Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> Coming up next on "Arizona
Horizon's" "Journalists'
Roundtable," we'll talk about
the latest on the efforts to
expand the state's Medicaid
program.
Attorney general Tom Horne says
he's ready to sue the City of
Bisbee over its civil unions
ordinance.
And the Arizona Department of
Veterans Services director
isasking the governor for his
job back.
Those stories and more next on
the "Journalists' Roundtable."
Where are "Arizona Horizon" is
mate possible by contributions
from the Friends of Eight,
members of your Arizona PBS
station.
Thank you.
>>> Good evening, and welcome to
"Arizona Horizon's"
"Journalists' Roundtable," I'm
Ted Simons.
Joining me tonight are Mary Jo
Pitzl of "The Arizona Republic,"
Howard Fischer of "Capitol Media
Services," and Ben Giles of the
"Arizona Capitol Times."
Medicaid expansion remains a
major topic at the Capitol.
Mary Jo, now some counties are
getting in on it.
>> It's part of the continuing
campaign for the governor and
her supporters to get the
legislature to vote for Medicaid
expansion.
Every week there's a new level
of support that rolls out and
this week it's a couple of
counties in northern Arizona.
Interestingly, a lot of those
counties encompass district
speaker Andy Tobin's district.
He's going to be a key player
because he'll eventually have to
bring it up for a vote.
>> A majority, if not completely
Republican.
>> County Board of Supervisors,
I'm sorry.
>> Yes.
>> And I think Andy Tobin could
be talked into this.
He says, I need to be able to
give my caucus something.
Now, some of that can come from
external forces like the board
of supervisors.
But they want changes, they want
some guarantees that the circuit
breaker will work, that we will
step away.
There's a new issue that's come
up about abortion, saying you
can't fund family planning
because that money goes to
Planned Parenthood, and they
might use to it fund abortions.
There's a lot of changes Andy
wants, to make it acceptable to
his caucus.
>> And the fight that will
inevitably crop up about whether
the assessment levied on the
hospital would require a tax, a
two thirds vote.
That battle will come, we just
don't know when.
>> With a back to the external
forces.
The rank and -- we know what's
happening with Republican Party
headquarters and precincts and
these sorts of things.
But boards of supervisors?
Impact there?
>> I don't know how much of an
impact it'll have.
I feel like the Tobins and Biggs
of the world have to work it out
that way.
Biggs has said for the first
time, more specifically, he's
willing to bring it to the
floor, but he's reiterated he
wants a majority of his caucus
to be comfortable with it.
Maybe a little outside influence
will be able to help members of
his caucus slowly creep towards
the Governor's side.
But if he's to be believed,
things haven't changed much
since the session started.
>> In other words, if you have a
Don shooter and a Yuma
supervisor saying, okay, we need
this, Don can come back and say
we need this.
We're funding mental health care
right now out of the county
budget, that we could
essentially have the state,
federal government pay for, and
then provide other services.
>> A lot of this is at this
point trying to provide cover
for Republican lawmakers who are
hesitant for whatever reason
about voting for Medicaid.
Maybe they like the idea, but
they are a little nervous or
very nervous about how that will
play out at the polls.
Or maybe they don't like the
idea, but they are going to be
convinced to vote for the
expansion.
You get local officials and
grass roots to say they support
you, by getting a lot of
Republicans, so you all jump off
that cliff together.
>> The other cover needed, the
business community, the
chambers, the hospitals have
been out there saying we support
you.
What the business community
hasn't quite said, and I think
some of those people are waiting
for us, if I get a primary
challenge are you going to
provide the $30,000 that I need.
Nobody's going to make that
promise, at least not in front
of us.
But that's what these folks are
scared of.
They have watched the Tea Party
folks within their own districts
start to take over and do these
challenges and bump off
incumbents.
>> It's interesting to watch the
campaign here.
The Governor is making this
pro-life.
I'm a pro-life governor and this
is pro-life.
>> Sheila Polk says this is a
law and order issue.
We need some help.
>> Well, it's many, many
arguments, whatever you can
bring to the table to help sell
it.
I think she's got a point.
Some of the most egregious
shootings in the country have
been traced back to people who
have mental health issues.
