to this regime.
The law was passed in 1975.
Why would they make it '72
rather than 74?
Arizona instituted bilingual
voting in 1975 and they wanted
to get Arizona.
They back dated it to 1972.
Here it is 2013 and we're still
being punished for having
implemented bilingual voting in
1974 rather than 1972.
As far as the 5% language
minorities, less than 2% of
Arizonans have this problem with
language.
The way they got us was by
measuring in terms of if you had
an Hispanic last name.
More than 5% of our people have
Hispanic last names.
The overwhelming majority of
people with Hispanic last names
speak English just fine.
There was no reason to subject
us to this regime where we have
go hat in hand to the federal
government and say mother may I
imment this law.
>> Yet critics will say this
provision blocked 18 Arizona
voting laws and every single
redistricting cycle at least one
plan was blocked by this
requirement to go through the
Justice Department.
Doesn't that suggest that this
requirement was important and
needed?
>> No, it really doesn't.
Let me tell you one important
thing is we I consider this
something of a personal victory
because I filed the primary
friend of court brief in favor
of invalidating the law.
The court did exactly what we
asked it to do.
But what we eliminated was
sections 4 and 5 of the law
which provides for
pre-clearance.
Under section 2 of the law if
the state does anything
discriminatory, they can be
sued.
If you sue some people say it
takes years to go through a
lawsuit but the court if it
thinks there's a high
probability of success can issue
an injunction within 30 days
stopping a practice that might
be discriminatory.
Anything passed that was
discriminatory can be stopped
under section 2.
The fact that the Justice
Department stopped things under
sections 4 and 5 doesn't
necessarily mean they were
right.
It may mean somebody in the
Justice Department had an
arbitrary view that really
unjustly and arbitrarily stopped
something the Arizona
legislature thought was correct.
>> there will be those who say
the Justice Department, DOJ,
Congress, makes the law to begin
with, and can change the law
from here on, can actually
change what was done today, can
get a law in there to affect the
outcome.
That from a distance they are
better qualified to see if this
discrimination occurs rather
than Arizona officials who might
have a dog on the hunt.
>> that's an interesting,
elitive view some bureaucrat in
Washington knows better than
people that live here.
>> objective distance they would
say.
>> I would say a mindless
bureaucrat in Washington that
doesn't know what's going on
here.
If there's discrimination a
judge should deal with it.
Section 2 remains.
I support section 2.
So somebody can bring a lawsuit
if there's discrimination, but
the idea that all the laws have
to go through filling out these
lengthy forms, 40 or 50 laws a
year, ruled on by ivory tower
mindless bureaucrats in
Washington D.C. makes absolutely
no sense and is an imposition on
the idea that we're in a federal
system with dual sovereignty.
We're not subsidiary to them.
>> if these are mindless
decisions how come these 18
voting laws that were blocked
over this period of time and all
these redistricting plans that
were blocked, why weren't they
taken to court and challenged?
>> Well, it may be that a
decision was made that it was
better to make an accommodation
than to try to go through
litigation.
>> Right.
>> I have only been Attorney
General for two and a half
years.
The general point is if there's
a charge of discrimination it
should go to a judge.
It can go to a judge and the
judge should rule on it but you
shouldn't have to make all the
laws subject to a bureaucrat in
the Justice Department deciding
whether or not our laws are
valid.
>> For those who say this
requirement is still needed to
ensure open and fair access to
voters, you say --
>> I say under section 2 you
assure open and access by voters
with a fair system where you go
to a judge and the judge decides
whether or not something is
discriminatory.
You don't do it by making us
fill out a lot of bureaucratic
forms that nothing to do with
being discriminatory.
Changing the hours of motor
vehicles department, we were
ready if Alabama had lost to
bring our own case and were
prepared and were using an
example a law passed where a
school district with no schools,
just transporting kids out of
the district, we had to get
pre-clearance for that.
That's foolish, wheel-spinning
bureaucratic nonsense.
If you want to fight
discrimination do it with
section 2 where you go to a
judge and the judge decides.
>> thanks for joining us.
>> Great to be with you, Ted.
>>> We want to hear from you.
Submit your questions, comments
and concerns to
arizonahorizon@asu.edu.
>>> Here to give an opposing
view on today's Supreme Court
ruling on the voting rights act
is Sam Wercinski, executive
director of the Arizona advocacy
network.
Thanks for joining us.
>> Thank you, Ted.
