>> FROM OUR STATE HOUSE STUDIO IN MONTGOMERY, I'M TODD STACY.

WELCOME TO CAPITOL JOURNAL.

THIS WEEK WE HAVE A SPECIAL EPISODE OF CAPITOL JOURNAL, FOCUSED ON ALABAMA'S JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

2023 MARKS 50 YEARS SINCE THE STATE OVERHAULED THE COURT SYSTEM IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND THERE WAS A SPECIAL EVENT THIS WEEK IN BIRMINGHAM TO MARK AND CELEBRATE THE OCCASION.

SINCE THE RATIFICATION OF ALABAMA'S 1901 CONSTITUTION, THE STATE'S COURT SYSTEM WAS KNOWN FOR BEING UNFAIR, LEADING TO UNJUST OUTCOMES FOR BLACK ALABAMIANS AND THE POOR.

STARTING IN THE 1960S, A GROUP OF YOUNG LEADERS BEGAN WORKING ON A PLAN TO REWRITE THE JUDICIAL ARTICLE OF ALABAMA'S CONSTITUTION TO MAKE THE COURT SYSTEM BETTER ORGANIZED AND MORE RESPONSIVE TO CITIZENS.

FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE HOWELL HEFLIN WAS A DRIVING FORCE BEHIND JUDICIAL REFORM, BUT IT TOOK A CADRE OF HIS YOUNGER LIEUTENANTS TO GET IT DONE.

MIKE HOUSE WAS HEFLIN'S CHIEF OF STAFF WHO WAS TASKED TO SPEARHEAD THE EFFORT.

CONGRESSMAN RONNIE FLIPPO, WHO WAS THEN A STATE LAWMAKER, CARRIED THE LEGISLATION IN THE STATE HOUSE.

FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CHAMP LYONS WAS TAPPED TO ADMINISTER THE REWRITING OF THE CIVIL CODE OF PROCEDURE.

THEY AND SEVERAL OTHERS TEAMED UP TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT NO ONE ELSE HAS BEFORE OR SINCE - REWRITING A MAJOR SECTION OF ALABAMA'S CONSTITUTION AND WINNING APPROVAL FROM NOT ONLY THE LEGISLATURE BUT ALABAMA VOTERS IN A REFERENDUM.

THESE LEADERS AND DOZENS MORE FROM ALABAMA'S JUDICIAL COMMUNITY GATHERED IN BIRMINGHAM FOR A RETELLING OF THIS REMARKABLE STORY.

CAPITOL JOURNAL WAS GIVEN SPECIAL ACCESS TO THE EVENT AND SPEAK WITH THESE LEADERS WHO SHARED STORIES FROM THE PAST AND WHY THE EFFORT TO OVERHAUL ALABAMA'S JUSTICE SYSTEM WAS SO IMPORTANT.

TOM HEFLIN, SON OF HOWELL HEFLIN, GAVE THE BACK STORY FOR WHY JUDICIAL REFORM WAS NEEDED AND HOW EFFORTS IN THE PAST HAD FALLEN SHORT.

HERE ARE SOME CLIPS OF HIS PRESENTATION.

>> AT LEAST FOUR OTHER GOVERNORS CALLED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM OF THE 1901 CONSTITUTION.

MOST, WHERE ALL THESE EFFORTS HAVE FAILED OR BEEN STYMIED, AND, SO, IN THE '60S, THERE STARTED BEING A STRONGER MOVEMENT.

IN 1965, MY FATHER WAS PRESIDENT OF THE ALABAMA STATE BAR, AND ONE OF THE CALLS OF THAT ADMINISTRATION OF THE BAR WAS TO CREATE A CITIZEN'S CONFERENCE ON ALABAMA COURTS THAT ONLY THROUGH ACTIVITY OF JUST ALL CITIZENS, NOT JUST LAWYERS, COULD THERE BECOME SOME FORM OF REFORM OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

SO THE CITIZENS CONFERENCE ON COURTS FIRST WAS ORGANIZED IN 1966.

DOUGLAS ARANT, BRADLEY ARANT WAS THE CHAIRPERSON OF THAT.

JUSTICE PALERMO MADE THE KEYNOTE ADDRESS.

IT WAS A VERY BROAD-BASED ORGANIZATION, PARTICIPATION BY LABOR, THE BLACK COMMUNITY, MANAGEMENT, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

IT WAS MOVING THROUGH, AND IT HAD SUCCESS IN THE SENATE.

BO TOLBERT PUSHED THAT THROUGH ALONG WITH LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ALBERT BREWER, AND IT PASSED IN THE SENATE.

HOWEVER, IT WENT TO THE HOUSE.

GOVERNOR WALLACE WAS NOT PARTICULAR IN FAVOR OF WHAT IT WAS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, AND THE BILLS, INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WERE ASSIGNED TO THE HIGHWAY SAFETY COMMITTEE -- [LAUGHTER] -- AND THEY NEVER SAW THE LIGHT OF DAY AFTER THAT.

SO THE INTERESTING MEANS OF THE HOUSE AND HOW THINGS COULD AND COULD NOT BE PASSED AND HOW THEY WERE TENDED TO.

AFTER THE DEATH OF LAUREL EUROPEAN WALLACE AND GOVERNOR BREWER BECAME GOVERNOR, DISDISCUSSIONS BETWEEN GOVERNOR BREWER AND HIS STAFF, THEY DECIDED A COMPROMISE TO MAKING THOSE CHANGES SHOULD BE PURSUED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS EXPANDED TO TWO COURTS, COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS AND CRIMINAL APPEALS AT THAT TIME THAT DID PASS.

IN 1968 AN ALABAMA CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION COMMISSION WAS APPROVED, CHARGED WITH REWRITING THE ENTIRE STATE CONSTITUTION.

CONRAD FOWLER, CLOSE FRIENDS OF MY FATHER, LAW SCHOOL CLASSMATE, HIS COMMANDER IN THE U.S. MARINE CORPS, PROBATE JUDGE OF SHELBY COUNTY, WAS THE COMMANDER OF THAT.

THE SEAT WITH YOU ABANDONED TO JUDGE WALLACE IN HIS SECOND TERM IN 1970.

THAT'S WHAT I RECALL OF THE JUDICIAL REFORM LEADING UP TO 1970.

BY '73, THERE WERE 85 LIMITED JUDICIAL TRIAL COURTS APART FROM MUNICIPAL AND PROBATE COURTS IN THE STATE.

THE INTERMEDIATE RICOURTS HAD 23 DIFFERENT NAMES, EACH HAD VARYING JURISDICTIONS AND PROCEDURES AND VARIED FROM COUNTY TO COUNTY.

THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS YOU FIND THE EFFORT TO HAVE JUDICIAL REFORM.

YOU DIDN'T KNOW GOING FROM ONE COUNTY TO THE OTHER WHAT KIND OF LEGAL JURISDICTION YOU WERE GOING TO FACE, WHAT RULES YOU WERE GOING TO FACE, AND HOW YOU WERE GOING TO FACE THEM.

IT VARIED FROM COUNTY TO COUNTY.

WE ALSO HAD JUSTICE OF PEACES -- JUSTICES OF PEACE -- IT MAY HAVE BEEN PIECES, EXCUSE ME, OF SILVER -- [LAUGHTER] -- WHO, WITH NO AUDITING, NO REVIEW, WOULD, IF YOU WERE A MOTORIST DRIVING THROUGH THE STATE OF ALABAMA, YOU WERE GENERALLY IMMEDIATELY TAKEN TO A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AND CHARGED WHATEVER FINES AND HOWEVER THAT WAS DONE.

THOSE WERE PROBLEMS FOR LEGAL RIGHTS OF OUR CITIZENS, PROBLEMS FOR LAWYERS, BUT PROBLEMS FOR EVERY CITIZEN.

AS I SAID, THE LEGISLATURE WROTE THE RULES, THE COURT SYSTEM WAS BACKLOGGED.

THERE WERE FOUR TO FIVE YEARS, GENERALLY, TO GET YOUR CASE TRIED.

