Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> Coming up next on "Arizona
Horizon's" journalists'
roundtable, the Supreme Court
rules on Arizona's voter
registration law, and two
same-sex marriage cases.
And the U.S. senate passes
comprehensive immigration
reform.
Those stories and more next on
the journalists' roundtable.
>> "Arizona Horizon" is made
possible by contributions from
the friends of 8, 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: Alia
Beard Rau of "The Arizona
Republic," Howard Fischer of
capitol media services, and
Mark Brodie from KJZZ radio.
Quite the week at the Supreme
Court as a number of landmark
decisions were handed down.
Let's start with the defense of
marriage act.
What was the court looking at,
what did they decide?
>> The court was looking at the
portion of the act that
basically defines marriage as
between a man and a woman only
as it pertains to federal law.
Social Security, taxes, any
sort of federal benefit, I
think there's about 1,100,
1,300 of them.
>> Was this decision a
surprise?
>> I don't think so.
The general population, I mean
there was a lot of excitement,
a lot of response but it seemed
like the lawyers seemed to
think this was expected.
>> The basis was curiously
enough states' rights.
What justice Kennedy said was
we depend on the states to
define who can get married,
some states first cousins can
get married.
We allow the states to do that.
Having allowed the couples of
the same sex to marry in
California now, obviously, with
prop 8 and New York, anywhere
else, then the federal
government frustrates that by
saying, except for federal
benefits, the inheritance tax,
filing jointly and all that and
they said you cannot have the
federal government usurping the
inherent power of the states.
>> And as far as Arizona,
same-sex couples in Arizona,
what impact?
>> Not much.
There's some question about
folks who are on military
bases, there's some immigration
related green card type
benefits that could be changing
for folks here in Arizona but
the state Constitution says
marriage is a union between one
man and one woman, so if gay
marriage, same-sex marriage is
not really much of an issue
here, at least not right now.
>> And the important part is
that it even says if you are
legally gay married in New York
and you move here.
New York you can file joint
returns.
Here you cannot because Arizona
does not recognize your
marriage.
So there's a whole set of new
lawsuits I think coming because
of the fact that you now have
unequal treatment, this
treatment in New York and you
move to Arizona and you get a
different treatment because of
Arizona's recognitions.
>> It seems like an invitation
for lawsuits.
>> The Supreme Court did not
say that gay marriage is legal
nationwide or the Constitution
says you should have gay
marriage, you should allow gay
marriage.
So basically, it seems to set
it up for a couple in Arizona
who attempt to get married and
then file a federal lawsuit
saying well so and so in
California can do it, I can't,
let's go to the Supreme Court
and get them to make the
decision as to whether same-sex
marriage needs to be a
constitutional right.
>> There's one other little
point in there.
Scalia's point was they they
could have used the California
prop 8 case.
But doma have two applicable
sections.
The one that was overturned
deals with the federal
benefits.
There was another section that
says states do not need to give
full faith and credit to the
marriages of another state.
Now, this has got a
constitutional problem, too,
because in general if I enter
into a contract in New York,
that contract is presumed valid
here, except for that and I see
another challenge coming to
that section of the defense of
marriage act that says whether
Arizona wants to allow people
to marry here is one thing.
But if I am legally married in
New York, I get to stay legally
married here.
>> And the issue with the
defense of marriage case was
not it's not fair that same-sex
partners can't be married
across the country.
It's a woman whose spouse died
and had to pay a lot of money
in taxes, that she wouldn't
have had to pay had the federal
government recognized legal
marriages, and the prop 8 case,
it wasn't, you know, prop 8 is
unconstitutional, it's the
people challenging the lawyer
court ruling didn't have
standing.
So the justices really didn't
say one way or the other yes,
same-sex marriage bans are
unconstitutional or same-sex
marriages have to be allowed
everywhere.
The prop 8 case was almost more
of a technicality.
>> Prop 8 case I think was a
technicality was in the sense
that correct me if I'm wrong,
the court said if the state's
not going to defend a trial
court decision, a bunch of
citizens can't do it for the
state.
>> Exactly, the state refused
to defend proposition 8, which
basically defined marriage as
only between a man and a woman.
And so the state wouldn't do
it.
This group that actually pushed
the proposition decided they
were going to be the defendants
and the Supreme Court said, no,
we don't recognize you as legal
defendants.
>> And so back to the trial
court decision, it stands.
>> In fact, I heard on the way
in this afternoon that the
clerks, the ninth circuit
lifted the stay and they are
issuing marriage licenses again
in California.
