>> DON: GOOD EVENING.

FROM OUR STATEHOUSE STUDIO IN MONTGOMERY, I'M DON DAILEY.

THANKS FOR JOINING US.

TOPPING OUR BROADCAST TONIGHT, A BUSY LEGISLATIVE WEEK LIES AHEAD, WITH POSSIBLE SENATE ACTION ON A STATE LOTTERY AND ANOTHER HOUSE COMMITTEE VOTE ON LEGISLATION THAT WOULD LEGALIZE MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN ALABAMA.

WE BEGIN TONIGHT WITH THE LOTTERY.

THE SENATE MAY BE READY TO VOTE ON IT AS EARLY AS TOMORROW.

AT ISSUE IS THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WOULD MAKE AN EXCEPTION IN OUR LAW FOR THE LOTTERY, AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY GO UP FOR A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.

THE SENATE LAST WEEK APPROVED THE ENABLING LEGISLATION, OR THE FINE PRINT OF THE LOTTERY PLAN.

IT'S SPONSOR, SENATOR JIM MCCLENDON OF SPRINGVILLE, RECENTLY TOLD CAPITOL JOURNAL THAT HE HOPES TO BRING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BACK UP FOR A VOTE THIS WEEK, AND THAT HE'S WILLING TO COMPROMISE, IF NECESSARY.

>> I'M STARTING OUT WITH A SIMPLE LOTTERY BILL.

IF I CAN GET THE VOTES, THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO PASS.

IF I CAN'T GET THE VOTES AND I HAVE TO AMEND IT IN SOME WAY AND MAKE IT MORE COMPREHENSIVE, THEN I'M WILLING TO DO THAT IN ORDER TO GET THE LOTTERY.

>> DON: A MORE COMPREHENSIVE GAMING PLAN, INCLUDING CASINOS AND SPORTS BETTING, FAILED IN THE SENATE LAST MONTH, BUT MCCLENDON SAYS HE'S WILLING TO ATTACH IT TO HIS LOTTERY LEGISLATION, IF IT COMES TO THAT.

DEBATE ON HIS LOTTERY-ONLY BILL ON THE SENATE FLOOR LAST WEEK WAS LENGTHY AND A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS WERE OFFERED.

SENATOR CLYDE CHAMBLISS OF PRATTVILLE EXPRESSED A LOT OF CONCERNS, INCLUDING FIRST WANTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STRONG GAMBLING COMMISSION.

.

>> IT'S A DIFFICULT SITUATION FOR ME, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE PERCEIVED OR THINKING THAT I'M TRYING TO BLOCK THE PEOPLES' RIGHT TO VOTE.

BUT WE NEED THEM TO VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO WORK LONG TERM AND HAS THE PROPER CONTROLS IN IT.

>> DON: SENATOR CHAMBLISS SAYS HE'S MORE IN FAVOR OF A COMPREHENSIVE GAMING PLAN BECAUSE GAMING IN MANY RESPECTS ALREADY EXISTS IN THE STATE.

HE'LL JOIN US ON THE BROADCAST SHORTLY TO TALK MORE ABOUT IT.

IF THE SENATE APPROVES A LOTTERY BILL THIS WEEK, IT WOULD THEN MOVE TO THE HOUSE, WHERE SPEAKER MAC MCCUTCHEON OF MONROVIA SAID LAST WEEK THAT THE LOWER CHAMBER NEEDS TO RECEIVE SOMETHING SOON.

>> YOU TAKE A MAJOR PIECE OF LEGISLATION, LIKE GAMING, AND THAT BILL NEEDS TO BE MOVING AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE.

I WOULD THINK NEXT WEEK NEEDS TO BE, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ON A PIECE OF LEGISLATION LIKE THAT, IF IT'S GOING TO HAVE A LEGITIMATE CHANCE OF GETTING PASSED.

OF COURSE, THAT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ISSUE, SO THAT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT.

AND IT TAKES MORE VOTE IN THE SENATE AND IN THE HOUSE TO GET A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PASSED.

>> DON: THE SENATE CONVENES AT 1:30 TOMORROW AND WE WILL FIND OUT THEN IF THE LOTTERY WILL BE ON ITS WORK CALENDAR.

