Arizona Horizon Banner

October 3, 2013

Host: Ted Simons

Arizona ArtBeat: ArtWalk the Dog

  |   Video
  • The dog days of summer take on new meaning in the Scottsdale Arts District. On certain August nights, you’ll find gallery owners and artists welcoming four-legged visitors. It’s a chance for pet lovers to mingle and browse pet-related art. Veronica Graffius, Calvin Charles Gallery owner, tells us why being dog-friendly is smart for business, and we catch artist April Howland in action on her largest commissioned painting of a pet.
Category: The Arts   |   Keywords: arizona, ArtBeat, scottsdale, gallery, animals,

View Transcript
Ted Simons: Scottsdale held its first ArtWalk in the downtown area 39 years ago, and as such, the event is often described as America's original ArtWalk. Indeed, most every week you can find people strolling along Main Street and Marshall Way enjoying the galleries. But some extra feet hit the pavement this past summer. Producer Christina Estes and photographer Scot Olson explain.


Veronica Graffius: The Calvin Charles Gallery is a mix of contemporary and Asian.

Christina Estes: And a mix of human and canine.

Veronica Graffius: We love dogs.

Christina Estes: That's why the galleries on Marshall Way designated four nights for their four-legged friends.

Veronica Graffius: Normally for August, this time of year is very quiet. Now that the galleries have come together and celebrate and have this ArtWalk, a special ArtWalk, ArtWalk the Dog, we’ve noticed a lot more traffic, a lot more excitement on the street.

Veronica Graffius: Inside the Bezalel Gallery --

Benjamin Kern: We're really trying to reach out and sort of break that stereotype that everything is so pretentious down here in Scottsdale.

Christina Estes: It's kind of tough being snooty when a dog is licking your face.

Geri Schencker: Thank you for kisses. She likes to kiss me a lot.

Christina Estes: Thanks to Geri Schencker’s group Rescue Paws, new puppies are sharing space with new artists.

Geri Schencker: We're trying to get our dogs adopted, because we get them from the pound. We try to save them from being killed. We adopted four already.

Christina Estes: Making new friends isn't the only perk. Visitors can browse and buy unique animal art. Everything from metal sculptures to small sketches, to huge paintings.

April Howland: This is Elvis. He is a Bull Terrier. He is one of my commissions of late. This is the biggest commission I've ever done so far. It's five foot by five foot on gallery wrap canvas.

Christina Estes: Quite a leap from April Howland’s early artwork, drawing cats and dogs at the age of four.

April Howland: My first memory as a child was a box of puppies, and I picked out our dog. She lived to be 21 years old. She was really more like a family member than a dog.

Christina Estes: Before the first brush stroke, April likes to meet her subjects.

April Howland: He's a very people-friendly dog. That's pretty much the inspiration for this piece. He’s just walking up to you, and he's like, please, stop, hang out with me.

Christina Estes: She says the key is the same as painting people --

April Howland: Their eyes are the windows to their soul. If I can get that sparkle in their eye, I've got their dog. I've never once had a complaint about that. They can always see their dog come through. And I think if you can capture the eyes you've got the dog. It doesn't matter what I do with the rest of it. The eyes really are what speak to you.

Christina Estes: ArtWalk the Dog doesn't just get locals into galleries, it also gets tourists talking.

Mike Wilhoite: It's an artsy town, I figured that's just what you guys did.

Christina Estes: After visiting the Grand Canyon, Mike Wilhoite and his wife headed to Scottsdale with friends.

Mike Wilhoite: There's great stuff. We lost our wives in one of the galleries for about 30 minutes as we sat and watched the dogs walk by.

Christina Estes: They can watch again in April, when the Scottsdale Gallery Association hosts its first Bone Apetite ArtWalk, a special treat for Fido and friends.

Ted Simons: The ArtWalk is free and takes place every Thursday from 7 to 9 p.m. along Main Street and Marshall Way in downtown Scottsdale.