If they can get access to care,
maybe this Tucson shooting
wouldn't have happened.
Maybe the Colorado shooting
wouldn't have happened at the
movie theater.
>> There's a lot of money coming
in.
The state's cost, $240 million,
to be pay paid for by this
assessment on hospitals, it's
going to bring 300,000 people
into the program.
That's very powerful for people
like Sheila Polk, who say people
are falling through the cracks.
>> Quickly Ben, you mentioned
the Senate President said he
would be willing to get this out
there, I guess.
Now, that's the stand-alone
vote, correct?
He sees this as not necessarily
needing the two thirds, the
whole nine yards?
>> He hasn't seen that yet.
I think he sees it as needing a
two thirds majority vote and
he'll be on the front lines of
that fight to get it through.
Him saying "I'll allow a vote"
doesn't mean he wants to see it
get out of his chamber.
It's a recognition this is the
biggest priority for the
governor.
For a lot of ways, it's the
biggest issue the Republican
Party will face this year.
He can't just avoid it.
Politically it wouldn't be a
good maneuver for him as
president to try and squash
this.
>> The math works out that way
either way.
If you need nine Republicans to
get it out of caucus, and
assuming that the majority of
the 13 Democrats who go along,
you've got your two thirds, same
thing in the House.
If not, the rules of Andy Tobin
and Andy Biggs are I want half
my caucus, you'll have your two
thirds, this will be avoided as
a discussion.
>> Any indication the Democrats
will play a little football
here?
>> From the beginning, they have
said we are for Medicaid
expansion.
We're not going to play games
with it.
Now you're starting to hear
these little footnotes, we're
not going to give away the
store.
We're not going to vote or it at
the cost of steep tax cuts or,
you know, deep reductions to
education or doing some kind of
program they don't approve of.
There are some caveats on it.
For the most part it's I think
still safely assumed that the
Democrats are going to be a vote
for Medicaid expansion.
>> The way the Governor
structured this, the money
that's coming in, actually the
assessment on hospitals not only
pays for the match, but also
brings in some additional money
that helps pay for other costs
which supposedly frees up money.
The Democrats are seeing that as
the opportunity to say, okay,
now we've got money.
>>> Let's move on to Bisbee,
Arizona, a wonderful little
town, beautiful, hilly.
>> It's a wonderful town, you
know?
>> And yet they vote for civil
unions for gay couples.
Talk to us about this.
This is just within the city
boundaries?
>> The ordinance was approved on
a 5-2 vote earlier this week by
the Bisbee Council who says we
will recognize civil unions
within the limits of city
authority and within city
boundaries.
I don't know what Bisbee's
geographic spread is.
>> Actually it's sort of funny.
That community has always been
split into three different
factions down there.
The issue comes up because
several Arizona cities.
including Phoenix. have what
they call domestic partner
registries.
In Phoenix you can register as a
domestic partner and you will
get hospital visitation due to
spouses.
What sort of drove this as an
issue is Bisbee said, and we're
going to say inheritance laws
apply as if you were married.
Now, look, the fact is Bisbee
doesn't have the authority to
tell the Cochise County Supreme
Court judge how to apply probate
laws.
It's a nullity.
Tom Horne said, look at me, I'm
here defending the family.
He wants a declaratory judgment
to have the law declared invalid
even before anybody tries to
enforce it.
>> I think he said three
southern Arizona lawyers came to
him and said, do something about
this.
Is that correct?
>> The three lawmakers said,
you've got to stop this.
>> They said they were doing
that because they heard from
their constituents presumably in
Bisbee --
>> I'm not sure that a Bisbee
constituent said that.
>> How wise is this for Horne to
take on?
>> Well, anything that diverts
attention from having bumped
into an expensive car is
probably a good deal.
I don't know that this is a
brilliant thing for him to take
on.
The fact is, first of all, I
don't know that a judge will
take this.
Generally courts like a real
controversy.
In other words, somebody goes
in, I'm a domestic partner, I
should be entitled to this
benefit, the will, the probate.
Can we apply the law.
He's asking on a purely academic
level for a judge to decide this
law is unenforceable.