ANOTHER BIG ISSUE EXPECTED TO BE BEFORE LAWMAKERS THIS WEEK IS A BILL TO LEGALIZE THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN THE STATE.

ITS ALREADY PASSED THE SENATE AND IS BEING VETTED THROUGH TWO HOUSE COMMITTEES, WHICH IS AN UNUSUAL STEP.

THE LEGISLATION PASSED THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE LAST WEEK AND IS SET TO GO BEFORE THE HOUSE HEALTH COMMITTEE ON WEDNESDAY OF THIS WEEK.

IT'S SPONSOR, SENATOR TIM MELSON OF FLORENCE, HAS SAID THAT HIS BILL HAS ALSO BEEN VETTED THROUGH A LOT OF OTHER AGENCIES.

>> YOU KNOW, WE WORKED WITH DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS AS FAR AS REGULATORY AND INITIALLY, WE TALKED TO ALEA, AND SOME OF THE DEAL WITH THAT, THEY WERE GOING TO DO THE COMPLIANCE EXAMINATIONS OR PROCESSES TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS IN ORDER AS FAR AS PAPERWORK, SEAT COUNT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND ALSO, THE DEPARTMENT OF AG WORKS ON THAT, LIKE IN PROCESSING.

>> DON: THE HOUSE HEALTH COMMITTEE IS SET TO TAKE UP THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA LEGISLATION ON WEDNESDAY MORNING.

THE FULL HOUSE TOMORROW IS SET TO TAKE UP A BILL THAT WOULD ALLOW THOSE RELEASED FROM PRISON TO HAVE THEIR VOTING RIGHTS RESTORED AUTOMATICALLY ONCE ALL CONDITIONS OF THEIR PAROLE ARE MET AND RESTITUTION FEES ARE PAID.

ITS ALREADY PASSED THE SENATE, WHERE IT WAS SPONSORED BY SENATOR LINDA COLEMAN MADISON OF BIRMINGHAM.

SHE RECENTLY SPOKE TO CAPITOL JOURNAL ABOUT THE LEGISLATION.

>> THIS BILL SAYS IT TAKES AWAY THE APPLICATION PROCESS THAT THE PERSON HAS TO APPLY TO THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PATROL.

AND THE PARDONS AND PAROLE BOARD WILL NOW KEEP RECORDS, WHICH THEY ALREADY KEEPS RECORDS AND LET'S THE PYRAN KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED ALL OF YOUR REQUIREMENTS, YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR YOUR CERTIFICATE TO RESTORE YOUR VOTING RIGHTS.

>> DON: THE EXPUNGEMENT BILL WILL BE CARRIED BY REP. CHRIS ENGLAND OF TUSCALOOSA WHEN ITS CONSIDERED ON THE HOUSE FLOOR TOMORROW.

A BILL THAT WOULD MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO PAY A CHURCH OR OTHER ORGANIZATION FOR ASSISTING PEOPLE IN VOTING ON A PER BALLOT BASIS IS ALSO SET FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE FULL HOUSE TOMORROW.

IT'S SPONSORED BY REPRESENTATIVE JAMIE KIEL OF RUSSELLVILLE, WHO PREVIOUSLY TOLD CAPITOL JOURNAL HE WAS INSPIRED BY EVENTS LAST YEAR.

>> THERE WAS A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE THAT ADVERTISED THAT IF A CHURCH WOULD HAVE ITS MEMBER VOTE EARLY, NOT JUST VOTE, BUT VOTE ABSENTEE, THEY WOULD PAY THEM PER HEAD PER PERSON $6 AND IT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL TO PAY SOMEONE TO VOTE, TO DO THAT.

AND IT FELT AN AWFUL LOT LIKE THAT.

>> DON: REPRESENTATIVE KIEL CONTENDS THAT HIS LEGISLATION WILL CLOSE A LOOPHOLE IN STATE LAW.

AT LEAST ONE GROUP THAT OFFERED MONEY FOR HELPING GET OUT THE VOTE LAST YEAR HAS SAID THAT IT DID NOT PAY PEOPLE TO VOTE.