>> Why is this decision bad for
Arizona?
>> Arizona league of women
voters say most clearly, Arizona
voters lose protection.
Sections 4 and 5 existed because
there was a need for more than
just section 2 to have citizens
and groups challenge anti-voting
laws that may be put in place
and which we have seen take
place historically in Arizona.
>>ette those who support the
decision say you can still
challenge those laws.
>> you still can challenge those
laws but again, protection has
been reduced.
When there's a crime spree
taking place across a community
laws are passed to stop that
crime spree.
When the crime spree is over,
you don't remove those laws, you
use them as a deterrent.
What the five justices have done
on the Supreme Court is they
have removed a deterrent for
discriminating against
communities of color and
reducing protection for all
voters in Arizona.
>> Attorney General's office
says these are huge and
expensive administrative burdens
here and that some of these
requirements are needed for
everything from changing a poll
place from one side of the
street to the other.
>> We see polling places today
in the city where they no longer
exist in neighborhoods and
individuals who in the past may
have walked to their
neighborhood polling place now
have to get on a bus and go five
miles down the road.
That makes voting harder.
A democracy should all be about
making voting easier, and that's
what the voting rights act was
all about.
Protecting the right to vote.
Also ensuring the communities of
color would have the ability to
elect somebody from their
community who represented their
goals and their aspirations.
>> The idea of how this thing
started with bilingual ballots
back in the early '70s, kind
of reverse engineer some would
say back to include Arizona,
that's a long time ago.
Have things not changed for the
better to the.where that
deterrent is not needed?
>> We have examples to show how
Arizona politicians continue to
attack voters and voting rights.
In 2011, the legislature tried
to pass a law that would
prohibit a voter from taking a
friend, family member or trusted
individual into the site with
them to help.
That was really going to impact
new voters and the elderly or
those who may need assistance
voting.
Fortunately the Department of
Justice struck that down as
violating section 4 and 5.
Today we have house bill 2305
which at tax voters.
It attacks civic engagement
organizations.
It attacks smaller third pears.
Arizona politicians have had and
continue to have a history of
making it harder to vote and
when you make it harder to vote
you empower these big money
special interests so politicians
can retain power.
>> there are some who would say
having to go through the
Department of Justice, having to
go through Washington to do
everything from changing a
polling place to much more major
ideas and changes in voting
laws, that it's not right, they
are back in Washington, they
don't know what's going on in
Arizona.
Some have described it as
mindless bureaucrats.
How do you respond to that?
Why should though be able to
tell Arizonans what they can and
cannot do when it comes to
voting?
>> We send 11 representatives to
represent us in Washington D.C.
We have a voice in Washington.
Quite honestly, Ted, Arizona
advocacy network, league of
women voters, coalitions like
the Arizona table, we have all
been happy to have a safety net
in Washington D.C. because of
the history of disenfranchising
in Arizona.
We are charged up.
We're energized.
We have always fought these
battles and barriers and we're
going to move forward and
continue to fight them.
>> How so?
>> It's all about organizing.
It's all about making sure that
voters know what their rights
and responsibilities are.
We know that our coalitions like
the one Arizona coalition has
been very effective in bringing
citizens who are eligible to
vote into the system to make
their voices heard on election
day.
And we'll continue to do that
work, engage voters, make sure
they know who has passed these
regressive laws and how we can
overcome them.
>> when people say you could
still file suit for
discrimination and Congress can
still act, Congress can still
update the voting rights act to
take care of some of the
concerns that were struck down
by the courts today because
basically the courts are saying
Congress can't -- the whole nine
-- whatever.
With those opportunities and
possibilities still out there do
you see that as a forum for
change?
>> That's why elections matter,
Ted.
That's why voters I believe are
going to turn out in historic
numbers for gubernatorial race
next year.
Because voters realize that our
legislature, our politicians in
Arizona, are trying to pass laws
that prevent them from even
having a friend of the family
help them cast their ballots.
They understand the attacks that
are going on against voters in
Arizona.
All voters.
And third parties.
I think we'll see a shift here,
a big shift in 2014.
>> last question before you go,
for those who say this provision
was unnecessary, it's a relic
from the past, we should be able
to move on, obviously Supreme
Court agreed, you say --
>> Look at the laws that were
passed this session.
House bill 2305 shows the war on
voters is not over in Arizona.
The politicians in power and the
money that backs them are still
intent on reducing voter
turnout.
>> Sam Gto have you here.
