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

WELCOME TO "CAPITOL JOURNAL'"S WEEK IN REVIEW.

ALABAMA'S COVID-19 SITUATION CONTINUES TO IMPROVE.

CHART GRAPHIC THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTED TODAY THAT 1871 PATIENTS ARE HOSPITALIZED WITH THE VIRUS.

THAT'S DOWN MORE THAN 1,000 PATIENTS FROM THE OMICRON PEAK ON JANUARY 25.

DR. SCOTT HARRIS, THE STATE'S PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER, SAYS HOSPITALIZATIONS ARE A KEY INDICATOR.

>> THAT NUMBER SAYS IT ALL IN A WAY.

WE'RE PLEASED TO REPORT THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS IN ALABAMA HOSPITALS IS DECLINING.

IT'S STILL A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER AND AROUND A THROUGH PEOPLE BUT THAT'S ONLY 2/3 OF WHAT IT WAS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.

OUR TOTAL DAILY CASE NUMBERS, NEW CASE NUMBERS, ARE GOING DOWN AS WELL.

YOU CAN ARGUE TRACKING DAILY CASE NUMBERS ISN'T AS MUCH AS IT USED TO BE, BUT LESS DISEASE IS GOOD.

>> MY FULL INTERVIEW WITH DR. HARRIS IS COMINGS UP LATER IN THE SHOW.

INFLATION CONTINUES TO GRIP THE ECONOMY, MAKING EVERYTHING FROM FOOD TO GASOLINE TO CLOTHING MORE EXPENSIVE.

THE LABOR DEPARTMENT REPORTS THAT INFLATION GREW BY 7.5% OVER THE LAST YEAR - THE FASTEST IN 40 YEARS.

HERE IN ALABAMA, INFLATION IS ADDING FUEL TO A RENEWED ATTEMPT IN THE LEGISLATURE TO REMOVE THE STATE SALES TAX ON GROCERIES.

STATE REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HOLMES OF WETUMPKA IS SPONSORING GROCERY TAX LEGISLATION.

>> I THINK ANYTHING THAT MAKES OUR COST OF OUR LIVING GOING UP IS REALLY HURTING THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHAT I WOULD CALL WORKING POOR AND POOR POVERTY LEVEL, THEIR DOLLARS ARE BUYING ABOUT HALF OF WHAT IT WAS BUYING TWO YEARS AGO.

WE HAVE HAD THAT KIND OF INFLATION.

AND WHETHER IT'S GASOLINE OR GROCERY ON THE TABLE OR ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

IT'S AMAZING INFLATION.

IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE.

SOMETHING WILL HAVE TO GIVE IN THE SHORT-TERM.

>> LAWMAKERS ARE ALSO WANTING TO CUT INCOME TAXES, ESPECIALLY FOR LOW INCOME ALABAMIANS.

SENATOR ARTHUR ORR OF DECATUR MOVED HIS TAX CUT BILL THIS WEEK.

"CAPITOL JOURNAL'"S KAREN GOLDSMITH HAS THE STORY.

>> THIS PARTICULAR BILL DOES TWO THINGS: 1, IT RAISES THE STANDARD DEDUCTION SUBSTANTIALLY AND WILL TARGET MORE OR LESS FAMILIES IN THE 50 TO 55,000 HOUSEHOLD INCOME RANGE THAT USE THE STANDARD DEDUCTION.

THE OTHER THING THAT IT DOES, IT RAISES THE DEPEND END EXCEPTIONS PROVISIONS FOR CHILDREN AND THOSE DEPENDENT IN THE HOUSEHOLD.

>> THE PLAN REDUCES RECEIPTS TO THE EDUCATION TRUST FUND BY $17 MILLION.

PLAN'S SPONSOR, SENATOR ARTHUR ORR CHAIRS THE TRUST FUND COMMITTEE.

HE IS COMFORTABLE WITH GIVING ALABAMA FAMILIES THIS TAX RELIEVE BECAUSE THE COST OF GOODS ASK GOING UP, GENERATING MORE SALES TAX REVENUE AND THAT SALES TAX REVENUE GOES TO THE EDUCATION TRUSTED FUND.

>> AND THE INCREASE IN WAGES IS AROUND ADDITIONAL BENEFIT.

>> IF YOU HAD A PERSON MAKING $7 AN HOUR.

AND THEY PAY $50 A WEEK IN TAXES.

IF THEY DO NOT HAVE A JOB MAKING $15 AN HOUR AND PAY A HUNDRED DOLLARS A WEEK IN TAXES AND IT'S NOWHERE -- NOBODY FIGURED THAT AMOUNT OF REVENUE IN BASED ON THE INCREASE IN MINIMUM WAGE.

>> THAT'S ARE A GOOD POINT.

>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT!

SO WE'RE GOING TO LOOK PRETTY DECENT AS WE GO JUST BECAUSE OF THAT.

>> I JUST WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE FOR BRINGING THIS MEASURE.

YOU AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.

I APPRECIATE, AS WE SEE REVENUES RISE IN THE EDUCATION TRUST FUND AND THE GENERAL FUND THAT WE ARE TAKING A MEASURED STEP TO RETURN SOME OF IT TO ALABAMA TAXPAYERS.

>> THE BILL PASSED 26-ZERO AND IS NOW IN THE ALABAMA HOUSE.

FOR "CAPITOL JOURNAL," I'M KAREN GOLDSMITH.

>> THE LEGISLATURE DEALT WITH SOME CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES THIS WEEK.

FOR THE SECOND YEAR IN A ROW, LEGISLATION ADDRESSING TRANSGENDER ISSUES IS BEING DEBATED.

SENATE BILL FROM SENATOR SHAY SHELLNUTT OF TRUSSVILLE WOULD PROHIBIT DOCTORS FROM PRESCRIBING PUBERTY BLOCKERS OR PERFORMING GENDER TRANSITION SURGERY ON MINORS.

>> THIS BILL IS STRICTLY ABOUT JUST PROTECTING CHILDREN.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS MAKE SURE THESE SURGERIES ARE NOT GOING ON IN ALABAMA.

THEY ARE NOT AT THIS TIME.

I THINK YOU HAVE A LETTER ON YOUR DESK THAT SAYS UAB SAYS IT IS NOT HAPPENING.

BUST THE DRUGS THAT CROSS SEX HORMONES AND PUBERTY BLOCKERS ARE GOING ON AND THEY'RE BEING REFERRED TO SURGERIES AND THEY MAY GO OUT OF STATE FOR THE SURGERIES BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS NEVER HAPPENS TO THE CHILDREN.

BECAUSE THERE'S LIFELONG CONSEQUENCES OF THESE PROCEDURES.

>> AS A COMMUNITY PEDIATRICIAN IN THE WIREGRASS I HAVE TAKEN CARE OF MANY PATIENTS WITH GENDER DYSPHORIA.

TRANSGENDER PATIENT, ON 86 PERCENT OF THEM WILL THINK ABOUT SUICIDE, HAVE SUICIDAL IDEATIONS AND OVER HALF WILL ATTEMPT IT.

WHEN PARENTS COME TO ME AFRAID OF LOSE THEIR CHILD, THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO BE AFRAID OF.

IF WE DO NOT AFFIRM THESE PATIENTS.

>> ANOTHER CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE THAT'S BACK AGAIN THIS YEAR IS CONCEALED CARRY GUN PERMITS.

A HOUSE COMMITTEE HELD A PUBLIC HEARING THIS WEEK ON LEGISLATION THAT WOULD DO AWAY WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT GUN OWNERS OBTAIN PERMITS FOR CONCEALED HANDGUNS.

"CAPITOL JOURNAL'"S RANDY SCOTT HAS THAT STORY.

>> HOUSE BILL 272 IS A SIMPLE BILL.

IT'S A SIMPLE CONCEPT.

IT BASICALLY ADDRESSES THAT IF YOU ARE LEGALLY ABLE TO OWN AND POSSESS A WEAPON, A HANDGUN, THAT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CARRY THAT GUN WITHOUT A PERMIT.

>> REPRESENTATIVE STRINGER'S PROPOSAL TO CHANGE HOUR PISTOLS ARE USED IN ALABAMA IS A HOT TOPIC, FROM THOSE WHO STRESS THEY'RE NEEDED FROM THOSE WHO SAY THEY NEED TO GO.

>> THAT LINKS THAT WEAPON ASK THAT PERSON IN AN INVESTIGATION SO THAT WE CAN SAVE LIVES.

AND WE'RE NOT ONLY SAVING LIVES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

YOU KNOW, EVERYDAY BY USING PISTOL PERMITS AS TOOL, WHICH IS ONE OF THE ONLY TOOLS THAT WE HAVE.

>> YOU'RE GETTING OPPOSITION FROM THE UNIFORMS OUT HERE AND I WANT TO GIVE YOU TWO REASONS I THINK THEY'RE HERO POSING THIS BUILD.

