Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> Coming up next on "Arizona
Horizon's" "Journalists'
Roundtable," the Governor vetoes
five bills as a pretty clear
indication that her bill-signing
moratorium is still very much in
effect.
This as the battle over Medicaid
expansion now includes
investigations into threats made
to lawmakers who support the
Governor's plan.
And the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals strikes down an Arizona
abortion law, 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, welcome to
"Arizona Horizon's"
"Journalists' Roundtable," I'm
Ted Simons.
Joining me tonight are Mary Jo
Pitzl of "The Arizona Republic,"
Howard Fischer of "Capitol Media
Services," and Luige del Puerto
of the "Arizona Capitol Times."
>>> After vowing not to sign any
bills until the legislature made
significant progress on Medicaid
expansion and the budget,the
governor proved her point this
week with her veto pen.
We'll get into that.
First, we've got to get to Joe
Arpaio regarding his
discrimination and civil case
here.
The judge rules after eight
months of deliberation, after a
week-long trial last year,
Arpaio's office did briefly
profile drivers and
discriminated against Latino
drivers, and said stop it.
He issued an injunction to
prevent that from happening in
the future.
>> A lot of that is based on
those suppression sweeps you
couldn't help reading about,
because he was busy putting out
press releases.
He went into areas Latinos
tended to gather.
You didn't see a lot of them in
Paradise Valley, for example.
The judge said they were
pretexts, things they never stop
vehicles for.
If somebody in the vehicle were
Latino, they held them longer
than just writing up the ticket
and using that as a way to see
if they could find illegal
immigrants.
He said you cannot do it.
Theoretically the sheriff's
department said, we don't use
racial profiling, but in fact
the actual practice was to use
race as a factor to determine
when to question people.
You cannot do that.
>> And the judge said you cannot
do that, stop doing that.
>> The judge agreed with what
the plaintiffs had been seeking,
which is an injunction against
the practice.
You can't stop a vehicle based
on the race or ancestry of the
people inside,if your sole basis
is their race or ancestry.
You can't hold people for a long
time also because of race or
ancestry, because that's a
violation of people's Fourth
Amendment rights.
>> Of course the sheriff, I
talked to him this afternoon and
he said, well, we don't profile
and we'll be appealing this.
The ruling provides no financial
relief, there is no sanction, no
criminal penalty.
It's simply an order, don't
profile.
Yet he wants to appeal that to
the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals.
>> Why wouldn't you?
Why would you want that on your
record, especially if you still
have the outstanding justice
investigation into the practices
of your office.
Why would you want to
acknowledge a major blemish like
that on your record?
>> You're assuming, A, anything
is going to keep him fom getting
reelected; and B, the DOJ case
has to stand on its own.
I'm not sure that they can use
what Judge Snow found as a basis
for bringing any sort of
criminal charges.
>> And we're not sure yet as to
how much fodder for the file
there is, for the Department of
Justice's investigation, or
where this would lead regarding
other civil cases that may come
down the pike against the
sheriff's department.
How many pages was it?
>> 140 pages.
We'll have a nice holiday
weekend reading for that.
>>> Back to the state capitol,
the Governor vetoes five bills.
I guess she certainly
understands what 'moratorium'
means.
>> She does, and she wants to
make sure the legislature does.
The Governor said about two
weeks ago, no more, I'm not
taking action on any more bills
until you show me some progress
on Medicaid and the state
budget, those two issues of
course are tied together.
So they pretty much stopped
sending her bills, this week a
couple of Senate bills did get
-- found their way to the
governor's office and she got
out her veto stamp and sent them
off to the scrap heap.
>> The word that came down is I
want progress or substantial
progress.
As we know, as we talked about
last week, the Senate did
improve, A, a budget.
And B, her Medicaid plan.
It was over the sort of cold
dead body of Senate President
Andy Biggs.
They said, we've done our bit.
I thought whatever moratorium
had occurred was over.
In her veto message she said she
doesn't -- didn't use the word
substantial any more, she wants
Resolution, which Biggs is
saying, does that mean my way or
the highway?
Does it have to be resolved the
Governor's way?
>> Andy Biggs, when I talked to
him the day they sent those
Senate bills to the Governor, I
said why are you doing this?
The Governor has not called me
and said, stop sending bills.
Second of all, she said
substantial progress.
If she's seeking that we pass a
budget proposal with Medicaid
expansion, that's not
substantial progress, that's
completion.
What is she seeking.
If I'm not not mistaken,
immediately after the Senate
passed the budget, which
included the Medicaid proposal,
the Governor Resource office
said, just passage of this
budget by one body is not --
does not satisfy her
requirement.
But they said that to us, and
that's the issue.
