.
>>> 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.