THE HOUSE TOMORROW WILL ALSO CONSIDER LEGISLATION THAT WOULD DESIGNATE THE SWEET POTATO AS THE STATE VEGETABLE.

ITS A MEASURE THAT'S ALREADY PASSED THE SENATE, WHERE IT WAS SPONSORED BY SENATOR GARLAN GUDGER OF CULLMAN.

HE PREVIOUSLY SPOKE TO CAPITOL JOURNAL ABOUT IT.

>> FROM CULLMAN COUNTY, WE HAVE THE SWEET POTATO FESTIVAL, 25TH YEAR.

WE'RE KNOWN FOR SWEET POTATOES AND THERE WAS A TEACHER IN THE CLASSROOM REALIZED WE DIDN'T HAVE A STATE VEGETABLE AND THEY BROUGHT IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE SENATE.

>> DON: IF THE HOUSE TOMORROW APPROVES GUDGER'S BILL TO DESIGNATE THE SWEET POTATO AS THE STATE VEGETABLE, WITHOUT AMENDMENTS, IT WOULD GO TO THE GOVERNOR FOR HER SIGNATURE.

IN 2006, THE LEGISLATURE APPROVED A MEASURE THAT DESIGNATED THE PEACH AS THE OFFICIAL STATE FRUIT OF ALABAMA.

WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> Don: NEXT UP ON THE BROADCAST, SENATOR CLYDE CHAMBLISS IS BACK IN THE STUDIO.

SENATOR, LOTS THAT I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT.

THE LOTTERY DEBATE HAS BEEN FIGURED PROMINENTLY IN THE SENATE LAST WEEK AND COULD COME BACK TO THE SENATE FLOOR THIS WEEK.

BEFORE WE BEGIN THERE, I WANT TO TO TALK ABOUT A BILL THAT YOU ARE WORKING ON THAT DEALS WITH THE CONTROVERSY OVER CONFEDERATE MEMORIALS IN OUR STATE.

IT WAS REALLY AN OUTGROWTH OF THAT DEBATE AND MAYBE SEEN AS SORT OF A COMPROMISE, EFFORTS TO DO AWAY WITH THE MONUMENTS LAW OR HEAVILY AMEND IT.

WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT IS USING A TAX THAT'S EXISTED SINCE THE CONFEDERACY DAYS -- CORRECT ME ON MY HISTORY HERE.

IF I AM RIGHT, THERE'S A TAX COLLECTED, PROPERTY TAX IN ALABAMA THAT WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED TO HELP CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS AND THEIR WIDOWS.

AMONG OTHER THINGS, IT ALSO HELPED FUND A HOME FOR INDIGENT VETERANS AND WIDOWS, AND IT STOOD ON THE SIDE OF CONFEDERATE MEMORIAL PARK.

IT'S STILL COLLECTED AND USED FOR OTHER THINGS BUT ONE PERCENT GOES TO CONFEDERATE MEMORIAL PART THERE IN CHILTON COUNTY.

NOW, THERE'S BEEN CALLS FOR DEFUNDING THE CONFEDERATE MEMORIAL PARK.

AND WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR, TO FUND CONFEDERATE MEMORIAL PARK AND ALSO FUND EQUAL BLACK MEMORIAL HISTORY SITES.

>> RIGHT.

IT'S IN MY DISTRICT AND IT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR HISTORICAL ASPECT OF THE STATE.

WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO FUND THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PARK, AND THE HISTORY THAT'S SO RICH THERE.

THERE'S EFFORTS, I GUESS, KIND OF, ON BOTH SIDES, ONE IS TO ADDRESS THE PENALTIES AND MAKE THEM EVEN MORE PUNITIVES.

>> THE PENALTIES FOR TAKE DOWN MONUMENTS?

>> EXACTLY.

>> AND THERE'S AN EFFORT ON THE OTHER SIDE TO TOTALLY REPEAL THE LAW.

IN MY OPINION, NEITHER ONE OF THOSE ARE EXACTLY WHERE WE NEED TO BE.

WE NEED TO MODIFY THE PENALTIES SO IT'S MORE OF A DETERRENT BUT DOESN'T LIKE TO BE $25,000 A DAY.

