Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> Coming up next on "Arizona
Horizon," we'll hear from the
head of the state's elections
department on yesterday's
supreme court ruling striking
down part of an Arizona voter
registration law.
ASU physicist Lawrence Krauss
joins us for our monthly update
of science news.
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 U.S. Supreme Court yesterday
struck down part of an Arizona
voter registration law.
The Court held that Arizona can
require proof of citizenship
when registering to vote using a
state form.
But that same proof of
citizenship is not required when
using a federal form.
Arizona Secretary of State Ken
Bennet,t, the head of elections
for Arizona, is here to discuss
the impact of the ruling.
>> What are your thoughts on
this ruling?
>> We were disappointed the
Supreme Court did not rule
directly that Arizona could do
what we're trying to do.
The more we've read the case,
the more we realize they were
outlining how to resolve the
issue.
Go over to the Federal Voting
Commission and ask them to
outline the requirements that
Arizonans said they wanted to
have implemented, to the state
by state instructions that come
with the federal form.
I think we eventually will get
to where we wanted to be.
But the Supreme Court decided
they weren't going to grant that
relief themselves, they said go
over here.
If they don't give you what you
want, probably you can come on
back.
>> I think a lot of courts
usually want you to exhaust your
administrative remedies before
coming to them and asking them
to finally make an order.
>> Before we get to those -- and
there's another option I don't
think you're quite as excited
about, but we'll talk about that
as well.
Why should Arizona be involved
in federal voting requirements?
>> The states get to decide what
the requirements for becoming a
voter in that state are.
Every state in one form or
another has adopted the voting
requirements.
In Arizona, citizens said back
in 2004 that we want to verify
citizenship when a voter
registers to vote.
You get to the polls, we want to
show I.D. and things like that.
The Constitution allows states
to identify what the
requirements of being an
eligible voter are, age or
whatever it might be, residency
in the state, and in Arizona's
case, proving citizenship.
>> But the courts seem to say,
that's unless the federal
government says this is the way
you register to vote.
>> Then the courts also say,
yes, we allow the states to
decide who gets to vote.
But we have some say in how
federal elections are run.
If candidates for federal office
are on a ballot, the federal
government is going to weigh in
in certain ways, to make sure
those locations are conducted in
accordance with what they
believe are standard minimum
requirements.
And how you conduct the
election, they don't want you to
go beyond what their
requirements are.
Besides who gets to register to
vote -- in fact, they said the
power to establish voting
requirements would be
meaningless unless the states
had the power to enforce those
requirements.
And therefore it would be
unconstitutional.
They said it would be
unconstitutional for the federal
government to tell Arizona
ultimately that we can't have
the ability to verify a person's
citizenship, if that's the law
of our state.
>> But when it comes to federal
elections again, kind of a
different ballgame, with that in
mind there's some thought out
there that the state should go
ahead and enact some kind of
law, if you want to register and
use that federal form, go ahead.
You can only vote in a federal
election.
Is that viable?
>> The counties, I've talked to
them recently, that would set up
a bifurcated set of registered
elections.
If you've registered this other
way and haven't proven
citizenship, you could only
register and vote in the federal
races.
That would be a nightmare, I'm
told by all of the 15 counties,
in trying to keep this
duplicated or bifurcated system
of elections.
So I don't think that's the way
we want to go down.
I think, as the court told us in
the case, they said go down to
the Federal Elections Assistance
Commission, which has existed
for 10 or so years, and ask them
to put this requirement in their
state by state instructions that
they provide.
And then once -- if they do,
then we've got what we wanted.
If they don't, then come back to
us and ask if maybe we need to
force them to do that.
>> Didn't the state previously
ask for this, and the commission
voted 2-2, so nothing changed?
>> We asked back in 1967 for
this requirement to be put in
after Prop 200 was passed.
The commission had two Democrats
on the commission at the time,
two Republicans, they deadlocked
Mr. Goddard chose not to appeal
it.
Essentially what the court said
today, they don't think the
commission can deny that.