I HATE TO SAY IT BUT SOMEONE HAS TO SAY IT.

TWO REASONS.

ONE, THEY LIKE THAT JANK.

THEY LIKE THOSE FEES.

THEY LIKE LICENSING LIBERTIES GIVEN TO US BY GOD, CODIFIED BY THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND ALABAMA.

THEY LIKE THAT MONEY?

>> CONCERNS COME FROM THE MEDICAL WORLD TO PEOPLE WANTING TO PROTECT THEIR SECOND AMENDMENTS RIGHTS.

>> I THINK THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF MORE WEAPONS AND THE POTENTIAL FOR THIS LESS MONITORED APPROACH TO HAVING MORE WEAPONS INTRODUCES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE PENETRATING ENERGIES TO OUR COMMUNITIES, AND I THINK THAT ANYTHING THAT CAN LOWER THAT IS -- THAT OPPORTUNITY IS BETTER.

>> WE WANT PEOPLE TO PROVE AND SHOW PAPERS THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO CARRY WEAPONS FOR SELF-DEFENSE OR WE'RE A CRIMINAL.

GENTLEMEN, ARE WE SO LOW THAT WE MUST ASK PERMISSION TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE?

>> THIS COMMITTEE WOULD VOTE ON THE PROPOSAL ON A LATER DAY.

FOR "CAPITOL JOURNAL" I'M RANDY SCOTT.

>> ELSEWHERE IN THE STATE TODAY, THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA BOARD SIX TRUSTEES VOTED TO REMOVE THE NAME OF FORMER ALABAMA GOVERNOR BIBB GRAVES FROM A CAMPUS BUILDING AND RENAME IT FOR AUTHERINE LUCY FOSTER, THE UNIVERSITY'S FIRST BLACK STUDENT.

GRAVES WAS A PRO-EDUCATION GOVERNOR IN THE 1950S, WHICH IS WHY HIS NAME IS ON A LOT OF COLLEGE BUILDINGS, BUT HE ALSO WAS A LEADER IN THE KU KLUX KLAN.

THE UNIVERSITY HAD ORIGINALLY PLANNED TO NAME THE BUILDING FOR BOTH GRAVES AND FOSTER, BUT REVERSED COURSE AFTER PUBLIC CRITICISM.

A NEW POLL OUT THIS WEEK SHOWS THAT MORE THAN 70 PERCENT OF VOTERS SUPPORT EXPANDING MEDICAID TO COVER MORE PEOPLE.

HOUSE AND SENATE LEADERS DON'T EXPECT AN EXPANSION EFFORT TO BE SUCCESSFUL THIS SESSION, BUT ACKNOWLEDGED THE ISSUE IS BEING ACTIVELY TALKED ABOUT.

>> THE POLLING LOOKED GOOD LAST YEAR AND THE YEAR BEFORE WHEN WE LOOK AT IT.

THE ISSUE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT THE LONG-TERM COSTS TO OUR BUDGETS AND WHAT IT WOULD COST.

AND ALSO THE COVERING ISSUE.

>> THE THING WE CAN'T GET AWAY FROM AND MISS IS THE ECONOMY OF TODAY IS NOT GOING TO BE THE ECONOMY OF TOMORROW.

WHATEVER WE DO, WHEN WE'RE FLUSH WITH CASH RIGHT NOW IT'S EASY TO GO OUT AND COMMIT OURSELVES TO LOTS OF SPENDING THAT'S GOING TO BE RECURRING.

IF THE ECONOMY TANKS, WE'RE GOING TO BE IN A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION, AND WE NEED TO BE VERY COGNIZANT OF THAT.

>> AND FINALLY, THE BIGGEST NEWS THIS WEEK CAME ON MONDAY WHEN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT BLOCKED A LOWER COURT'S ORDER THAT ALABAMA MUST REDRAW ITS CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.

THE JUSTICES RULED THAT THE REDISTRICTING ORDER CAME TOO CLOSE TO THE PRIMARY ELECTION, WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 25.

THE ELECTION WILL GO ON AS PLANNED WITH THE DISTRICTS PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE LAST YEAR.

HOWEVER, IT SETS UP A POTENTIALLY MONUMENTAL COURT CASE WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR THE HOW THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT APPLIES IN THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS.

I'LL TALK IN DEPTH WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL STEVE MARSHALL WHEN WE COME BACK.B >> NEXT I'M PLEASED TO BE JOINED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL STEER MARSHAL.

ATTORNEY GENERAL MARSHAL, THANK YOU FOR COMING ON "CAPITOL JOURNAL."

>> ALWAYS GOOD TO BE BACK AND GOOD TO BE WITH YOU FOR THE 1ST TIME.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

WE'VE BEEN EAGER TO GET YOU ON THE SHOW, BECAUSE THIS MAJOR REDISTRICTING CASE.

AND LET'S DIVE RIGHT INTO IT.

THE SUPREME COURT GRANTED YOUR REQUEST TO STAY OR PUT ON HOLD THE LOWER COURT'S ORDER THAT THE STATE REDRAW OUR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.

WHAT WAS YOUR ARGUMENT AND WHY DO YOU THINK YOU WERE SUCCESSFUL?

>> I THINK THERE WERE A COUPLE OF REASONS.

ONE IS SORT OF SIMPLY WE'RE RIGHT.

I THINK THERE ARE SEVERAL JUSTICES THAT HAVE ALREADY KNOWLEDGED AND SCENE AS A RESULT OF WHAT WE FILED ABOUT THE MISAPPLICATION OF LAW OF THE THREE JUDGE PANEL INTO THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS IN THIS CASE.

BUT THE SECONDARY MANNER -- AND THIS IS ONE THAT ASCENDS OUR CASE AND RELATES TO MANY OTHERS AROUND THE COUNTRY IS THAT THE COURT HAS APPLIED A DOCTRINE THAT WE USE SUCCESSFULLY DURING THE CHALLENGES TO MANY OF THE VOTING LAWS OF ALABAMA DURING LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND THAT'S SOMETHING CALLED THE PURCELL DOCTRINE AND THAT'S THE POINT IN TIME WHERE IT'S SIMPLY TOO LATE FOR THE COURTS TO CHANGE THE RULES REGARDING ELECTIONS BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A VALID ELECTION TAKE PLACE.

IN FACT, HAD THE TIMELINE OF THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL SET OUTDOOR THERE BEEN PUT IN PLACE I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO ENSURE THAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CARE OUT AN APPROPRIATE ELECTION ACCORDING TO THE TIMELINE SET FORTH BY THE LEGISLATURE.

>> BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST GOING TO THE VOTING BOOTH AND VOTING.

A LOT HAS TOO HAPPEN.

CANDIDATES HAVE A QUALIFY AND THEY FIGURED SIGNATURES AND WHICH DISTRICT ARE YOU IN, DO YOU WANT TO RUN FOR CONGRESS -- THERE ARE A LOT OF DETAILS THAT GO INTO IT.

JUSTICE KAGAN IN HER DISSENT ARGUED WHY DOESN'T ALABAMA JUST MOVE THE ELECTION.

PEOPLE MAY NOT REALIZE ABSENTEE BALLOTS GO OUT IN MARCH.

WHY IS THAT IMPRACTICAL?

>> ABSENTEE AND OUR MILITARY BALLOTS AS WELL.

1ST OF ALL I THINK WHAT SHE SAID WAS ILLOGICAL.

AS A PRACTICAL MATTER IT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT SUSPENSION FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA TO CONDUCT TWO SEPARATE ELECTIONS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT WHEN OTHERWISE THERE WOULDN'T ABOUT REASON FOR IT.

BUT BEYOND THAT IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TOO EITHER PARTY OR CANDIDATES RUNNING IN THESE RACES BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY A FULL SLATE OF CANDIDATES IS GOING TO DRIVE PEOPLE TO THE POLLING PLACE AND WE SEE GENERALLY WHAT THE TURNOUT IS FOR RUNOFF ELECTIONS.

IT'S MUCH MORE DIMINISHED THAN WE SEE FOR A PRIMARY RACE THAT OCCURRED BEFORE IT.

SO THE QUESTION WOULD BE WOULD WE HAVE A FULL AND CARE CONSIDERATION WHERE SEARCH COMING OUT TO VOTE.

SO AGAIN I THINK THE COURT ACTED PRE-DENTALLY HERE.

ALSO WHEN I TALK ABOUT IT BEING BROADER THAN THE STATE OF ALABAMA IT ALSO PROBABLY SENDS A SIGNAL TO THE REAPPORTIONMENT CASES PENDING IN OTHER STATES WHICH THERE MAY BE ELECTIONS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER ABOUT HOW THE COURT WOULD DEAL WITH THOSE QUESTIONS AS WELL.

>> OF COURSE THIS RULING WAS NOT ON THE MERITS.