Thanks for joining us.
>> Thanks for having me.
Southard
southard
>>> Legend city debuted 50 years
ago this summer.
The western themed amusement
park was to be Arizona's answer
to Disneyland.
It's long gone but Arizona long
time residents remember it.
Phoenix area historian John
southard join us to talk about
legend city.
All sorts of memories flood
back.
For those who were here after
like 1983, what was legend city?
>> It was according to many
people the Disneyland of the
desert.
It was western themed park that
was built on the idea of
presenting Arizona history in a
very popular fashion.
We're not talking about academic
history but the legends, the red
ghost, lost Dutchman gold mine,
things like this.
>> Where was it located exactly?
>> It was located in pathgo park
where the SRP buildings are now.
>> between Van Buren and
Washington.
>> the address was something
like 58th and Washington.
>> how big was the park?
>> The rides, the attractions,
there were 20 rides and a number
of other attractions on 30
acres.
They set aside 20 acres planning
for legend city hotel, but that
never materialized.
>> We have a bunch of
photographs here, the Arizona
Republic helping us out with
these.
We'll start with construction
photos.
Whose idea was this?
>> It was an advertising
executive named Louis Crandall.
He visited Disneyland and got
the idea of building a theme
park here in the Phoenix area.
The real issue, one that he
didn't perhaps foresee at the
time, was that in the 1960s,
the Phoenix metro area had
approximately 660,000 residents
with the L.A. area had about 6
million residents.
L.A. of course had a far more
significant tourist base on
which to draw visitors to the
park.
We also have this issue of L.A.
having wonderful year round
weather and Phoenix that's not
really the case.
Disney being an established
brand had something they could
market nationwide and worldwide
where in Arizona that wasn't the
case.
>> with all that in mind, the
thing opens up, obviously some
money was secured.
Weren't these things taken into
consideration?
It opened in the summer.
>> it did, on June 29, 19 3.
There was a great deal of
enthusiasm.
Community support, the
Scottsdale progress article from
the daze prior to the opening
case that 10,000 Arizonans
purchased stock in the amount of
$4 million to help this come
into fruition.
It was well received but within
the first year they were running
a deficit and had to find
emergency financing and a year
and a half later the founder was
out.
>> A year and a half later.
Bankrupt.
>> Yes.
>> We're looking at the entrance
there.
I think I actually remember that
entrance.
I don't know for sure.
Do you -- as we look at some of
these photographs, both rides,
you had trains, you had log
rides.
This was quite an endeavor.
This was quite the investment.
>> absolutely.
More than just a bit
overambitious on the part of
Louis Crandall.
Not only did you have the
infrastructure, the trains, but
there were constant shows,
gunfights, defense of the fort
against Native Americans, actors
and things.
Also AHSA alone, a number of
acts.
This was a very costly facility
to run.
>> We're looking at the log
right there.
I think next we'll see the
zipper, which was a hair-raising
ride.
That resulted in a fatality.
>> yes, in fact there was more
than one fatality at the park
unfortunately.
They were accidents that such as
you endure on a ride like this,
safety violations.
One of the abandoned rides
caught fire and burned very
quickly.
The Tempe fire department deemed
most of the park unsafe.
>> With that in mind, was
legends city ever a success?
>> Yes, it actually was a
success ironically toward the
ends of its life span the Capell
family, who had experience in
the Carnival industry purchased
ledge end city and made it a
going concern.
They were grossing over $1
million a year.
They indicated that the majority
of their business took place in
the evenings, of course.
But unfortunately by that point
despite what they were grossing,
the land value had appreciated
so much that they stood to make
a better profit selling the land
to SRP, as they did, than
continuing to run the park.
>> this us, what, September of
1983?
>> The park closed in September
of 1983.
They had actually sold the land
to SRP just a few months prior.
>> was there much -- I don't
remember much of an outcry when
it went away.
>> It went out with a whimper.
It really did.
>> Correct me if I'm wrong,
wasn't there some sort of rock
'n' roll pavilion?
Some sort of entertainment
center built before they built
all the SRP buildings?
We're looking at the last
vestiges of legends city.
That's a ghost town of a ghost
town.
>> it is indeed.
You're right about the
performance venue, the original
Compton terrace was there.
It was later moved, of course,
an there was aing in the
instance of Legend city from
this western themed mutual park
to something that was more
inviting to teenagers and those
who were perhaps more inkinds to
spends their disposable income
so they opened dance facilities,
things like this, over the years
in a constant attempt to breathe
air into the park.