He's setting himself up to be
rejected.
>> I was kind of curious about
that.
Was it wise for the governor's
office to be involved with this
sequestration with the veterans?
Veterans services director
resigns next day, says I want my
job back, I was forced out.
Governor's office says no.
>> No way.
It's her agency, she's the chief
executive of the state.
The directors of state agencies
serve at the pleasure of the
governor.
What happened here is that Joey
Strickland, the director of the
veterans department, hired a
former state lawmaker Terry
Proud, a former female lawmaker
from Tucson.
And Proud has a penchant for
sometimes putting her foot in
her mouth, and she did that with
an interview where she said she
doesn't believe women should
serve on the front lines because
they have menstrual cycles.
Proud quickly denied it, but it
caught the Governor's office's
ear.
We told Mr. Strickland a year
ago not to hire her because she
was going to take a job with an
agency.
You can't do that.
So Strickland apparently
interpreted that to mean, I
can't hire her while she's a
lawmaker.
But she's been out of office
since mid January and he hired
her.
When they got word of that,
especially after her comment
about women on the front lines,
they said we're done, both of
them out of there.
>> What is the reaction to this?
Does it sound like the
Governor's office might be tone
deaf?
Or do they understand -- I'm
guessing here, someone at her
office making this decision.
What are you hearing?
>> I think they understand this
is the Governor's employee
whether there was a
miscommunication or not, at
least in her mind Joey
Strickland disobeyed an order
from his boss, the Governor.
Maybe it's not the best way to
lobby the Governor to get the
job back.
I don't think that's going to
please Jan Brewer very much.
No more than hiring a former
lawmaker for whatever reason.
Her office wouldn't give very
specific reasons with what issue
they had with terry proud.
They did not want her in that
office.
>> I've stayed out of issues
with the Department of Veterans
Services, my wife used to be the
women's veterans coordinator
there.
To somehow say I was coerced by
the governor's chief of staff,
that you know, I didn't know
what I was doing sort of thing,
or I was drunk at the time, it's
the same sort of thing.
It's hard for people to
understand you were a
lieutenant-colonel and you were
coerced?
>> It's also hard for people to
understand, we're getting
nothing but blow-back on this.
Everyone's saying, governor,
let's rethink this one.
>> He's very popular in veterans
circles, they are very displayed
to see him leaving.
I suspect that's part of the
reason he asked for his job
back.
The Governor was asked again
about the sequestration and just
said she's said enough, she's
done with the issue.
I possible this might be case
closed and they have already
started to move on to find a
replacement.
>> Interesting.
It sounds as those Democrats
tried to get some amendments
regarding gun control.
And talk to us about this.
This is somewhat procedural, in
that you're not hearing any of
our bills.
So let's pile on a bunch of
amendments so you have to hear
them?
This is again gun control
legislation.
>> They do the maneuver all the
time, Democrats in the Senate
and the House when they can't
get their bill heard for
whatever reason.
With one for Lopez, 18 as
devGallardo.
They were assigned to rules,
basically the bill graveyard,
whatever the Senate President
doesn't want coming up, and you
will never see it again.
The hope is you spark debate and
get people talking about it on
the floor.
>> The other thing it can do,
you could ask for a role call
vote on the thing, so it gets
people on record and you say,
wait, you said that it's okay
for people to have a magazine
that holds 30 bullet?
It provide some help down the
road.
>> ***, ***, ***, they were
all shot down, they weren't even
close.
>> As senator Gallardo said,
this gun is what everybody is
talking about it and on Monday
when this happens, only
Democrats spoke about this.
The only time Republicans spoke
up was to make a procedural
objection and try to shut down
the debate.
That's the best shot the
Democrats have.
>> Were any Republicans
interested in negotiation.
If there is a ruling on whether
or not you can even have
discussion about it, period.
Once we got to the roll call
portion of the voting, they got
through two of them before
Senator Steve Pierce said, let's
skip all this nonsense and vote
and get done with all this.
They don't want to have to
continually take roll call votes
on everything like banning city
automatic weapons, making sure
that domestic violence offenders
can't have guns.
>> This is part of what's
happening.
I think the Democrats are
sensing, maybe not in Arizona
but nationally the mood is
changing.
