Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> Coming up next on "Arizona
Horizon's" "Journalists'
Roundtable," the battle over
Medicaid expansion is still
focused on the State House of
Representatives.
And another Arizona abortion law
is challenged in court.
Those stories and more next on
the "Journalists' Roundtable."
"Arizona Horizon" is made
possible by contributions from
the Friends of Eight, members of
your Arizona PBS station.
Thank you.
>>> Good evening and welcome to
"Arizona Horizon's"
"Journalists' Roundtable."
I'm Ted Simons.
Joining me tonight are Jeremy
Duda of the "Arizona Capitol
Times," Mike Sunnucks of the
"Phoenix Business Journal," and
Steve Goldstein of KJZZ radio.
>>> Medicaid expansion is still
lingering or loitering in the
house as the case may be.
Give us an update now.
What's going on?
>> The latest is there is no
latest.
The Senate passed it a few weeks
ago.
The Governor and House Speaker
Andy Tobin are talking, the
Governor's office is talking
with legislators.
There's really no movement so
far.
No one's expecting anything to
happen next week, the House is
still on a three-day schedule.
Probably a couple weeks.
The Governor was very optimistic
today, she expects a vote next
week.
Tobin told me basically, sure,
anything's possible.
>> The Speaker doesn't think
there are enough votes to pass,
but everyone else thinks there
are.
What's going on there?
>> Most of the people around the
capitol believe there are eight
to 10 Republicans, the Governor
needs seven.
Tobin says there aren't enough.
There's probably enough votes
for it, but you need Tobin to
give the green light.
They need him to bring it to the
floor first.
>> Do they know what he's aiming
for?
More accountability, oversight,
these things?
>> There's that camp of skeptics
who want to peck around the
edges.
Then there are a lot of
Republicans just totally opposed
to it.
Obviously the Governor and her
camp and hospitals hope to get
it through with some reasonable
oversight.
There are concerns about how
much power the AHCCCHS czar has.
The split is pretty even between
constituents who support this
and oppose this.
Neither side is dominating in
terms of phone calls and an
informal survey.
>>> The political situation
comes back to the majority of
the majority.
Andy Biggs talked about it in
the Senate, which he didn't get.
Even if there are eight to 10
Republicans, that's still barely
a third of the caucus.
That is really enough to make it
go forward?
I think this illustrates maybe
the disconnect people think with
the legislature.
If the majority of Republicans
want this, why is it being held
up.
>> This also gives the Speaker
an opportunity, if he can't get
more than he's got right now, he
can provide some cover for those
who say no, can't he?
>> They can go back and run
their campaigns and say, I voted
no.
>> Some of the things he's
looking for is stuff that could
give a bit of cover for
Republicans on the fence.
He wants legislative oversight,
the AHCCCHS director would have
a tremendous amount of power.
He wants a tougher circuit
breakers that would end the
program if federal funding
dropped blow 80%.
He wants 85, but I don't think
the Governor will go that far.
>> Really it comes down to
whether there are enough
Republicans to vote for it, who
think it's not a third-rail
issue.
Guns, abortion, marriage,
immigration, if you're on the
wrong side of that issue you're
going to be challenged in a
primary and probably going to
lose.
This is a more complicated
thing.
I think that's the deciding
factor, I can still vote for
this and not lose my seat.
>> I think an interesting
development, Jeremy's down there
every day at the capitol this.
Idea that Andy Tobin has to give
in, there's not going to be a
ballot marry.
It's going to be up or down in
the legislature.
>> Why did he give up the idea
of referring to the ballot?
>> Very little, I think we found
one or two members of the
Republican caucus who supported
this, as well.
But most of them, whether for it
or against it, they didn't like
it, the legislative Democrats
didn't like it, the Governor is
absolutely opposed to it.
He talked to people and found
not nearly enough.
So he had to abandon that.
>> That's a bit of a surprise, a
perfect way to punt politically.
Let the voters decide.
It gives them some protection on
the Republican side.
It is a little surprising you
didn't see a little more
interest in that.
Were you surprised by that?
>> I'm not surprised not a lot
of people jumped on.
The Governor still has a
majority-majority against
Medicaid expansion.
There's kind of that feeling
that if you have eight to 10
supporters in the House, you've
got six or seven in the Senate
as far as the Republican side
supporting this, I would still
think there would be some rabble
rousers pushing this, saying
let's not give up early in the
game.