IN FACT, JUSTICE KAVANAUGH SAID MANY TIMES THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE CASE BUT ABOUT THE TIMING AND THE ELECTION CAN GO ON AS PLANNED.

BUT I'M ASSUMING WE COULD GET TO THE MERITS AND IN FACT IT COULD BE ORAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

WALK ME FLEW WHAT YOUR CASE IS GOING TO BE WITH THE MERITS OF THE CASE.

>> WHEN WE SAY MERITS, LET'S RECOGNIZE PROCEDURALLY WHERE THIS IS.

THAT'S ONLY THROUGH A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

THESE PLEADINGS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT, THE EARLIEST WAS FILED IN SEPTEMBER.

AND THE OTHER TWO WERE NOT FILED UNTIL NOVEMBER SO WE HAVE NOT BEEN THROUGH FULL DISCOVERY, WE DIDN'T HAVE DEPOSITIONS OF EXPERTS, THERE'S SOME EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION BUT YET THIS CASE STILL REMAINS AT THE PRELIMINARY EXCHANGE.

SO WHEN THIS COURT IS GOING TO CONSIDER OUR ARGUMENTS ON WHETHER OR NOT THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL SHOULD HAVE IN GRANTED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IT'S NOT FULLY DECIDED WHERE THIS CASE MAY ULTIMATELY GO.

BUT WHAT IS IMPORTANT AND ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT A COURT CONSIDERS AS IT RELATES TO PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE PLAINTIFF'S PREVAILING ON THE MERITS.

SO WHAT I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE AS A RESULT OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT WILL TAKE PLACE IN THIS CASE AND I EXPECT AGAIN -- WE'RE GROUND ZERO AS IT INVOLVES REAPPORTIONMENT CASES IN THE COUNTRY.

WHAT THIS CASE WILL DO IS PUT SQUARELY BEFORE THE COURT OF POLITICS OF SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT TO THE CASE.

WHAT WE WILL PRESENT TO THE COURT, IT'S GOING TO BE A MAP DRAWN IN 1992 AS A RESULT OF FEDERAL COURT'S DECISION.

IT WAS U MATILY GONE THROUGH THE APPELLATE PROCESS AND THAT MAP WAS APPROVED.

>> JINGLES?

>> THE JINGLES FACTOR IS SOMETHING THAT IS CONSIDERED.

AND TO THEN YOU HAVE, IN 2020, WHICH WAS WHEN BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE WERE CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS IN ALABAMA.

BASICALLY THE SAME MAP IS ADOPTED IN ALABAMA WITH SMALL VARIATIONS IN THE LINES.

IT WAS PRECLEARED BIT OBAMA JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION.

MAP CONTINUES TO BE BASICALLY IN ITS CURRENT FORM IN 2010.

LITIGATED IN 2010 IN FEDERAL COURTS AND ULTIMATELY FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AS WELL AS THE CONSTITUTION, AND WHEN WE SEE IN 2020 WHEN THE LEGISLATURE AGAIN DIDN'T COME IN RADICALLY CHANGE THE LINES.

I CONTINUE TO HEAR THIS NARRATIVE THAT THE LEGISLATURE ENGAGED IN SORT OF POLITICAL AND RACIAL GERRYMANDERING -- THEY DIDN'T.

THEY ADOPTED AN HISTORIC MAP.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE SEEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE POPULATION PERCENTAGES AND CHANGES IN ALABAMA FROM 1990 TO 2020 THERE WAS LESS THAN 2 PERCENT GROWTH IN THE PERCENTAGE OF BLACK POPULATION IN BIRMINGHAM.

WHEN YOU LOOK FROM 2010 TO 2020 IT'S LESS THAN .4 PERCENT.

SO WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE THE COURT IS A MAP THAT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR 30 YEARS WITH LITTLE POPULATION CHANGE IN ALABAMA.

SO WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THE COURT IS GOING TO SEE THAT BASIC PREMISE AS BEING ONE THAT IS IMPROPER AT THAT POINT FOR FEDERAL COURTS TO OMICRON AND REQUIRE A CHANGE.

BECAUSE I FEEL STRONGLY THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE DID THEIR JOB AND WE HAVE A MAP CONSISTENT WITH THOSE FACTORS THAT THE COURTS HAVE CONSIDERED IN THE PAST AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT MAP SHOULD MOVE FORWARD.

>> DON'T THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE A POINT THOUGH?

27 PERCENT OF THE STATE'S POPULATION AROUND ABOUT IS AFRICAN-AMERICAN YET ONLY ONE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IS, YOU KNOW, MAJORITY MINORITY?

DON'T HAVE THEY HAVE A POINT IN SAYING IT CAN BE TWO DIRECTS ARE THAT MAYBE NOT MAJORITY BLACK BUT SIGNIFICANT POPULATION?

>> FOR THERE PROPORTIONATELY IS NOT A FACTOR FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER.

THAT'S WHAT THAT ARGUMENT IS.

AND THE PLAINTIFF'S OWN EXPERTS, ONE OF THEM IN PARTICULAR, TRIED TO DRAW OVER 2 MILLION MAPS IN ALABAMA WITH RACE NEUTRAL REASONS TO COME UP WITH TWO MAJORITY MINORITY DISTRICTS AND COULDN'T DO IT.

AND JUST -- LITERALLY THE ALGORITHM COULD NOT PRODUCE TWO TO DO IT.

SO THE ONLY WAY TO BE ABLE TO DO IT IS TO ALLOW RACE TO PREDOMINANT TO CREATE THOSE TWO DISTRICTS AND IT WOULD VIOLATE THE IDEA OF COMPACTNESS AND WHAT COURTS LOOK AT FOR COMMUNITY OF INTERESTS AND BEING ABLE TO RESPECT THE BOUND RELEASE OF FORMER MAPS THAT WERE FOUND VALID WHICH THIS MAP HAD FOR 30 YEARS AND ALSO TO RESPECT IN INCUMBENCY WHICH IS A FACT COURTS HAVE LOOKED AT WHEN THEY CONSIDER MAPS.

IF YOU SEE THE MAPS THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE DRAWN IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT ALABAMA HAS SEEN OVER THE LAST 30 PLUS YEARS INCLUDING -- I THINK I HEARD EARLIER KARL TALK ABOUT THE CONGRESS ONLY MAN TO DRIVE TO ANOTHER STATE TO TRAVEL THROUGH THIS DISTRICT WHICH WOULD BE HAPPENING IF HE'S AT THE BOTTOM TO GO FROM MOBILE TO DOTHAN, WHICH SEEMINGLY ONE OF THE MAPS THERE WOULD BE TO PUT THE WIREGRASS IN WITH THE GULF COAST AND THAT'S CLEARLY NOT SOMETHING THAT WE THINK IS APPROPRIATE.

>> I KNOW YOU'RE NOT A LEGISLATOR, BUT JUST ON -- >> THANKFULLY, BY THE WAY.

>> BUT THE ISSUE OF REDISTRICTING IN GENERAL, I HAVE TO TELL YOU, IT'S FRUSTRATING TO COVER.

THERE'S SO MUCH CONTRADICTION IN RULINGS FROM THE COURT, WHAT IS IT THE LEGISLATURE IS SUPPOSED TO DO ON THIS AND NOT SUPPOSED TO DO ON THAT.

THERE'S A LOT OF CONTRADICTION, A LOT OF POLITICS INVOLVED.

IS THERE SOME WAY THIS CAN BE REFORMED?

IS THERE A LEGISLATIVE FIX?

IS THIS COURT CASE MAYBE A WAY TO GET SOME CLARITY ON REDISTRICTING?

>> YOUR LAST POINT IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE.

I THINK THIS COURT WILL -- THIS CASE WILL GIVE THE SUPREME COURT AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE CLARITY FOR SECTION 2.

THEY HAVE MOVED THAT DIRECTION, INCLUDING BERNAVITCH CASE ARGUED IN THE LAST TERM TO TRY TO ULTIMATELY GIVE COURTS MORE UNDERSTANDING ABOUT HOW IT IS THAT SECTION 2 SHOULD BE APPLIED AND HOW MUCH WEIGHT THE COURT SHOULD GIVE TO CERTAIN FACTORS.

BUT THIS COURT MAY CRYSTAL EYES THAT IN A NEW WAY.

AND THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE DIDN'T RADICALLY CHANGE ANYTHING.

IN FACT THE LINES DIDN'T MOVE MUCH AT ALL AND THAT WAS JUST DONE TO REFLECT POPULATION CHANGES.

POPULATION HAS GROWN IN NORTH ALABAMA WHEREAS WE LOST POPULATION AND OTHERS.

BUT THESE WERE THAT RADICALLY CHANGING LINES.

AND CLEARLY I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYBODY ARGUE THAT IT WAS DONE FOR POLITICALLY PATTERN REASONS.

