.

>>> THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

UPHELD A KEY PROVISION OF THE

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

WITH DIRECT EFFECTS ON ARIZONA.

>> PRETTY CLOSE TO HALF A

MILLION PEOPLE IN ARIZONA ARE

GETTING COVERED IN SOME WAY BY

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND

THOSE OVER 200,000 DON'T NEED TO

WORRY ABOUT THE PREMIUMS

SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL OR

SPIKING IN ANY WAY BECAUSE OF AN

ADVERSE RULING.

>> THE COURT ALSO UPHELD

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

>> WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF WORK

TO REACH TRUE EEK QUALITY.

WOMEN STILL MAKE LESS THAN MAN.

WE STILL HAVE THE CHARLESTON

SITUATION.

>> ARIZONA STILL AWAITS A

DECISION ON HOW THE

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS ARE

DRAWN.

♪

>>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO

"ARIZONA WEEK."

I'M CHRISTOPHER CON OVER IN FOR

LORRAINE RIVERA.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED ON

TWO MAJOR CASES THIS WEEK.

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

WE BEGIN OUR DISCUSSION ON THE

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

THE COURT RULED THE SUBSIDIES

FOR FEDERAL INSURANCE MARKET

PLACES IN ARIZONA AND 33 OTHER

STATES ARE LEGAL.

WE HAVE TWO DIVERGING POINTS OF

VIEW.

FIRST JANE ORIENT WHO IS A

TUCSON PHYSICIAN AND THE

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN

PHYSICIANS AND SURGEON.

SHE OPPOSED THE AFFORDABLE CARE

ACT.

>> JANE, OBVIOUSLY NOT A FAN OF

THIS WEEK'S DECISION.

LET'S START WITH THE DECISION.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT?

>> THE MAIN THING THAT IS WRONG

WITH THE DECISION IS IT REPEALS

THE RULE OF THE LAW AND THE

SUPREME COURT IS SAYING THE LAW

DOESN'T MEAN WHAT IT SAYS, IT

MEANS WHAT THEY LIKE IT TO MEAN.

THEY WOULD DO PRACTICALLY

ANYTHING IT APPEARS TO PRESERVE

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SIGNATURE LAW,

EVEN IT MEANS ESTABLISHED BY THE

STATE MEANS THE SAME THING AS

NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE.

>> YOU WROTE AN EDITORIAL

RECENTLY THAT CAME UP WITH SOME

OTHER IDEAS, IF YOU WILL, HOW TO

SOLVE THE UNINSURED PROBLEM BUT

NOT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

YOU TALKED ABOUT A VOLUNTARILY

AND CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTION.

TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT

THAT IF YOU WILL.

>> WELL FIRST WE DON'T LIKE TO

CALL IT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

BECAUSE IT IS THE UNAFFORDABLE

CARE ACT.

WHAT IT HAS DONE IS MAKE

INSURANCE MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE

THAN IT WAS BEFORE AND SOLIDIFY

IN PLACE A LOT OF THINGS THAT

ARE WRONG WITH AMERICAN MEDICAL

CARE AND THE PROBLEM IS NOT THAT

THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE

UNINSURED IS THAT THE COSTS ARE

MUCH TOO HIGH AND MUCH HIGHER

THAN THEY NEED TO BE BECAUSE THE

HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS ABOUT

SHUFFLING MONEY AROUND AND

HAVING PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST

CALCULATING RISKAL GO RIDGES AND

COLLECTING MONEY AND JUST ONLY

40% GOES INTO THINGS YOU WOULD

IDENTIFY AS ANY KIND OF MEDICAL

GOOD OR SERVICES.

>> YOU MENTIONED IN THERE SOME

SOME WAYS INSURANCE IS A GAMBLE

AND A GAMBLE YOU NEVER HAVE TO

CASH IT, BUT IT IS A GAMBLE.

>> WITH YOUR CAR INSURANCE OR

HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE IT IS, YOU

HOPE YOU NEVER HAVE A CRASH OR

YOUR HOUSE NEVER CATCHES FIRE

BUT WITH HEALTH INSURANCE, IT IS

A HEALTH PLAN, IT IS PREPAYMENT

FOR KUJS.

YOU TURN YOUR MONEY OVER TO A

COLLECTIVE POT AND YOU HOPE THEY

WILL DOLE OUT SOMETHING TO YOU

AT THE TIME YOU NEED IT.

>> HOW DO WE SOLVE -- IF THE

COURT HAD STRUCK THIS DOWN, HOW

DO WE SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF FOLKS

WHO DON'T HAVE SOME SORT OF

MEDICAL COVERAGE AND CAN'T

AFFORD OUT OF POCKET PAYMENTS?

IS THERE A WAY TO SOLVE THAT?