You know, I guess the question
is, if Matt tells me what the
Governor wants, that is the same
as telling Andy Biggs.
>> Well, if your president Biggs
don't you find out first or do
you want to go ahead and send --
what was sent over there?
>> I think particularly with the
religious freedom bill that was
promoted by the Center for
Arizona Policy passed the Senate
on Wednesday, I believe, and
went up.
That's something that you would
expect the Governor to sign.
By vetoing it she's sort of
vetoing a very influential
person at the legislature and
with whom the Governor is
usually in sync with.
There is a bit of a message.
>> This is not the first time
the Governor said, don't send
her bills.
They have had this one for the
last however many years.
>> This is sounding a lot like
Back then the new Governor
Brewer wanted the state budget.
The legislature passed it, they
weren't sending it up to her,
because they knew she thought it
stunk and she would veto it and
send them back to work right
away.
They held on to the budget.
She went to the Supreme Court
and got a ruling.
It looks like the actions of the
House, in deference to Brewer,
has sat on 17 bills that are
ready to go, that they are
violating that corridor.
>> Here's part of the problem.
This was not -- this is less a
formal ruling than an order.
The judge has basically said a
plague on both your houses
because they faulted the
legislature for not sending it.
The budget bills weren't how
they were supposed to be and the
reconciliation bills.
Ruth McGregor was the Chief
Justice.
You can hold it for normal
petsing, ministerial actions.
Anything else is in fact
unconstitutional.
Here's the problem.
Who has the right to sue?
The Governor?
The legislature?
Luige, do you have the right to
sue?
>> And with political questions
like this one, there's really no
remedy at the end of the day.
Even if somebody sues, so what?
You go to court and the court
says you're wrong and what
happens next?
What the court said is if the
bill is voted on and passed by
the two chambers, you can't hold
on to it beyond ministerial
procedures, time needed for
that.
But there is a mechanism, a way
for the House and Senate to send
bills.
You can stop the bill from
agreeding a final reading.
Even if a bill has all the
support it needs, you can sit on
it and you don't violate --
>> Understand.
But they didn't do that, that's
the point.
They said House Bill 2389 has
final approval by a vote of
such-and-such, and they didn't
say the magic words and transmit
the bill to the governor.
>> One of the many things she
wrote in there, she said nothing
about the bills in this
rejection.
It was all about, I told you not
do this.
>> All of this for inside
baseball, and who can do this
and who can't, the Governor
wants, wrap it up, guys.
It's been 130 days in the
legislative session and there
are many, many lawmakers who
agree with her.
Until they get some kind of
movement there, which very
likely could send everything
back to the Senate and there has
to be some kind of compromise,
she's looking ahead and seeing a
lot of time left on the clock it
would appear.
>> And talk to me about those
vetoes, what really struck me is
the fact she was very candid.
She would find a policy reason
for rejecting a bill.
>> Exactly.
>> She didn't bother this time.
>> Howie, I must demonstrate my
moratorium is no idle threat.
>> I think she's demonstrated
that.
Are they going keep throwing
stuff over there, and say, here
it goes?
>> I don't think so.
The problem is this late in the
session resurrecting bills is
very difficult.
You either have to find an
existing bill to amend it or get
special permission to start a
new bill from scratch.
I think Andy proved his point
sure, proved her point.
Okay.
Now we're down to the question
of, let's assume the House
version of Medicaid is the Andy
Biggs -- Andy Tobin version,
with the public vote the
Governor doesn't want.
Send it back to the Senate.
Let's say they get the votes.
They resolve the Medicaid issue,
but not the way the Governor
wants it.
Does that mean the moratorium
stays in place?
Does she hold her breath and
turn blue?
>> What is happening with the
house and the Medicaid expansion
and the speaker's efforts to get
this referred.
What's the latest?
>> The Speaker has a proposal to
punt this question to the
voters.
He's trying to find the votes.
He's talking to groups
supporting the Governor's plan
and trying to persuade them to
support his proposal.
So far there's not the votes for
his proposal to get out of his
chamber.
And even if it did, we have
spoken with a whole number of
conservative Republicans in the
Senate who have said, we don't
want to send this question to
voters.
This is our responsibility.
We should decide this one, not
ask the voters to do that for
us.
>> Now we're into, we've talked
about here, do you need to send
it to the voters?
Because otherwise it's a tax.
If it's a tax it needs a 2/3
vote.
It takes 80,000-plus signatures
to refer it to the ballot which
essentially puts it off until
>> Compare what's happening in
the House with what happened in
the Senate.
Is the Speaker keeping his
troops in line and is there any
mutinies happening there?
>> No, they are not mutinies.
I don't think there's any talk
of trying to get a new speaker
in there.