THE BACKLOG IN THE APPELLATE COURTS WAS THREE TO FOUR YEARS FROM SUBMISSION TO DECISION.

ALABAMA'S COURTS HAD A HORRIBLE REPUTATION.

>> SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WILL SELLERS, WHO HELPED ORGANIZE THE EVENT, MODERATED A PANEL FEATURING MIKE HOUSE, RONNIE FLIP AND JUDGE ED TEASE, WHO DISCUSSED HOW THEY WENT ABOUT THE PROCESS OF REFORMING THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

>> WE SET UP, AT THAT TIME, WE DECIDED WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE WOULD RUN A CAMPAIGN THAT HAD TO PASS THE LEGISLATURE AT 73 AND THEN HAVE TO PASS AS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT LATER IN THAT YEAR.

SO, IT WAS A POLITICAL GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

NOTHING LIKE THIS HAD EVER BEEN DONE, AT LEAST AT THIS LEVEL.

AND WE KNEW THAT WE HAD TO DO THIS.

WE KNEW THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE UP AGAINST A LOT, A LOT OF OPPOSITION.

>> GOVERNOR BREWER HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, AND I WANTED YOU TO SERVE ON IT.

I SAID, STEWART, I'M NOT MUCH OF A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR.

HE SAID, I WANT YOU TO SERVE ON IT.

SO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE FINALLY CALLED, AND I SAID, OF COURSE I WOULD.

AND PROCEEDED THEN INTO ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS OF MEETINGS.

SPEAKING OF JUDGE FOWLER THAT WAS SUCH A GOOD FRIEND TO TOM'S FATHER, JUDGE FOWLER TOLD ME ONE TIME HE WAS IN COMBAT WITH YOUR DADDY AND HELPED CARRY HIM OUT AND HE SAID THAT SON-OF-A-GUN SURE WAS HEAVY.

[LAUGHTER] THERE WAS TRUTH ABOUT THAT.

BUT I SERVED ON THAT, AND I SERVED WITH A LOT OF GREAT LAWYERS.

NO JUDGES AT THAT TIME BECAUSE WE DIDN'T -- NOBODY THOUGHT ABOUT JUDGES THAT EARLY.

THAT CAME LATER.

THE OTHER THING I THINK ABOUT IS THE 1973 SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT PASSED A JUDICIAL ARTICLE, ALL THE HAND WRINGING AND THE WORRY AND THEN JOY WHEN IT FINALLY PASSED THE LAST NIGHT OF THE LEGISLATURE ON RONNIE FLIPPO'S MOTION TO HAVE IT BROUGHT UP AND PASSED IN THE HOUSE.

>> THE LEGISLATIVE BODY IS NOT WITHOUT ITS COMPLICATIONS, AND IT'S A WILD PLACE, AND TO SAY WHAT WAS REALLY GOING ON, EVERYONE HAD A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON.

SO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT WAS MY PERSPECTIVE AS TO WHAT HAPPENED.

WE HAD STEWART O'BANNON AND BOB HILL WAS THE INITIAL SPONSOR OF THE BILL IN THE HOUSE, BUT I WANT TO SAY ONE WORD ABOUT SENATOR O'BANNON.

SENATOR O'BANNON WAS KIND OF A KING JAMES TYPE SPEAKER, AND I REMEMBER HEARING HIM ADDRESS THE SENATE.

HE TOOK THIS PROJECT VERY PERSONALLY, AND HE WORKED WITH EVERY MEMBER OF THE SENATE ALL YEAR LONG TO EXPLAIN WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO, AND HE GOT COMMITMENTS FROM THOSE SENATORS, AND THE TIME TO PASS A BILL IS WHEN YOU HAVE THE VOTES.

AND HE GOT THE VOTES.

WHEN THE BILL WAS COMING UP BEFORE THE SENATE, SENATOR O'BANNON MADE HIS FINAL SPEECH, AND HE PARAPHRASED, FIRM CORRECTLY -- IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, HE PARAPHRASED GENESIS 1 THROUGH 26 -- AS LONG AS MAN HAS DOMINION OVER THE EARTH, AS LONG AS HE HAS CONTROL OVER THE FISH THAT SWIM UPON THE DEEP AND THE BIRDS THAT FLY IN THE AIR, AS LONG AS HE HAS CONTROL OVER EVERYTHING -- EVERY CREEPING THING THAT CREEPETH UPON THE EARTH, HOW LONG WILL I REMEMBER THIS VOTE, AS LONG AS I'M ALIVE I WILL REMEMBER THIS VOTE, AND I'M COMING BACK TO THIS BODY TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

[LAUGHTER] >> MORE FROM BIRMINGHAM ON REFLECTIONS OF 50 YEARS AFTER ALABAMA JUDICIAL REFORM WHEN WE COME BACK.

>> WE'RE BACK HERE IN BIRMINGHAM AT THE FLORENTINE WHERE WE HAVE BEEN A PART OF THIS 50-YEAR ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION OF THE REFORM OF ALABAMA'S JUDICIARY SYSTEM.

JOINING ME NEXT TO TALK ABOUT IT IS MIKE HOUSE, FORMER PARTNER OF THE HOGAN LOVELL'S INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM.

THANKS FOR COMING ON "CAPITOL JOURNAL."

>> THANK YOU, IT'S A PLEASURE.

GLAD TO BE HERE.

>> WELL, WE'VE ENJOYED TODAY'S EVENT, LEARNED A LOT, BUT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT HOW THIS CAME TOGETHER.

I KNOW YOU WERE DEEPLY INVOLVED IN HELPING MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

WE'LL DO THE BACKGROUND LATER, BUT WHEN DID THIS START COMING TOGETHER AS AN EVENT?

>> THIS EVENT WE HAD HERE TODAY.

>> YEAH.

>> THE BAR ASSOCIATION DECIDED THEY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING FOR THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY.

IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE IT'S 50 YEARS LATER, IT REALLY IS.

SO WE DID SOMETHING AT THE ALABAMA BAR ASSOCIATION, BUT WE APPRECIATE WHAT Y'ALL ARE DOING TODAY IN FILMING IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T FILMED AT THE TIME, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO THE HISTORY OF THIS STATE.

THINK ABOUT THIS -- THIS IS THE ONLY MAJOR CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION SINCE 1901.

THERE HAS BEEN SMALL CHANGES, BUT THERE'S NEVER BEEN SOMETHING THIS STRUCTURAL.

AND, SO, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE BAR ASSOCIATION IS VERY PROUD OF, AND THEY SHOULD BE.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> AND THE COURT SYSTEM.

>> WELL, WHEN I ENJOYED HEARING -- WHAT I ENJOYED HEARING SO MUCH WAS YOU AND YOUR THEN COLLEAGUES TALK ABOUT, YOU BE, SOME OF YOU WERE NOT LONG OUT OF LAW SCHOOL, KIND OF EARLY STAFFERS IN YOUR CAREER AND EVERYTHING, AND YOU MADE THE COMMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAD BEEN JUST A LITTLE BIT OLDER, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SO CYNICAL, MAYBE THIS WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED.

MAYBE THAT'S A LESSON TO YOUNGER PEOPLE TODAY THAT Y'ALL JUST WENT OUT AND DID IT AND BELIEVED IN YOURSELF AND DIDN'T LET THE NAYSAYERS GET YOU.

>> WELL, I THINK IT'S A GREAT LESSON FOR YOUNG PEOPLE IN THAT I WAS JUST -- I MEAN, I'D BEEN ONE YEAR RUNNING A CAMPAIGN, AND, SO, I REMEMBER GOING UP TO THE HILL -- CAPITOL HILL, GOAT HILL WE USED TO CALL IT.

THEY SAID, MIKE, YOU'RE A BRIGHT YOUNG MAN AND GREAT AND ALL THAT, BUT THERE'S NO WAY Y'ALL ARE GOING TO PASS THIS.