THE ONLY THING THAT WE BELIEVE IS THE LEGISLATURE RECOGNIZED POPULATION CHANGES, AMENDED LINES TO BE ABLE TO INCORPORATE THOSE, AND HAS ALLOWED FOR WHAT AGAIN HAS BEEN HISTORIC MAPS BOTH AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WHICH WE'RE LITIGATING NOW AND WE WILL BE LITIGATING AT STATEHOUSE DISTRICTS HERE SON BUT THEY HAVE DONE THAT APPROACH ON BOTH FRONTS AND I COMMEND THE LEGISLATURE FOR DOING IT AND I COMMEND THEM FOR STANDING WITH US WHEN WE TOLD THEM THAT WE BELIEVE THAT WE WERE RIGHT ON THIS APPEAL, THAT WE FELT GOOD ABOUT THE ARGUMENTS IN ORDER TO GET THE STAY.

AND ALTHOUGH WE WOULD BE CRITICIZED AND I'M SURE I WAS FOR SAYING LOOK AT ALABAMA NOT RESPONDING TO A THREE-JUDGE PANEL.

WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ASSERT OUR INTERESTS.

IF ANYTHING PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT ME AS ATTORNEY GENERAL I'M NOT WILLING TO STAND DOWN FROM A FIGHT.

WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT WHEN WE'RE RIGHT AND WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THOSE ARGUMENTS IN COURT.

WE WILL DO IT THE RIGHT WAY.

>> AND WE DO IT AS ADVOCATES SHOULD.

BUT I'M VERY PLEASED WITH WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS DONE NOW.

BUT AS YOU HAVE RECOGNIZED IT'S NOT OVER AND WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY BRIEF AS WELL AS ARGUE THIS CASE BEFORE THE COURT.

>> WHILE I HAVE GOT YOU I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE ISSUE OF CRIME.

CRIME IS RISING.

HERE IN MONTGOMERY, WE SET A RECORD FOR MURDERS LAST YEAR.

SPECIFICALLY HOMICIDE ARISING.

OTHER CITIES, BIRMINGHAM AND MOBILE, YOU'RE SEEING A RISE IN HOMICIDES.

IT'S SCARY AND FRUSTRATING.

WHAT CAN BE CON TO REVERSE THIS TREND?

>> WELL, I THINK -- THIS IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF MA DIFFERENT ANSWER MAYBE THAN WHAT YOU'RE EXPECTING.

BUT YESTERDAY I SPENT TIME IN TUSCALOOSA WHERE THAT COMMUNITY HONORED FIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

AND EACH OF THEIR STORIES WERE TOLD IN PUBLIC.

OF COULD YOU DO HEROISM AND PROFESSIONALISM.

WONDERFUL THINGS I WISH IS THAT COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY WOULD EMBRACE THE FACT THAT EVERY DAY LAW ENFORCEMENT IS RISKING THEIR LIVES TO BE ABLE TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITY SAFE.

SO ONCE THAT IS CONCERNING -- AND I THINK YOU HAVE SEEN THIS AT A NARRATIVE LEVEL, DEFUNDING THE POLICE AND SOMEHOW THE ARGUMENT THAT POLICE AREN'T WELCOME IN COMMUNITIES SIMPLY ALLOWS FOR THERE TO BE A RETREATED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM CERTAIN AREAS THAT ALLOWS THE BAD GUYS TO BE ABLE TO TAKE OVER AND WE HAVE TO REENGAGE SOME PLACES WITH CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT APPROPRIATE POLICING LOOKS LIKE AND HOW IT IS THAT WE CAN WORK WITH COMMUNITIES TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THEM SAFER.

AND IT IS NOT BY REDUCING THAT FORCE.

IN FACT, I THINK THERE'S SIGNIFICANT STUDIES THAT TALK ABOUT INCREASED LAW ENFORCEMENT PRESENCE EQUATION TO A REDUCTION IN VIOLENT CRIME.

THAT MAKES COMMON SENSE TO ME.

AND WHEN WE SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER BELIEVE THAT THE PRESENTATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN COMMUNITIES SHOULDN'T BE WELCOME, THEN WE'RE GIVING UP TO THE BAD GUISE SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT THE GOOD THINGS THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT IS DOING OF AND EMBRACE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO ADVANCE BEST PRACTICES ACROSS THE STATE BUT YET COMMUNITY ALSO NEEDS TO EMBRACE LAW ENFORCEMENT AS WELL.

THAT'S WHAT WE WANT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT COMMUNITY NEEDS.

>> ATTORNEY GENERAL STEVE MARSHALL, THANK YOU FOR COMING ON THE SHOW.

>> WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> NEXT I'M JOINED BY CHRIS ENGLAND OF TUSCALOOSA, CHAIRMAN OF THE ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR COMING ON "CAPITOL JOURNAL."

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

GLAD TO BE HERE.

>> WELL, IT'S STILL BIG NEWS THAT REDISTRICTING ISSUE -- IT'S KIND OF IN A ROLLER COASTER BECAUSE YOU HAD THE COURT PANEL COME AND SAY ALABAMA HAS TO REDRAW THESE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.

THEN THE SUPREME COURT COMES IN AND SAYS THAT'S ON HOLD, TOO CLOSE TO THE ELECTION.

SO THIS ELECTION WILL PROCEED WITH THE CURRENT DISTRICTS.

WHAT'S BEEN YOUR REACTION APPEARANCE THE STATE PARTY CHAIR.

>> YOU KNOW I WOULD GUESS VERIFIES SADDENED BUT NOT SURPRISED, NOT SHOCKED.

YOU KNOW WHAT INITIALLY SHOCKED ME WAS THE ORDER IT'S SELF THAT BASICALLY ORDERED US TO REDRAW CONGRESSIONAL MAPS.

AS A MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE AND GOING THROUGH THE PROGRESSION, YOU COULD KIND OF SEE WHERE SOME OF THE PITFALLS WERE AND THE HOLES WERE.

THE PROCESS WAS KIND OF RUSHED.

AND YOU COULD LOOK AT THE CONGRESSIONAL MAP AND SEE THAT DESPITE THE FACT THE BLACK POPULATION IN ALABAMA HAS GROWN TO 26, 27 PERCENT THAT THE MAPS STILL LOOKED EXACTLY THE SAME SO IT DID NOT INCORPORATE THE GROWTH OR SHIFTING OR MOVEMENT OF THE POPULATION.

SO YOU COULD SEE THAT THERE WERE ISSUES DEVELOPING IN HOW IT WAS DRAWN.

BUT I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE JUST HOW "IN DEPTH" AND DETAILED THE ORDER WAS IN TERMS OF GOING THROUGH ALABAMA'S HISTORY TO KIND OF PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR THE VOTING RIGHTS.

.

BUT ULTIMATELY WHEN IT REACHED BEYOND THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL, THE FACT THAT THEY BASICALLY STAYED THE ORDER AND ALLOWED THE MAPS TO GO FORWARD DIDN'T SURPRISE.

.

THE MOST RECENT HISTORY SUGGESTS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT HAS A VERY -- I GUESS SUS SUSPICIOUS EYE TOWARD THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OVER ALL AND THEY'VE DECIDED THE BALANCE OF THE EQUITIES IN THIS SITUATION WHERE THE INCONVENIENCE TO THE STATE WAS MORE OF A PRESSING ISSUE THAN PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF BLACK VOTERS IN.

.

SO YOU KNOW, I FIGURED WE WERE HEADED IN THAT DIRECTION.

>> WHY WAS THAT YOU CANNING WITH SENATOR SINGLETON THE OTHER DAY, AND HE SEEMS OPTIMISTIC THAT, YOU KNOW -- BECAUSE THE COURT DIDN'T REALLY ADDRESS THE MERITS OF THE CASE; RIGHT?

THEY JUST SAID IT'S FOR A CLOSE TO THE ELECTION AND THEY MAY HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS OVER.

.

SENATOR SINGLETON SEEMED OPTIMISTIC THAT WHEN GIVEN THE CHANCE TO BRIEF OR GIVE ORAL ARGUMENTS THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE MAY PREVAIL.

ARE YOU A LITTLE LESS OPTIMISTIC OR -- >> I'M -- I WAKE UP EVERY MORNING WITH A POSITIVE OUT LOOK ON THE DAY BUT I'M RESPECT NOT NAIVE.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS WROTE THE OPINION IN SHELBY VERSUS HOLDER WHICH GUTTED SECTION 5.

AND THERE WERE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE USEFULNESS OF IT AND SO FORTH AND HOW IT OUT LASTED IT'S USEFULNESS AT THAT TIME.

>> BASICALLY DID AWAY WITH THE PRE-CLARENCE.

>> AND THE FORMULA OF COVERED DISTRICTS AND JURISDICTIONS.

