Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> Coming up next on "Arizona
Horizon," the United States
supreme court strikes down part
of an Arizona voter registration
law.
Also tonight, details of what a
Federal judge wants to see to
end racial profiling by sheriff
Joe Arpaio's office, and we'll
look at the impact a recent
supreme court ruling that bans
the patenting of human Genes.
Those stories next on "Arizona
Horizon."
>>> "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," I'm Ted
Simons.
The United States Supreme Court
today upheld a lower court
ruling, that found part an
Arizona voter registration law
is unconstitutional.
A high court ruled that the
state cannot require proof of
citizenship or other added
obligations, from those who
register to vote using a Federal
form.
Here now to discuss the ruling
is ASU law professor Paul
Bender.
Always a pleasure.
>> Especially at this time of
year.
>> Yes.
>> And we got you coming up in a
couple of weeks, you know, for
the big Supreme Court show.
What was the issue here?
>> The issue here was whether
Arizona, and I think that one or
two other states, did this,
tried to require people when
they registered to vote, to have
proof that they are citizens,
and in the mid 1990s, Congress
passed the thing that's called a
motor voter act, which was
intended to make it as easy as
possible to register to vote.
And it said that the, to
register to vote in Federal
elections, that is elections for
the house and the Senate, you
register to vote by, by filling
out forms, and swearing that you
are a citizen, and it says under
penalty of perjury, I swear that
I'm a citizen, and you cannot
require any other documentation,
that's what the Federal law
says.
Arizona, however, and I think as
I said, one other state, said
no, we're not going to let you
register unless you provide
proof, and it's, it's, it's --
administratively difficult
because this form is used to
register by mail.
And so Arizona saying, if you
want to register to vote, send
us proof you are a citizen in
your mail application so you
have to put in the envelope your
passport, or something which you
don't want to do, maybe, because
it may never come back, so it
makes it difficult to vote, and
the Supreme Court said that it
was clear that, that the Federal
statute meant to make it as easy
as possible for people to
register to vote.
And that the state could not
require proof of citizenship of
people that the Federal
Government said that if you want
to register to vote in the
Federal election, it's enough if
you swear under the possible
penalty of perjury, that you are
a citizen.
And, and that the state law is
inconsistent with that because
it made it harder to vote and
therefore, it was
unconstitutional.
>> Did the court focus on the
fact that this was burdensome,
some would call it or extra
stuff, or did they focus on the
fact in that, that the Feds say
this, you are a state, and you
cannot force the Feds to say
this.
>> Well, what, it's a statutory
case, and the Federal statute
says that you should be able to
register to vote in the Federal
election by just swearing that
you are a citizen, and the state
wants to make you provide more,
and they said that that's
inconsistent with the Federal
law, and therefore, it's
preempted, is what the lawyers
say, when it's inconsistent, the
state can't do it, and it does
not say it's unconstitutional,
itself, it's that the Federal
law wants to make it easier to
vote and the state law
interferes with that.
>> How does this impact the
voter registration efforts?
>> The case, itself, technically
only applies to Federal
elections.
But, as you know, as everybody
knows when you register to vote
you register to vote in all
elections.
So, state could, after this
decision, continue to require
proof of citizenship to register
in state elections, but they
cannot require you to register
to, to, to the Federal
elections, for Congress and for
the Senate.
And so, northwest to avoid this,
and continue to, to, to require
proof of citizenship, they have
to have two registration
processes, and maybe two ballots
so that would be very, very
inconvenient.
So, the chances are that this
means that the state is going to
have to, to forget about that
requirement.
And, and let people register to
vote if they swear that they are
citizens.
>> Again, did the state
legislature go ahead and say,
yeah, you can go ahead and
register by mail, Federally, but
you can only vote in Federal
elections, that would be two
ballots.
>> Yeah.
Technically, theoretically, they
could do that.
I think it would be very, very
difficult administratively to do
that, so I doubt if they would,
and that's not a problem because
this is a statute that, that
deals with something that, that
everybody recognizes, I think,
is not problem.