>> Either pass it or kill it,
let's go home?
>> Some are saying we've been
elected to do a job, we need to
do it and not punt it.
Prop 100 expires tomorrow, but
there are a lot of people kind
of nervous about it.
If you put it on the ballot you
have to get a campaign going.
The money for the yes vote will
come from the hospitals, chamber
of commerce, the Governor's
allies.
>> A little more uncertain for
Republican groups.
If it passes it's voter
protected.
>> Let's take that point and
then move forward.
The legislature may not be
interested in punting but there
are a couple of strong legged
folks who used to be in the
legislature who can't wait to
tee this up.
>> Yeah, Ron Gould and other
former lawmakers are ready to
lead this effort.
More conservative groups don't
like this and they are ready to
get on board.
The question is how much money
can they raise and how much
organization they can have.
I do think there is momentum
politically on the right to get
after this thing and try to do
this thing, especially after
they defeated the sales tax
extension.
You're seeing what's going on
with the Tea Party nationally,
the IRS stuff has kind of
reenergized them.
They are feeling their oats a
little bit after this.
Anything with Obama-care next to
it, some folks there will be
interested in that.
>> 86,000 signatures within 90
days of the end of the session,
you get enough grass roots
Republicans and Libertarians and
those folks together, it doesn't
sound like that difficult a
task.
>> You really have to get folks
fired up.
When you think of how huge a
program AHCCCHS is, if there's
another suit that puts this on
hold, where does that put
funding in flux?
>> And if this is on the ballot,
everything has to wait for the
vote next year, correct?
>> And that's really going to
complicate things.
The AHCCCHS agreement with the
federal government, known as the
demonstration Waiver, that
expires at the end of the year.
We seriously doubt the Feds will
let us continue what we're doing
now with the enrollment
agreement with childless adults.
You have to put it on hold until
after it's approved, November of
2014 if the voters pass it.
We're stuck in limbo.
As much as $300 million out of
the state's coffers to pay for
that.
These people speak in riddles at
the best of times.
>> The issue has fest erred so
much, it's dominating things at
the capitol.
If you look at the national
picture, conservatives are
feeling some momentum.
I think you could see people
really get behind this.
You obviously have the
antiabortion crowd that's looked
at this issue too, in terms of
Planned Parenthood funding and
Medicaid.
If you get them on board even a
little bit, this thing will get
enough signatures.
>> What about the idea that this
would be unconstitutional
because it's a specific part of
the budget and you're not
supposed to put that kind of
stuff to the ballot, to the
vote.
>> You can't put an
appropriations measure up for
referendum.
But you can take certain parts
of a bill.
You don't have to put a wheel
bill up for a referendum.
You can can't put a tax for
continuing services up there.
It's an old court of appeals
ruling saying that blocks us
from going for a referendum,
too.
You can take the expansion
provision and put it up and that
would kill it.
>> I already see voters' eyes
glazing over on this.
People probably won't even know
what's actually on the ballot.
>> Critics will challenge on
whether it's a tax.
It's a tax, not an assessment
fee, it needs a super majority.
>> Before we leave this ir, I
think you guys are worried about
fallout in the Senate.
The dynamics of leadership in
the Senate seem like they have
changed big-time.
What's going on over there?
>> Very contentious fight after
the election in November.
Andy Biggs unseated Steve
Pierce, that left some bad
blood.
A lot of folks with the losing
camp rolled Andy Biggs and
forced a yes vote over his head.
Nerves are pretty raw.
Most of the majority of the
Republican caucus in the Senate
is opposed to Medicaid
expansion.
So --
>> You've got a leader in the
Senate whose leadership team is
out to lunch with the other
crowd.
>> Team is the key word there.
When I saw they were going to be
up there, this was a bone to the
Steve Pierce camp.
These were big supporters of
Steve Pierce.
The budget out of the Senate is
very pro Andy Biggs.
The Medicaid expansion obviously
throws things out.
Whether people hate him or not,
I think it took a lot of guts
for Mccomish was ready to do
that.
>> He took the lead on this and
may take the folks like, A.J.
lafaro, and why is he calling
this a historic event and it was
a mugging in the Senate.
>> He's always been more of a
moderate, a chamber guy in
Ahwatukee, very moderate, a nice
guy, too.
If somebody's going to be
challenged in the primary,
here's the guy that went with
Obama-care and Medicaid, John is
the guy.