AND WHILE THEY WERE VERY CAREFUL IN THIS ORDER FROM THAT IS A DOCKET IN SAYING THAT THIS WAS NOT ABOUT THE MERITS, JUSTICE -- CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS IN HIS DISSENT KIND OF STARTED TALKING ABOUT BOTH SOLUTIONS AND STARTED TALKING ABOUT SECTION 2 AND CLEARING UP SOME OF THOSE INCONSISTENCIES OR ISSUES OR VAGUENESS BECAUSE MANY DISTRICTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE, HOW MUCH DID WE USE RIGHT, WHEN DOES IT BECOME THE PREDOMINANT FACTOR AND WHEN IS IT NECESSARY?

SO YOU COULD GET THE SENSE THAT WHILE HE SIDED WITH THE FOUR THAT HE WAS VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF GETTING INTO THE MERITS, GRANTING CERT AND HAVING ARGUMENTS ABOUT VOTE DELUSION IN SECTION 2.

AND IF YOU TAKE ALL OF THAT IN ACCOUNT FROM HIS HISTORY, YOU GET THE IDEA THAT THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF THE COURT IS GOING TO FURTHER ERODE WHAT IS LEFT OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

AND YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY -- THAT'S THE THE MAIN THING FROM THIS FOR ME IS THAT, A, STOPPING THE ORDER AND ALLOWING THE MAPS TO GIVE FORWARD SIGNAL ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT THERE IS SOME DAYLIGHT THERE.

LIKE YOU CAN PROCEED -- WHICH SOME STATES, INCLUDING FLORIDA, HERE RECENTLY DECIDED -- LET'S GET ANOTHER LOOK AT THE DISTRICTS THAT ARE DRAWN WITH MAJORITY MINORITY IN MIND AND TRY TO GET -- TRY TO GET AWAY FROM THAT.

AND YOU GET CITY COUNCILS DOING THE SAME THING, REDRAWING DISTRICTS AND SAYING THIS IS A SIGNAL AND SAYING LET'S PROCEED BECAUSE WE MAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO DRAW DISTRICTS WITH THAT IN MIND.

SO I'M OPTIMISTIC BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULD NOT AVOID FILING A LAWSUIT BECAUSE YOU'RE AFRAID OF THE COURT.

A WRONG IS A WRONG.

IF YOU THERE LIKE YOU'VE BEEN WRONGED THE LAWSUIT IS YOUR POTENTIAL FOR RELIEF.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, KNOWING WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS DONE RECENTLY IN THE RECENT PAST, YOU KNOW, IT KIND OF GUARDS MY O MITCHELL TO PUT IT AS DIPLOMATICALLY AS I CAN RIGHT NOW.

>> WELL, ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT -- IF THE DISTRICTS WOULD HAVE GONE FORWARD AS THE COURT BASICALLY TOLD THE LEGISLATURE TO DRAW THEM AND I THINK THE SPECIAL MASTER WOULD HAVE DRAWN THEM, THESE TWO OPPORTUNITY DISTRICTS, WHICH MAYBE AREN'T MAJORITY AFRICAN-AMERICAN BUT SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION POPULATION, YOU KNOW, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SAID, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO CHALLENGE FOR THESE SEATS.

WE'RE GOING TO ABSOLUTELY COMPETE.

WAS THERE 95 CONCERN AT THE TIME ON YOUR PART AS DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHAIRMAN THAT OH, NO, WHAT IF WE LOSE THE ONE SEAT THAT WE DO HAVE IN CONGRESS?

>> YOU'RE ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

BUT I THINK FOR FOLKS TO UNDERSTAND THE WORD OPPORTUNITY IS WHAT IT IS, OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE.

AND JUST FOR DEPOSITION'S SAKE, COMPETITIVE ELECTIONS AND FAIR MAPS CREATE BETTER OUTCOMES.

BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'VE GOT OPPOSING SIDES TALKING ABOUT AN ISSUE, YOU GET TO TALKING MORE ABOUT POLICY AND HELP AND WHAT MATTERS VERSUS RHETORIC AND POLITICS.

IT CHANGES YOUR COMMERCIALS.

IT CHANGES WHAT THE PEOPLE RUNNING FOR OFFICE HAVE TO ARGUE FOR AND PUSH FOR.

SO THEY'RE NOT JUST TALKING TO THE FRINGES ANYMORE.

THEY HAVE TO TALK TO EVERYBODY -- WHICH IS -- BETTER POLICY EMERGES FROM COMPROMISE IN COMPETITION.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I DO HAVE AN EYE TOWARDS MAKING SURE THAT THE MAPS ARE DRAWN IN A WAY WHERE AFRICAN-AMERICANS -- IT GIVES YOU A BAILS OF A BLACK VOTING AGE POPULATION THAT CAN PRODUCE CANDIDATES OF OUR CHOOSING.

SO IT'S A DELICATE BALANCE.

CLEARLY I BELIEVE THAT ALABAMA MISSED THE MARK ON THE MAPS THAT THEY DREW.

AND I AGREE WITH THE RESULT OF THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL.

BUT OF COURSE EVERY TIME YOU GET IN A COMPETITION, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT YOU COULD LOSE.

>> WELL, FOLKS MAY NOT REMEMBER -- I MEAN THAT IT WASN'T THAT LONG AGO THAT DEMOCRATS HAD NOT ONE BUT THREE SEATS IN CONGRESS, BACK IN 2009.

THE 5TH DISTRICT AND SECOND DISTRICT AND THE 7TH.

HOW DO YOU GET BACK TO THAT LEVEL OF COMPETITIVENESS AS A PARTY ON THE CONGRESSIONAL SIDE?

>> PART OF IT IS REDISTRICTING.

MAKING SURE THAT THE WAY THE MAPS ARE DRAWN, BECAUSE ALABAMA HAS A HISTORY OF RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING THAT THE MAPS AREN'T DRAWN IN A WAY TO MAKE THEM LESS COMPETITIVE.

YOU CAN'T IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE MORE YOU HAVE, THE BIGGER ADVANTAGE THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT'S A.

BUT, B, YOU KNOW, CANDIDATES REDUCING APATHY, INCREASING PARTICIPATION AND TURNOUT -- THOSE ARE ALL IMPORTANT TOO.

I CANNOT BE REMISS IN SAYING THAT WHEN THE REPUBLICANS TOOK OVER THE LEGISLATURE IN 2010, THEY WON MAPS THAT WERE DRAWN BY DEMOCRATS, SO, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T JUST SAY THAT THE MAPS WERE THE MAIN -- ARE THE ONLY REASON WHY WE'RE NOT COMPETITIVE.

I MEAN WE HAVE TO DO OTHER THINGS TO SUPPORT OUR CANDIDATES, CREATE A STRONGER BASE, A LARGER BASE AND GET OUT THERE AND GET ACTIVE AND ENGAGE.

SO YOU KNOW, JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH.

>> I WANT TO SWITCH TO LEGISLATIVE TOPICS.

YOU HAVE BEEN REALLY INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL AND PRISON JUSTICE ISSUES.

I KNOW THAT THE PARDONS AND PAROLES SITUATION HAS BEEN REALLY TENUOUS AND YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT.

AND YET THE PRISON COMMISSIONER, JEFF DUNN, STEPPED DOWN A FEW MONTHS AGO.

HAVE YOU MET JON HAMM, THE NEW COMMISSIONER?

HAVE YOU HAD CONVERSATIONS?

>> WE HAVE.

1ST I HAVE KNOWN HIM THROUGH HIS LAW ENFORCEMENT CAREER IN THE LEGISLATURE, HE HAS BEEN A FRIEND.

AND YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT HE DOES IN THAT POSITION.

I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, JEFF DUNN, A GOOD GUY.

BUT IT WAS TIME FOR A CHANGE.

THERE WERE THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT JON HAMM WILL USE THE POWER THAT'S GIVEN TO THAT POSITION TO MAKE SOME POSITIVE CHANGES TO.

.

AND WE HAVE TALKED -- I'M EXCITED ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THAT NEW FACILITY IN PERRY COUNTY THAT IS SUPPOSED TO HELP THOSE TRANSITIONAL INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS TO GET THEM IN AND OUT OF THE SYSTEM WITHOUT GOING IN -- GETTING THEM HELP BUT NOT PUNISHING THEM SO WE COULD WORK ON RULING RECIDIVISM.

I'M HOPING FOR A BRAND-NEW ERA OF TRANSPARENCY BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE UNDER JEFF DID YOU KNOW'S LEADERSHIP FELT LIKE YOU COULD NOT GET ANY INFORMATION OUT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WHETHER IT'S STATISTICS OR YOU TRYING TO FIND OUT ON THE ABOUT PEOPLE WHO WERE IN INCARCERATED AND.

.

SO I'M LOOKING FOR A NEW ERA OF TRANSPARENCY.

WE PASSED A BILL, HOUSE BILL 106 A COUPLE OF SESSIONS AGO THAT ADDED A REPORTING REQUIREMENT WITH NEW ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS TO IT ABOUT ASSAULTS AND MANY OTHER THINGS.