>> OF COURSE, IF YOU CAN'T

AFFORD TO PAY A REASONABLE PRICE

FOR MEDICAL CARE, YOU CANNOT

AFFORD TO PAY TWO TO THREE TIMES

AS MUCH TO FUNNEL THE MONEY

THROUGH AN INSURANCE COMPANY.

AND THE ONE THING THAT THE

SUBSIDIES DID OR DO IS TO

DISGUISE THE UNAFFORDABILITY OF

THE PREMIUM BY MAKING SOMEBODY

ELSE PAY FOR THEM.

SO IF YOU MAKE LESS THAN A

CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAN

OTHER PEOPLE PAY THE INSURANCE

COMPANY, NOT YOU, BUT IF YOU

MAKE MORE THAN THAT AMOUNT OF

MONEY, YOU PAY MORE AND YOU HAVE

TO SUBSIDIZE THOSE WHO PAY MORE

THAN YOU.

>> AND BEFORE PRESIDENT OBAMA

BROUGHT THIS UP A NUMBER OF

YEARS AGO IT SEEMS, ACCESS TO

HEALTH CARE IS A LONG RUNNING

ARGUMENT IN THIS COUNTRY AND

PROBABLY AROUND THE WORLD.

IS THERE A SILVER BULLET TO

THAT.

OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T THINK THIS

IS THE SILVER BULLET TO IT BUT

IS THERE A SILVER BULLET TO IT.

>> I THINK WE NEED A FREE MARKET

AND LOCAL CHARITY THAT I THINK

ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE IN THIS

COUNTRY IS MUCH BETTER THAN

ACCESS IN OTHER COUNTRIES.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO THE

EMERGENCY ROOM, YOU ARE NOT

SEEING WELL OFF PEOPLE THERE AND

YOU ARE SEEING EVERYBODY THERE

AND EVERYBODY GETS TREATMENT.

THE BIG PROBLEM IS IF THEY HAVE

ANY MONEY THEY FACE A BIG BILL

AFTERWARDS.

BUT PEOPLE ARE NOT BLOCKED FROM

MEDICAL CARE BECAUSE IN CANADA

THEY DON'T HAVE NEARLY ENOUGH

DOCTORS OR THREE OR FOUR YEARS

DOWN ON THE WAITING LIST.

>> IS THERE ANYTHING GOOD, AS

WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS LAW FROM

THE DAY IT WAS WRITTEN TO THE

DAY IT WAS PASSED, TO THIS

WEEK'S SUPREME COURT RULING, IS

THERE ANYTHING GOOD IN THERE OR

DO WE REALLY NEED TO SCRAP IT

AND JUST START ALL OVER AGAIN.

>> I THINK WE NEED TO REPEAL IT

AND START ALL OVER AGAIN.

BUT THE GOOD THING IS IF YOU

BELONG TO A HEALTH SHARING

MINISTRY AND YOU SEND SMN TO

SOMEONE WHO HAS A MEDICAL NEED

YOU ARE NOT SUCKED WITH THE

INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY

PAYMENT OR TAX OR PENALTY OR

WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.

>> SO HELPING PEOPLE OUT, IN

ADDITION TO JUST YOURSELF,

MAILING OR SENDING MONEY OUT

HELPS.

>> CORRECT.

AND THEN IF YOU ARE PAYING

DIRECTLY AT THE TIME OF SERVICE,

THE PRICES ARE MUCH LOWER.

FOR EXAMPLE, THEY CAN BE

ONE-TENTH OF WHAT YOU MIGHT BE

FORCED TO PAY AT A SO-CALLED

NONPROFIT HOSPITAL IF YOU GO TO

PLACES LIKE THE SURGERY CENTER

OF OKLAHOMA FOR THE PACKAGE

PRICE OF THE SEERJ YOU NEED TO

HAVE.

>> AND YOU READ THE DECISION AND

FOLLOWED THIS CLOSELY FOR

SEVERAL YEARS AND WHAT DO YOU

THINK THE FUTURE WILL BRING FOR

THIS LAW?

I HAVE A FEELING THIS IS NOT

NECESSARILY THE END OF THE

CHALLENGES BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK

THE FUTURE SEEING?

>> I THINK IT IS NOT THE END OF

THE CHALLENGES BECAUSE THE LAW

IS UNAFFORDABLE AND

UNSUSTAINABLE AND IT IS MAKING

MANY MEDICAL PRACTICES CLOSE

THEIR DOORS BECAUSE OF THE HUGE

ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

IT IS GIVING PEOPLE AN INSURANCE

CARD FOR INSURANCE THAT THEY

CAN'T REALLY USE BECAUSE THEY

ARE GETTING HIGH DEDUCTIBLE

INSURANCE AT FIRST DOLLAR

COVERAGE PRICES IS WHICH IS JUST

UPSIDE DOWN AND BACKWARDS.