MAYBE $25,000 A MONTH.

THAT TYPE THING.

BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO HAVE A MEETING OF THE MINDS IN THE MIDDLE AND GIVE THE LOCALS WHERE THE MONUMENTS ARE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE AND TO ADDRESS THAT.

IN MY OPINION, IT SHOULD BE LIKE A SUPER MAJORITY, NOT A SIMPLE MAJORITY BECAUSE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HISTORY AND CHANGING MONUMENTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, IT NEEDS TO BE VERY, VERY DELIBERATE AND VERY CALCULATED.

>> THERE HAVE BEEN MOVEMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT, EITHER SIDE, VERY EXTREME, LIKE ONE MOVEMENT THIS YEAR TO TOTALLY REPEAL THE MONUMENTS LAW AND THE EXTREME OTHER SIDE, A BILL INTRODUCED TO STRENGTHEN THE MEMORIAL PRESERVATION ACT.

YOU ARE LOOKING FOR SORT OF A COMPROMISE IN THE MIDDLE, RIGHT?

>> THAT WAS THE GENESIS OF THE BILL.

HOW DO WE ADDRESS BOTH SIDES, BE REASONABLE, AND RATIONAL ABOUT IT.

AND 10, 15, 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD SO WE'RE STILL NOT DEALING WITH THE ISSUE.

>> 1% OF THE PROPERTY TAX WHICH WE SPEAK STILL FUNDS CONFEDERATE MEMORIAL PARK AS IT HAS FOR MANY YEARS, BUT EQUAL ONE PERCENT UNDER THE BILL, THAT YOU ARE LOOKING TO INTRODUCING WOULD BE TO BLACK HISTORY SITES TOO.

>> RIGHT.

I AM AGAINST ANYTHING THAT DEFUNDS THE 1%.

THAT'S NOT WHERE WE NEED TO GO.

AND WE HAVE HISTORY, SUCH AS THE CLOTILDA, FOUND DOWN IN MOBILE BAY.

THAT NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT, ALL ACROSS THE STATE.

TO ME, IT SEEMS FAIR THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE THE 1% AND HAVE A 1% THAT GOES TO PRESERVE BLACK HISTORY AS WELL.

>> THIS IS SUCH A SENSITIVE SUBJECT.

I IMAGINE IT HAS TAKEN SOME DOING GETTING TO THIS POINT.

BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T INTRODUCED THE BILL YET.

YOU ARE STILL WORKING ON IT, RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

AND IT GOT OUT AHEAD OF US AND WE DON'T HAVE THE DETAILS FINALIZED.

AND WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FINALIZE THE DETAILS.

WE'LL CONTINUE WORKING AND HOPEFULLY COMING TO A POINT WHERE WE INTRODUCE IT.

>> HAVE YOU BEEN ENCOURAGED WITH THE NEGOTIATIONS SO FAR.

I KNOW IT WAS REPORTED THAT YOU WERE WORKING WITH THE SENATE MINORITY LEADER, BOBBY SINGLETON OVER THE LEGISLATION.

>> RIGHT, SENATOR SINGLETON HAS BEEN VERY REASONABLE AND LOOKING AT BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE, FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE PERSPECTIVES, ALL PERSPECTIVES.

I'VE VERY MUCH ENJOYED WORKING WITH HIM.

HOPEFUL WE'LL GET TOGETHER AND INTRODUCE THIS.

>> WELL, IS THERE A ABOUT TIME?

>> RIGHT, THERE'S TWICE AS MANY DAYS AS YOU NEED, THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF DAYS.

SO, WE STILL HAVE TIME AND WE'LL SEE.

>> Don: WE'LL KEEP A CLOSE EYE ON IT.

NOW, THE LAST FEW MINUTES, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE LOTTERY.

YOU WERE PRETTY PASSIONATE LAST WEEK ON THE FLOOR WHEN THE LOTTERY WAS BEING DEBATED.

AND THEY PASSED THE ENABLING LEGISLATION AND DELAYED THE VOTE ON THE CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, THAT MAY COME UP THIS WEEK.