>> they finally said let's build
some office buildings.
>> absolutely.
>> when you talk about legend
city what kind of response to do
you get?
I'm sure some folks get a
wistful look in their eyes,
others go, what?
>> If you talk to somebody who
has lived in Phoenix for some
time, particularly who grew up
here during the time legend city
operated, there's a great deal
of nostalgia.
People are very excited this
year.
When you talk to people who
weren't here, they long for the
idea of this amusement park
which of course has never come
about in Phoenix since legends
city closed.
So yes, it's a top their really
excites people.
>> the western theme was very
big.
It only makes sense.
Yet the reason it's a western
theme and you see a lot of Sand
and -- the weather, just seems
like it's prohibitive almost,
you're too cold in the winter or
too hot in the summer.
>> although again the Capells
indicated that weather if it
were to be open now they don't
think it would have necessarily
have been an issue.
The population growth has
certainly helped but that's
certainly the issue cited most
frequently, who would open an
amusement park where it's 115
degrees in the summer.
Contextually the western theme
was very appropriate at the
time.
You think about TV listings you
have bonanza, you have have gun
will travel.
>> Gunsmoke?
>> I don't know if us that on in
'62, '63, but right around
there.
John Wayne's movie the Alamo.
In 1962 John Ford's last major
western, the man who shot
liberty Valance.
Arizonans love to sell this
image despite the fact that
Phoenix was never a wild western
community.
>> Is the museum still going on
or is that over?
>> I believe there was an event
at the historical society museum
last Saturday.
It celebrated the 50th
anniversary of the opening of
legend city.
>> You miss the whole kit and
kaboodle.
>> absolutely although there has
are a number of people online
with pages paying tribute to the
park.
>> This is fun.
It brought back weird memories.
I'm not sure if they are
accurate but weird ones.
It must have been fun for you.
Thanks for joining us.
We appreciate it.
>> Thank you for having me.
>>> Wednesday hear how cities
and towns are reacting to
legislative changes to Arizona's
sales tax collection system.
And we'll look at new research
that questions the safety of
voice activated technology in
cars.
and 10 on the
next "Arizona Horizon."
>>> That is it for now.
I'm Ted Simons.
Thank you for joining us.
You have a great evening.
Focusing on emotional, physical
and social security port.
Outsmarting cancer one patient
at a time.
>> friendship village Tempe, a
retirement community for over 30
years offers independent living
with residency options, lifelong
learning classes an continuing
care.
>>> Later on 8H.D. --
>> He opened the road for
ordinary Americans.
>> We're living in Henry Ford's
world right now.
>> But the world he created
belonged to his day.
>> he can't control the forces.
>> Henry Ford, on American
experience.
on 8H.D.
>>> 8H.D., 8 life, and 8 world.
This is Arizona PBS, supported
by viewers like you.
Thank you.
>>> How do we educate in a
rapidly changing world?
>> How can we create a
sustainable way of life?
>> How can we teach peace?
>>> Arizona State University.
Rise to the challenges before
us.
>>> Coming up on 8H.D., 8 life,
and 8 world --
>> Do you love to cook, travel,
craft, paint or woodwork?
Get the most out of life.
An entire channel devoted to
your favorite hobbies.
Watch 8 life on *** 80 over the
air or via antenna.
To find out how to tune in
through your satellite or other
cable provider visit us or call
>> Time to see which values have
ripened and which have soured on
antique road shows in Milwaukee.
>> I'm shocked!
>> Good return on my $ 5.
>> You made a pretty good
investment.
>> yes, I did.
>> Wow.
>> can you guess what values
went up, down or stayed the
same?
Find out next time on antiques
road show.
on 8H.D.
>>> Whether you want to be more
informed, 8 has news and
analysis with multiple
perspectives thanks to financial
support from you and the
Virginia G. Piper center for
creative writing presents the
Piper writers studio for writers
of all classes and levels.
In person and online courses are
available.
ASU.EDU/Piper.
>>> Media crater, whether
staying in the R.V. park,
exploring the visitors center or
taking a guided tour of the
greater rim experience the
impact of Arizona's most
celestial natural wonder.
Information at
WWW.meteorcrater.com.
>> I'm Susan linkus of the
linkus group, a sea-based
registered investment advisor
specializing in financial
planning, investment management,
insurance strategies and more.
Linkus group.com, investing for
life.