Ted Simons: Friday on "Arizona Horizon" it's "The Journalists' Round Table." We'll discuss how the government shutdown is impacting Arizona. And two Republican candidates announce for currently held Democratic seats in Arizona's first and second congressional districts. Those stories and more Friday on "The Journalists' Round Table." That is it for now. I'm Ted Simons. Thank you so much for joining us. You have a great evening.

Arpaio Monitor

  |   Video
  • A federal judge has appointed a monitor to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to watch progress on efforts by the department to stop racial profiling. The judge also issued other orders for the department. Former Arizona U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton will discuss the case.
  • Paul Charlton - Former U.S. Attorney, Arizona
Category: Government   |   Keywords: arpaio, monitor,

View Transcript
Ted Simons: Good evening, and welcome to "Arizona Horizon." I'm Ted Simons. A federal judge this week appointed a monitor to oversee efforts by the Maricopa County sheriff's office to end what the court found as a pattern of racial profiling. Former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Paul Charlton is here to discuss the case. It's good to see you again.

Paul Charlton: Thanks for having me.

Ted Simons: Your general thoughts on the judge's ruling, especially as it pertains to the monitor, but in general as well.

Paul Charlton: I think perhaps most striking, Ted, is that part of the order where Judge Snow yesterday told the Maricopa County sheriff's office that it is now required to provide police services consistent with the Constitution and the laws of the United States and the state of Arizona. The fact that a district court judge had to instruct the head of our law enforcement agency in this county of that fact and that obligation is in itself extraordinary. The rest of the order as you say, is designed to implement that order, to make sure that everyone in the county receives equal protection under the law.

Ted Simons: Not only the order, you find extraordinary, but was it extraordinary to have these kinds of checks and balances on the order?

Paul Charlton: It is. The sheriff's office is now going to be required for example to put cameras in every deputy's vehicle, to create a community advisory board, to collect more data to provide objective information, and prove that the sheriff's office is in fact complying with the Constitution. And finally, as you pointed out, maybe most significantly, the requirement that a monitor assure that the sheriff is in fact complying with the court order.

Ted Simons: How would the sheriff's office work with this monitor?

Paul Charlton: The monitor, who is going to be selected hopefully by agreement between the ACLU and the sheriff's office, and if not, by selection of the judge, will review the sheriff's activities, review the court order, make sure the sheriff is complying with every aspect of this 59-page order, and report to the judge quarterly to make sure the judge knows exactly what the sheriff is doing.

Ted Simons: So the MCSO would have to give information to the monitor? Does the monitor request information? How do you make sure that compliance is happening?

Paul Charlton: Both of those. The sheriff's office will be required to periodically provide information to the monitor and to the ACLU. The monitor will be required to provide information to the court indicating the sheriff is or is not in compliance with the court's order, and there are a series of time frames which the sheriff's office needs to comply with as well to ensure that they are following the court's order.

Ted Simons: As far as this monitor is concerned, who -- Obviously the groups get together and decide on folks and the judge agrees whether or not this is a good enough monitor. Who should the monitor be? Law enforcement? Judicial? What is it?

Paul Charlton: There are actually people out there who are very qualified to hold this kind of position. Other monitors have been appointed throughout the country and at various times. I'm sure there are individuals with prior law enforcement experience, people who are respected in the law enforcement community and respected by the ACLU who could be appointed. As I say, the court order allows that the ACLU and the sheriff's office can come to agreement, but if they cannot, they are to submit qualified candidates to the judge, and the judge himself will decide who that individual will be.

Ted Simons: As far as the plaintiffs and the profiling case and -- It sounds like they're going to be involved here as well. That unusual?

Paul Charlton: It is unusual to this degree. First, the sheriff's office is going to have a period of time to prove they are in compliance with the court order. That is expected to be about a year. Then the sheriff's office must show that for the next three consecutive years they are complying with the Constitution and the court order, and the ACLU will be a part of that process every step of the way. That is unusual. And it is unusual that any law enforcement agency would fight in the way that this office, the sheriff's office, has fought to prohibit or try to stop this kind of court order.

Ted Simons: What happens if this sheriff's office goes away? Does the order stay, if there's a new sheriff in town in a couple of years, as opposed to the three-year deadline for whatever reason, we don't know what could happen, but for whatever reason something changes, does the court order still stand?