JUST LIKE RONNIE FLIPPO TALKING ABOUT IT, HE WAS A FRESHMAN, AND EVEN HEFLIN, TO A LARGE EXTENT, HE WAS AN OUTSIDER FROM NORTH ALABAMA AND HAD NEVER REALLY HELD OFFICE.

AND, SO, WE JUST DIDN'T KNOW IT COULDN'T BE DONE.

YOU KNOW, BUT THE KEY TO THIS IS ALWAYS PREPARATION, STRATEGY.

I MEAN, YOU DON'T WIN JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE BRAND-NEW AT THE GAME, YOU REALLY HAVE TO HAVE THOUGHT THROUGH THIS.

AND HEFLIN WAS A GREAT STRATEGIC THINKER IN THAT SENSE.

I WAS -- HAVING DONE A CAMPAIGN, I REALLY LOOKED AT IT DIFFERENTLY THAN WE HAD LOOKED AT IT IN THE PAST, WHICH I SAID WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A MASSIVE GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION TO WIN.

WE HAVE TO WIN THIS IN THE COURTHOUSE, WE HAVE TO WIN THIS WITH THE LAWYERS, AND WE HAVE TO WIN THIS AS THE GRASSROOTS.

AND THAT -- I THINK THAT WAS CRITICAL.

BUT, AGAIN, NOBODY HAD EVER DONE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> TALK ABOUT WHAT IT WAS LIKE BEFORE.

I VISITED WITH JUSTICE LYONS ABOUT SOME OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE STUFF, BUT EVEN ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE, WHAT WAS IT LIKE BEFORE THAT MAYBE PEOPLE DON'T REMEMBER THAT NECESSITATED SUCH A DRAMATIC CHANGE?

>> WELL, I THINK IT DEPENDED ON THE COUNTY.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT ESPECIALLY THE BLACK BELT COUNTIES, IT WAS VERY UNFAIR TO BLACKS AT THE TIME.

YOU COULD HAVE A JUDGE THAT WAS A PROBATE JUDGE, HE COULD ALSO BE A COUNTY JUDGE AT THE SAME TIME WITH JURISDICTION OVER CRIMINAL AND CIVIL.

AND, SO, I THINK, IN THAT REGARD, THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A MAJOR CHANGE.

AND THOSE WERE THE PEOPLE THAT PRIMARILY FOUGHT US IN '73 WERE THE PEOPLE THAT REALLY DIDN'T WANT THAT CHANGE.

YOU KNOW, IN ESSENCE, WE FOUGHT THE 1901 CONSTITUTIONAL BATTLE ALL OVER AGAIN.

>> I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU WHO WERE THE OPPONENTS?

WHO WERE, YOU KNOW, THE ONES REALLY FIGHTING THIS NOT JUST AT THE LEGISLATURE BUT THE BALLOT BOX.

>> AT THE BALLOT BOX YOU HAD JUDGES THAT DIDN'T WANT TO CHANGE, THE CLERKS WERE ON THE FEE SYSTEM AND WE WERE TAKING THE CLERKS OFF THE FEE SYSTEM.

YOU HAD COUNTY JUDGES THAT HAD THAT KIND OF JURISDICTION, SO IT WAS A LOT OF WHAT I CALL THE COURTHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT, THE ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN THE COUNTIES, AND THEN A NUMBER OF LEGISLATORS, ALSO.

>> I IMAGINE ANYTIME YOU DEAL WITH RACIAL POLITICS, ESPECIALLY BACK THEN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN UPHILL BATTLE.

YOU KNOW, DECADES AND DECADES WORTH OF INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM AND THE LIKE.

>> WELL, YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT WE ONLY HAD A FEW BLACKS IN THE LEGISLATURE AT THE TIME, AND -- >> WAS JUDGE CLEMON THERE?

>> YES.

THE THING THAT WAS IMPORTANT IS THE BLACKS UNDERSTOOD IF THEY WERE TOO PROMINENT IN THIS CAMPAIGN YOU WOULD HAVE A BACKLASH AND WE COULDN'T AFFORD THE BACKLASH.

SO A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE BEING VERY PRICE TAG FACT.

WHAT THEY WERE REALLY LOOKING AT IS WHAT WAS THE END GAME, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE NEED TO WIN THIS.

AND, SO, A LOT OF THE BLACKS WERE NOT AS PROMINENT IN THE CAMPAIGN AS, SAY, THEY WOULD BE TODAY.

>> BUT THAT WAS ON PURPOSE.

>> THAT WAS ON PURPOSE.

THAT WAS PART OF THE STRATEGY.

IT WAS PART OF THE TIMES.

>> WELL, YOU'RE RIGHT.

THIS KIND OF REFORM ALMOST NEVER HAPPENS AND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT OTHER TYPES OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM AND ALL THIS.

WHAT WOULD YOUR MESSAGE BE TO SOME OF THOSE YOUNGER POLITICOS WHO HAVE IDEAS ABOUT HOW MAYBE THE STATE COULD CHANGE IN A BETTER WAY?

IS THIS A GOOD LESSON FOR THEM?

>> I THINK IT'S A GREAT LESSON FOR THEM.

BUT ONE LESSON PEOPLE MISS IS YOU COULD HAVE A COMMITTEE -- LET'S CALL IT A COMMITTEE.

I KNOW THE CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE DID THINGS IN THE LAST LEGISLATURE THAT WAS REALLY GOOD.

>> PIECE BY PIECE.

>> YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION FOR AN ENTIRETY.

IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

IT'S TOO BIG, IT'S TOO COMPLICATED, THERE ARE TOO MANY POLITICAL LAND MINES, BUT YOU CAN CHANGE KEY STRUCTURAL PARTS OF IT.

ONE OF THE THINGS, FOR INSTANCE, IS LIKE HOME RULE FOR COUNTIES AND CITIES THAT THE LEGISLATURE CONTROLS NOW, AND I KNOW THAT'S -- >> THAT'S A BIG ONE.

>> THAT'S A BIG ONE.

SO YOU HAVE TO SAY, ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT.

BUT I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE COMMITTEES.

THE COMMITTEES ARE GOOD AND WHAT THEY DO ARE IMPORTANT, BUT TO DO SOMETHING AS MAJOR AS A JUDICIAL ARTICLE, WHAT WE HAD TO HAVE, WE HAD TO HAVE A LEADER.

AND, SO, YOU NEVER GET AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT, IF YOU DON'T HAVE GOOD STATE LEADERSHIP, IT'S DIFFICULT TO DO THIS.

>> MM-HMM.

AND YOU'RE SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HEFLIN.

>> YES, HOWARD HEFLIN WAS FOCUSED, STRATEGIC.

WE WERE PRAGMATIC BUT WE WERE ALSO -- AND BEHIND ALL THAT WAS HARD-NOSED POLITICAL OPERATIVES WORKING ON THIS, AND THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT WORKED.

>> SPEAKING OF BEING A POLITICAL OPERATIVE, I WANTED YOU -- I'M GOING TO EMBARRASS YOU AND MAKE YOU GO OVER YOUR CAREER BECAUSE YOU'VE HAD FASCINATING CAREER ON CAPITOL HILL AND IT'S TAKEN YOU A LOT OF PLACES.

CAN YOU SUMMARIZE, AFTER THIS SORT OF EFFORT, PROBABLY WAS THE BEGINNING AND LIFT OFFFOR YOU IN TERMS OF YOUR POLITICAL CAREER.

>> IT WAS TO A LARGE EXTENT, AND I REALLY HAD TO MAKE A DECISION BECAUSE I WENT INTO PRIVATE PRACTICE IN '76, AND THEN I MANAGED HEFLIN'S CAMPAIGN IN '78 AT A VERY YOUNG AGE AND, SO, I HAD TO MAKE A DECISION, WAS I GOING TO CAPITOL HILL IN D.C. AS HIS CHIEF OF STAFF OR STAY AT ALABAMA?

I HAD BEEN -- I HAD WORKED IN D.C. BEFORE, IN CONGRESS, AND I REALLY ENJOYED PUBLIC POLICY.

SO THAT WAS A BIG, BIG DEAL FOR ME.