There was one other interesting
case dealing with gay rights
that came out of the courts
that does involve Arizona.
You may remember back in 2008,
Janet Napolitano had the rules
redefined for the benefits for
state employees to include the
domestic partners of employees,
gay and straight.
The legislature came in in 2009
after Janet high tailed it off
to Washington to play with the
Obama administration and said
no, no domestic partner
benefits.
They said the straight
employees have an option, they
can get married.
And both the district court and
the ninth circuit said no,
that's discrimination and this
week, the U.S. Supreme Court
said we are not going to
disturb that, left the
injunction in place against
Arizona cutting off those
benefits.
There are close to 300 state
employees who are involved.
>> This argument was the state
saying you have the option to
get -- you can't have these
benefits because you're not
married, and, by the way, you
can't get married.
>> And the other thing to keep
in mind is that there's a group
that is working to put the
issue of same-sex marriage back
on the ballot in next November
that would change the state
constitution.
A few years ago, Arizona voters
amended the Constitution to
specifically define marriage as
a union between one man and one
woman.
This initiative would change
the Constitution to say it's a
union between two persons,
which is a great broadcast
word, persons.
But it would basically allow
for same-sex marriage and
Saturday morning, they're going
to have their big kickoff for
gathering petitions and they
have to get 250 some odd
thousand signatures by
basically next year at this
time.
So it will be interesting to
see A., if they can get that on
the ballot and B. if emotions
and sentiments have changed in
Arizona that votards, how
voters would vote on that.
>> And that's going to be
interesting to see the measure
in 2008 passed by like 56-44.
Since then, we have 13 states
that have legalized it, and
it's sort of like medical
marijuana where people have
said well other states,
horrible things have not
happened in the states where
gays are allowed to marry and
you're finding more and more
people who say well, I know a
gay person, and the attitudes
may have changed sufficiently
to allow this to pass.
>> I want to get to this
regarding the reaction to these
Supreme Court rulings and and
even the one regarding Arizona,
which is basically we're not
messing with this, leave it
alone.
What are you hearing from both
sides and who's galvanized more
by these rulings?
>> The folks supporting
same-sex marriage are
galvanized.
It was really interesting this
week.
We saw with the voting rights
act, we saw both sides come
out.
Supporters, opponents, very
party line come out.
With the defense of marriage
and the proposition 8 case, the
supporters came out, the state
lawmakers supporting the ruling
came out but the state
lawmakers who consistently have
supported the traditional
definition of marriage, there
was nothing.
There was no press releases,
there was no press conferences.
It was interestingly quiet from
them.
>> Why do you think that was?
>> I think -- I'll give you the
best clue, which is the center
for Arizona policy.
They put out a release saying
this was sort of a victory for
us because the courts could
have used prop 8 to declare gay
marriage legal.
So she's saying look it was a
victory, at least in that
sense.
We're disappointed on the doma
case but it doesn't change
Arizona law which the property
8 case could have.
>> And yet when you have to
send out a press release to
explain why you won, it's kind
of a rough victory there isn't
it?
>> Perhaps.
And, you know, the line was
something you should know the
court has not ruled that
there's a constitutional right
to same-sex marriage.
It didn't trump Arizona's --
the will of Arizona voters who
decided that marriage should be
between one man and one woman.
So and she also said in that
same e-mail that her
organization and presumably
others will fight to keep the
status quo as far as marriage
in Arizona.
So if this measure gets on the
ballot for next year, you can
expect her group and probably
others to be fighting it.
>> What does it do to the
ballot next year if this issue
is -- and marijuana will likely
be on --
>> Perhaps even Medicaid.
>> We don't know about that.
Again, who does it galvanize?
Who benefits, who loses?
>> I think the pro folks may be
galvanized.
Several people said wait until
2016, that's what gets the
young people out, and the young
people in polls seem to
generally support same-sex
marriage.
So 2014's a little bit iffy
because we don't have a
presidential election.
>> Are you suggesting fred
duval versus Al Melvin as
governor is not going to bring
people out?
[ Laughter ]
>> More conservative voters.
That could hurt them, I don't
know.
>> There you go.
If this issue is on the ballot,
what does it do to everything
else on the ballot?
It could be a very interesting
ballot.
>> I think it moves the needle,
I think it moves the needle a
little bit to the left.
I think that if you get enough
issues there of individual
rights, let's take a look at
marijuana, for example, which
also brings out the
libertarians who may have some
changes in the law, you bring
out the libertarians who tend
to be marijuana, for gay
marriage, individual rights.
>> Not for Medicaid expansion.
>> Not for Medicaid expansion.