YOU BROUGHT UP A LOT OF CONCERNS, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS GAMBLING ADDICTION.

I BELIEVE THERE'S MONEY BUILT INTO THE BILL AND YOU HAVE A FRIEND WHOSE MOTHER TOOK HER OWN LIFE BECAUSE OF GAMBLING ADDICTION.

>> RIGHT.

IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION.

WE ALREADY HAVE GAMBLING HERE IN THE STATE.

I THINK THERE'S 18 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IN THE STATE, IN 16 DIFFERENT LOCALITIES.

IT'S ALREADY HERE.

WE HAVE SOME OF THE ILLS THAT COME WITH IT.

THAT'S NOT EVERYBODY.

IT'S A SMALL PERCENTAGE.

BUT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THOSE THINGS AND DEAL WITH THOSE ISSUES.

AND WE'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH IT AHEAD OF TIME.

IF WE PASS THE BILL AND THEN TRY TO DEAL WITH IT LATER, IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

I'M ADAMANT THAT WE DEAL WITH IT NOW.

SPECIFICALLY, HAVING A STRONG GAMBLING COMMISSION, WITH STRONG OVERSIGHT FROM THE LEGISLATURE.

WE JUST HAVE TO HAVE THOSE.

>> GIVEN THAT THIS IS SUCH A SENSITIVE SUBJECT AND OPPOSING SIDES ON THIS.

A, THERE ARE THOSE THAT WANT LOTTERY-ONLY BILL.

B, THOSE THAT WANT MORE COMPREHENSIVE GAMING PLAN TO ATTACK IT ON ALL FRONTS.

WHERE DO YOU SIT?

>> WELL, PEOPLE SAY SIMPLE LOTTERY, CLEAN LOTTERY.

IN MY OPINION, THERE IS NO SUCH THING.

THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS LOTTERIES IN OUR STATE OTHER THAN THOSE THAT I MENTIONED, OTHER THAN THROUGH THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

SO, IF WE REPEAL THAT, WITH A SIMPLE BILL, THEN THERE ARE NO RULES.

BASICALLY ANYBODY CAN DO ANYTHING.

SO, IT'S NOT SIMPLE.

WHEN YOU START PUTTING THE RULES TOGETHER, IT BECOMES VERY, VERY DIFFICULT, VERY, VERY COMPLICATED.

AND IN MY OPINION, A SIMPLE LOTTERY, JUST GOING OUT AND VOTING STRAIGHT ON A SIMPLE LOTTERY IS NOT WHAT WE NEED TO DO BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE GAMBLING IN OUR STATE.

IF WE DIDN'T, THAT MAY BE THE WAY TO GO.

BUT WE NEED A STRONG GAMBLING COMMISSION THAT HAS ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY, SUBPOENA POWERS, DOES ALL OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO DO AND DO IT BEFORE WE PUT THE VOTE OUT FOR A QUESTION.

IT'S A DIFFICULT SITUATION FOR ME BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE PERCEIVED OF THINKING OR TRYING TO BLOCK THE PEOPLES' RIGHT TO VOTE.

BUT WE NEED THEM TO VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT WILL WORK LONG TERM.

AND THAT HAS THE PROPER CONTROLS IN IT.

>> Don: SENATOR JIM JIM MCCLENDON, SPONSORING THE LOTTERY BILL SAYS HE HOPES TO PASS IT IN THE CURRENT FORM.

BUT HE'S NOT AGAINST IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES, ADDING ON MORE COMPREHENSIVE GAMING ASPECT.

IS THAT WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS GO THAT WAY?

>> ACTUALLY, IT'S FUNNY, I DO SUPPORT MORE OF A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH THAN A SIMPLE LOTTERY APPROACH.

AND THE REASON IS, BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE GAMBLING IN THE STATE.

AGAIN, IF WE DIDN'T, THAT SIMPLE LOTTERY WOULD BE FINE WITH THE DETAILS.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE SITUATION THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN.

SO, IT HAS TO BE A LITTLE MORE COMPREHENSIVE.