>> DO YOU SEE CONGRESS EVER

BEING ABLE TO GET THROUGH

CHANGES RIGHT NOW OR ARE WE

GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT FOR A NEW

PRESIDENT OR MAYBE TWO NEW

PRESIDENTS, DEPENDING ON HOW THE

2016 ELECTION WORKS OUT.

>> I THINK WE NEED TO NOT DEPEND

ON CONGRESS.

I THINK CONGRESS IS QUITE

CORRUPT AND OEND BY SPECIAL

INTEREST GROUPS, MAINLY THE

INSURANCE COMPANIES WHO ARE

FORCING PEOPLE TO BUY A PRODUCT

THEY OTHERWISE WOULDN'T BUY.

I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT

MEDICAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY.COM AND

FIND OUT THAT BEING UNINSURED IS

NOT ALL THAT BAD.

THERE ARE WAYS TO TAKE CARE OF

YOUR NEEDS WITHOUT WASTING 60%

OF IT ON THIRD PARTY PAYMENT.

>> THANKS FOR COMING IN IT AND

TALKING WITH US ABOUT THIS.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE

OPPORTUNITY.

>>> NOW MATT HEINZ, A TUCSON

MEDICAL CENTER EMERGENCY ROOM

PHYSICIAN AND A FORMER STATE

LAWMAKER.

HE'S ALSO A SUPPORTER OF THE

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

>> MATT, LET'S START WITH WHAT

THIS RULING ON THE AFFORDABLE

CARE ACT MEANS TO ARIZONA.

A LOT OF PEOPLE GOT TO KEEP

THEIR INSURANCE AS A RESULT.

>> THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT.

AND THIS IS REALLY A FANTASTIC

DECISION FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE

STATE.

OVER 200,000 HERE IN ARIZONA

HAVE HEALTH CARE THROUGH THE

MARKET PLACE THAT SERVES ARIZONA

AND ANOTHER 270,000

APPROXIMATELY THROUGH EXPANDED

MEDICAID SO THAT IS CLOSE TO

HALF A MILLION PEOPLE IN ARIZONA

ARE GETTING COVERED IN SMI WAY

BY THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND

THE OVER 200,000 DON'T NEED TO

WORRY ABOUT THE PREMIUMS

SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL OR

SPIKING IN ANY WAY BECAUSE OF AN

ADVERSE RULING.

>> YOU'RE AN M.D. HERE IN

TUCSON.

TELL ME ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE.

YOU WORK IN A HOSPITAL, NOT IN A

PRIVATE PRACTICE, BUT TELL ME

ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

>> SO IT'S -- WE ARE ALL IN --

HEALTH PROFESSIONALS ARE ALL

WORKING HARD, NURSES, DOCTORS,

PHARMACISTS TO WORK HARD TO TAKE

CARE OF PATIENTS AND THAT IS

WHAT OUR FOCUS IS.

AND AFTER JANUARY OF 2014, A LOT

FEWER PEOPLE ARE COMING THROUGH

THE DOOR WITH INABILITY TO PAY,

MEANING UNCOMPENSATED CARE IS

PLUMMETING ACROSS THE STATE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT, THE ARIZONA

HEALTH CARE AND HOSPITAL

ASSOCIATION PUT OUT CLEAR FACTS

AND FIGURES ABOUT THAT BUT IT

HAS DROPPED BY OVER 50%.

THAT MEANS PEOPLE ARE GETTING

INSURANCE AND ABLE TO COME IN

AND ABLE TO SEE, IF THEY NEED

TO, A PHYSICIAN OR A NURSE OR A

NURSE PRACTITIONER TO GET THE

CARE THEY NEED AND SO FAMILIES

ARE NOW ABLE TO GET ACCESS TO

CARE AFFORDABLY AND AT THE RIGHT

TIME WHEN IT IS EASY TO TAKE

CARE OF SOME OF THEIR PROBLEMS.

>> BEFORE YOU RETURN TO TUCSON

AS AN M.D., YOU WERE WORKING FOR

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TALKING

ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

DID YOU HEAR THE NARRATIVE

CHANGE AT ALL WHILE YOU WERE

DOING THAT AND DID YOU HEAR

OPINION CHANGE AT ALL OR IS IT

STILL VERY BLACK AND WHITE HOW

PEOPLE FEEL OUT IN THE FIELD,

NOT NECESSARILY THE POLITICAL

PUNDIT?

>> I THINK WITHOUT -- MY ROLE

FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS

TO WORK CLOSELY WITH HEALTH

PROFESSIONALS ON BEHALF OF THE

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES TO ENGAGE THE COMMUNITY

AND HELP THEM FIGURE OUT THE

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

IT IS COMPLICATED.

BUT REALLY, OVER THE ALMOST TWO

YEARS I WAS THERE, THE FIRST

ENROLLMENT CYCLE FOR EXAMPLE, A

LOT MORE RESISTANCE AND THE

SECOND A LOT MORE FAMILIARITY.