I have a feeling that may end
up in court and we may not be
seeing that in the ballot.
I think it does bring out a lot
of people who believe in
individual rights and that the
conservatives -- there are
always folks, I like to call
them the sun city folks,
they're going to turn out
anyway.
This may galvanize people who
might not come out, either.
>> Do the sun city voters, who
may have been a son or daughter
that are gay, are they going to
be again -- do we know how
they're going to vote?
>> I think that's probably the
big question.
Especially on some of these
social issues that touch
people's lives individually as
opposed to sort of the
hypothetical of well whether or
not you support same-sex
marriage versus, you know, I
know somebody or my grandson or
granddaughter can't get
married, that's going to be the
big question with an issue like
same-sex marriage.
>> And money is going to be an
issue.
Cathy herod said it's going to
be a fight and probably the
defining factor may be money,
how much money can each side
raise, you need a lot of money
to do advertising.
>> Are you going to get a lot
of money, though, and
regardless of where you stand
on the issue, it sure seems
like the tidal wave is moving
in one direction.
Does the money want to fight
that wave?
>> I think there are always
groups that want to fight and,
you know, it's easy for us to
throw out names, the Koch
brothers, writing out a
$250,000 check is pocket change
for them.
If they're interested in the
issue, they can do that.
There is money on both sides
but who's willing to write out
the checks, who's willing to
fund this and if we become a
national focus, particularly if
Medicaid is on thible -- the
ballot, we do become the
national focus.
>> If there is a tidal wave,
folks who want to stop that
tidal wave might feel here's
our chance, we need to make a
stand here.
>> Well, speaking of a stand,
the United States Senate passed
immigration reform.
Again, this is just the Senate
passing reform.
Now, you go to the house, a
whole different ballgame there.
What did the Senate do?
>> They created a package that
makes everybody a little bit
unhappy.
It's basically the way of
talking about it.
They've created a path to
citizenship.
They have created a system
designed to give more workers
for agriculture, they've
created a system that's
designed to provide more border
security.
I think the last count was
20,000 more border patrol
officers which doubles what we
have here now.
And designed to create a system
where certain people go to the
back of the line, certain
people come to the front of the
line but the real key is it
provides a path for citizenship
and if you've got 11 million
people living in the shadows,
the argument is it you want to
know who's here and that's a
powerful argument.
You add in the security, which
the governor last weekend said
she's in favor of the security
part of it.
>> What exactly did she say?
>> It was one of those things
where she was talking about the
specific amendments on the
security and John McCain and
Jeff flake heard about it and
put out notices and tweets
saying look, jan brewer's in
favor of our proposal which
forced her to come back and say
no, I didn't say that.
She was talking about the
security amendment and she's
withholding judgment on the
rest of it.
>> The congressional budget
office comes back and says this
will save untold numbers of
dollars and the senators will
get some more votes.
>> And chuck schumer made that
a point, saying basically this
bill does a better job of
reducing the deficit than
deficit reduction bills and
that was a way to get some more
deficit hawks on the Republican
side joining the pro side of
the immigration bill.
>> Of course, the tricky part
is some of the assumptions in
there is these people are going
to start paying taxes.
You're making an assumption
that a lot of these people
aren't paying taxes now with
fake Social Security numbers
and somehow all of a sudden
this new revenue is going to
come in.
>> The roll of John McCain
and John flake in this
particular legislation, pretty
big.
>> Tremendous.
Especially flake, very
conservative.
He's kind of pulling some of
that conservative side, making
people think about the issue in
a different way as opposed to
being just a democratic
immigration dreamers kind of an
issue.
>> Are Republicans thinking
about this issue in a different
way?
>> I think some of them are.
I think John McCain has said
and other Republicans have said
we're in a lot of trouble if we
don't do something on this
issue come 2014 and 2016.
I think some Republicans are
thinking about this differently
but when you look at the house,
there's a lot more talk about
enforcement first, border
security first and no path to
citizenship for folks who are
here illegally now.
>> But it sounds like in the
Senate at least the concept of
30 some odd billions of dollars
for just security, untold
numbers of billions of dollars
just for building the fence and
getting that, that is over a
10-year span by the way, which
would coincide with getting
that permanent resident card,
you've got to go through the
motion and show the
measurements, it sounds like
what else do you want?
>> I think that's the big
question.
I think there's some in the
house who want more enforcement
and less path to citizenship.
>> Or no path.
>> No path.
>> You also have another
interesting question.
Curiously enough, joe arpaio
iPad up and said you will
never secure the border, no
matter how much you throw down
there.