And there has been no, no wave
of people who are not citizens
registering to vote and to vote.
For, for a number of reasons, if
you are here illegally it, you
are going to go and register to
vote and call attention, or try
to register to call attention to
yourself, and when you go to
vote, you have to, to produce
some kind of identification, and
so the combination of those
things and other things, as
well, means that it's very, very
rare, if it ever happens, that
somebody is not a citizen
registered to vote.
>> So other states with similar
laws will, will face similar
challenges?
>> Right, but, I think that
there is only one other state.
It's important to, to recognize
that this is about registration.
>> Right.
>> To vote, the Supreme Court, a
couple of years ago, upheld a
statute like Arizona, which
requires identification when you
vote.
So, that's, that's still valid,
but, what the court has held
invalid is, is this requirement
that, that you have to prove
affirmatively that, that you are
a citizen, in order to register.
>> Now, talk to us about the
opinion, itself, because it
sounds as though the opinion
almost prodded Arizona, hey, you
know, there is still an option
left here for you.
>> The opinion says that, that
if Arizona still wants to
require proof of citizenship to
vote in Federal elections, they
have a potential way of doing
that.
They can go to, to the Federal
election commission, or a, or
the commission and, and ask them
to, to -- there are forms for
each state because the states
have different voting
requirements.
And, and so, they can ask to
have the Federal form for
Arizona changed to require
proof.
The election commission could do
that, if it wants to.
It does not have to do that.
>> Arizona tried to do that,
when it first passed this law,
and the Federal election
commission split 2-2, about
whether they would do it, and
so, since it was a tie, they did
not do it.
And Arizona did not try to get
judicial review of that.
So scalia said you could try
again, and that opens up the
possibility that Arizona would
do that.
That would be a long, expensive,
process for really, for really
no practical reason because as I
say, there is really no evidence
that there are people who are
not citizens, who are
registering to vote.
>> And that particular process,
should the election commission
once again say no, or wind up in
a tie, I guess didn't Justice
scalia say you could take it to
court?
>> You could and you might win,
he said, so, it's speculative
along the line and, and the
state can decide whether it
wants to do that, but, it would
be expensive.
It would be time consuming.
And since there is no problem,
really, that, that, to deal
with, I wonder why the state
would want to do that.
>> And judging from that
election commission, is there
anyone home on that commission
right now?
>> Right now, there are no
full-time appointments because I
think that, that the Senate is
not confirmed President Barack
Obama's commission to the
appointment.
So that's one of the reasons
why, why it is speculative.
>> Right.
>> Whether this is going to
work, and scalia just says, you
could do that, it's an
interesting opinion because it
kind of offhandedly says might
try this, and maybe it will work
but don't worry about it, and I
think that the reason is that
again, there is no problem.
If there were big problem of, of
thousands of people who are not
citizens voting and maybe
changing the results of the
elections, I think that the
court might have different
attitude towards this case.
But there is no evidence that
that is, that has ever happened.
So why go to all of this
trouble.
>> And we have our Supreme Court
show coming up, I believe,
July 1st.
We'll talk about this more and
the personality, because I found
it interesting scalia wrote the
opinion and aledo was on the
other side.
>> And Roberts, the chief
Justice, and scalia joined with
the liberals to do, to do this
result.
>> So that's a fascinating
dynamic.
We'll talk more about that and
see you July 1st, good to see
you now.
>> Nice to see you, too.
>>> A Federal judge began the
process of ending racial
profiles by the Maricopa County
sheriff's office.
Judge snow gave the mcso and
those who filed suit time to
resolve the issue with the U.S.
Justice Department, also
involved in the talks.
Joining us now is Arizona
Republic reporter J.J. Hensley
who has been following the
story.
Good to see again.
>> Good to be here.
>> So give us a better
indication, what happens, this
is a hearing on Friday, the
first hearing since the
decision, correct?