It's just a different dynamic.
The divisions of the Senate were
apparently from really last year
before the election with a lot
of these members.
The divisions have been obvious
and fairly deep.
The house is not divided in that
way.
It's a big caucus, 36
Republicans, and Tobin says he
needs half of the caucus to go
along with this before he's
going to move it?
That's a big, big hurdle.
>> Carter, carrying the bill for
the governor there, says she can
line up six or seven of the
Republicans, to add to the 24
Democrats, can repeat what
happened in the Senate.
As Mary Jo says, we're not going
to roll over you.
But at a certain point, if the
speaker cannot line up the votes
he almost has to allow the other
bill to come to the floor.
>> Representative Kavanagh
saying appropriations are not
going to touch this.
That's pretty important, isn't
it?
>> They are going to strip out
Medicaid, he said.
I suppose someone else could try
to put it on but that would be
very difficult to get it on in
his committee.
So you do it on the floor.
That's what they did in the
Senate.
Medicaid was not part of the
budget bill when it came out of
Senate appropriations.
>> What would be interesting
about that, if they decided
essentially to hear the proposal
in the appropriations committee,
there's going to be less
discussion about it.
Probably the biggest policy
we've seen in years get out of
legislature without so much as a
hearing in a committee.
>> We are hearing about, though,
threats.
What's going on here regarding
lawmakers, Republican lawmakers
getting what sound to be pretty
substantial threats?
>> Well, what sort of exposed
all this was Representative Kate
Brophy McGee stood up and
talked about this, what she
calls a very obscene angry phone
call that had come in on her
voicemail, and it was very
unsettling.
I shouldn't be afraid to come to
work and do my job, take the
stands that I do.
She supports Medicaid expansion.
This actually just reinforced
her decision to vote for this,
whenever that opportunity
arises.
Other people start to chime in,
we've gotten phone calls, we're
going to follow you, chase you
to the ends of the earth.
And then there's e-mails coming
from outside groups.
You know, and the tenor of them,
one was particularly bizarre
because it cited the Second
Amendment defense that they
could mount if they were charged
with shooting someone, but we
were talking about Medicaid.
That was very concerning to a
number of lawmakers.
>> The emotions as we've seen on
this have run high.
But it seems like the atmosphere
has been particularly poisoned.
Some of that goes back to the
count Republican committee
starting off with the comment
comparing the Governor to Judas.
The Republicans who vote for
this are political dead meat.
That stirs folks up.
We're not so much having a
discussion of the policy.
We're having a discussion of
Barack Obama.
And if you support anything that
Barack Obama wants, you must be
a disloyal Republican.
>> It sounds like that could be
-- you want to put this on the
ballot and refer to the voters?
Welcome to that kind of rhetoric
and more if this becomes a
statewide referendum.
>> That's part of the reason the
Governor doesn't want it on the
ballot.
Think of the brothers and the
kind of Moak they can drop in
here on this issue to kill it.
>> Howie made that point.
Assuming they get these tickets,
there's an effort to put this
question on the ballot, a
referendum, now if they --
>> Only?
>> Yeah, they have three months
to get 86,000 signatures.
I've talked to a Republican
strategist who said it's doable.
If you have the money to do it,
and if you're organized,
especially if you have lots of
money to do it, it's doable.
>> I don't think it's such a
high hurdle.
If you go out in the street,
right after the show is over and
have a petition that says, sign
this to keep Obama-care from
coming to Arizona, you'll get
80,000 signatures in two weeks.
There's no problem getting the
signatures on this.
>> We also had e-mails and phone
calls of a bizarre and
threatening nature from the
outside, there was a curious
email from the inside a
Republican lawmaker to another
Republican saying what?
>> A freshman Republican from
Flagstaff does seem to not
always think before sending
emails.
He sent it to his followers,
folks he communicates with.
He copied on his email the names
of six other GOP lawmakers in
the house who support Medicaid
expansion.
It was sort of a way to say --
he urged these people to contact
those six and let them know they
should vote against Medicaid
expansion.
That gets out, you know, and so
the Speaker then has to sort of
admonish Mr. Thorpe that you
really shouldn't do that, rally
the troops against your own
colleagues.
He apologizes in another email
in which he adds more
Republicans, I guess he's got
all these lists.
Represent Brophy McGee was named
in the email.
It just would be nice if he
thought a little more before
sending.
He's a very polite sort of nice
guy when you talk to him.
He said he screwed up and meant
no bad intent.
He just wanted them to vote no.
>> But the recipients are the
ones probably behind some of the
threats we're getting with this
thing.
>> Bob Thorpe says I ought to do
what I can to keep these people
from voting.