Paul Charlton: The court order still stands. The judge was very clear this order applies to the sheriff's office, to this sheriff and any succeeding sheriff for the period of time this order is in place.

Ted Simons: OK. We've got audio-video of traffic stops, 24-hour notification of planned immigration activities. Again, unusual?

Paul Charlton: It is unusual. And it's not only unusual because these are private plaintiffs who are involved in this lawsuit. But we have to remember, Ted, the Department of Justice is in line with a very similar lawsuit before the very same judge against the very same law enforcement agency, our sheriff's office to try to seek a broader scope of remedies to prohibit a broader scope of alleged civil rights abuses, but really very similar. And the Department of Justice alleges the sheriff is violating the civil rights of individuals within this county.

Ted Simons: How much duplication happens between these two? What happens if the -- We don't know if the sheriff's department will appeal. Are there any indications?

Paul Charlton: There is indication the sheriff's office will appeal. And we should keep in mind the sheriff's office has expended a great deal of resources in defending this case. We, the taxpayers, paid for the sheriff's lawyers in this six-plus-year lawsuit, and the court ordered yesterday, Ted, that we, the taxpayers, must now pay the plaintiffs' lawyers. So we can expect as taxpayers to pay a seven-figure number, approximately, for these lawyers to continue in this litigation. So, Ted, if it's right to criticize the sheriff's office for expending the resources, we, the taxpayers, resources, it's also right to suggest that the Department of Justice now come to the table with the sheriff's office and say, we have by and large obtained much of what we seek in our lawsuit, perhaps Sheriff Arpaio, sheriff's office, we should try to resolve our issues as well.

Ted Simons: That is -- If the sheriff's office appeals you don't know how far it's going to go, and the attorneys' fees will be out there anyway. It seems as though this has to -- six years, this has to end soon.

Paul Charlton: It would be wise, and most law enforcement officers and agencies do seek a remedy short of trial. The Department of Public Safety, for example, years ago, had a suit brought against it by the ACLU, seeking to stop them from what was a perceived injustice, and that they were, they believed, the ACLU, that the DPS was stopping people based on race. DPS said let's come to an agreement. So they came to a consent agreement, they had an advisory board, and they provided the ACLU and the public with data to show in fact they are not stopping people based on race or ethnicity. That could have been the same paradigm here, the sheriff's office took a different track and we, the taxpayers, are paying because of that.

Ted Simons: With that in mind, what happens, there's a lot of requirements here as far as this court order is concerned with monitors and oversight and the whole nine yards. What happens if the sheriff's department says OK, we'll do it, but they don't do it?

Paul Charlton: In every contempt case where the court imposes an order, the vehicle by which the judge can punish those people who don't follow his orders is contempt. Contempt can mean a fine, it can even mean in the most extreme cases imprisonment. In those cases, it is the individual who's imprisoned who holds, as they say under the law, the very keys to his or her own liberty. As soon as they comply with the judge’s order they're released. So the judge has a broad spectrum of possible penalties he can impose should the sheriff's office not comply with his order.

Ted Simons: Last question. How much does this change the sheriff's department's immigration procedures?

Paul Charlton: I would say an extraordinary amount. The sheriff's lawyer has said they will comply with the judge’s order pending a possible appeal. The sheriff now has to put in place clear and strict guidelines by which his deputies must comply with the Constitution, make sure they are not racially profiling and that they're providing equal protection under the law.

Ted Simons: All right. It's fascinating stuff. I got a funny feeling -- I don't have a funny feeling at all. We've been covering this story for so long, it just seems like it goes on forever. We'll see about the appeals process, but it's great to have you on to explain this. Thanks for joining us.

Political Fallout of Government Shutdown

  |   Video
  • As the federal government shutdown continues, both political parties continue to blame each other. Arizona State University political science professor Richard Herrera will discuss the political fallout of the shutdown.
  • Richard Herrera - Political Science Professor, Arizona State University
Category: Government   |   Keywords: government, shutdown,

View Transcript
Ted Simons: Finger pointing and the blame game are among the few things working overtime on Capitol Hill right now as the federal government shutdown continues. We talked last night about the shutdown's possible economic impact on Arizona. Tonight we look at the political fallout. Joining us is ASU political science professor Richard Herrera. Good to see you again.