AND, SO, I WENT UP THERE FOR EIGHT YEARS WITH HIM AND THEN DECIDED TO STAY, AND I, OVER A LONG CAREER, RAN THE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS OPERATION FOR ONE OF THE LARGEST LAW FIRMS IN THE WORLD.

AND THAT KEEPS YOU IN POLICY.

>> I BET.

>> THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN.

NOW, THE GREAT IRONY OF THAT IS THAT I RETIRED FROM HOGAN LOVELLS, STARTED MY OWN FIRM FOR A LITTLE BIT, BUT MY WIFE AND I ARE MOVING BACK DOWN HERE NEXT YEAR.

SO IT'S COMING A FULL CIRCLE.

IT REALLY HAS.

>> IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE WE GET YOU BACK TO ALABAMA.

WELL, CONGRATULATIONS ON THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S A BIG DEAL.

>> WELL, I THINK THEY'VE ALREADY ACCEPTED ME TO BE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, IF THAT WERE GOING TO HAVE A PHONE CALL TONIGHT, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO IT.

>> WELL, YOU CERTAINLY HAVE SOME LESSONS TO SHARE, FROM EVERYTHING I LEARNED TODAY.

IT WAS A FASCINATING EVENT.

THANKS FOR LETTING US COME ALONG AND HELP TELL THE STORY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> WE'RE BACK HERE AT THE FLORENTINE IN BIRMINGHAM, WHERE THE CELEBRATION OF 50 YEARS AFTER ALABAMA REFORMED ITS JUDICIAL SYSTEM TO CREATE THE UNIFIED JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

JOINING ME NEXT IS FORMER ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT CHAMP LYONS.

JUSTICE LYONS, THANKS FOR COMING ON THE SHOW.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WELL, IT'S BEEN A FASCINATING EVENT.

JUST THINKING ABOUT 50 YEARS AGO, TO HEAR ALL THE STORIES, YOU JUST DID AN INTERESTING PRESENTATION ON THE CIVIL CODE.

I WANT TO GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE.

BUT CAN YOU TAKE US BACK BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CODE WAS UPDATED AND WHAT WAS IT LIKE, WHAT WERE THE PROBLEMS THAT EXISTED WITH THE JUDICIAL CODE?

>> WHEN YOU REFER TO JUDICIAL CODE, MY AREA OF EXPERTISE HAS BEEN IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE RULES THAT GOVERN CASES THAT GO TO TRIAL ON THE CIVIL SIDE OF THE DOCKET AS OPPOSED TO CRIMINAL.

UNDER THE PRACTICE, BEFORE THE RULES WERE PROMULGATED IN 1973, WE HAD A VERY CUMBERSOME SYSTEM.

WE HAD SEPARATE JUDGES AND COURTS FOR CASES THAT INVOLVED DIVORCE, WILLS, SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE RATHER THAN SUITS FOR MONEY.

IN THOSE CASES, WITNESSES REALLY DIDN'T TESTIFY LIVE, ALWAYS IN WRITING.

A SEPARATE DOCKET WAS FOR THE CIVIL CASES INVOLVING SUITS FOR MONEY DAMAGES.

AND THE RULES OF WHAT YOU HAD TO PLEAD IN YOUR COMPLAINT TO GET THE CASE TO COURT AND TO TRIAL INVOLVED AN ELABORATE SERIES THAT LED OFTEN TO TECHNICALITIES RATHER THAN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS, AND AT THE SAME TIME THERE WAS VERY LITTLE DISCOVERY, AND BY THAT I MEAN FINDING OUT WHAT THE WITNESSES ON THE OTHER SIDE WERE GOING TO SAY BEFORE TRIAL.

IT WAS ALL PLAYED OUT THROUGH ELABORATE PROCEEDINGS AND NOT ANY DISCOVERY.

THEN I THINK IN 1955, THE LEGISLATURE SAID, OKAY, WE'LL HAVE RULES OF PROCEDURE COPIED FROM THE FEDERAL COURTS.

SO WE HAD THE SIMULTANEOUS ELABORATE PLEADING AND VERY ELABORATE DISCOVERY, AND THAT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE.

AND, SO, THERE WAS PRESSURE TO BRING ABOUT A SYSTEM WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE SIMPLIFIED PLEADING AND THEN DISCOVERY AVAILABLE TO FIND OUT THE FACTS, AND THEN PUT THEM TOGETHER FOR A TRIAL.

>> SO, WHEN THE NEW RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WERE BEING DRAFTED, YOU WERE THE REPORTER.

TALK ABOUT THAT.

ON THE STAGE, YOU SAID YOU WERE A KID, BASICALLY.

>> YEAH, I WAS A KID BY -- I WAS GRADUATING FROM LAW SCHOOL IN '65 AT THE AGE OF 24, AND THEN, SIX YEARS LATER, I'M THRUST INTO BEING THE REPORTER, WHICH IS MORE THAN BEING A SECRETARY.

YOU DO THE RETCH AND PULL TOGETHER THE DRAFTS AND WRITING AND PREPARE THEM FOR REVIEW BY THE COMMITTEE.

AND IT WAS AN HONOR.

I HAVE TO REALLY AFFECTED MY CAREER DRAMATICALLY, AND I WENT ON TO WRITE BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT, FREQUENT SPEAKER, ULTIMATELY CHAIRED THE COMMITTEE, AND THAT TALENT PLAYED OUT IN MY LIFE.

>> SO WHEN IT COMES TO CIVIL PROCEDURE, LOOK, I'M NOT A LAWYER, A LOT OF YOU PROBABLY AREN'T LAWYERS, BUT THESE ARE RULES, THESE ARE THE COURTS THAT CITIZENS DEPEND ON TO GET REDRESS, RIGHT, TO ADJUDICATE CIVIL MATTERS SEPARATE FROM THE CRIMINAL CODE.

THAT REALLY MATTERS IN A SOCIETY THAT DEPENDS ON THE RULE OF LAW.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

IT INVOLVES THE VITAL EVENTS THAT AFFECT PEOPLE'S LIVES.

DIVORCE CASES, CHILD CUSTODY, AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS, INSURANCE POLICY DISPUTES, JUST ACROSS THE BOARD, AND THE SYSTEM NEEDS TO FUNCTION WITH A REQUISITE DEGREE OF SIMPLICITY AND, AT THE SAME TIME, THOROUGH DISCOVERY SO THAT THE JUDGES AND THE JURY CAN HAVE THE BEST PREPARED CASE, THE LAWYERS CAN DO THE BEST JOB PREPARING IT.

>> I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR TIME ON THE SUPREME COURT AND YOUR TENURE THERE BECAUSE SO MUCH HAD TO CHANGE.

I WONDER HOW THE COURT CHANGED DURING YOUR TENURE THERE BECAUSE YOU HAD TECHNOLOGY CHANGES, YOU HAD POLITICAL CHANGES.

WHAT WAS THE BIGGEST THING -- SOME OF THE BIGGEST THINGS YOU SAW IN.

>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

I WAS THERE ALMOST 13 YEARS, AND MY SERVICE TERMINATED IN 2011.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STRIKES ME IS, TODAY, THE CASE LOAD AT THE SUPREME COURT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER, I THINK, THAN IT WAS WHEN I WAS THERE.

AND I ASKED MYSELF, WHY IS THAT?

OF COURSE, COVID MAY BE A FACTOR -- >> BACKLOG -- >> -- BUT ALSO MORE LONG-STANDING IS MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION, BRING MORE CASES TO RESOLVE WITHOUT GOING TO THE COURTHOUSE.

AND THAT IS A FACTOR.

YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE THE CASE THAT THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT TODAY COULD GET ALONG FINE WITH SEVEN JUSTICES.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

>> BECAUSE THERE AREN'T MANY SPLITS.

>> YOU MEAN -- >> OR IN TERMS OF CASE LOAD?

>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE VOLUME OF WORK DOESN'T REQUIRE NINE JUDGES.

THEN ANOTHER FACTOR, I THINK LAWYER ADVERTISING PRODUCES CASES THAT GET SETTLED WITHOUT A TRIAL.