I've signed the letter as of
today to send a re-application
back to the EAC.
Even though they don't have any
commission --
>> Who's on the commission?
No one's been approved.
>> During the Obama
administration there have been
no commissioners appointed.
>> I think the confirmation
process is the problem there.
>> I don't think he's even
nominated any commissioners to
fill the seats on this
commission.
However, the State of Louisiana
submitted an application similar
to Arizonans.
They had something in their
voter registration process where
they wanted additional
information from the voter to be
attached to the federal form.
And that got approved just last
year by the acting director of
of this commission, even though
there's no commissioners.
If they have approved for
Louisiana, requiring voters to
provide additional information
to comply with their laws, we
think we have a good chance that
they will do the same for
Arizona.
>> And again, Justice Scalia
basically said, come on back and
try again.
>> Yeah.
>> Which is interesting.
>> Last question here, kind of a
different look at this.
We will continue to look for
ways to ensure only eligible
citizens are casting ballots.
I think that was a quote from
you.
Why is this necessary?
How many incidents have we seen
of noneligible citizens casting
ballots?
>> Well, what we have seen is we
have -- in comparing vote data
with other states, we have found
people voting twice in states,
in the same election.
They are voting in Arizona and
another state at the same time.
We have counties that receive
hundreds of jury questionnaire
forms every month from voters
who say, I'm not a citizen of
the United States, therefore I
don't have to serve on a jury.
But then they take them over to
the voter registration database
and they check the opposite box,
yes, I was a citizen of the
United States when I registered
to vote.
The incidence of illegals voting
might be a few.
But we don't want any.
If we had any policy or
procedure in Arizona that turned
away one legitimate voter,
people would go bananas, as they
should.
Any illegitimate vote cancels
out a legitimate vote, so we
want to make sure that everyone
that votes is legitimate.
>> Real quickly, the critics
will say minorities, elderly,
the students are often those who
have to go an extra yard because
of proof of citizenship and
identification.
You may be denying -- not
necessarily, but de facto
denying their participation.
>> That's why we have
provisional ballots and all
kinds of procedure.
If you show up at the polls and
want to vote, you get to cast a
ballot.
You have so many days to come
back and show that you are who
you are, and that you reside
here as a citizen.
Those are in place.
We don't want illegitimate votes
canceling them out, either.
>> Good to have you here.
>> Thanks.
>>> ASU physicist and
bestselling science writer
Lawrence Krauss appears on
"Arizona Horizon" each month to
discuss the latest science news.
Tonight we touch on black holes,
mass extinction, and apparent
toboggan marks on Mars.
>> Good to see you.
>> It's great to be here in cool
Arizona.
>> Speaking of cool and climate
and stuff --
>> Exactly.
>> -- there's new information
on what 12,000-some-odd years
ago something may have come
close to hittting or hit --
what's this new information?
>> The new information is
studying below the surfaces of
the earth, rocks, and
discovering that rocks melted,
producing what are called these
carbon ferrules that really only
happen during this extreme heat.
A large object hit the Earth or
came close enough to produce
enough heat to melt a lot of
rock.
There were a lot of extinctions
around then, woolly mammoths.
The claim is mainly it wasn't
the impact itself that caused
these extinctions, but the
climate change after it.
When there are large volcanoes
on Earth, the climate changes.
When there's a lot of
particulate matter thrown up in
the atmosphere, that changes the
weather.
The argument is that these
ferrules, seen in four different
continents, would say something
happened to heat up rock enough
to melt it.
Also threw up enough stuff in
the atmosphere, 10 million tons
or some large amount --
>> I think that's what it was --
>> -- that it blocked sunlight
enough that it changed -- first
there was a glacial period, then
it was getting warmer.
Then suddenly for a little while
it got cold for a century or so.
The argument is that material
thrown up in the atmosphere made
it colder and a lot of animals
didn't survive.
>> And the interesting thing is,
people were around then, too.
>> People survived, but the
woolly mammoth shuffled off the
immortal coil.
Why does all that stuff going
into the air mean severe climate
change for a hundred years?