Richard Herrera: Good to be here.

Ted Simons: How serious is the country taking this shutdown?

Richard Herrera: Not as seriously as you would think. There's about 30 percent of the American people who are paying close attention to it. Another 25 percent who are kind of paying attention to it. And then there's a sizable minority, about 40 percent who are really not engaged at all. And then when you look further into that, the group of people who are paying the least amount of attention are people in the younger age groups, 18 to 25, really not engaged at all.

Ted Simons: Is that a surprise to you as a political scientist? It's one thing to say younger folks or certain demographics don't vote, but to not pay attention to something that seems to be all over the news these days.

Richard Herrera: It's consistent with voting patterns as well. Older voters are paying closer attention than younger voters, just like older voters vote more than younger voters, for example. It's not too surprising to me, only because the public's attention to complex political issues always tends to be fairly low. And if we compare it back to the last time we had a situation like this, it's pretty consistent. Not a lot of -- Not as many Americans as you might think are paying close attention.

Ted Simons: I want to get back to the 1995 shutdown in a second here, but before we do, does the public seem in general to know what both sides want?

Richard Herrera: Yes and no. Depending on which fight you're talking about. If you're talking about the government shutdown, it's unclear to a lot of voters what Republicans are really after. That is, what would satisfy them in terms of making a deal? On the other hand, looking at the president and the senate, it's a bit unclear as to why the president is being portrayed as not negotiating. What is there to negotiate about? That's about the government shutdown. And in another week we've got the debt ceiling debate. That's a much more complicated story for Americans to understand.

Ted Simons: It's much more complicated, but the ramifications are far more serious. Maybe not far more serious, but certainly more serious in the short-term. Is that resonating with the public?

Richard Herrera: Not yet. In the same way last time it came up, it doesn't really start to resonate until you get very, very close to the deadline and then you get numbers like we're getting now. 35 to 50 percent of people paying close attention to it.

Ted Simons: Talk more about numbers here. Who's getting the most blame?

Richard Herrera: Depending on the poll you look at, you get different numbers. The most recent poll I've seen shows that both parties are getting some blame. In fact it's very close. While conventional wisdom would suggest Republicans in the House would be getting the most blame, they're getting some. But they're not necessarily getting all of it. And most Americans are not saying that Republicans are necessarily wrong, and they're not saying the president necessarily is wrong, which suggests there is a little confusion, and an unwillingness to take sides.

Ted Simons: Would that be a case, the long they're drags out, the more the public is aware, the more the public learns the firmer the opinions are?

Richard Herrera: Yes. That would be the case. And in fact as that tends to happen, at least we compare it to historical cases, then it begins to look like Congress is more to blame than the president.

Ted Simons: But then again, it doesn't sound like Congress is in any hurry right now to do something about it. Certainly internal polling would suggest to them you can only go before so long before 1995 happens again, and talk about the fallout from that shutdown.

Richard Herrera: Right. The fallout from that shutdown is less conclusive than we think. Conventional wisdom is Republicans suffered terribly as a result of the shutdown. And they did suffer in some ways, but if we look at some historical facts regarding that situation, the president for example, President Clinton at the time, his approval ratings were fairly high, much higher than President Obama's at the time. And they were on an upward trajectory before and they continued that way. Congress was also not very well regarded at the time, and they continued that way, but they didn't necessarily take a huge dip. In fact in the following election, the big news was that in 1996 President Clinton won reelection comfortably. A lot of factors went into that. It's unclear whether the shutdown had anything to do with that. In fact, Republicans did not fare poorly in those elections. I think they actually gained some seats. So it's unclear that they actually suffered as badly as conventional wisdom would suggest. If we fast forward to today, the dynamics in the House of Representatives are quite interesting because in many cases the Republicans who are calling the most for -- to stand their ground and stay principle, are insulated from electoral ramifications. That is, there's no consequence to them for shutting down the government electorally. That's the primary motivation for most members of Congress, to get reelected. If there are no electoral consequences for them, they tend not to be listening to voices who say we have to be reasonable or we have to make a deal there. There are some situations where you have members of Congress particularly Republicans, who are in less safe seats. They tend to be the ones who are more likely and the ones in some cases who have come forward and said I'm willing to vote for a clean continuing resolution that would fund the government. The other factor that comes into play are those members of Congress, those Republicans, who are congressional districts where they have a higher percentage of federal workers as a share of the employees in that district. Because of course, they're the ones who are furloughed, they're starting to hear from those constituents and they're also, they constitute quite a few of the, 19 right now, Republicans who have come forward and said we would vote to fund the government.