>> AND THERE'S PROBABLY AN INCENTIVE THERE SOMETIMES NOT TO MEDIATE.

>> WELL, THEY MAY MEDIATE, BUT THEY'LL SETTLE WITHOUT GOING TO TRIAL, AND THAT MEANS THE CASE LOAD GOES DOWN.

>> I WANT TO BRING UP SOMETHING YOU WROTE FOR ALABAMA DAILY NEWS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, ACTUALLY.

YOU SAID THAT IT'S TIME FOR SOME TYPE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM IN OUR LEGAL CODE.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?

WHAT WOULD YOU ADVISE THE LEGISLATURE OR OTHERS TO LOOK AT IN TERMS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM?

>> FIRST AND FOREMOST, PAY HEED TO THE PENDENCY OF TWO SERIOUS FEDERAL LAWSUITS INVOLVING THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR PERSONAL SYSTEMS AND TO BE AWARE OF CONSEQUENCES OF ADVERSE DETERMINATION IN THOSE CASES.

>> THIS IS D.O.J.

AND THE OTHER ONE?

>> AND THE MENTAL HEALTH CASE.

BEYOND THAT IN TERMS OF SPECIFICS, ONE OF THE CASES I DEVOTED ATTENTION TO STEMS FROM CASES I WROTE OPINIONS ON WHEN I WAS ON THE COURT.

TO PUT IT IN SIMPLEST TERMS, THERE WAS AN ERA IN THE LATE 20TH CENTURY WHERE MULTIPLE CRIMES LED TO NO DISCRETION, THE JUDGE HAD TO SEND PEOPLE TO JAIL LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE.

AND THEN IN 1990 OR 2000, THE LEGISLATURE SAYS, WAIT A MINUTE, LET'S GIVE THE JUDGE DISCRETION TO IMPOSE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN A CERTAIN CATEGORY OF HABITUAL OFFENDER CASES.

THAT WAS NOT MADE RETROACTIVE.

SO, RIGHT NOW, YOU'VE GOT A CLASS OF PEOPLE, MAYBE A COUPLE HUNDRED OR MORE, SERVING LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE, MOST OF WHOM WERE OVER 50 YEARS OF AGE, FOR A CATEGORY OF CRIMES THAT DIDN'T INVOLVE PHYSICAL HARM TO ANYBODY, NO SEX OFFENSE, OF COURSE CERTAINLY NOT A MURDER, AND, YET, THEY ARE THERE, WHEREAS TODAY SOMEBODY DOING THE SAME THING WOULDN'T GET THAT STRICT A SENTENCE.

AND I THINK THAT THE LEGISLATURE COULD CREATE A REMEDY WHERE THESE PEOPLE COULD GO BACK TO COURT AND, IF THEY CAN SHOW GOOD CONDUCT WHILE INCARCERATED AND THE PROSPECT FOR GETTING OUT AND NOT COMING BACK, THAT THAT KIND OF A BILL SHOULD PASS, AND IT WOULD REDUCE CROWDING, IT WOULD REDUCE EXPENSES, AND IT WOULD JUST BE A POSITIVE THING.

>> WELL, WE'RE ALMOST OUT OF TIME, BUT WE'VE REALLY ENJOYED JUST THIS EVENT.

I HAVE BEEN STRUCK BY THE PHOTOS THAT HAD GONE UP.

SOME OF Y'ALL BACK IN THE DAY REALLY STARTING THIS, YOU KNOW, REFORM SYSTEM THAT MAYBE WAS A LONG SHOT.

SO WAS IT FUN TO BE IN THE ROOM WITH A LOT OF THOSE FOLKS THAT Y'ALL WENT THROUGH THIS WITH AND TO SEE THE OLD PICTURES AND TO SHARE THE OLD STORIES?

>> OH, IT'S BEEN A STROLL DOWN MEMORY LANE.

THERE'S ONLY TWO MEMBERS OF THE ORIGINAL SUPREME COURT WHO ARE STILL ALIVE, AND THE OTHER ONE COULDN'T BE HERE.

SO IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.

I MEAN, I LOOK AT TOM HEFLIN, AND I CAN SEE HIS FATHER.

>> YEAH.

>> THEY LOOK SO MUCH ALIKE.

IT'S BEEN REALLY GRATIFYING.

>> WELL, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING AGAIN SOON.

>> THANK YOU.

>> IT WAS AN ESTEEMED CROWD OF JURISTS HERE IN BIRMINGHAM AT THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF ALABAMA'S REFORMED JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

"CAPITOL JOURNAL"'S RANDY SCOTT CAUGHT UP WITH SOME IN ATTENDANCE INCLUDING LEGENDARY FEDERAL JUDGE U.W.

CLEMON.

>> HERE TO CELEBRATE PROGRESS WITH THE STATE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, SOME SAY THEY'VE SEEN A TIME WHERE THE SYSTEM WASN'T THE BEST IT COULD BE.

>> PRIOR TO THE JUDICIAL ARTICLE, THE ALABAMA JUDICIAL SYSTEM WAS IN A MESS.

WE HAD OVER 500 DIFFERENT KINDS OF COURTS IN THE 67 COUNTIES OF ALABAMA, AND LAWYERS FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHAT COURT THEY WERE IN AT ANY GIVEN TIME.

>> THEY TRIED TO REFORM THE COURT SYSTEM FOR MORE THAN 100 YEARS, AND SENATOR HEFLIN AS THE CHIEF JUSTICE WAS ABLE TO GET THAT DONE.

>> RETIRED FEDERAL JUDGE U.W.

COLUMNENT AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE RONNIE FLIPPO REMEMBER THOSE TIMES WELL AND REMEMBER THE EFFORT BY FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE HOWELL HEFLIN TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE COURT.

>> SENATOR HEFLIN, THEN JUDGE HEFLIN, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT, DECIDED IT WAS TIME TO DO SOMETHING TO CORRECT THE SITUATION, AND, SO, HE STARTED ON A CAMPAIGN TO REFORM THE ALABAMA JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

>> WELL, I THINK THE JUDICIAL ARTICLE GAVE EVERYONE A BETTER CHANCE OF GETTING JUSTICE IN THE COURTS, AND THIS EVENT IS HONORING PEOPLE WHO MADE THAT CONTRIBUTION POSSIBLE.

>> PARTICIPANTS AT THIS BIRMINGHAM SEMINAR SAY THE ALABAMA JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS A CONSTANT WORK IN PROGRESS.

THEY GATHER HERE TO OBSERVE THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PASSING OF RULES FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND LOOK TOWARD THE FUTURE FOR MORE IMPROVEMENTS, BUT TO SEE THOSE CHANGES THEY SAY THEY NEED TO SEE MORE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT.

JUDGE CLEMON SERVED AS THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN FEDERAL JUDGE IN ALABAMA AND ONE OF THE TWO AFRICAN-AMERICAN STATE SENATORS OF ALABAMA SINCE RECONSTRUCTION.

HE SAID HE CLOSELY WATCHED THE EFFORT TO PREPARE ALABAMA JUDICIAL SYSTEM TO MAKE IT FAIR FOR ALL CITIZENS.

>> THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN STREAMLINED, AND LAWYERS DON'T HAVE TO RUN AROUND RESEARCHING WHAT PARTICULAR COURT TO FILE A CASE AND TO PROCESS A CASE.

THE OVERALL RESULT HAS BEEN A REDUCTION IN THE COST OF LITIGATION.

>> ANOTHER FORMER STATE LEGISLATOR MACK FRIDAY ALSO CAME TO THIS EVENT.

>> YEARS AND YEARS AGO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM WAS SPREAD OUT, NOTHING WAS THE SAME FROM COUNTY TO COUNTY, AND WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 1970S WHEN HOWELL HEFLIN LED THE MOVEMENT AS CHIEF JUSTICE OF ALABAMA SUPREME COURT TO UNIFY THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM SO THAT WHEREVER YOU GO THE SYSTEM IS THE SAME THROUGHOUT THE COURTS THROUGH THE APPELLATE COURT.