PEOPLE WERE GETTING USED TO IT.

WHAT IS THIS WEBSITE, THIS

HEALTHCARE.GOV AND PEOPLE HAD

EXPLORED IT.

WHETHER THEY ENGAGED AND

ENROLLED OR NOT THEY WERE

FAMILIAR WITH IT AND SEEN IT IN

THE NEWS, SEEN IT ON COLBERT OR

UNFORTUNATELY SOME OF THOSE

SHOWS.

BUT THAT MADE IT EASIER THE

SECOND TIME AROUND.

AND THE SAME THING APPLIES TO

PHYSICIANS AND OTHER HEALTH

PROFESSIONALS.

WE GET MORE FAMILIAR WITH

SOMETHING AND ARE FOR

COMFORTABLE WITH IT.

AND FRANKLY IT IS HUMAN NATURE

TO BE SOMEWHAT APPREHENSIVE AND

FEARFUL OF SOMETHING THAT IS

COMPLICATED AND UNKNOWN

TERRITORY.

SO THAT -- IT IS MUCH EASIER FOR

PEOPLE TO I THINK DEAL WITH NOW

AND UNDERSTAND AND THEY SEE HOW

IT IS WORKING FOR NEIGHBORS AN

FRIENDS AND THEMSELVES.

>> LET'S TAKE OURSELVES BACK

EARLIER IN THE WEEK TO THE

RULING.

IF THE COURT HAD RULED AGAINST

THIS PROVISION OF THE AFFORDABLE

CARE ACT, WHAT DO YOU SEE

HAPPENING IN ARIZONA IF WE HAD

THE OPPOSITE RESULT?

>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN

POTENTIALLY CHAOS FOR --

ESPECIALLY THE 200,000 THAT ARE

ON THE MARKET PLACE, THAT ARE

GETTING A PRIVATE HEALTH

INSURANCE PLAN THROUGH THE

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT HERE IN

ARIZONA BECAUSE THERE WAS REALLY

NO FALLBACK.

THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE

UNWISELY PASSED LEGISLATION THIS

PAST SESSION SAYING WE NO WILL

THE SET UP A STATE EXCHANGE TO

HELP THESE 200,000 PEOPLE HAVE A

SUSTAINABLE MARKET PLACE AND

THAT COULD HAVE CAUSED ALL OF

THE PREMIUMS FOR THOSE FOLKS TO

GO OUT OF CONTROL WHEN ALL OF A

SUDDEN THE TAX CREDITS FOR LOW

AND MIDDLE INCOME FOLKS WOULD

SUDDEN DISAPPEAR.

SO IT WAS NEVER SOMETHING THE

ADMINISTRATION THOUGHT WAS TRULY

GOING TO HAPPEN AND FRANKLY WHEN

I WAS THERE IT WAS NOTHING

SOMETHING WE WERE EVER EVEN

PREPARED FOR BUT IT WOULD HAVE

BEEN ABSOLUTELY DISASTROUS.

>> HAVING LOOKED AT THIS THROUGH

THE EYES OF A DOCTOR WHO DEALS

WITH IT ON THE GROUND AND ALSO

THROUGH THE EYES OF THE

SECRETARY'S OFFICE AND THE

ADMINISTRATION, DO YOU SEE

THINGS WITHIN THE AFFORDABLE

CARE ACT THAT YOU LOOK AND SAY,

WELL THAT COULD BE DONE A LITTLE

BIT BETTER, OR IS IT ABOUT AS

GOOD AS IT CAN GET?

>> WE CAN ALWAYS DO BETTER.

I THINK YOU'LL HEAR THAT FROM

SECRETARY BURWELL AND THE

PRESIDENT HIMSELF.

BUT IS IT SOMETHING THAT AS A

PHYSICIAN, I SEE PATIENTS ABLE

PHYSICIAN, I SEE PATIENTS ABLE

TO COME IN AND AFFORD TO GET

CARE THEY NEED AT A TIME WHEN

THEY NEED IT -- YES.

THAT IS SOMETHING ALL OF US IN

HEALTH CARE ARE SEEING MORE AND

MORE AND THAT IS REALLY WHAT IT

IS ALL ABOUT, MAKING SURE

PATIENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES GET

THE ACCESS TO THE CARE THEY NEED

AT A TIME WHEN THEY NEED IT.

>> WORKING IN A HOSPITAL AND

WORKING IN AN E.R., DO YOU SEE

LESS EMERGENCY ROOM FAMILY

PHYSICIAN-TYPE VISITS NOW THAN

YOU USED TO OR DO YOU STILL SEE

PEOPLE COMING THROUGH THE E.R.

DOORS FOR WHAT ARE NOT

EMERGENCIES?

>> THERE IS GOING TO BE A DEGREE

OF THAT ALWAYS.