Ted Simons: With that in mind, can the GOP, House GOP, can they back down? Can the Senate, Democratic senate back down or be perceived as backing down? How does the public -- We all want compromise. We all want to see people working together. But is it going to be a sign of weakness if one side backs down?

Richard Herrera: To some voters it will be seen as a sign of weakness. For example, specifically Republican voters who identify themselves as Tea Party voters, they would be very disenchanted by Republicans who then – who now back down in the House of Representatives. And they have already formed groups to put pressure on House Republicans who do that. And they constitute an important part of the Republican party base. They could become disenchanted with the Republican party, they could sit out the 2014 election, which would be not good for those Republicans who are in semi safe seats. But for the majority of Americans, just with looking at Republicans and Democrats, they're more interested in compromise. They're more interested in seeing a solution found than they are with members of Congress sticking to principles. And so you would guess the result would be most Americans would not be rewarding this sort of behavior. In fact they would be looking to punish this behavior. But again when you have so members of the House of Representatives in safe seats, it's hard to punish and reward.

Ted Simons: This seems to be all based on the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare if you will. What is the public opinion of the Affordable Care Act? Because it would seem to me if public opinion is relatively strong one way or another, that side would have the benefit. Do most Americans not want the Affordable Care Act?

Richard Herrera: That's true. In fact, it's a slim margin. So about 53 percent of Americans when asked would say they're not in favor of the Obamacare law the way it's written now. The Affordable Care Act is not as popular as it might have been at one time or it might be in the future. Still, 42 percent of Americans do think the Affordable Care Act is a good idea and that it will work. If you take that 53 percent who think it's not working or have an unfavorable opinion of it, a good percentage of those 53 percent nonetheless don't think it should be used as a lever to make a deal with the president with regard to the government shutdown.

Ted Simons: With that in mind, what is the history of using any policy as a lever to get something done? Especially threatening and shutting down the government over policy. Is 1995 the only time that's happened in our history?

Richard Herrera: It's the only time it's happened when the result was a government shutdown. So in that case the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, saw government shutdown as the ultimate lever that the legislative branch or the Congress had in order to counter the power of the executive branch was the veto, of course. And so if that's their only lever, he decided that's what we should use. At that time it was still a budget fight, it was a slightly different circumstances, but they were fighting over a balanced budget proposal. And both sides had agreed that OK, we'll have a gradual move towards a balanced budget, but the situation was quite different in so far as Congress had already appropriated funds for three departments and so it wasn't as if the government shutdown at the time was complete, and it was at the time many Americans can remember 1995-96. At the time, there was no memory of a government shutdown, so it was much more of a shock.

Ted Simons: We've had it happen twice, both times with the Republican party kind of leading the way here. Why haven't the Democrats used the same tactic?

Richard Herrera: That's a very interesting question. I think democrats do -- As a whole, if you look at the public and you look at the way Democrats see legislating, they don't see shutting down the government as viable as an option. That is, they're less willing to take those ultimate steps, which is one reason to go back to one of your earlier questions about who wins and loses. Democrats, strong Democrats, liberal Democrats are loving that the president and Harry Reid are sticking to their guns and they're not budging. Because they see this as a capitulation, just as we've seen in the past, that never works, never results in anything they want. So they want to see a strong president, a strong Senate hold their ground. But that's not most Americans.

Ted Simons: Well, good numbers. Very interesting stuff. Good to have you here. Thanks for joining us.