The issues of background checks,
for example.
You can see the mood changing.
The Republicans don't even want
to discuss the most basic
things.
There was a related issue this
week where they didn't want to
fund temporary mental health
services.
Again, the other thankful
equation.
Let's provide the services to
keep the Jared Loughners from
getting guns.
>> With an issue like this, did
the Democrats do themselves any
favors with this?
>> It gives them something to
campaign on.
A way to further draw a
distinction between themselves
and any Republican opponents
they may face down the roads.
As Howie said, the mood is
changing nationally, but not so
much in Arizona.
>> Federal judges upholding the
international equipment -- this
is a lawsuit almost before
horizon was on the air.
>> The argument was the federal
law says there's an Equal
Opportunity Act.
Is has been interpreted as
meaning you have to teach them
English.
Arizona wasn't living up to its
end of the bargain, or they had
-- the state had to do
something.
The Supreme Court said you've
got to go back and revisit it,
we do have an emergency
management program four others
in class.
Finally Collins said look,
things look okay.
They may not be learning
geography science.
That's not the problem of the
court anywhere.
>> The four-hour is valid
educational theoretical, not the
but the but first governor.
I talked to attorney Tim Hogan
from the Center for Law.
He said, I don't think I can get
more done in this case.
But if kids are being denied
other education opportunities,
maybe we're starting another
20-year odyssey.
One was famed at the
footsteppers unit, you have to
renew that every year.
The federal judge struck it
down, you left out these
deductions, these groups.
It was targeted and you can't do
that many impacts on current
Republican bills -- they have
pretty much given up on most of
the reaction goals.
>> How that's going?
Do we know?
>> I think it's very premature.
He's got until next July.
Depends on the voters.
>> From a distance we hear about
these laws, and years later they
go to court, we forget about
them with the bill that was
passed and the signature there
in the governor's office.
They wind up in court or getting
squashed or something.
From a distance we think, what
are you doing this for if you
know it's going to court and
you're likely to hear --
Lawmakers will have an attorney
tell them this is probably
unconstitutional and headed to
court, but they will vote it out
anyway.
>> Doesn't make any difference?
>> In a lot of cases a statement
is worth millions in court and
legal fees.
>> Campaign contributions.
>> It's basically a statement,
symbolic.
>> Yeah.
I think in those cases where
they get to avoid practice.
It makes a few thinking the
other way, we're fighting for X
or Y and the election cycle goes
by before you have a court
ruling.
>> And you wind up forgetting,
years later the reasons for
which they were passed in the
first place.
>> We'll tweak the law a little
bit.
This law was a tweak of an
earlier version of the law that
had been struck down.
>> This is right up your alley,
Howie.
>> I represent that.
>> It's an interesting marijuana
case involving driving.
>> Yes.
It's very clear you cannot drive
with certain drugs in your
system.
Any level is considered
unacceptable.
This case involves a guy who was
stopped.
His blood tested positive not
for THC, but a secondary
metabolite which stays in the
body for 30 days.
He was charged with drunk
driving or driving under the
influence.
The fascinating part about the
case is the state's own witness
said there is no evidence that
this metabolite causes
impairment.
Yet the county attorney is
trying to get the Supreme Court
to say we can still charge them
with being impaired.
Now that the law says certain
people can legally smoke
marijuana, if you use medical
marijuana at all, you can never
drive because every 30 days --
>> But what does impaired mean?
What kind of influence are you
talking that you're driving
under?
>>> According to Bill
Montgomery.
>> It is something the
legislature is interested in
tackling?
>> No, no, they are going to
wait for the supreme court to
step in on this.
Marijuana, it's like any other
drug.
If you're considered any amount
in the system -- now, the court
is deciding, really going down
the rabbithole, when the law
says THC or its metabolites,
does it mean every one, whether
it impairs you or not?
>> Howie did a good job of
explaining that.
>> Yes, Professor Fisher.
>> He's a child of the sixties.
>> You could do it much better
than I could.
>> Good to have you here, good
to have you all here.
Thank you so much for joining
us.
That is it for now.
I'm Ted Simons.
>> Thank you so much for joining