>> YOUR COLLEAGUE GREG ALBRITTON RECENTLY ON THE SHOW, MEMORABLY SAID, MORE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BECAUSE, A, GAMING EXISTS IN THE STATE AND REGULATE IT AND TAX THE DEVIL OUT OF IT.

AND POSSIBLY ENTER INTO A COMPACT WITH THE POARCH CREEK INDIANS AND MAKE MONEY OFF THEIR GAMING ACTIVITIES AS WELL.

>> I AGREE WITH THAT, I JOKINGLY SAID I FIND MYSELF ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE ISSUE BUT FOR DIFFERING ISSUES.

WE HAVE GAMBLING HERE.

SO, WE DO HAVE THE ILLS THAT COME WITH IT.

AND WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THOSE IN A WAY TO HELP PRE VENT THOSE TYPE SITUATIONS GOING FORWARD.

>> BEFORE WE CLOSE, LOOK IN YOUR CRYSTAL BALL, WHERE DO YOU SEE THIS ULTIMATELY GOING?

OR DO YOU SEE IT GOING IN THE SESSION?

>> I GUESS MY PREDICTION IS THAT A BILL FINALLY WILL MAKE IT THROUGH THE SENATE, AND GET BOGGED DOWN IN THE HOUSE.

BECAUSE IT TOOK SIGNIFICANT TIME IN THE SENATE AND PROBABLY END UP IN A SPECIAL SESSION.

>> YOU THINK THERE COULD BE A SPECIAL SESSION ON THIS ISSUE?

>> I THINK SO.

BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF WORK BETWEEN NOW AND THEN THAT HAS TO BE DONE.

WE'LL JUST SEE.

>> INTERESTING.

SENATOR CLYDE CHAMBLISS ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO HAVE YOU ON THE SHOW.

>> YOU BET.

>> AND "CAPITOL JOURNAL" WILL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> Don: NEXT UP, MR. MAC GIPSON, WITH THE ALABAMA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD.

NOW, THERE WAS A BILL, ALLOWING THE DELIVERY OF BEER, WINE, AND SPIRITS TO HOMES FROM QUALIFIED BUSINESSES.

>> RIGHT.

THEY HAVE TO APPLY FOR A DELIVERY LICENSE.

EVEN IF THEY HAVE AN EXISTING ALCOHOL LICENSE, THEY STILL HAVE TO HAVE A DELIVERY LICENSE IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO DELIVER.

AND THEY MAY DELIVER BY THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES OR USE CONTRACT EMPLOYEES.

SO, THE FIRST THING TO BE LICENSED, CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE LICENSE HOLDERS TO MEET THEIR DELIVERY PEOPLE.

TO MEET BACKGROUND CHECKS, NOT BEING CONVICTED OF OVERINDULGENCE OR DUI FOR THE LAST SEVEN YEARS.

IT'S A PRETTY STRICT REGULATION THAT THEY HAVE TO ABIDE BY.

EITHER THE DELIVERY AGENT OR THEMSELVES.

>> Don: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIRD PARTY CONTRACTORS THAT COULD BE USED IN THE DELIVERY PROCESS, OUTSIDE OF THE BUSINESS' MAIN EMPLOYEES.

I'M THINKING OF GROCERY DELIVERY SERVICES?

>> RIGHT.

THERE ARE SEVERAL OF THEM OUT THERE.

>> THESE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO UNDERGO THE LICENSING PROCESS.

FIRST OF ALL, 21 YEARS OF AGE AND UNDERGO THE BACKGROUND CHECK.

>> VARIOUS AND SUNDRY.

>> AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE A SIZEABLE AMOUNT OF LIABILITY INSURANCE AS WELL.

$5 MILLION FOR THE THIRD PARTY AND $2 MILLION FOR THE IN-HOUSE DELIVERY IF THEY ARE USING THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES.

>> BUT THE ABC BOARD ULTIMATELY SETS UP THE LICENSING PROCESS.

>> WE WOULD.

>> AND THEY GO THROUGH YOU FIRST?

>> WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WRITE THE RULES, THAT'S THE REASON 6 MONTHS BEFORE THE BILL GOES INTO EFFECT TO GIVE US TIME TO GET ALL OF THE RULES DOWN PAT THAT WE NEED THEM TO FOLLOW.