AND WE TALKED ABOUT HIM GETTING THAT TO THE LEGISLATURE AND ALSO USING POWER IN THE OFFICE LIKE MEDICAL FURLOUGHS AND PAROLES AND SO FORTH SO WE CAN START CYCLING IN THOSE FOLKS WHO HAVE BEEN INCARCERATED FOR A VERY LONG TIME OR VERY SICK, NO AT THREAT TO THE -- TO OUR COMMUNITIES SO, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN GO OUT AND GET HEALTH CARE AND THE STATESIDE.

AND WE DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO HIS LEADERSHIP AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO GET SOME REALLY SIGNIFICANT THINGS DONE AND CHANGE IN THAT OFFICE.

>> WELL, I THETA WE'RE OUT OF TIME BUT I HOPE THAT WE CAN HAVE YOU BACK TO REALLY GET INTO THE WEEDS OF SOME OF THIS PRISON AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE.

THANK YOU FOR COMING ON "CAPITOL JOURNAL.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> NEXT ON THE PROGRAM, I'M JOINED BY HOUSE SPEAKER MAC MCCUTCHEON.

MR. SPEAKER, THANK YOU FOR COMING ON "CAPITOL JOURNAL."

>> GOOD TO BE WITH YOU ALWAYS.

GO DOING A GOOD JOB.

>> THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

WE ARE ALMOST A 3RD OF THE WAY.

YOU THIS REGULAR SESSION.

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE PROGRESS SO FAR.

>> MEMBERS ARE WORK WORKING GOOD TOGETHER.

IF YOU STOP TO THINK ABOUT THE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAD WITH THE ARPA FUNDS AND HAVING A SPECIAL WITHIN A SESSION, SOMETIMES THAT CAN GET YOU OFF TRACK WITH THE BUDGETS AND THE REGULAR SESSION BUSINESS.

WE'RE FLOWING VERY WELL.

WE HAVE COME BACK IN.

LAST WEEK WAS A THREE-DAY WEEK.

MEMBERS WERE WORKING VERY HARD.

COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ARE GETTING THE AGENDA SET UP FOR THE COMMITTEES AND HEAR WE ARE AGAIN IN ANOTHER THREE-DAY WEEK, AND EVERYBODY'S BUCKLED DOWN AND WORKING.

WE PASSED -- I THINK IT WAS CLOSE TO 15 BILLS OFF THE REGULAR ORDER CALENDAR LAST NIGHT THAT IS WE WERE WORKING SO WE HAD A VERY PROTECTIVE DAY.

>> YOU TALKED ABOUT THE SPECIAL SESSION TO DEAL WITH ARPA FUNDING, AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDING.

WERE YOU PLEASE DIZZY WITH THAT OUTCOME?

THE BILLS PASSED OVERWHELMINGLY ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY.

>> THAT'S TRUE.

THERE WAS ONE DESCENDING VOTE NOT HOUSE AND THE SENATE.

OVERALL, KEEP IN MIND AND GIVE CREDIT TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN GOV.

IVEY, WE DID A LOT OF WORK PRIOR TO THAT.

A LOT OF EDUCATING MEMBERS.

SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID IN THE REBUILD ALABAMA.

AND SO THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK THAT WENT IN TO THAT OTHER THAN SESSION TIME.

AND I THINK THAT WAS A CREDIT TO THE WORK THAT WAS DONE AND THE PREPARATION THAT HAD BEEN MADE.

>> SO THAT WAS A LOT OF BIPARTISAN CORPORATION, NOT VERY CONTROVERSIAL.

THERE ARE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES COMING DOWN THE PIKE.

HE ONE OF THEM IS THIS CONCEALED CARRY BILL.

YOU HAD A LOT -- A BIG SHOW FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT LAST WEEK SHERIFF SHERIFFS AND POLICE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PERMITLESS CARRY BILL, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.

WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT BILL GOING?

>> WELL, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK DONE BEHIND THE SCENES ON THAT BILL AS WELL.

THE 1ST BILL THAT WAS DROPPED HE WAS -- THE BILL THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH NOW ORIGINALLY HOUSE BILL 66, WE TOOK THAT BILL AND STARTED LISTENING TO BUSINESS COMMUNITIES, WE STARTED LISTENING TO THE SHERIFF'S AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITIES AND AS PEOPLE WERE TALKING, THE PROS AND THE CONS, WE REALIZED THAT BILL NEEDED SOME WORK.

SO WE 1ST APPROACHED IT FROM DOING A SUBSTITUTE BUT IT WAS GOING TO HAVE SUCH MASSIVE CHANGES WE FELT THAT THE BEST THING WAS START FRESH AGAIN WITH A NEW BILL.

SO WE ENDED UP WITH HOUSE BILL 272.

AND THAT IS A REDO OF THE PERMITLESS CARRY, CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY, LIKE YOU SAY, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.

SO THAT BILL IS HAVING PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS WEEK.

>> WITH MR. STRINGER.

>> SHANE STRINGER FROM THE MOBILE AREA.

HE IS THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL.

IT HAS A LOT HE CO-SPONSORS ON THE BILL.

AND WE TOOK TIME TO LISTEN TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY.

WE TOOK TIME TO LISTEN TO THE SCHOOLS, AND WE HAVE DONE A DEEP DIVE ON THE LAW AND WHAT IT ACTUALLY ALLOWED MEME TOO DO DEALING WITH THE PERMIT CARRY AND SO THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK THAT WENT INTO THIS.

AS WE MOVED FORWARD, I HAVE A DEEP RESPECT FOR OUT OF SHERIFF'S AND OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY.

IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE JUST IGNORING THEM.

THIS IS AN ISSUE, AND WE'RE DEALING WITH AN ISSUE OF THE PERMIT THROUGH THE SHERIFF'S THAT'S BEEN ONGOING FOR MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS.

SO ANY TIME YOU MAKE A CHANGE IN SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN PART OF AN INSTITUTION FOR THAT LONG, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME OPPOSITION AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME FEAR AND SOME REAL QUESTION MARKS.

BUT I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING DEALING WITH SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

I THINK WE'RE AT A POINT NOW TO WHERE WE NEED TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IN THE HOUSE -- AND THE HOUSE IS READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS HOUSE BILL 272.

NOW I CAN'T GUARANTEE YOU WHAT THE VOTES WILL BE BUT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THE PROCESS.

>> ANOTHER CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE IS SCHOOL CHOICE.

SENATOR MARSH HAS FILED HIS BILL.

THERE ARE AMENDMENTS GOING ON.

RIGHT NOW IT'S IN THE SENATE.

HAS THE HOUSE CAUCUS -- HAS YOUR CAUCUS DISCUSSED THIS AT ALL.

WHERE DO YOU THINK THAT STANDS IN TERMS OF HOUSE PASSAGE?

>> I HAVE SOME MEETINGS SET UP WITH SENATOR MARSH, YOU KNOW, WHEN SENATOR MARSH WAS PRO TEM, HE AND I WORKED CLOSELY TOGETHER.

WE HAVE TO GREAT RELATIONSHIP AND I WANT TO SIT DOWN AND TALK TO HIM ABOUT SOME QUESTIONS THAT I'M RECEIVING FROM HOUSE MEMBERS.

WE'RE HAVING SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BILL.

WE HAVE GOT A HOUSE VERSION.

REPRESENTATIVE MEADOWS HAT INTRODUCED THE HOUSE VERSION.

AND AS I SPEAK TO YOU TODAY, THAT WILL IS STILL EVOLVING.

CHANGES ARE BEING MADE.

AMENDMENTS ARE BEING MADE TO IT.

THEY'RE MAKING SOME CHANGES DEALING WITH THE HOMESCHOOL ISSUE, ACCOUNTABILITY OF SCHOOL TESTING, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT MAY BE TAKEN FROM PUBLIC EDUCATION.

THERE'S JUST A LOT OF ISSUES OUT THERE.

AND WHAT WE DID IN THE HOUSE, AS OF THIS WEEK, WE CHALLENGED MEMBERS TO DO A DEEP DIVE INTO THE BILL.

AND START LOOKING AT THAT BILL.

AND FROM THE CAUCUS PERSPECTIVE, FROM A MEMBERS PERMIT, I HAVE NOT THEM TO START LOOKING AT THIS.

BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT -- WHEN WE PASSED THE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, THIS ISSUE CAME UP SEVERAL YEARS AGO WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SCHOOL CHOICE, GRADING OUR SCHOOL SYSTEMS, THE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT -- WHEN WE WERE DEALING WITH THOSE ISSUES THEN, THIS QUESTION CAME UP ABOUT PARENTS WHO HAVE CHILDREN THAT ARE EITHER HOME SCHOOLED OR IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS THROUGH SCHOOL CHOICE, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO GET ANY KIND OF CREDIT FOR THE MONEY THEY'RE PAYING FOR TUITION VERSUS PAYING THEIR NORMAL TAXES FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION.

SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING BRAND-NEW.

BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON.

AND RIGHT NOW, I COULDN'T TELL YOU TODAY, WHICH WAY THAT BILL WOULD GO.

I REALLY CAN'T.

>> I SPOKE TO MR. HOLMES THIS WEEK ABOUT HIS GROCERY TAX ELIMINATION BILL.

THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO BILLS.

ONE WITH NO REVENUE REPLACEMENT.

ONE, A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WITH REVENUE REPLACEMENT.

THE ISSUE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR 15, 20 YEARS.

>> AROUND A LONG TIME.

>> DO YOU SEE THAT GETTING ANY TRACTION THIS SESSION?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK IT WILL GET TRACTION WHEN IT COMES TO DISCUSSION.

BUT AS FAR AS MAKING IT TO THE FLOOR FOR A FULL BODY VOTE?

I'M NOT SURE.

THE ISSUES ARE STILL THERE.

THE FOOD TAX IS NOT SOMETHING THAT LEGISLATORS REALLY SUPPORT.

I WISH WE COULD TAKE THAT TAX OFF.

BUT THE STRUCTURE OF OUR REVENUES AND OUR TAXES THAT WAS IN PLACE FROM YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AGO, IT HAS BECOME SUCH A HUGE REVENUE PRODUCER FOR OUR BUDGETS -- YOU CAN'T JUST SAY, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS AWAY AND THEN WALK AWAY FROM IT BECAUSE THERE'S -- YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE THAT UP.

>> LIKE $600 MILLION.

>> YES.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A BIG, BIG CHECK THAT HAS TO BE MADE UP TO SUPPORT OUR BUDGETS FOR OUR OTHER AGENCIES THAT WE SUPPORT.

SO AS WE LOOK AT THIS, WE HAVE TO TAKE TIME TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION, LOOK FOR WAYS TO REPLACE THE REVENUE, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THE STATE WERE TO TAKE THAT TAX OFF OF THE FOOD, WOULD THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT STEP IN AND REPLACE IT?

THEY MAY SEE AN OPPORTUNITY THERE TO SAY, SINCE THE STATE HAS TAKEN THIS WAY, HEY, WE CAN GET ANOTHER PENNY OR TWO HERE ON THIS AND WE WILL IMPOSE A TAX.

>> AND THE CUSTOMER NEVER NOTICES.

>> IT DOESN'T HELP THE CUSTOMER.

THE TAXPAYER NEVER RECEIVES 95 RELIEF AT ALL.

AT THE END OF THE DAY WE WANTED THE TAXPAYER TO RECEIVE RELIEF.

WE WANT THE FUNDS TO BE FULLY FUNDED.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE MONEY WE HAVE NOW.

WE WILL HAVE BAD ECONOMIC TIMES AND MAKE SURE THAT WE PREPARE FOR THAT.

AND ALL OF THESE THINGS SOUND GREAT WHEN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS FLUSH.

BUT THERE'S A DAY COMING WHEN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT MUCH CASH IN IT AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE SERVICES WITHOUT THE REVENUE.

>> SPEAKING OF PERENNIAL ISSUES, GAMBLING -- THERE'S TALK OF ANOTHER GAMBLING BILL COMING UP.

I MADE THE POINT BEFORE THAT THE VOTES WERE PROBABLY THERE LAST YEAR, PAST THE SENATE -- THIS WIDE RANGING GAMBLING BILL WITH CASINO, LOTTERY AND SPORTS BETTING, PASSED THE SENATE A CUSTOM TIMES AND GETS TO THE HOUSE -- I THINK IT JUST KIND OF RAN OUT OF TIME.

THE VOTES MIGHT HAVE BEEN THERE.

YET IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR.

AND SOMETIMES IN ELECTION YEARS SOMETIMES PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO TACKLE BIG CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS LIKE THAT.

IS THERE AN APPETITE FOR A GAMBLING PACKAGE IN THE HOUSE THIS YEAR?

>> SOME OF THE HOUSE MEMBERS HAVE HAD HALLWAY DISCUSSIONS IF YOU WILL ABOUT GAMBLING.

AND MOST -- AND I WOULD ALMOST SAY A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE HOUSE MEMBERS THAT ARE DISCUSSING THIS ARE TALKING ABOUT A STATEWIDE LOTTERY.

NO -- JUST WHAT WE CALL -- IF THIS IS A TRUE TERM, A SIMPLE PAPER LOTTERY FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON AND TO BE ABLE TO BUY A LOTTERY TICKET.

THAT'S WHERE THE SUPPORT REALLY IS.

IF YOU START ADDING IN -- AND TODD, YOU'RE AWARE OF THIS OVER THE YEARS OF DOING RESEARCH ON THE GAMING ISSUE, WHEN YOU START ADDING IN THE COMPACT WITH THE POARCH CREEK INDIANS, TABLE GAMES BEING AVAILABLE, THE 18 COUNTIES THAT HAVE LOCAL GAMING, AND THEY HAVE THE BINGO MACHINES THEY'RE GETTING REVENUE OF, WHEN YOU ADD IN ALL OF THOSE OTHER INTERESTS INTO THE LOTTERY ISSUE, IT BECOMES VERY COMPLICATED.

AND LAST YEAR, WHEN WE GOT THAT BILL, WE WORKED VERY HARD TO TRY TO FIND A WAY TO YET BILL OUT.

WE WERE THERE -- AND YOU SAID IT, WE WERE THERE AT THE TAIL END OF THE SESSION AND RUNNING OUT OF TIME.

I KNEW THERE WERE MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE THAT WAS GOING TO FILIBUSTER THE GAPING ISSUE NO MATTER WHAT THE BILL WAS.

AND THEN WE HAD OTHER PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT WE NEEDED TO GET THROUGH.

THEN ON TOP OF THAT, WE HAD THE ISSUE AND THE QUESTION MARK CAME AS TOO WHETHER OR NOT THAT WE WERE GOING TO SHOULD DOWN THE LOCAL COUNTIES FROM DOING THEIR BINGO GAMES.

AND WHEN THAT HAPPENED THERE WAS A HUGE BLOCK VOTE THAT JUST JOINED TOGETHER AND THEY SAID WE'RE OUT.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BILL.

SO OUT OF FEAR AND NOT KNOWING WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE END THEY JUST PULLED OUTDOOR AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO VOTE AT ALL.

SO AT THE END OF THE DAY I NEEDED 63 VOTES AND-THE-WEREN'T THERE.

>> TALKING ABOUT THREADING THE NEEDLE -- MR. SPEAKER WE'RE OUT OF TIME BUT I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COME ON "CAPITOL JOURNAL."

>> THAT YOU HAVE.

APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU'RE DOING.

>> OK. WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> NEXT, I'M PLEASED TO BE JOINED BY DR. SCOTT HARRIS, PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA.

THANKS AGAIN FOR COMING ON.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME, DON.

>> WE SHOWED THE CHART, YOUR COVID DASHBOARD CHART AT THE TOP OF THE SHOW SHOWING CONTINUED PROGRESS AND LOWERING HOSPITALIZATIONS.

WHAT IS THE LATEST FROM PUBLIC HEALTH.

>> YEAH, THAT NUMBER SAYS IT ALL IN A WAY.

WE'RE ACTUAL VERY PLEASED TO BE ABLE TO REPORT THAT THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS IN ALABAMA HOSPITAL SAYS DECLINING.

IT'S STILL A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER AND AROUND A THOUSAND PEOPLE.

BUT THAT'S ONLY 2/3 OF WHAT IT WAS JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.

OUR TOTAL DAILY CASE NUMBERS ARE GOING DOWN AS WELL.

>> AND YOU CAN ARGUE THAT TRACKING DAILY CASE NUMBERS AREN'T AS RELEVANT AS IT USED TO BE.

WE HAVE A VARIANT THAT IS A LITTLE BIT WIDER BUT LESS DISEASE THAT WE KNOW ABOUT IS GOOD SO THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS WE HAVE HAD NUMBERS OF TWO OR 3,000 NUMBER OF CASES PER DAY, MUCH BETTER THAN THE 15 OR 16,000 A DAY THAT WE WERE HAVING AT THE END OF JOHN.

>> WELL, IT'S NICE TO HAVE THIS FEELING THAT MAYBE WE WERE ON THE DOWNSLOPE SIX OR 7 OMICRON.

LET ME ASK YOU.

WE HAVE HAD THE FIRST COVID.

THEN WE HAD DELTA.

WE HAD OMICRON.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VARIANTS OUT THERE THAT ARE OF CONCERN TO YOU?

>> I WEIGH SAY YES, THEY PROBABLY ARE BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT ARE.

ONCE THAT WE LEARNED ABOUT COVID IS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO PREDICT.