Can't we get rid of that?
Doesn't the wind blow?
>> The circulation time for the
wind to get rid of stuff can be
many years.
The interesting thing is, there
was a recent study in a related
vein which should concern us.
On a totally different vein,
India and Pakistan have both
increased their nuclear
arsenals.
Even a small nuclear war between
India and -- small, 100 nuclear
weapons -- would produce enough
stuff in the atmosphere that for
a decade there would be climate
change.
A billion people would die
because of starvation around the
world.
Especially when the material is
small, and in this case there
was a cold spell for 100 years.
I think the fact that humans
lived through it is a very
interesting thing.
Actually my colleague Curtis
Marion and others have studied a
cave in South Africa where
humans occupied for a thousand
years.
Humans have had to evolve.
We are used to thinking -- in
fact, many people don't even
realize that we're producing
climate change right now.
But independent of humans and
climate change, over a period of
a century there's natural
climate change.
You have to be able to adapt to
it or, like the woolly mammoth,
you're history.
>> We basically have three
options for life: You can
relocate, downsize or die.
>> We must have done one of the
first two.
>> Over human history migrations
have indicated that humans have
in fact adapted very well.
Having a brain that allows you
to plan is really important.
In fact, you know, the chicken
and egg is an interesting
question.
But as fish died in South
Africa,other foods had high
protein, which meant that people
could stay on top of the
changing food environments.
If your entire existence
consists of looking for a
certain type of food, you're
cooked.
Well, in this case you're
frozen.
>> Researchers call this the
last gasp of the last Ice Age.
What is the normal Earth
temperature?
Or is there a normal Earth
temperature?
>> It varies over geological
time.
There are well-known cycles,
Milanovich cycles, over periods
of thousands of years.
It can happen over centuries
with small variations.
The earth changes over time.
Over millennia you can have
periodic changes in temperature.
That's not what's happening
right now.
The change happening right now
is happening over decades,
exactly correlated to carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere.
People say it's a natural
phenomenon.
It is true there are natural
cycles.
But other factors which we are
only now studying.
They happen over longer times.
There was an Ice Age well before
this 13,000 years that started
to warm up over a period of
several thousand years.
Then there was this blip where
things got cold again for a
century or so.
That's where certain animals
weren't able to adapt.
If things change for a long
time, you have a lot longer for
things adapt.
If there's a sudden change, in a
period that's short compared to
biological time, then species
can't evolve and natural
selection doesn't play an active
role, and you see a lot of
extinctions.
We're seeing those now that far
exceed those of that time.
Human industrial activities that
produced a bigger mass
extinction than that did.
>> Are there lessons that we can
apply today?
>> We're going to have to adapt.
We're already seeing it, in New
York Mayor Bloomberg talks about
new plans to protect New York
against new storms.
It's going to happen, the sea
level rises,the storms get
stronger.
There's no doubt that climate
change is not going to wipe out
humans.
But we have to adapt because --
and in a complex society where
small events can produce vast
economic changes, we have to be
prepared for these things.
So we may not have a commentary
or we may, but we are doing a
pretty good job on our own.
>>> We have apparently tracks on
sand dunes on Mars.
>> It's surfers, sand surfers.
>> They look like toboggan marks
on Mars.
It's one of the many things
people think is showing life.
You see these marks and you
wonder, are they streams of
water.
Water is the thing we're looking
for on Mars, because where
there's liquid water,
generically there seems to be
life.
These toboggan runs sort of go
down and suddenly stop with a
little indent.
New studies have shown that it's
probably dry ice, frozen carbon
dioxide, that basically surged
down the sand dunes.
You've played with dry ice.
It's a carbon dioxide, it
freezes and goes directly to a
gas form to a solid form,
something called sublimation.
It doesn't go through a liquid
form at 110 degrees below
Fahrenheit.
You can get the stuff and,
because it goes from solid to
gas form, you put it on a
surface and as it starts to
sublimate, it basically creates
a cushion, just like those air
hockey tables.