>> I'm waiting for A.J. to come
out and say, give me liberty or
give me death.
He has even called the Governor
a traitor -- he called her Judas
actually.
>> A lot of Republicans are
talking about this.
Why are we in the majority?
We do all this stuff and then
this comes up and we don't flex
our muscles.
I think it's playing it's out in
the House, too.
People say if the majority of
the caucus doesn't improve
approve we shouldn't move
forward.
>> If the Republican grass roots
are unified against this, the
committeemen, Republican grass
roots, these are the people who
will go out in thousand-degree
temperatures in the summer and
collect signatures for that.
>> We shall see about that.
>>> The Supreme Court, Arizona
high court looks at education
funding and specifically
adjusting for inflation.
What's this all about?
>> I think Jeremy can explain a
little more.
The core where ised voting right
side sit.
How many how much power do the
voters have in deciding these
things.
>> Funding along with inflation
education increases.
In 2010 the state budget was in
the absolute hole, they decided
to put that on hold.
What the voters decided before
the Voter Protection Act, is
that going leap over the other
except of what the legislature
is satisfying, we don't have the
money, we can't provide it.
>> Wolf Blitzer interpreted the
proposition kind of creatively a
couple of years ago.
You have to increase base
funding or other factors by 2%
or inflation, whichever is
greater.
The court of appeals ruled that
basically means and, not or.
It's clear they meant and.
So they said if you say or other
factors, we can kick up
transportation fund buying 2%
and leave the base funding cut
because we've got find somewhere
to get some money.
>> The legislature is always
chomping at thability with these
cases.
They take the football and run
with it.
It's like a free pass for them
to keep pook are pushing the
envelope.
>> Now the court reporter is
saying, you've got to do this.
This is a step back for them.
They went through this with
income and assets.
They will keep trying these
things, they get in these tough
budget times and they testify to
giving out ways to get around
it.
>> The original court ruling see
the -- was the voters cannot
force lawmakers to make an
innocent year after year, the
court of appealses disagreed.
>>> ACLU suing over an abortion
law that basically says you
can't target sex or race?
>> This is why I have my notes.
This is the official title of
this 2011 bill sponsored by
Steve Montenegro became law.
The Susan B. Anthony and
Frederick Douglas prenatal
nondiscrimination act of 2011.
It's a felony if you were to
either -- if you were to be an
abortion provider and do the
abortion in a situation where
you know for a fact it is
because of the race or the sex
of the child.
In the background for this, a
lot of things that were cited
were Asian people,
African-Americans.
Numbers said more
African-Americans get abortions.
This is already a discriminatory
act, we have to overturn this.
>> The issue of targeting sex or
race in abortions, obviously a
major problem or the legislature
wouldn't address it, correct?
>> Kwon if we have any evidence
at all of that in 21st century
American culture.
The NAACP and other groups are
signed on an co-plaintiffs.
They want to discourage
abortions so their goals is to
pass as many laws as possible at
the state and federal level to
try to discourage these things.
I don't think there's any
evidence of any of these things
going on.
>> Any evidence at all?
>> The sponsor, Steve
Montenegro, he was showing a
study showing gender selection
going on in Asian countries, in
China, China, where the
government allows people to only
have one kid.
They said some statistics show
there's a greater gender
imbalance among some Asians in
America but never made the leap
to saying, this is-tall happens
here.
>> I don't know how often we've
said unintended consequences.
This is a solution in search of
a problem.
Let's sort of incrementally take
away certain abortion rights.
That's where the ACLU is
concerned.
Is it an incremental step that
could lead to simply bigger?
>>> The law is currently on
family in Indiana.
Some way, shape or form could
wind up funding abortion.
This did not make it to the
Supreme Court this, Indiana law.
That could impact what's
happening in the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals with Arizona's
law.
>> It was appear attempt to pull
Medicaid funding from any
organization that performs
abortions, Planned Parenthood
being the example.
>> You know, most of the
services Planned Parenthood
provides are not abortion
related.
They do a lot of screening and
stuff like that.
The District Court stowed us a
few months ago, you can't do
this.
The Indiana law has gone
further, gone to the appeal's
escort and stuck drown there
again.
Unless the court goes for the
law here,.
>>> That's a tough one for the
abortion folks.
They pushed this as part of the
Medicaid expansion, too.