>> FOR "CAPITOL JOURNAL."

I'M RANDY SCOTT.

>> AGAIN IN BIRMINGHAM AT THE FLORENTINE FOR THE 50TH-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE CELEBRATION OF THE UNIFIED JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND THE REFORMS THAT TOOK PLACE 50 YEARS AGO IN 1973.

JOINING ME TO TALK ABOUT IT IS TOM HEFLIN.

THANKS FOR COMING ON THE SHOW.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

GLAD TO BE HERE.

>> YOUR NAME AND YOUR FATHER'S NAME LOOMED LARGE OVER THIS MEETING TODAY.

I THOUGHT IT WAS GREAT THE PRESENTATION YOU GAVE.

SO MUCH HUMOR, SO MANY GOOD STORIES FROM BACK THEN, BUT TALK ABOUT HIS LEGACY.

BIG CAREER, RIGHT?

POLITICAL CAREER.

>> YES.

>> BUT THIS TOOK SUCH PRIORITY IN HIS CAREER, THE REFORMATION OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS SOMETHING THAT HE PURSUED AND OTHERS PURSUED BECAUSE THERE WAS A REAL NEED FOR STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN THE STATE, THAT YOU HAD A SYSTEM THAT REALLY WASN'T THAT FAIR, THAT DIDN'T LEAD TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND AVAILABILITY OF JUSTICE FOR THE CITIZENS OF ALABAMA.

AS A LAWYER, HE SAW IT.

HE PRACTICED IN NUMEROUS COUNTIES AND TRAVELED THROUGHOUT THE STATE, THOUGH MAINLY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ALABAMA.

SO HE SAW HOW THE DIFFERENCES WERE TO COME INTO THE VARIOUS COUNTIES, THAT THE SYSTEMS WEREN'T VERY FAIR, AND UNDERSTANDING YOU HAD TO KNOW EACH COUNTY HAD ITS OWN RULES, ITS OWN PROCEDURE, SOME NOT WRITTEN, AND YOU HAD TO GUESS AT IT.

>> KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE THE WILD WEST IN SOME WAYS.

>> I THINK IT WAS IN MANY WAYS.

IT ALLOWED FOR THE PRACTICE OF VARIOUS FORMS OF LEGAL SHENANIGANS, MAYBE.

AND YOU HEAR THAT WHEN YOU ADD WHAT CHAMP LYONS TALKED ABOUT, THE COMMON LAW PLEADING, WHICH IS EXTREMELY HARD TO UNDERSTAND FOR ME BECAUSE I DIDN'T GROW UP WITH THAT SYSTEM.

>> AND IT'S SUBJECTIVE, RIGHT?

>> IT IS.

>> COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE.

>> WELL, YEAH, AND YOU TALK ABOUT, IN YOUR PRESENTATION, I FOUND THIS REALLY INTERESTING, YOU WENT BACK TO THE ROOTS, YOU WENT BACK TO CIVIL WAR RECONSTRUCTION THERE WAS JIM CROW LAWS ABOUT POLL TAXES AND THINGS.

THE FACT YOU SHOWED HOW MANY REGISTERED VOTERS WENT DOWN IN BOTH BLACK AND WHITE, FASCINATING, I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER SEEN THAT BEFORE.

TALK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF EXPLAINING THAT JIM CROW PAST TO MAYBE UNDERSTANDING HOW THAT SYSTEM GOT SO OUT OF WHAT CAN BEFORE IT WAS REFORMED.

>> YOU KNOW, THERE ARE -- OUR HISTORY REALLY DIRECTS WHERE WE ARE, AND IT HAS FORMED -- AND IT DOES INFORM HOW WE STILL PERCEIVE THINGS, THE WAY THINGS WERE THEN, AND THE REASON YOU MIGHT NEED REFORM.

THE PEOPLE WHO ADOPTED THE 1901 CONSTITUTION DID IT FOR THEIR PURPOSES AND WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS THEIR POLITICAL POWER, AND IT'S READILY APPARENT, YOU LOOK AT THAT, READ THE HISTORY THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN ON THIS AND UNDERSTAND, BUT ALL THOSE FACTORS, NOT JUST THE POLITICS THAT HAPPEN IN ALABAMA, BUT IN THE NATION AND IN THE WORLD ALL ENTER INTO THE FACTORS OF WHAT HAPPENED.

>> RIGHT.

OUR PAST INFORMS US, RIGHT.

>> IT DOES.

>> IT'S SO IMPORTANT.

ONE THING I ALSO FOUND INTERESTING WAS YOU HAD SEVERAL FOLKS, KIND OF THE GANG IS BACK TOGETHER, FOLKS THAT WERE WORKING ON THIS IN REALLY THE '60S AND THE '70S.

THEY ALMOST DESCRIBE IT AS UNLIKELY, RIGHT.

THEY WERE GOING FOR SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WHO KNEW THAT THIS COULD HAPPEN.

BUT EACH ONE OF THEM SAID THAT YOUR FATHER WAS A KEY FIGURE, EVEN THOUGH, YOU KNOW, HE WAS OLDER THAN ALL OF THEM AND ALL OF Y'ALL, BUT YOU HAD A FAN, YOU HAD A SUPPORTER IN THAT, DRIVING THAT FORCE.

TALK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING THAT ANCHOR, SOMEONE SO POLITICALLY SAVVY AND POWERFUL.

>> PROBABLY HIS GREAT STRENGTH WAS THE ABILITY TO PUT GROUPS OF PEOPLE TOGETHER AND KEEP THEM FOCUSED AND DIRECTED.

I WAS YOUNG, I WAS PROBABLY, AT THIS TIME, ALMOST 20 YEARS OLD WHEN THIS WAS GOING ON, AND THE FORCES AND FACTORS THAT CAME TO PLAY, MANY PEOPLE SUPPORT IT, BUT YOU HAVE TO KEEP THAT -- SOMEONE HAS TO KEEP IT GOING, KEEP IT FOCUSED AND MOVING.

STRUCTURAL CHANGE IS HARD.

MIKE HOUSE SAID THAT.

IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO CREATE THAT CHANGE.

IT TAKES SOMEONE OR A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE COMMITTED TO IT TO FORCE IT THROUGH.

BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO HAVE PRAGMATIC LEADERSHIP TO KNOW THAT YOU MAY NOT GET EVERY SINGLE THING YOU WANT BUT GET THE GREATER GOOD IN WHAT YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE ABLE TO DO.

>> SURE.

AND THEY TALKED ABOUT THAT, LIKE, YOU KNOW, AT THE ORIGINAL, THERE WERE MANY OTHER THINGS THEY WANTED IN TERMS OF JUDICIAL REFORM, BUT YOU TAKE WHAT YOU CAN GET.

BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS KIND OF REFORM, THIS KIND OF MAJOR OVERHAUL HARDLY EVER HAPPENS.

THEY HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHOLESALE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM FOR DECADES.

THEY'RE KIND OF DOING IT PIECEMEAL NOW.

WHAT'S YOUR SORT OF MESSAGE TO THE YOUNG TURKS OF TODAY WHO MAY HAVE IDEAS OF HOW THEY WANT TO CHANGE ALABAMA FOR THE BETTER?

>> IT'S GOING TO TAKE HARD WORK, IT'S GOING TO TAKE GRASSROOTS WORK.

I BELIEVE THAT'S ONE TO HAVE THE SECRETS THEY UNDERSTOOD WAS PUTTING TOGETHER A CITIZENS COALITION, NOT JUST A GROUP OF BUSINESS PEOPLE, A GROUP OF LAWYERS, OF LABOR, OR MINORITY VOTERS OR WHATEVER ISSUE IT IS, IT TAKES A WHOLE GROUP OF IT TO PURSUE THOSE GOALS AND TO PUT THE PRESSURE ON BECAUSE YOU KNOW FROM DEALING WITH THE LEGISLATURE IN MONTGOMERY, THEY ARE 140 DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES WITH DIFFERENT AGENDAS AND PUTTING THEM TOGETHER AND YOU HAVE TO GET SOMETHING THROUGH.