You have a small block of carbon
dioxide, it creates a little air
hockey table below it.
Those patterns seem to be
evidence of carbon dioxide.
It tells you there's probably
dry ice melting on the surface
of Mars.
Unfortunately, it also means
that many of these surfer
patterns are not due to toboggan
runs, which is important if we
want to know about life.
>> There are some patterns on
Mars that look like they were
due to liquid.
These aren't.
>> We all want there to be water
on Mars.
We have to be honest, and if
these things aren't water, it
reduces one possibility.
It would be great to look, see
if conditions are there.
We'll take what nature gives you
and try and figure it out.
>> I think would it be great to
find air hockey on Mars.
>> Yeah.
>> Goodness gracious.
>> They think they have solved
it.
>> It looks just like dry ice.
>> I was thinking we should have
brought some dry ice and played
some air hockey.
>>> We talk about black holes a
lot.
Seems like some scientists are
making a big deal.
26 new black holes found in the
Andromeda galaxy.
Black holes are fascinating.
There are big questions about
how and when they form and how
they are related to the galaxies
themselves.
Pretty well every galaxy we know
of appears to have a large black
hole at its center.
There's a million solar mass
black holes, or what appears to
be a million solar mass black
hole in the center of our
galaxy.
We refer to them by -- they move
around in this area where
there's something, and we find
out it's a million solar masses,
but it's so small that our
physics calculations tell us it
must be -- that light can't
escape from it.
There will be black holes in
many different sizes.
When they die, they collapse
into what's called a neutron
star.
One idea, a nucleus, say, of an
atom.
At that point it stops and
produces a supernova explosion.
If the star is massive enough,
we can calculate it won't stop
there, it'll keep collapsing --
whether there are solar mass or
10 solar mass black holes.
You can look for them by
watching material fall into
them.
And because material falls into
a neutron star, it achieves a
certain type of midstream
calculations.
It gets near the speed of light
and emits what are called hard
X-rays more efficiently.
Astronomers can try and look at
the X-ray emissions.
They are called black holes.
It's one way to say that maybe
there are a lot more black holes
in our galaxy than we thought.
>> The way they were found is
the exciting part of the story.
>> Yeah, a lot of it depends on
the theory, because you have to
try and model what happens to
gas if it falls into a black
hole.
>> I always try to ask about a
black hole.
It boggles my mind.
>> I once asked what's behind
the black hole, I don't know if
it's a good question or not.
Here's another one.
Is a black hole forever?
Does that part of it stay if it
does not exist?
>> It's a region separated from
all the rest of the universe,
because nothing can get out of
it.
Some are more exotic than
others, they are fascinating to
think about being that dense.
They would be forever except for
something discovered by Steven
Hawking, who discovered that --
not that diamonds aren't
forever, but black holes aren't
forever.
Even though classically nothing
can get out of a black hole.
When you apply mechanics,
basically material will heat and
get hotter and hotter and
hotter.
>> If Steven's right, everyone
-- a solar black hole will exist
for trillions and trillions of
years.
A smaller one evaporates in a
minute or so.
>> In some galaxy we may find a
billion solar mass black holes,
or 10 billion solar mass black
holes.
That's almost the mass of a
galaxy.
That much material has fallen in
and is inside.
What happens at the very last
stages?
>> We don't know.
Black hole physics is at the
forefront of our study of nature
right now.
>> The whole universe could be a
black hole.
If there's enough matter to
cause the universe to
recollapse, we would be living
inside of a black hole.
>> Lawrence, let's talk about
time next month.
>> Thanks for being here.
Wednesday on "Arizona Horizon,"
we'll have our final legislative
round of 2013 with the
roundtable reporters from the
"Arizona Capitol Times."
And the monsoon officially
started a few days ago.
An USA climatologist will
preview the summer storm season.
and 10:00 on the
next "Arizona Horizon."
That's it for now, I'm Ted
Simons.
Thank you for joining us, you
have a great evening.
Captioning Performed By
LNS Captioning
www.LNScaptioning.com