The argument is your giving no
one Planned Parenthood.
That frees them up financially
to provide more abortions but
they can use a bigger pool of
their own money for that.
And kind of gives fuel to the
fire for the folks on the right
who don't like these Medicaid
expansions.
Look what happens when you sign
up, you're stuck with the
federal mandates, stuck in the
federal courts, going through
the 9th circuit.
>> We should see the 7th
circuit court of appeals
regarding Indiana law.
Very different here, not the
9th.
A threat to other planned
parenthood service he and the
superiority didn't want to look
at it, period.
>> All right.
I understand Steve there was an
effort to recall the Maricopa
County sheriff.
>> That is Joe Arpaio?
>> I think so.
>> Yes.
What happened?
>> 335,000 valid signatures were
needed.
The recall organizers were not
able to get that many.
Head to give up the effort,
needed to get them in by
Thursday at 5:00.
They were unable to get that
many.
They had hoped the momentum from
Friday's decision by Judge Snow
for his incriminate tore
practiceses at the MCSO, we have
Sheriff Joe Arpaio for at least
another little bit.
Organizers were trying to
compare the Russell Pearce
recall with Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
This was 335,000 because it's
the county.
It's very difficult to pull off.
>> Why didn't this effort
succeed?
If they had come close, you
might have heard how many they
collected.
>> The number of tickets, they
had to raise the organization,
money, you would have needed
money behind this and some folks
really out there beating the
bushes.
And Arpaio has not been in the
public light as much lately.
The issue has kind of died down.
Immigration has died down a bit,
too.
If they tried this a couple
years ago, they might have had a
better chance when it was really
out in the forefront.
>> The criticism, just after an
election what, are you recalling
for?
But when you had this judge's
decision, the racial profiling
case, the ruling coming down,
you could say all right.
You had --
>> There were some supporters
saying it would have been great
if this decision would have come
down a month before.
>> It wouldn't have gotten even
some momentum.
>> That case drew enough
attention months ago.
When you read the ruling you
understand how precise and
defined it was, but still.
>> I just don't think that issue
and the case drew enough
attention to really energize
folks.
>> Remember, about a month,
month and a half ago, they
stopped paying, they started
again, they didn't have the
money.
The writing was on the wall for
a couple of months now.
>> Those of us who have had to
have town press conferences, the
conflict after the Judge Snow
ruling came down, I think it was
53 seconds after it was put out.
He put out a statement after the
recall organizers couldn't get
the signatures.
He's still now the out there
doing one of his patented press
conferences.
I thought that was kind of
interesting.
>> Critics of the effort noted
there was not a lot in the way
of high profile political
leaders, Democrat ors
Republicans, get Oregon on board
that political effort.
I think Senator Gallardo stood
up and said, where is the
indignation?
>> With the Democrats, a lot of
them.
Too late for people for jump on
the recall effort by the time
the ruling came down.
You already knew it was done.
You see a lot of Democrats
coming out criticizing that.
Legislators have, but you didn't
see a lot of support or a lack
of support among a lot of
Democratic elected officials for
the recall itself.
Even though a lot of them hate
Arpaio, we felt different.
>> Especially among political
folks, they are very
cost-benefit analysis.
You didn't see Terry Goddard
take him on in office.
They still view him as a
powerhouse because of his
constituency, his support within
the older folks as the grass
roots.
You don't see people come out,
that's what these efforts need.
>> Slightly contrary to Mike,
I'm sure saying this is
accurate.
He's 80 now, barely won his last
election.
Maybe some people feel like I
don't want to take the political
chance in case he's still that
point of view.
If he's not, he's not going
influence that many people at
all they were changing the bans
on Fox 10 last night, getting
rid of the signage and call this
number if you see an
undocumented person.
>> Immigration, we're going to
protect the border from Maricopa
County.
Before that I heard the sheriff
same as say, illegal immigrants,
they are trying hard, I'm not
going to target them.
But when it's politically
dangerous, he pivoted.
It was not a surprise that he's
kind of moving away from that.
They will find the next things.
You've got 30 seconds to tell
us.
Are the Coyotes getting a new
owner?
Now there's a Canadian group
that wants to buy them and keep
them here.
The NHL may give them some
funding.
We might see it soon.
>> Same song and dance.
>> Gentlemen, good to have you
here.
Thanks for joining us.
That's it for now.
You have a great weekend.