IT'S NOT AN EASY TASK.

THE SAUSAGE-MAKING IS NOT A PRETTY SIGHT, THEY SAY.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

I FIND THE STORIES OF SOMEBODY PUTTING IT IN THEIR POCKET AND WALKING AWAY WITH THE BILL AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT SEEM WILY BUT REALLY INTERESTING.

>> YOU HEAR THOSE STORIES THROUGHOUT TIMES.

THESE STORIES THAT THE BILL ACTUALLY DISAPPEARED.

>> RIGHT.

>> AND IT WAS IN SOMEONE'S POCKET.

>> THE OLD-SCHOOL POCKET VETO.

>> THE OLD-SCHOOL POCKET VETO.

IT WAS AN OLD STORY, AND I'VE NEVER VERIFIED WHETHER IT'S ACCURATE OR NOT BUT, AT ONE POINT, A BILL HAD PASSED AND BY BOTH CHAMBERS AND NEEDED TO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE GOVERNOR FOR SIGNATURE, AND THE SPEAKER SAID, OH, THAT'S GOOD, AND TOOK IT AND LEFT TOWN.

>> I MEAN, WE LAUGH ABOUT IT.

IT'S KIND OF HORRIBLE BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS IN THE OLD DAYS.

>> YES.

SO WE HAVE TO PROTECT AGAINST THAT.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PEOPLE ELECT.

IT'S KIND OF SOMETHING ONE LAUGHS AT.

THERE WERE STORIES OF, YOU KNOW, VOTES, YOU KNOW, COMING OUT OF PARTICULARLY THE BLACK BELT TO WHERE YOU KNOW THAT THE VOTE TOTALS IN THE 2001 CONSTITUTION WERE NOT 90% IN FAVOR OF DISENFRANCHISING YOURSELF AND THE BLACK COMMUNITY, BECAUSE THEY WERE -- YOU LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS -- >> PRETTY CURIOUS.

>> YES.

YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED WHITE VOTERS AND THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED BLACK VOTERS IS AROUND 50,000 SEPARATED STATEWIDE.

>> SUDDENLY THEY'RE GETTING A DIFFERENT RESULT.

>> SUDDENLY THE REGISTERED BLACK VOTERS THREE YEARS LATER DOWN TO LESS THAN 3,000.

>> THAT'S INSANE TO THINK ABOUT.

WELL, LOOK, THANKS AGAIN FOR COMING ON.

CONGRATULATIONS.

THIS IS A TERRIFIC EVENT AND I THINK IT'S WORTH TELLING THE STORY.

AND, AGAIN, FOR THE LEGACY OF YOUR FATHER, I THINK IT'S A REALLY SPECIAL THING.

>> APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.

IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE TO BE HERE.

GOOD TO SEE A LOT OF OLD FRIENDS AND SUPPORTERS.

I KNOW THERE ARE PLENTY THAT WON'T AGREE WITH EVERYTHING HE DID BUT THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE, AND THIS ALSO NEEDS TO BE REMEMBERED, SO I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S EFFORTS TO COME IN, RECORD THIS AND MAKE IT WHERE HISTORY CAN AT LEAST VIEW IT AND REVIEW IT IN THE FUTURE.

A GREAT SERVICE THAT ALABAMA PUBLIC TELEVISION PROVIDES.

>> THAT'S WHAT WE DO.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> JOINING ME NEXT, GREG COOK, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT.

JUSTICE, THANKS FOR COMING ON "CAPITOL JOURNAL."

>> IT IS MY HONOR TO BE HERE.

THANK YOU.

>> I WANTED TO GET YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

WE'VE LEARNED SO MUCH TODAY ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, THE GOOD, BAD AND UGLY, 50 YEARS AGO BEING THIS REALLY SEMINAL MOMENT AND WHAT IT IS NOW.

SO WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THE HISTORY BUT YOU ARE A CURRENT SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

I'M CURIOUS WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE IN TERMS OF HOW THAT HISTORY IMPACTS WHAT YOU DO ON THE COURT TODAY.

>> THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ARE THE RULES THAT RUN OUR COURT SYSTEM.

I KNOW YOU INTERVIEWED JUSTICE LYONS, I CONSIDER HIM ONE OF MY MENTORS.

HE WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT WROTE THE RULES IN 1973.

WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE COURT SYSTEM WE HAVE TODAY, IT IS OUR ABILITY TO HAVE A SYSTEM THAT EVERYBODY TRUSTS, THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS IS NEUTRAL.

IT DOESN'T FAVOR ONE SIDE OR FAVOR THE OTHER SIDE.

THIS IS NOT EASY.

WE HAVE THE FEDERAL RULES THAT WE COULD LOOK TO AS A GUIDE FOR US, BUT WE HAVE TO TAKE THOSE AND APPLY THEM TO ALABAMA, AND IN ALABAMA, WE HAVE A STATE COURT, WE HAVE A LOT MORE CASES FILED THAN OCCUR IN FEDERAL COURT.

WE HAVE DIFFERENT KINDS OF CASES THAN IN FEDERAL COURT.

A LOT OF EFFORT WAS SPENT BY JUSTICE LYONS AND THAT COMMITTEE IN 1973 TO GET IT RIGHT.

OVER THE YEARS WE'VE TINKERED A BIT WITH THE RULES.

BEFORE I CAME ON THE COURT, I SPENT SEVEN YEARS ON THE COMMITTEE, THE STANDING COMMITTEE FOR RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TO TRY TO GET THOSE RULES RIGHT.

EVERY TIME THE FEDERAL RULES ARE UPDATED, WE TRY TO UPDATE THE STATE RULES BUT WE DON'T NECESSARILY ADOPT WHAT THE FEDERAL SYSTEM DOES.

ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES TODAY IS IS THERE TOO MUCH DISCOVERY, IN OTHER WORDS THE PRE-TRIAL PHASE OF LAWSUITS, DOES THAT TAKE TOO LONG, DOES IT SPEND TOO MUCH TIME AND TOO MUCH MONEY ON DISCOVERY?

WHY ARE JURY TRIALS THINGS THAT SEEM TO BE VANISHING, WHY DO WE SEEM TO HAVE TOO FEW JURY TRIALS.

WE TRIED TO INTRODUCE AN ELEMENT OF PROPORTIONALITY INTO THE PRE-TRIAL PHASE SO THE TRIAL JUDGES WOULD HAVE THE DISCRETION TO BE ABLE TO SAY WE'VE GONE TOO LONG, IT'S TIME TO GET TO TRIAL FOR THIS.

>> I SEE.

SO, OKAY, IT'S NOT JUST EVERY 50 YEARS WE'RE CHANGING OUR LAWS, Y'ALL ARE CONSTANTLY LOOKING AT WHAT PROCEDURALLY CAN HAPPEN.

THIS DOESN'T ALWAYS REQUIRE LEGISLATION, IT CAN BE HANDLED THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THE COMMITTEE, THEY ARE ABOUT -- I THINK THERE ARE A LITTLE OVER 20 PEOPLE ON THE COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY OUR COURT.

WE APPOINT THEM FOR THREE-YEAR TERMS.

SO EVERY YEAR, WE HAVE TO APPOINT NEW PEOPLE TO THAT COMMITTEE AND THEN WE HAVE TO REAPPOINT SOME PEOPLE TO THAT COMMITTEE, AND THEY GIVE US SUGGESTIONS.

THEY MIGHT REVISE A RULE AND SEND IT TO US AND SAY THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.

WE'LL LOOK AT IT, WE'LL DEBATE IT INTERNALLY AND VOTE ON IT.

WE ALSO HAVE WHAT'S CALLED A REPORTER OF DECISIONS WITHIN OUR COURT AND THEIR JOB IS TO LOOK AT THE EXACT WORDING.

IS A COMMA IN THIS SENTENCE MORE DESCRIPTIVE OR A BETTER WAY OF COMPRESSING THIS, CAN YOU USE A DIFFERENT WORD IN THE SENTENCE TO GET TO THE SAME RESULTS?