IT IS UNFORTUNATELY -- A LOT OF

FOLKS UNABLE TO AFFORD AND GET

SOME TYPE OF INSURANCE BEFORE,

THINGS WILL GET OUT OF CONTROL,

OKAY THIS WON'T STOP BLEEDING OR

GRANDMA IS TOO BLUE TO PUT THIS

OFF, WE HAVE TO GO TO THE E.R.

OR THE CHEST PAIN REALLY WON'T

GO AWAY AND THAT IS WHERE FOLKS

WERE USED TO GOING AND NOW THAT

THEY HAVE INSURANCE ONE OF THE

MAIN GOALS ACTUALLY FOR HHS AT

THE TIME AND I KNOW IT STILL IS

IS TO HELP PEOPLE MEAN WHAT IT

IS TO HAVE INSURANCE.

HERE IS YOUR PRIMARY CARE

PROVIDER AND THIS IS YOUR

MEDICAL HOME AND TO EDUCATE

PATIENTS WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY NOT

ABLE TO GET INSURANCE AND

EVERYONE ABOUT THE BEST WAY TO

ACCESS THAT CARE AND FRACHGLY

THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE WAY AND

THE BESTER WAY TO DO IT FOR

THEIR HEALTH, MATT HEINZ THANK

YOU FOR TALKING ABOUT THE

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT THROUGH YOUR

EYES.

>> CERTAINLY.

IT IS GOOD TO BE HERE.

>>> THE SUPREME COURT ENDED THE

WEEK BY LEGALIZING SAME-SEX

MARRIAGE BUT DID NOT RULE ON THE

STATE'S REDISTRICTING CASE.

WE BEGIN OUR DISCUSSION OF THOSE

TWO CASES WITH BILL BEARD, THE

CHAIRMAN OF THE PIMA COUNTY

REPUBLICAN PARTY.

>> LET'S START WITH TODAY'S

RULING ON THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

IT REAFFIRMS WHAT IT ALREADY

HAPPENED IN ARIZONA FROM A COURT

RULING A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO

BUT NOW IT IS LEGAL ALL OVER THE

LAND.

>> YOU KNOW, THE BOTTOM LINE IS

THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS THE

AUTHORITY ON THAT -- THE RULING.

AND YOU CAN LIKE OR DISLIKE WHAT

IT IS.

THERE ARE THINGS THAT SUPREME

COURTS HAVE HANDED DOWN OVER THE

YEARS THAT EITHER PERSONALLY OR

FROM A PARTY PERSPECTIVE WE

HAVEN'T EXACTLY AGREED WITH BUT

WE FIRMLY ABELIEVE THAT WHAT THE

SUPREME COURT SAYS, THAT IS THE

LAW OF THE LAND AND IT IS UP SO

THE LEGISLATORS AND THE

GOVERNORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO

IMPLEMENT THAT LAW.

>> LET'S MOVE TO WHAT WE WILL

ASSUME IS A RULING COMING

MONDAY.

THE REDISTRICTING CASE FOR

ARIZONA.

THE QUESTION BEING, ARE

ARIZONA'S CONGRESSIONAL

DISTRICTS CORRECTLY WRITTEN OR

CORRECTLY DRAWN BY THE BODY.

WHAT HAPPENS COME MONDAY IF THE

COURT RULES THAT ARIZONA'S

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS ARE NO

GOOD?

>> WELL, A LESSON TO REMEMBER IN

THIS CONVERSATION, THIS ISN'T A

LEGISLATIVE ISSUE, THIS IS AN

ISSUE ABOUT WHAT THE -- WHAT THE

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED

STATES ACTUALLY SAYS IN IT.

AND IT IS PRETTY CLEAR TO THE

AVERAGE PERSON READING, IT SAYS

THE STATE LEGISLATORS ARE THE

ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING

THE LINES FOR -- FOR DETERMINING

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.

THAT IS PRETTY CLEAR.

I DON'T CARE WHAT SIDE OF THE

POLITICAL SPECTRUM YOU COME DOWN

ON, THAT LANGUAGE IS PRETTY

CLEAR.

EVERYTHING THAT I'VE SEEN

REPORTED IN FOLKS THAT REALLY

FOLLOW THIS STUFF, IT IS

BASICALLY PROBABLY GOING TO COME

DOWN TO THE SUPREME COURT

SAYING, YES, INDEED, IT IS UP TO

THE LEGISLATORS ACROSS THE

COUNTRY TO DETERMINE WHAT THOSE

LINES ARE.

AND IN ESSENCE, SAY TO THE

INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING

COMMISSION, YOU NO LONGER HAVE

THE AUTHORITY TO DRAW THOSE

LINES.

IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE

WHAT THE VARIOUS SIDES DO AS A

RESULT FROM THAT.

THE POPCORN CONCESSION SHOULD BE

QUITE ENTERTAINING FOR MOST

FOLKS.