>> Right, the decision came out
right before, before memorial
day and, and so, Friday was the
first time that, that everyone
kind of got back together in
court and, and it was a
relatively brief hearing,
considering that this, this case
has been going on for, for years
now, and this took less than an
hour, and the judge opened with
20 minutes further clarifying
his 142-page ruling.
And then said, basically, this
is what I'm thinking, and
lawyers, why don't you tell me
where you are coming from, in
the aclu spoke up and said we
would like more time to
negotiate with the sheriff's
office and see if we can come to
an agreement.
>> The sheriff's office said
that's ok by us?
>> Yeah, they were onboard with
that, and it seems like there
were a lot of issues here, you
know, in training, the data
collection, and the stand alone
policies, on racial profiling,
and all these things, the
sheriff's office is generally in
agreement on, it's kind of going
to be the devil in the details,
that that might derail the
negotiations at some point.
>> Had those two sides been
working together, or talking
since this decision?
>> I think they just got started
on that process, and that is why
they said, judge, it was a
lengthy and thorough decision.
We have had the time to go
through it and we're starting
the negotiations, or
discussions, and we would like
to be able to continue those, so
maybe give us until mid August,
before we can come back and
temperature where we're at.
>> And the negotiations and
discussions center on how to get
the sheriff's office to stop
doing what it's doing, regarding
racial profiling?
>> More or less.
I mean, the real, the real point
here is that correct is that the
judge wants to, to, to have them
both come to him, with a plan on
how we're going to implement
this ruling, and ensure that
sticks.
And, and, you know, what they
don't want to happen, and one of
the things that's going to be an
issue with the kind of the
training and the education is,
is, you remember, way back when,
the ice.
>> Yes.
>> The immigration and customs
enforcement removed the
sheriff's ability to enforce the
Federal immigration law.
And, and months later, they had
Chris coback from Kansas, the
author of 1070, give them
training that says don't need
that law, or don't need that
authorization.
You have inherent authority to
enforce these laws, and they
took that as the Marching orders
and left.
And, and you, you know, judge
snow clearly doesn't want to, a
repeat of that with, with maybe
questionable education or
training being part of that
order.
>> Was that the reason that he
clarified some aspects of this
order?
>> Well, I mean, one of the main
aspects, you know, when I was on
last we talked about kind of
what, what are the, the key
pieces of this injunction, there
were seven items, and most of it
was you cannot detain persons of
Latino decent any longer than an
Anglo driver.
One of the key things, one of
the few like actionable items
was that prohibited the
sheriff's office from using
what's called their leader
policy, lear.
It authorized them to contact
ice if they came across someone
undocumented or they suspected
being undocumented.
But did not have any state
charges on them.
So, there was, you know, not
speeding or *** or any other
kind of violation.
To hold them on.
Judge snow enjoins them from
using that policy, and then in
the first 20 minutes says well,
you know, I have seen coverage
in the media that says you are
not allowed to call ice, that's
not what I meant.
You are allowed to call ice, and
you just can't detain immigrants
while you are calling ice.
Which the sheriff's office says,
would, would not -- the net
effect is the same.
We cannot detain them, what is
the sense of calling ice.
>> Back to the talks here, we
talked last time wondering,
would the justices department be
interested in or continue to
pursue, which angle did they go?
They are going to be involved in
the talks.
>> Yeah.
>> And are you surprised?
>> I was surprised, I mean, we
had gotten hints that that could
be coming, but, everyone
afterwards, I try to get
clarification on just how
involved they would be, and it
seems like they, both them and
the, the attorneys represent the
sheriff's office in that Federal
lawsuit going to be very active
participants in this.
And the Justice Department sees
this as an opportunity to get
what they called a universal
settlement to resolve both the,
the melendras claim and their
lawsuit.
>> An all-encompassing thing,
just get this over with.