>> DO YOU THINK THIS IS AN ACTUAL PROGRESSION OF THINGS, DUE TO THE OTHER SERVICES AND GOODS DELIVERED TO HOMES.

>> RIGHT.

AFTER THE PANDEMIC PROCEDURE, PRIOR TO TO THAT, NO.

WE WOULD HAVE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED IT DURING THE PANDEMIC.

AND WE DID NOT HAVE CODE AUTHORIZATION DURING THE PANDEMIC TIME.

AND YOU KNOW, THE OFFICE WAS INNUNDATED FOR CALLS FOR DELIVERY OF THAT.

AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.

>> I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED THAT, DURING THE PANDEMIC, WHEN SO MANY PEOPLE WERE HAVING TAKEOUT FOOD FROM RESTAURANTS, EITHER CURBSIDE DELIVERY OR DELIVERED TO THEIR HOME, THERE WAS A BIG PUSH TO BE ABLE TO ORDER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE, YOU ORDER FOOD FROM A MEXICAN RESTAURANT, YOU WANT A PITCHER OF MARGARITAS TO GO WITH IT.

>> RIGHT.

AND WE AUTHORIZED CURBSIDE PICKUP.

IF YOU TOOK THE FOOD TO THE CAR, YOU CAN CARRY A SEALED CONTAINER OF THE MARGARITA MIX AND THE MARGARITA MIXER.

SO, WE PUT THAT BACK IN CHRISTMAS.

WE TOOK IT OFF AND THEN PUT IT BACK ON TO HELP OUT THE RESTAURANTS THAT WERE SUFFERING TERRIBLY.

AND WE WANTED TO HELP THE ON-PREMISE LICENSE.

>> Don: AT THE TIME IT WAS A BIG LEAP FROM DOING THAT, TO HOME DELIVERY.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

ABSOLUTELY.

IT WAS A BIG DELIVERY.

AND THERE WERE FEW STATES THAT HAD BIG DELIVERY, ON ONE HAND THAT ACTUALLY HAD DELIVERY.

AND THERE WAS A HUE AND CRY FOR IT AND OUR HANDS WERE TIED AND WE HAD AND WE HAD LEGISLATURE THAT CAME BACK IN, AND THERE WAS A DELIVERY BILL AND WE HAD TO WORK WITH IT, DELIVERIES, I SAY, SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO THE LEGISLATURE COMING BACK IN, TO GET THE BILL TO WHERE WE COULD ENFORCE IT AS WELL AS WE COULD.

THERE'S NO WAY, NO SURE WAY TO ENFORCE IT.

BUT THE MAIN THING IS UNDERAGE.

WE JUST DON'T WANT THE KIDS, MOM AND DADDY AND KIDS HOME AND THEY CALL UP AND ORDER A BUNCH OF BOOZE.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IF WE CAN HELP IT.

SO, WE'VE WORKED HARD TO MAKE THAT BILL MORE OR LESS IRON PROOF AS POSSIBLE.

>> SO, BUILDING CERTAIN SAFEGUARDS TO PREVENT THAT.

>> EVEN TO THE GUY THAT DELIVERS IT, HE'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE A HAND-HELD DEVICE THAT CHECKS THE DRIVER'S LICENSE AND IF THEY ARE NOT OF AGE, HE BRINGS IT BACK AND HE WILL NOT BE PENALIZED.

THE DELIVERY COMPANY IS NOT PENALIZED AND HE BRINGS IT BACK.

>> SO, IF THE DELIVERY PEOPLE REQUEST THE I.D.

WHEN THEY GET TO THE HOUSE, YOU HAVE TO PRESENT IT.

>> RIGHT, IF YOU ARE GOING TO GET THE ALCOHOL, YOU SURE DO.

>> AND IS IT BUILT IN, OR THEY SUSPECT IT?

>> NO, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO CHECK THE ID EVERY TIME.

I WAS IN ARIZONA AND YOU CAN LOOK AT ME AND TELL I'M NOT A SPRING CHICKEN.

I HAD TO SHOW MY ID TO ORDER A BEER FOR LUNCH.