BUT I THINK THE BOTTOM LINE IS

IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE THAT IT --

THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE PEOPLE

THAT ARE ELECTED TO OFFICE, ARE

THE ONES THAT ARE HELD

ACCOUNTABLE, YOU WANT THE

LEGISLATOR TO BE THE ONES TO

DRAW THOSE LINES BECAUSE RIGHT

NOW THE INDEPENDENT

REDISTRICTING COMMISSION, THEY

ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE TO ANYONE

BUT THEMSELVES.

>> WE HAVE TWO DISTRICTS OF

PARTICULAR NOTE IN ARIZONA,

DISTRICT TWO, MARTHA McSALLY'S

DISTRICT AND KIRSTEN CINEMA'S

DISTRICT THAT ARE VERY

COMPETITIVE, AND McFALLY ONLY

WON BY 167 VOTES AND WILL THOSE

DISTRICTS DO YOU THINK WILL

DRASTICALLY CHANGE AND COULD YOU

CHANGE THEM TO MAKE -- YOU COULD

CHANGE THEM TO MAKE THEY LESS

COMPETITIVE BUT WILL THEY EVER

BE A SAFE DISTRICT.

>> ANY TIME THAT YOU START TO

DRAW LINES AND ANYBODY THAT

UNDERSTANDS HOW THE PROCESS

WORKS, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF

FACTORS THAT GO INTO IT.

YOU HAVE POPULATION OF INTEREST,

YOU HAVE GEOGRAPHY, A LOT OF

THINGS THAT GO INTO DETERMINING

WHERE THE LINES ARE DRAWN.

AND WHENEVER YOU START DRAWING A

LINE IN ONE LOCATION, YOU START

DETERMINING WHERE THE

CORRESPONDING OTHER LINES ARE

GOING TO BE ACROSS WHATEVER THAT

DISTRICT IS DETERMINED.

I THINK FOR MOST FOLKS THAT LIVE

IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA, YOU

WILL SEE A CONGRESSIONAL -- JUST

AS A -- AS AN EXERCISE FOR THE

INTELLECT, IT WILL COME DOWN TO

MORE REPRESENTATION FOR

REPUBLICANS THAN DEMOCRATS

SIMPLY AS A MATTER THAT IS WHERE

THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS IN

ARIZONA HAPPEN TO BE.

THE COMPUTERS CAN DRAW THE LINES

IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS AND

CONFIGURATIONS BUT I THINK

YOU'LL SEE FOR THE MOST PART THE

NEW LINES, ASSUMING THE SUPREME

COURT HANDS DOWN THE DECISION WE

EXPECT, YOU'LL SEE LINES MORE IN

LINE WITH WHERE THE FOLKS LIVE

IN THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE

STATE AND CARVE UP THOSE AREAS

MORE REPRESENTATIVE TO REFLECT

WHAT IT IS THE POPULATION OF

ARIZONA ACTUALLY IS.

>> IF THE LINES ARE ORDERED TO

BE REDRAWN, IS IT REALISTIC TO

THINK COURT CASES BEING WHAT

THEY WILL BE, IF IT THEY DO GET

REDRAWN, THAT THESE DISTRICTS

WOULD GO INTO EFFECT FOR THE

2016 ELECTION OR REALISTICALLY

WOULD THESE BE A 2018 CHANGE.

>> IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THE LAST

TWO TIMES WE DID REDISTRICTING

FOLLOWING A NORMAL CENSUS, THERE

WERE COURT CASES OF VARIOUS

TYPES BUT FOR THE MOST PART EVEN

IN 2014 WHEN THE LINES WERE

DRAWN, THEY WERE DRAWN LATE IN

THE CYCLE AND I BELIEVE IT WAS

THE SECRETARY OF STATE THAT HAD

TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT IF

YOU WERE -- HAD ALREADY FILED

FOR OFFICE, YOU COULD GATHER

SIGNATURES IN BOTH THE OLD

CONFIGURATION OF THE DISTRICT

AND THE NEW.

I WOULD EXPECT GIVEN THAT

PRECEDENT THAT THE SECRETARY OF

STATE WOULD DO SOMETHING SIMILAR

IN TERMS OF -- IF YOU ARE

GATHERING SIGNATURES FOR OFFICE,

ASSUMING THEY WERE TO DRAW NEW

LINES LATER THIS SUMMER, THAT

WOULD GIVE PLENTY OF TIME FOR

ANYBODY RUNNING FOR THE

DISTRICTS FOR CONGRESS TO GATHER

SIGNATURES IN THE APPROPRIATE

AREAS TO GET ON THE BALLOT.

>> WITH ABOUT A MINUTE TO GO,

HOW HARD IS IT WITH ALL OF THIS

LOOMING OUT THERE TO RECRUIT

CANDIDATES?