WE AGONIZE OVER THE COMMAS AND THE EXACT WORDS BECAUSE THE LITIGANTS, THE LAWYERS AGONIZE OVER EVERY WORD.

>> BECAUSE EVERYTHING CAN BE PARSED AND A COMMA CAN MEAN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING.

>> YES.

>> YOU TALKED ABOUT THE REASONS BEHIND THIS, I THINK IT'S SO IMPORTANT.

WE DON'T GET TO REPORT A LOT ON THE JUDICIARY.

TYPICALLY IF WE RUN A STORY, IT'S A DEATH PENALTY CASE, A BIG LAWSUIT OR END RESULT OR ORAL ARGUMENTS.

THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT.

WHEN YOU WEAR THE ROAD, YOU DON'T WANT TO TIP YOUR HAND OR SAY SOMETHING TO MAKE YOU RECUSE YOURSELF.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> SO WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE OPPORTUNITIES TO SAY, OKAY, WHAT'S IT REALLY LIKE?

SO I'M CURIOUS WHAT YOU COULD SAY ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE COURT SYSTEM IS SOMETHING THAT YOUR REGULAR PERSON SHOULDN'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT EVERY DAY, BUT YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT IT'S THERE AND THAT IT'S FAIR.

>> SO I WOULD ANALOGIZE THIS TO BASEBALL.

WHEN YOU WATCH THE BASEBALL GAME YOU KNOW THE RULES ARE THE SAME FOR BOTH TEAMS.

YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE RULES, THERE'S A RULE BOOK ALL THE UMPIRES HAVE TO FOLLOW IN BASEBALL.

THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ARE OUR RULE BOOK AND THIS WAY ALL THE PARTIES KNOW AHEAD OF TIME WHAT THE RULES ARE GOING TO BE.

THEY GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO WORK THEIR CASE UP, TO KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE GOING TO BE BEFORE THEY START WORKING ON THEIR CASE, TO KNOW HOW THE TRIAL JUDGE IS GOING TO REACT WHEN THEY BRING A PARTICULAR MOTION OR A PARTICULAR WITNESS FOR IT, THEY KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE AHEAD OF TIME.

THIS GIVES THEM CONFIDENCE THAT THE SYSTEM IS GOING TO BE FAIR TO THEM.

IT GIVES THEM CONFIDENCE THAT NO MATTER WHAT COUNTY THEY'RE IN IN OUR STATE THAT THE COURT WILL OPERATE GENERALLY IN THE SAME WAY, AND IT GIVES INVESTORS AND PEOPLE OUTSIDE OUR STATE THE CONFIDENCE TO KNOW OUR SYSTEM IS NOT RIGGED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, OUR SYSTEM IS SET UP FOR FAIRNESS FOR EVERYBODY.

>> SO I SUPPOSE YOU STILL ARE THE NEWEST JUSTICE ON THE SUPREME COURT.

>> I AM.

>> ELECTED TWO YEARS AGO?

>> I WAS ELECTED IN NOVEMBER OF '22.

>> '22.

LAST YEAR.

SO I'M CURIOUS, HOW HAVE YOU ENJOYED YOUR TIME ON THE COURT?

IS IT JUST LIKE WHAT YOU EXPECTED?

>> I WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS WORKING IN A LIBRARY.

IT'S VERY QUIET.

I DON'T SEE VERY MANY PEOPLE.

I ALMOST NEVER GET A PHONE CALL.

I GET VERY FEW E-MAILS.

BUT I'LL TELL YOU, I READ A LOT.

MY JOB IS TO READ, AND I READ THOUSANDS OF PAGES.

AND I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT I, ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUES, ARE ALWAYS MAKING SURE THAT WE'VE GOT THE ANSWER RIGHT, AND WE'RE GOING TO READ ALL THE BRIEFS, WE'RE GOING TO READ ALL YOUR RECORD.

WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE APPLIED THE LAW CORRECTLY, AND IF WE GRANT YOU ORAL ARGUMENT IN YOUR CASE SO THAT YOU'RE GOING TO COME IN FRONT OF US, IT'S GOING TO BE A REALLY HOT BENCH.

OUR BENCH ASKS QUESTIONS FROM THE GET-GO, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IN AN ORAL ARGUMENT.

ONE OF THE THINGS I HAVE BEEN NOT SURPRISED BY -- I SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SURPRISED BY IT -- IS HOW MUCH OUR COURT PAYS ATTENTION.

EVERY ONE IN MY COURT PAYS ATTENTIONO THE CASES IN DETAIL AND REALLY STRUGGLES TO GET THE EXACT RIGHT ANSWER AND WORKS REALLY HARD TO MAKE SURE WE'VE LOOKED AT THE ENTIRE RECORD, AND WE GET BETTER ANSWERS BECAUSE WE'RE BUILDING A CONSENSUS.

TRIAL JUDGES WORK REALLY HARD, BUT THEY HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISIONS ALL BY THEMSELVES, AND SOMETIMES IN A RUSH.

WE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HAVING TIME TO LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENED BEFORE, DO OUR OWN RESEARCH, AND THEN WE HAVE THE CONSENSUS OF TALKING AMONGST OURSELVES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THE RIGHT ANSWER.

>> I MENTIONED DEATH PENALTY CASES AS ONE OF THE HIGH-PROFILE THINGS THAT MIGHT COME UP TO US.

Y'ALL HAVE NEW PROCEDURES WHEN IT COMES TO THAT, SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR YEARS.

IN THESE LAST COUPLE DEATH PENALTY CASES, THE LAST ONE, HAS THAT MADE A DIFFERENCE AS FAR AS TIMING WHAT YOU'RE ABLE TO DO ADMINISTRATIVELY TO MAKE THAT DECISION AND SET THAT WARRANT?

>> IT'S HARD FOR ME TO COMMENT BECAUSE I WASN'T THERE BEFORE THE RULES.

I'VE ONLY SEEN THE CHANGES AFTER THE RULES.

>> THAT'S FAIR.

>> I WILL SAY OUR COURT TREATS THOSE DEATH PENALTY CASES VERY, VERY CAREFULLY.

SO WHEN THEY COME UP TO REVIEW -- WE REVIEW CRIMINAL CASES BASED ON CERTIORARI, MEANING WE WON'T REVIEW EVERY CRIMINAL CASE IN DETAIL, WE LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT HAS THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS GOTTEN IT RIGHT, AND IF THEY HAVE WE'RE GOING TO AFFIRM.

IF THERE'S JUST A QUESTION, WE'RE GOING TO SAY LET'S HAVE THAT CASE, LET'S SEE FULL BRIEFING AND THE RECORD.

EVEN THE CERT PETITIONS, WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME AGONIZING OVER THEM AND OFTENTIMES OUR CERT ORDERS WILL JUST SAY CERT DENIED.

INTERNALLY, THOUGH, WE HAVE LENGTHY MEMORANDUM TO BACK UP THE DECISION.

ON THE CRIMINAL OR DEATH PENALTY CASES I'VE SEEN OUR INTERNAL MEMORANDUM EXCEED 100 PAGES REGULARLY ON THE DEATH PENALTY CASES.

SO WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME MAKING SURE THE ANSWERS ARE CORRECT.

>> I SHOULD THINK SO.

>> WELL, MR. JUSTICE, WE'RE OUT OF TIME, BUT THANKS AGAIN FOR JOINING US.

CONGRATULATIONS ON A TRAFFIC EVENT AND THE PANEL YOU LED, ESPECIALLY, AND LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING YOU ON THE SHOW SOMETIME AGAIN.

>> I WILL BE HONORED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TODD.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> THAT'S OUR SHOW FOR THIS WEEK.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

WE'LL BE BACK NEXT WEEK AT THE SAME TIME RIGHT HERE ON ALABAMA PUBLIC TELEVISION.

FOR OUR "CAPITOL JOURNAL" TEAM, I'M TODD STACY.