THEY ARE VERY THOROUGH.

THEY HAVE NO AGE REQUIREMENT FOR CHECKING IDS.

AND WE DON'T EITHER, WE CAN CHECK ANYBODY'S ID.

>> NOW, WE'RE OUT OF TIME.

BUT BEFORE WE CLOSE, I WANT TO POINT OUT, THIS DELIVERY, GONE TO THE GOVERNOR NOW, FOR SEALED CONTAINERS OF BEER, WINE, SPIRITS.

AND THERE'S ANOTHER BILL MOVING, SCHEDULED TO BE IN THE SENATE TOMORROW INVOLVING THE DIRECT HOME SHIPMENT OF WINE.

IF YOU BUY OR ORDER WINE FROM A WINE STORE, WINERY, THEY CAN SHIP IT DIRECTLY TO YOU.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

AND PEOPLE GET IT CONFUSED.

DELIVERY IS ONE ASPECT OF IT.

SHIPMENT IS ANOTHER.

DELIVERY -- BUT ALL OF IT IS OUT OF STATE OR IN STATE TOO.

>> AND I'M THINKING OF THE CALIFORNIA WINE COUNTRY AND THEY BUY IT THERE, IT CAN BE SHIPPED TO THEM.

>> HERETOFORE, WE HAD A PROCESS, GO ON THE WEB SITE, GET THE FORM, CALL THE WINERY, AND PAY FOR IT AND THEY CAN SHIP IT TO ONE OF OUR STORES.

THEN, THE CUSTOMER COMES TO OUR STORE, PICKS IT UP AND PAY THE TAX ON IT.

WE CHECK AND MAKE SURE HE'S OF AGE AND ALSO, THAT WE GOT ALABAMA'S PROPER SHARE OF THE TAX.

IT WORKED GREAT.

BUT SOME FOLKS WOULD RATHER HAVE IT PUT ON THE FRONT PORCH RATHER THAN THE TROUBLE OF GOING DOWN AND PICKING IT UP.

>> SO WE'VE RESOLVED THAT?

>> RIGHT, YEAH, IT CAN NOW GO TO THE FRONT PORCH.

OUGHT TO MAKE SOME OF THEM HAPPY!

>> BUT OUR TAX PORTION OF IT?

>> RIGHT, IT HAS A METHODOLOGY AND REPORT IT TO THE STATE.

AND YOU KNOW, THERE AGAIN, IF THEY VIOLATE, ANOTHER LICENSE WOULD BE PULLED.

>> AND THAT DIRECT WINE SHIPMENT BILL IS GOING TO BE ON THE FLOOR TOMORROW.

>> RIGHT.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTAND, ALWAYS SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

>> THANKS, MAC GIPSON ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO HAVE YOU ON THE SHOW.

WITH THE ALABAMA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD.

>> ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO BE HERE.

>> AND "CAPITOL JOURNAL" WILL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> DON: AND THAT'S CAPITOL JOURNAL FOR TONIGHT.

COMING UP TOMORROW NIGHT AT 10:30, WE'LL HAVE THE LATEST FROM THE STATEHOUSE, INCLUDING A POSSIBLE SENATE VOTE ON A STATE LOTTERY, AND SCHEDULED HOUSE ACTION ON CLOSELY WATCHED BILLS DEALING WITH VOTING, VOTING RIGHTS FOR EX-FELONS AND DESIGNATING A STATE VEGETABLE.

AND OUR GUESTS ARE SCHEDULED TO INCLUDE REPRESENTATIVE MIKE BALL OF MADISON, WHO WILL DISCUSS HIS BILL THAT WOULD CHANGE THE STATE'S GRAND JURY SECRECY LAWS.

BALL IS PROPOSING ALLOWING GRAND JURY WITNESSES TO DISCUSS THEIR TESTIMONY AND EXPERIENCES WITH PROSECUTORS, SOMETHING CURRENTLY PROHIBITED UNDER STATE LAW.

THE BILL IS SET TO BE IN COMMITTEE LATER THIS WEEK.

FOR ALL OF US AT CAPITOL JOURNAL, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

I'M DON DAILEY.