>> IT IS FUNNY, AS CHAIRMAN OF

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN PIMA

COUNTY, THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR

REPUBLICANS IN ANY OFFICE ARE

FRANKLY -- IT IS FERTILE GROUND

FOR MANY FOLKS THAT ARE OUT

THERE.

IT DOES COME DOWN, WHEN YOU ARE

MAKING THE DECISION TO RUN FOR

OFFICE, IT IS NOT JUST A

PERSONAL DECISION FOR YOU

YOURSELF, IT INVOLVES THE

FAMILY, IT INVOLVES YOUR

PERSONAL FINANCES, IT INVOLVES

YOUR JOB.

ALL OF THOSE THINGS GO INTO THE

PROCESS OF FIGURING IT OUT.

BUT ULTIMATELY, IF YOUR THINKING

IN TERMS OF REPUBLICANS VERSUS

DEMOCRATS, THE GROUND IN

SOUTHERN ARIZONA, WE'VE GOT

FERTILE FIELD AND THE HORIZONS

ARE VERY OPTIMISTIC FOR ALL OF

OUR CANDIDATES.

>> ALL RIGHT, WELL THANKS FOR

SITTING DOWN WITH US AND TALKING

ABOUT ALL OF THIS.

>>> AND NOW HERE IS CHERYL CAGE,

THE CHAIR OF THE PIMA COUNTY

DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

>> CHERYL LET'S START WITH

TODAY'S RULING OUT OF THE

SUPREME COURT ON SAME-SEX

MARRIAGE AFFIRMS WHAT HAPPENED

HERE IN ARIZONA, SAME-SEX

MARRIAGE LEGAL EVERYWHERE.

>> IT HAS BEEN TRULY A

REMARKABLE WEEK.

I THINK WE ARE -- ARE SEEING

THIS WONDERFUL TREND OF IN

COLLUSIVENESS, OBAMA CARE IS NOW

THE TRUE LAW OF THE LAND, IT IS

A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE TO HAVE

MEDICAL CARE, AND NOW IT SOUNDS

CORNY BUT LOVE HAS WON OUT.

AND I THINK TODAY IS A

REMARKABLE DAY AND I JUST

COULDN'T BE MORE EXCITED ABOUT

IT.

>> AND AS WE SAID, ARIZONA, THIS

HAD ALREADY BECOME THE LAW IN

ARIZONA A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO

BUT NOW IT DOES AFFIRM IT

NATIONWIDE.

SO OFF WE GO.

>> OFF WE GO.

AND WE STILL HAVE -- WE STILL

HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO, TO

REACH TRUE EQUALITY.

WOMEN STILL MAKE LESS THAN MEN.

THEY ARE STILL -- WE JUST HAD

THE CHARLESTON SITUATION, BUT

WE'RE MOVING IN THE RIGHT

DISCRETION AND IT FEELS VERY,

VERY HOPEFUL.

>> LET'S LOOK FORWARD TO MONDAY.

THE CASE ARIZONA HAS BEEN

WAITING FOR FOR WEEKS, WE'VE ALL

BEEN GETTING UP EARLY TO SEE IF

THE COURT RULES AND THAT IS THE

ARIZONA REDISTRICTING CASE.

>> RIGHT.

>> WILL ARIZONA'S CONGRESSIONAL

LINES BE FOUND CONSTITUTIONAL

BECAUSE THEY WERE DRAWN BY THE

INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING

COMMISSION, NOT THE LEGISLATURE.

MONDAY MORNING WE SHOULD GET A

RULING.

WHAT HAPPENS FROM YOUR

PERSPECTIVE IF THE RULING GOES

IN FAVOR OF THE LEGISLATURE AND

WE HAVE TO REDRAW THESE LINES,

POSSIBLY BEFORE 2016?

>> WELL I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT

FIRST BEFORE YOU ANSWER HOW

WE'LL APPROACH THAT, WITH

LOOKING AT IT IN A BROAD CONTEXT

AND I THINK THIS WEEK IS A

PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE FACT THAT

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS RUNNING

SCARED.

THERE IS A CHANGING VIEW IN

AMERICA.

WE'RE GOING TOWARDS A MAJORITY

MINORITY.

YOUNG PEOPLE ARE SAYING, WE WANT

INCLUSIVENESS.

AND INSTEAD OF CHANGING THEIR

POLITICS, BECAUSE THE REPUBLICAN

PARTY HAS BEEN AGAINST

EVERYTHING THAT PASSED FROM

SCOTUS THIS WEEK, AGAINST GAY

MARRIAGE, AGAINST OBAMA CARE,

THIS REDISTRICTING CASE IS THE

LAST ATTEMPT AT A POWER GRAB TO

STAY IN POWER.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL

HAPPEN, WE WERE TALKING BEFORE,

IN ARIZONA YOU JUST DON'T KNOW

WHICH WAY THINGS ARE GOING TO

GO, BUT I DO KNOW THAT WHATEVER

THE DECISION IS, WE WILL FIGHT

FOR EQUALITY AND FOR JUSTICE.