>> Yeah, and no matter where you
come down on this, this issue or
these lawsuits, the potential
to, avoid another costly round,
of lengthy litigation and
discovery by letting the Justice
Department in on these
negotiations, is probably good
news for everyone who, who pays
taxes here.
>> Something else that we
discussed at length, on your
appearances, is the concept of a
court appointed monitor for the
sheriff's office.
That seems to be the one thing
that, that the sheriff and mcso
does not want.
Sounds like judge Murray snow
wants it.
>> Oh, yeah.
He made it abundantly clear in
that he expects there will be a
Monday for appointed here.
Now the sheriff's office is
saying well, if there is going
to be a monitor, and it looks
like there is, maybe we could
get it kind of like to judge
wake did, in 2008, when, when he
ruled that conditions in the
jails were unconstitutional.
And he played a very active role
in resolving that.
He stayed on top of it.
He appointed what I have come to
consider like monitors by proxy.
He force the sheriff's office to
file a, a, to, to hire a
dietitian to ensure that, that
all the inmates' meals meet usda
dietary guidelines.
And then snow would receive
reports from that dietitian.
>> Yes.
>> And, and is this the kind of
thing, obviously, that was then.
This is now.
And is this the Sheriff's
Department -- just, in general,
how is mcso taking this?
How are they responding?
>> The official word is, we will
live up to the letter and the
spirit of that ruling.
And they want to, to make it, it
-- no doubt, that they are
following this ruling, they
certainly don't want to be in
contempt of the Federal judge.
You know and last week, in court
the sheriff's attorney said,
that that, that the sheriff's
office is out of the Federal
immigration enforcement
business.
So, this, this decision managed
to undo a lot of what the
critics have been off after them
to do since may of 2006, 2007.
And, and I think private, people
are so, kind of concerned about,
about camping the judge's
attention with statements that
they might make or that could
get out there, that there is
very little of that, and shows
that he's aware of what people
saying, just by his comments at
the beginning of the hearing on
Friday.
>> And, and not only that, but
the order, itself, I mean, made
it clear that what you are
saying, right, I was listening.
>> Right.
The contemporaneous statements,
he called them.
Arpaio's statements in the media
in 2007 and 2008 when the sweeps
were going on.
>> Give us a timetable here,
what happens next?
>> So we have until mid August
for both sides to negotiate.
And, and snow said that he
expects them to submit to him,
and a consent decree by
August 15th, and there is
going to be hearing on
August 30.
That live give him time to see
what issues they have not agreed
to, and I think given what we
have heard, I think there will
be a lot of issues that they can
agree to.
And it might be this monitor,
who, who is it going to be and
what authority they going to
have?
Snow saying needs to strike a
delicate balance between
insuring that, that, that the
citizens, the constitutional
rights are protect, and insuring
that the sheriffs constitutional
authority is protected, as well,
with this Monday for so if he's
aware of that argument, but the
other issues, are going to be
kind of, you know, who does
training and, and what is their
background and, and how much
training are we going to be
talking about and things like
that.
>> We'll look out for that, for
that great work, thank you for
joining us, and we appreciate
it.
>> Thank you.
>>> The United States Supreme
Court ruled last week that
naturally occurring DNA cannot
be patented.
What does the ruling mean to
bioscience research and
industry?
We ask Gary Marchant of ASU's
O'Connor college of law,
Marchant is also an ASU
professor of life sciences.
Good to have you here.
>> Thanks.
>> What did the Supreme Court's
patenting human genes, what are
we talking about here?
>> A lot of people are surprised
to know about a 20% of the genes
are patented.
There is 4,000 with patents on
them.
They don't apply as they exist
but to say if you take them out
and use them, they need a
patent.
>> The court is saying that you
cannot patent something like
this that is naturally
occurring?
>> Right, so the whole issue is
that the Gene occurs in your
body and, and taking it out and
isolating it, is that enough to
get a patent on it?
For 20 years, we've been giving
threes for knees genes, and now,
the Supreme Court is now
definitively saying no, you
cannot get a patent.