ALL VIRUSES WILL PRODUCE NEW VARIANTS.

THERE'S A SUB POPULATION OF THE ONLY I DON'T KNOW NOW KNOWN AS BA-2 THAT HAS SHOWN UP IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD THAT IS MORE INFECTION ISSUES THAN OMICRON ALTHOUGH NOT MORE DANGEROUS OR CAUSING MORE DISEASE THAT HAS SUPPLANTED SOME COUNTRIES IN EUROPE ALREADY BECAUSE IT'S THAT MUCH MORE INFECTIOUS.

SO I THINK WE SEE THIS AS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL ALWAYS HAVE AND HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.

WE DON'T KNOW OF A VARIANT OUT THERE CAUSING MUCH MORE OF A SEVERE DISEASE THAN WE HAVE SEEN BEFORE.

>> SPEAKING MUCH COVID POLICIES YOU'RE STARTING TO SEE A LOT MORE LIBERAL STATES THAT HAD STRICTER POLICIES START TO LOOSEN THEIR POLICIES, MASK MANDATES SPECIFICALLY.

WEEP DON'T HAVE A MASK MANDATE HERE IN ALABAMA BUT A LOT OF SCHOOLS DO SO I WANTED TO ASK YOU WHAT IS THE LATE SCIENCE OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MASK WEARING.

>> MASKS WORK.

THEY'RE DESIGNED -- IT HASN'T CHANGED.

AND THERE'S NO SERIOUS DISAGREEMENT ABOUT MASKS BEING EFFECTIVE.

BECAUSE OMICRON IS SO EASY TO SPREAD, YOU KNOW, THERE CERTAINLY HAS BEEN SCIENCE ABOUT WHAT TYPE OF MASK IS MOST EFFECTIVE.

BUT MEDICAL RECORD TO GET TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE POLICY, YOU KNOW, ALABAMA HAS NOT HAD A MASK MANDATE IN A YEAR OR SO OR CLOSED IT TO ANYWAY.

WE CERTAINLY DO BELIEVE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS HAVE THE ABILITY AND THE -- AND ARE THE RIGHT ONES TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS FOR THEIR LOCAL.

.

AT THE MOMENT CDC IS REVISING ITS GUIDANCE.

RIGHT NOW THEY SUPPORT UNIVERSAL MASKING IN K-12.

MY GUESS IS THAT WILL CHANGE.

BUT MASKING IS JUST AN ADDED LAYER OF PROTECTION THAT MAKES SENSE WHEN YOU HAVE HIGH TRANSMISSION RATES IN YOUR COMMUNITY, AND AS THOSE RATES START TO FALL OR YOU HAVE LESS CASES OR IF YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DISEASE TRANSMISSION GOING ON, MAKING MASKS OPTIONING MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

>> WHAT IS THE LATEST ON VACCINES AND OUR ABILITY TO GET THE POPULATION OF ALABAMA VACCINATED.

>> WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO.

WE'RE AT OR NEAR THE BOTTOM IN TERMS OF PEOPLE FULLY VACCINATED.

WE HAVE GOTTEN TO THE 2.3 MILLION MARK OF ALABAMIANS FULLY VACCINATED.

A LOT OF THOSE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR BOOSTERS AND WE HAVE NOTICE SEEN A REAL UPTAKE ON BOOSTERS IN OUR STATED AND THAT'S TRUE NATURALLY.

THAT TELLS IT THAT WE, YOU KNOW, STILL HAVE WORK TO DO.

PEOPLE WHO ARE FULLY VACCINATED ARE NOT PEOPLE WHO ARE UNWILLING TO GET VACCINATED AND YET THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS COMING BACK TO GET THE BOOSTERS SO WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO REACH THEM AND COMMUNICATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT.

YOU KNOW, FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE BOOSTED, OMICRON VIRTUALLY NEVER PUTS THOSE PEOPLE IN THE HOSPITAL OR CAUSES DEATH EXCEPT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY, VERY OLD IN SOME CASES, BUT FOR PEOPLE WHO AREN'T BOOSTED, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE FULLY VACCINATED THEY'RE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO ILLNESS SO THE BOOSTER REALLY IS A BIG DEAL WITH THE VARIANT THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NO AND WE HOPE WE CAN CONVINCE MORE PEOPLE TO COME IN GET THEIR SHOT.

>> SWITCHING GEARS REAL QUICK, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT MEDICAID EXPANSION HERE IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK OVER THE YEARS AGO BUT MORE SPECIFICALLY NOW DUE TO SOME REPORTS AND POLLING IN THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND SETTING ASIDE THE POLITICS OF THAT AND MEDICAID, I WANTED TO ASK YOU JUST GENERALLY ABOUT HEALTH INSURANCE AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HEALTH OUTCOMES OF THOSE WHO ARE INSURED VERSUS THOSE WHO AREN'T INSURED.

>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

AND THAT REALLY GOES TO THE HEART OF WHY MEDICAID EXPANSION HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT SO MUCH.

WE AREN'T OFFICIALLY TAKING A POSITION.

THAT'S FOR THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE TO WORK OUT.

BUT THERE'S NO QUESTION -- WE HAVE EIGHT OR NINE YEARS OF DATA NOW THAT SHOW THAT STATES THAT HAVE MEDICAID EXPANSION HAVE BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES THAN STATES THAT DON'T HAVE MEDICAID EXPANSION.

MEDICAID EXPANSION STATES ALSO HAVE FEWER HOSPITAL CLOSURES.

THEY ALSO HAVE FEWER MEDICAL BANKRUPT CEASE.

THEY HAVE EARLIER DETECTION OF CANCER, MORE EARLY STAGE CANCERS ARE DETECTED IN THE STATES WITH BIDE COVERAGE VERSUS THOSE STATES WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME COVERAGE.

AND THAT CAN BE GENERALIZED MORE BROADLY TO ANY KIND OF INSURANCE.

PEOPLE THAT HAVE ACCESS TO CARE WHO DON'T HAVE THE SAME FINANCIAL CONCERNS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SEEKING MEDICAL CARE HAVE BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES.

AND YOU KNOW, THAT DATA IS EXTREMELY CLEAR.

>> YOU MENTIONED LAST TIME THAT YOU WERE HERE THAT, BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC OR DURING THE PANDEMIC, FOLKS HAVE BEEN PUTTING OFF MEDICAL DESIGNATIONS, INCLUDING GETTING SOME PRETTY BASIC VACCINATIONS.

HOW DO WE PICK UP THE BALL, AS A STATE, HERE TWO ENGINEERS LATER?

>> IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT.

FOR CHILDHOOD VACCINATIONS IN PARTICULAR OUR PEDIATRICIANS ARE WORKING HARD ON THAT ISSUE.

BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, FOR ADULT MEDICAL PROVIDERS, WE SEE A LOT OF WOMEN WHO HAVE NOT COME FOR THEIR ROUTINE MAMMOGRAMS, FOR THEIR PAP SMEARS, CERVICAL CANCER DETECTION PROGRAMS.

PEOPLE JUST SOMETIMES AREN'T GOING IN TO GET THEIR CHOLESTEROL AND BLOOD PRESSURE CHECKED.

THERE ARE A LOT OF WAYS RIGHT NOW IN WHICH THE FABRIC OF OUR SOCIETY IS JUST AFRAID A LITTLE BIT, AND PEOPLE AREN'T DONG THOSE THINGS THEY ROUTINELY DO.

WHEN YOU SEE YOUR HEALTH CARE IN SOME WAY AS OPTIONAL OR NOT URGENT OR YOU'RE NOT HAVING A TRUE EMERGENCY IT BECOMES EASIER TO PUT THOSE DECISIONS OFF WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH ALL OF THE OTHER DISRUPTIONS GOING ON IN LIFE LIKE WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW.

SO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS GET BACK IN AND REMINDING PEOPLE OF JUST SORT OF ROUTINE BASIC MEDICAL EDUCATION TYPE OF STUFF.

TAKE CARE OF YOUR HEALTH, YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU NEED TO DO, TALK TO YOUR PROVIDER, YOU KNOW, GET YOUR ROUTINE CARE IN.

BEAM WILL GET BACK TO IT.

EVENTUALLY LIKE I.

LIFE WILL GET A LOT MORE NORMAL THAN IT IS NOW.

BUT WE DO WORRY ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD WITH PEOPLE TAKING A COUPLE OF YEARS OFF OF THEIR ROUTINE MEDICAL CARE.

>> WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING ON AND SHARING THAT INFORMATION HERE ON ALABAMA PUBLIC TELEVISION.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME, TODD.

>> WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> AND THAT'S OUR SHOW FOR TONIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

WE WILL BE BACK ON MONDAY AT 10:30, WITH OUR NIGHTLY LEGISLATIVE COVERAGE FROM HERE AT THE STATEHOUSE.

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