AND THE VOTERS IN 2000 SAID VERY

CLEARLY, WE DON'T LIKE THE

GERRYMANDERING THAT IS GOING ON

AND THEY PASSED PROPOSITION 106

WHICH CHANGED OUR CONSTITUTION.

AND WE HAVE COMPETITIVE

DISTRICTS, MUCH MORE SO THAN WE

DID BEFORE.

AND I THINK THAT IT IS ALSO

IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT

SEEMS LIKE THE TERM LEGISLATIVE

IS GOING TO BE A BIG TURNING

POINT WITH THIS DECISION.

BUT IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT FOR

PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE

LEGISLATURE WAS NOT CUT OUT OF

THIS PROCESS.

THE FIVE MEMBERS ON THE

COMMISSION, TWO OF THEM ARE

REPUBLICANS, TWO OF THEM ARE

DEMOCRATS, AND THOSE ARE

SELECTED BY THE LEGISLATORS.

AND THEN THE FIFTH PERSON IS

SELECTED BY THOSE FOUR PEOPLE.

SO THE LEGISLATURE DOES STILL

HAVE SOME INPUT -- A GREAT DEAL

OF INPUT INTO THIS.

SO I WILL BE VERY DISAPPOINTED

IF IT GOES AGAINST THE

COMMISSION AND I SUSPECT WE'LL

FIGHT IT IF IT DOES.

>> YOU MENTIONED COMPETITIVE

DISTRICTS, IN SOUTHERN ARIZONA,

WE HAVE THE DISTRICT THAT IS NOW

REPRESENTED BY MARTHA McSALLY,

VERY COMPETITIVE IN THE PHOENIX

AREA, THE DISTRICT REPRESENTED

BY REPRESENTATIVE KRYSTEN

SINEMA, VERY COMPETITIVE AND DO

YOU SEE A WAY REALISTICALLY,

BECAUSE EVERYTHING HAS TO FIT

TOGETHER, A BIG PUZZLE, THAT

THOSE DISTRICTS BECAME SAFE

DISTRICTS OR WILL THEY ALWAYS

BECOME COMPETITIVE DISTRICTS BUT

IT IS JUST HOW COMPETITIVE?

>> THIS IS WHERE THE CYNIC IN ME

COMES OUT.

I THINK WE KNOW THE REPUBLICANS

IN THE SATE LEGISLATURE HAVE

ALREADY STARTED DRAWING THE MAPS

AND PUT MONEY DOWN ON PEOPLE TO

HELP THEM TO DRAW THOSE MAPS.

THE REASON THAT THEY ARE DOING

THIS IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT

COMPETITIVE DISTRICTS.

I LOVE THE FACT THAT -- I'M

DISAPPOINTED THAT RON BARBER

LOST OBVIOUSLY.

BUT THE FACT THAT HE LOST BY 167

VOTES TELLS ME THAT IS A REALLY

COMPETITIVE DISTRICT.

AND I LIKE THAT.

I LIKE OUR POLITICIANS TO HAVE

TO STAND UP AND SAY THIS IS WHO

I AM, THIS IS WHAT I'M GOING TO

FIGHT FOR AND THAT IS WHAT YOU

GET IN A -- IN A DISTRICT THAT

IS TRULY COMPETITIVE.

AND MY FEAR IS THAT THEY ARE

GOING TO REDRAW THE LINES TO

WHERE THERE ARE MORE REPUBLICAN

SAFE DISTRICTS AND YOU WILL SEE

PEOPLE GAINING THESE SEATS THAT

PERHAPS ARE NOT THE BEST PEOPLE

TO HAVE.

I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN LOTS OF

TALK, I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING

THAT YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW,

THAT DAVID GOWAN IS LOOKING FOR

A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

AND THIS IS A POLITICIAN THAT

QUITE FRANKLY, I'M SURE HE'S A

LOVELY MAN, BUT HE'S TONE DEAF.

HE CUTS J TED AND THEN HE USED

THE J TED STUDENTS TO FIX HIS

CAR AND SAVE BETWEEN $700 AND

$1,000 AND DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING

WRONG WITH THAT.

THAT IS NOT COMPETITIVE

CANDIDATES.

>> WELL THANKS FOR COMING IN AND

TALKING WITH US ABOUT THIS.

WE'LL ALL WAIT FOR MONDAY

MORNING TO SEE WHAT THE SUPREME

COURT WILL RULE.

>> I'LL BE UP EARLY IF YOU NEED

TO CALL ME.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> AND THAT IS OUR PROGRAM FOR

THIS WEEK.

WE'RE OFF NEXT WEEK IN HONOR OF

JULY 4TH.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.