>> So it's like patenting a
kidney?
>> Yes, but isolated.
One of my students made the
analogy if you cut off a bunch
of thumbs and put it in a
basket, can you patent it?
That's the logic used here, but
the problem is we have 100 years
of inconsistent precedent on,
this and some saying if you
isolate a vitamin, that is
patentable, and others saying
that it is not.
>> I would keep an eye on that
student, by the way.
>> Right.
>> And what were the court's
reasons?
Just because it occurs in nature
and it does not really belong
to, to, to anyone?
>> The company involved, they
put money into it and invested
research and time but did not
invest anything new.
That's what the court concluded,
and to get a patent it has to be
something new and novel that
does not exist before.
It has to be human made,
essentially.
>>
>> The rules have change, but I
think that, you know, that's
where we're at.
>> What becomes of these
companies, what becomes of the
patents?
>> There is still some issues
still out there because the
court, at the same time, says,
patents that include just the
important parts of the Gene are
still valid.
So there is going to be question
how did the parts of the
decision interrelate?
So, I expect still more
litigation, but, it seems that
we're going to go forward, that
it's not the genes patentable
but rather, the question is, as
science is moving in, it's take
a bunch of those genes and using
them in a specific way.
That might still be patentable,
that's where this company will
go and a lot of companies are
going already, and in some
senses, 1990 science that we're
talking about here.
>> So the overall impact on
biomedical, and, and, and just
basically biotech, the industry,
itself, in general, what do you
see?
>> It's a mix, mix bag like
patent law has a double edge
sword so, on one hand it will
help patients in the short-term,
the cost of the test will be
about third of what it is now,
so people at risk of breast
cancer will be able to get 1,000
or 3,000 so there is a direct
effect for patients.
For scientists and industry, I
think that more scientists and
industry are not patenting these
than patenting them because the
reason, you can use these in
your science, and you can now
use these to develop these more
sophisticated tests, that before
you are blocked by the patents.
>> And I was going to ask about
research and study and those
things because it seems like
there are parallel tracts.
You have business on one side
and study on the other and, and
similar impacts or divergent?
>> This mix bag right, because
on the one hand, the patents
give the incentive and the
reward to go forward and develop
this, and spend the money on it,
and if you don't get that
reward, someone else come along
and take that, people are not
going to do that.
On the other hand, once you have
the patent, it's blocking other
people from using that same
invention.
There is this double edged sword
aspect to them and, and what's
important is to get the right
balance of not too much
patenting but not too much.
I think this decision, most
researchers, most companies
think it's probably good
decision.
>> So I have seen critics of the
decision saying it's been slow,
in the development, scientific
breakthroughs by some of these
commercial firms.
Valid?
>> I don't think so, I think
that there will be a bit of that
but, much more on the upside
because now, companies like say
researchers like tgen, here in
town, they took 10 or 20 or
1,000 genes and put them into
test, and the problem before, is
that they were blocked from
doing that because some of these
genes had patents, and more
important is this idea of genome
sequencing, this is a big thing
coming down the line, and there,
you take all 6 billion base
pairs, and sequence them, and if
there is 4,000 of those genes
that have patents you might not
be allowed to disclose that to
the patient.
So, this is, basically, blocking
that innovation, that
21st Century science, is being
blocked by these, these 20th
century patents.
>> They are saying that the
private industry, that has
access to the patents, will
develop something now that they
may not be able to develop, is
opposite by the fact that a lot
of folks can get a hold of that
sequencing?
>> That's one case, and both the
researchers and the patients,
both are saying, will benefit
from getting access to that and
developing more sophisticated,
next generation of genetic
tests.
>> What about synthetic DNA?
>> Patentable, that's the other
part, the synthetic issuing DNA
is possible, and not so much for
human genetics, models and other
research is being done, those
are all the affected by that
decision, as well.
And the idea, that that this
whole idea of synthetic biology,
which is another big thing
coming down the pike where you
create new genes, those are all
going to still be patentable.