There's always people who can
find their way across and to
the extent that you have that
as a belief of some
Republicans, we might as well
spend on the money on
enforcement, it's not like
we're going to make a
difference.
This is going to be a
fascinating argument in the
house, which has always been
much more conservative on the
issue, the Republicans control
the place.
And you've got a lot of
freshmen there who are very set
in their ways.
>> Okay back to actions have
consequences.
If the house goes ahead and
just tramples all over this or
does something that is
perceived as negating the whole
thing, impact on elections?
>> Obviously, each side will
put out press releases blaming
the other.
Sort of like the press release
we saw today on the student
loan rates and the democrats
will say but for the
Republicans, and the Senate
Republicans will say, no, we
had a plan and we understand
our house colleagues and
they'll blame each other.
To the extent that you have
Latinos who actually are
getting registered and voting
and that's always been iffy,
we've talked about that how
many years at this table, it
does make a difference because
as much as the Latino community
says wait a second you promised
us this would occur, I think
they may look and say do we
really want to leave the house
in Republican hands?
>> Cope in -- keep in mind with
house seats, a lot of the
districts are safe for one
party or another.
It's almost like you're
entirely preaching to the choir
when you go back to the
district and there's no danger
of ticking off your
constituents by taking a hard
line stance because these
districts either on the right
or on the left are so
entrenched that it's just a
matter of sort of degrees of
either to the left or to the
right of someone getting
elected.
>> But that's where leadership
comes into play doesn't it?
>> Up to a point but I think
mark's point is valid.
Trent franks is not going to
get ousted by voters in sun
city west because of his
position on immigration.
The thing is it's those kind of
split districts which are
occupied right now by
democrats, the ron barbers of
the world and the Anne kirk
Patricks.
>> Let's get to state lawmakers
in trouble.
Let's start with don schuder.
Misdemeanors here, what's going
on here?
>> There are three misdemeanors
and this goes back I think a
couple of months where he went
into his grandson's charter
school, later said he had some
concerns that his grandson was
not being treated well at
school and went in to talk to
the teacher, kind of went past
some office staff and went
directly to the teacher in the
classroom and they ended up
calling law enforcement.
So yeah, three misdemeanors.
>> And it sounded like P.D.
wanted more.
>> They had ask for an assault
charge, which would have made
it a felony.
They ended up with a disorderly
conduct, trespass and
interfering with an educational
institution, none of which are
serious, class one and class
two misdemeanors but it's still
a crime and it still makes
people say what was he doing
there in the first place?
I think he's conceded well
maybe in hindsight, this wasn't
the way to go.
>> We're getting a little bit
of that are we?
>> He should have done things
differently, maybe he came
across in a way he didn't
realize he came away, that's
kind of --
>> Always comes across the way
he didn't intend.
>> Does this lead to ethics
investigations next?
It didn't happen the past
session.
>> Who knows?
It's been a little while since
we've had a meeting of the
ethics committee.
I don't know if this rises to
the level, and even if somebody
files a complaint, you're going
to go through the same thing
that we've seen before, where
the person filing the complaint
has to have had personal
acknowledge of the issue, the
ethical misconduct, and other
than reading about it or
hearing about it through a
media outlet or from someone
else they know.
No one else in the legislature
was in this classroom, no one
else saw what happened.
So maybe somebody files a
complaint, maybe they don't.
Even if they do, I think it's
questionable as to whether or
not there's a hearing.
>> There is video.
>> There's that and the fact is
that the Scotty bundgaard
situation, you didn't have all
the lawmakers seeing it.
A lot of it kind of depends on
I think the bundgaard situation
and even the dan patterson
situation left a lot of
feelings see this causes a lot
of heartburn.
In the end both of them quit
and solved the problem that
they would have otherwise had.
>> But I don't think it's meant
to be Tums here, it's supposed
to cause heartburn.
>> It's not a good thing.
You have to decide is this
simply a question of lawmakers
are held to a higher standard
than other grandparents?
Was it done in his role as a
lawmaker if he saw I'm a state
senator, you may have crossed
the line.
>> Real quickly before we go,
rick Murphy, just astonishing
but again, an investigation
here.
Let's talk about what Peoria
P.D., what are they
investigating?
>> Both of them are
investigating allegations that
he molested one of the
children, foster kids and
adopted kids and I'm not sure
if he has biological children
as well but molested one of the
children in his house.
>> And again --
>> This is also tricky and
always sensitive to this kind
of stuff because it's the
investigative stage but look,
there's plenty of reasons to
criticize rick Murphy for his
actions.