>> And they now know here they
are.
>> With the exception that
Thorpe's e-mails are not going
to be investigated.
The one that references the
Second Amendment and the
harassing phone calls have been
turned over to public safety and
they will see what they can run
down on those.
>> Before we leave the Capitol,
we had a nonprayer during the
prayer, and then a second prayer
to repent against the nonprayer.
Luige, please?
>> In an intersection of faith
and politics, very interesting
to watch.
Juan Mendez from Tempe prayed or
gave a nonprayer, basically a
secular humanist kind of a
prayer.
And even before that he had
asked people for solicitation
about how he should go about
this prayer.
Let me start by saying that each
session they begin, the house
and Senate begin with a prayer.
They ask rotating casts of
members to provide this prayer.
You know, we've seen Muslims,
Jews, all kinds of religions go
in there and pray.
But Juan Mendez thought it's his
time to pray a secular prayer, a
nonreligious prayer.
Well, you get all sorts of
reactions when you do something
like that.
That's what we saw this week.
>> And what happened of course
is -- and he kind of made sure
people knew what he was doing.
He said, normally you say bow
your head.
I'm going to urge you not to bow
your head but look around and be
happy that we're all here and
discussing public policy.
Representative Steve Smith, who
is never one to avoid a
controversy, decided the next
day after the regular prayer had
been offered by kelly townshend,
we need to make up for the
nonprayer prayer by offering a
second prayer, because the
Almighty will be really ticked
off otherwise, and issued a
prayer.
We all went up to him and said,
okay, what defines a prayer?
Do you need the name of God,
something as a supplication?
>> His answer was like the
answer the supreme court gave on
obscenity.
You know it when you hear it.
>> That raises the question.
The House rules say the session
begins with essentially the
registration, prayer, Pledge of
Allegiance.
His point was the same as Pledge
of Allegiance.
If you just said I want to stand
up and honor the people of the
world, and you didn't give the
pledge, you haven't followed the
rules.
He says a prayer requires the
use of the almighty.
It was an interesting side
tropic all the other weird stuff
going on.
>> And it sounds like everyone
survived.
>> As we close out, I do want to
get to the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals striking down the
Arizona abortion law.
This is the one banning abortion
20 weeks -- after 20 weeks of
pregnancy.
>> It was immediately appealed
in the lower court, and upheld
the Arizona law.
Three dids, the ACLU and the
Center for Reproductive Rights
took it you went to the ninth
circuit and they ruled the law
was unconstitutional.
This happens before the accepted
viability date, therefore it's
unconstitutional.
>> What's fascinating is Bill
Montgomery, who personally
argued this, said yes, I
understand what Roe versus Wade
says.
One is evidence of fetal pain.
Interestingly enough, one of the
judges who concurred said, well,
if you're not allowed to
interfere with a woman's rights
and you're concerned about fetal
pain, you can anesthetize the
fetus.
The other concern was additional
risk to women beyond the 20th
week.
>> The judge said, people do all
sorts of stupid things, all
sorts of stupid surgery.
We don't tell them they can't
have that.
Absolute line is viability.
>> I think the idea, it sounded
like the idea, we talked about
it during the week with Paul
Bender, reasonable restrictions
by states on abortion are okay.
This is not a reasonable
restriction.
The court, 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals, unanimously said this
is a ban.
>> That's the linchpin of this
whole decision.
The court is saying this is not
a restriction.
You are not trying to regulate,
you're trying to stop it from
happening.
If you are precluding women
pregnant from 20 weeks from
getting an abortion, you are
stopping an abortion.
That right has been litigated
and the long-standing court
ruling, long-standing case law
is they have a right to do it.
That goes to, is Montgomery
going to take the case to the
Supreme Court and seek the
position review.
I think he has to attack Roe
versus Wade head on.
This is a very different course
from 1973.
>> And the question is, will
they take it.
>> They take maybe 80, 90 cases
a year, out of thousands that
are sent to them.
It's hard to say.
It takes only four justices to
agree to a petition for cert.
>> This concept of viability is
what he's pressing on.
>> His argument is medical
technology has advantaged a lot
and we know more than we did
four decades ago.
The date of viability is moving
backwards all the time, earlier
in time.
>> The two sides did not
disagree about one thing.
That at 20 weeks that is not the
point of viability.
Both sides agreed that's not a
viable state.
>> Whether or not those
standards change --
>> And it can change.
In the days of roe versus Wade,
it was 26, 28, now do town 54.
Even if it's previability, other
issues like women's health and
fetal pain allow to us create
this "restriction."
Thanks for joining us.
And that is it for now.
I'm Ted Simons, thank you so
much for joining us, you have a
great holiday weekend.