>> And applications of
knowledge, of DNA.
>> That's still patentable.
>> Although, there is another
decision in the Supreme Court
year ago, the male versus
prometheus case asking the
question, when you have a not of
a test, is that patentable?
That's where the action is
today, and that's where more
companies are at, and that's --
developing those tests, and
unfortunately, that's really up
in the air, which is the Supreme
Court decision last year so
there is a lot of uncertainty
where these patents are going to
go.
The bottom line, it will be
great for my graduates because
there is going to be more lit
gag for the next ten years.
>> I was going to say, this is a
fascinating thing.
It sounds like everything is
very much in flux.
>> It is, up in the air.
>> And good to have you here.
Thanks for joining us.
>>> And tomorrow, on "Arizona
Horizon," world renowned
physicist Lawrence Krauss joins
us for his science news update,
and Secretary of State Ken
Bennett will talk about the
impact of the voter registration
ruling by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
That's Tuesday evening at 5:30
on "Arizona
Horizon".
That is it for now.
I'm Ted Simons.
Thank you very much for joining
us.
You have a great evening.
>> "Arizona Horizon" is made
possible by contributions from
the friends of eight.
Members of your Arizona PBS
station.
Thank you.
>> Later on 8, H.D.
>> Next time on extraordinary
women.
Wallace Simpson, she suffered
worldwide schooling when King
Edward gave up crown to marry
her.
And when the couple took an ill
advised trip to Germany, Hitler
and the warm welcome sealed
their fate but who was this
divorced socialite?
The surprising story of the most
hated woman of her time.
Wallace Simpson.
On extraordinary women.
on 8, hd.
>> 8, H.D., eight life, an eight
world, this is Arizona PBS.
Supported by viewers like.
Thank you.
>> If you are 60 or over,
consider are a charitable gift
annuity with eight, Arizona PBS.
A charitable gift annuity will
provide with steady stream of
income during your lifetime.
And also, help ensure that eight
is available for future
generations, to find out more
details, call Gary McMan at
>> How do we educate in a
rapidly changing world?
>> How can we create a
sustainable way of life?
>> Allow can we teach peace.
>> Arizona State University.
Rise to the challenges before
us.
>> Coming up on 8, H.D.
An eight life.
An eight world.
>> One tremendous thing about
PBS, is that it makes our, our,
us accessible by putting it on a
platform accessible for free.
We need music and dance and, and
great theater, for our soul, for
joy in our lives.
A lot of people put on PBS and
see something that wakes up that
part of being a human being,
which is enjoying the arts of
other human beings.
So, I'm grateful for PBS, as an
artist and as a viewer.
>> Coming soon to 8, H.D.
>> Next time on nature.
>> The Everglades oasis has been
invaded by giants.
>> We have got another one over
here.
>> Dump by owners and by
accident, it thrives here.
>> 200 snakes.
>> And now an eco-system is in
jeopardy.
Endangered species are
threatened.
>> No matter how big or small.
>> And a battle has begun.
on 8,
H.D.
>> next time on scot and Bailey.
>> Susan looks at somebody
trying to eviscerate her.
>> When Rachel arrests a
murderer, she does not get
praise from the boss.
>> It's the best protection that
she has.
>> Janet opens the cold case to
find a serial killer.
>> Do you think that he's still
alive?
>> No, he's not.
>> And Rachel is not done with
her ex just yet.
>> Ok.
>> God and Bailey.
on 8,
H.D.
>>> Support for 8 comes from
viewers like you and from --
>> Hospice of the valley,
serving diverse patients and
families with quality end of
life care since 1977.
The nonprofit hospice cares for
all.
Regardless of ability to pay.
Hov.org.
>> Ironwood cancer and research
centers, personalized cancer
care, through medical oncology,
radiation, and radiology
services.
Focusing on emotional, physical,
and social support.
Outsupporting cancer one patient
at a time.