Here's a guy who's a foster
parent, been involved with cps,
sponsoring legislation dealing
with cps and foster parents,
which is not illegal, perhaps
inappropriate.
I'm always hesitant,
particularly when dealing with
these kinds of situations where
any kid who is unhappy with a
parent can raise an allegation.
I'm not saying he is or is not
guilty.
We just got to be very careful
on this kind of thing until
things shake out.
There was an earlier
investigation which proved was
not borne out.
What does this mean?
We're going to find out.
>> We should emphasize not
arrested or charged in either
case, the one you mentioned
prior or this particular one.
But no comment from rick Murphy
on this, either.
>> Correct, he issued a very
short statement basically
saying that he and his family
weren't commenting.
>> We will keep an eye on that
one.
Good to have you all here.
Thanks for joining us.
>>> Monday on "Arizona
Horizon," we'll have more on
this week's Supreme Court
rulings as ASU law professor
Paul Bender reviews the high
court's session.
And we'll learn about a
Scottsdale organization that
collects excess food to feed
the hungry.
And 10:00, on "Arizona Horizon."
Tuesday, we'll hear how new
laws passed this legislative
session will impact Arizona
cities and towns.
Wednesday, we'll check out a
study on the safety of
voice-activated technology in
cars.
Thursday, we take a look at
Phoenix sky train art projects
at sky harbor.
And Friday, we'll have a
special technology and
innovation edition of "Arizona
Horizon."
That is it for now.
I am Ted Simons, thank you so
much for joining us.
You have a great weekend.
>> If you have comments about
"Arizona Horizon," please
contact us at one of the
addresses on your screen.
Your comments may be used on a
future edition of "Arizona
Horizon."
Thank you.
>>> "Arizona Horizon" is made
possible by contributions from
the friends of 8, members of
your Arizona PBS station.
Thank you.
>>> Support for 8 comes from
viewers like you, and from...
>> Best dental care A.Z.
identifies selected dental
offices in the Phoenix metro
area, providing services from
basic cleanings and fillings to
advanced cosmetic procedures.
More information at
BestDentalCareAZ.com.
>>> Whitfill Nursery, proud to
support 8 Arizona PBS.
A valley tradition since 1946.
Over 200 acres of Arizona-grown
trees, citrus and palms,
complete custom design and
installation and Whitfill
Nursery still does the digging.
>>> Later on 8 H.D.
>> Freedom, independence and
the 4th of July.
From a grand dinner at
Jefferson's mansion, to a
celebration with actress and
playwright anna smith.
A fun-filled day with actor and
comedian alec mappa.
Come with me as we celebrate
America.
on 8 H.D.
>>> 8 H.D., 8 life, and
8 world, this is Arizona PBS,
supported by viewers like you.
Thank you.
>>> Throughout its history,
Arizona PBS and its volunteers
have enjoyed a rich and
rewarding partnership.
Whether stuffing envelopes or
assisting with special events,
volunteering at 8 is fun and
provides excellent work
experience, team building for a
group and a sense of
involvement and importance.
If you would like to volunteer
at 8 or if you have dropped off
our mailing list, we encourage
you to call the number on your
screen or go online at
azpbs.org/volunteer.
Thank you.
>>> Coming up on 8 H.D.,
8 life, and 8 world.
>> One tremendous thing about
PBS is that it makes art
accessible by put iting it on a
platform where millions of
people can access it for free
and we need it, we need music,
we need dance, we need great
theater for our souls, but a
lot of people flip on PBS and
hear or see something that
wakes up that integral 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 a
viewer.
>>> Coming soon...
>> Join me, tom Bergeron as the
stars come out to dance, sing
and celebrate at America's
biggest birthday party, a
capital 4th.
With Barry manilow, Scotty
McCreery, John Williams, and
the greatest fireworks display
anywhere in the USA, live from
the U.S. capitol, it's the
capitol 4th.
on 8
H.D.
>>> Support for 8 comes from
viewers like you, and from...
>> Ironwood Cancer & Research
Centers, personalized cancer
care, through medical oncology,
radiation and radiology
services, focusing on
emotional, physical and social
support.
Outsmarting cancer, one patient
at a time.
>>> Hospice of the valley,
serving diverse patients and
families with quality end of
life care since 1977.
The not for profit hospice
cares for all, regardless of
ability to pay.
Hov.org.
>>> The Virginia G. piper
center for creative writing
presents the piper writer's
studio, offering classes for
writeurs of all levels, taught
by experienced writers and
teachers, in person and online
courses are available,
asu.edu/piper.