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

WELCOME TO "CAPITOL JOURNAL."

JUST A FEW HOURS AGO THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE CONCLUDED A SPECIAL SESSION CALLED TO REDRAW THE STATE'S SEVEN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.

AS WE'VE REPORTED, THIS SESSION WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AGREED WITH A LOWER COURT'S RULING THAT ALABAMA'S CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS PASSED IN 2021 WERE LIKELY IN VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

HERE'S THE MAP OF THOSE CURRENT DISTRICTS.

THIS PROBABLY LOOKS FAMILIAR BECAUSE THESE DISTRICTS HAVE REMAINED LARGELY IN TACT FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS.

SPECIFICALLY, THE COURT FOUND THAT BLACK VOTERS WERE PACKED INTO THE SEVENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, DILUTING THEIR VOTING POWER IN THE OTHER DISTRICTS.

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS IN HIS OPINION WROTE THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD REDRAW THE MAP TO INCLUDE ON ADDITIONAL MAJORITY BLACK DISTRICT QUOTE "“OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT.

"” THERE WERE SEVERAL MAPS PROPOSED AND DEBATED THIS WEEK, FROM THEIR INTRODUCTION TO COMMITTEE AND TO THE HOUSE AND SENATE FLOORS.

BY WEDNESDAY, THE HOUSE AND SENATE HAD EACH PASSED DIFFERENT MAP PROPOSALS, MEANING THAT LAWMAKERS NEEDED TO MEET IN CONFERENCE COMMITTEE TO WORK OUT THE DIFFERENCES AND AGREE ON A FINAL PLAN.

WHAT EMERGED WAS A MAP THAT REPUBLICANS SUPPORTED AND DEMOCRATS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED.

>> LARGE COUNTY WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE FOURTH AND PUT INTO THE FIFTH DISTRICT.

-- OUT OF THE THIRD DISTRICT AND PUT IN THE SIXTH DISTRICT AND THE 2ND DISTRICT ADDED LOWNDES COUNTY AND BUTLER COUNTY AND SPLIT DEVIATION, DEVIATION SPLIT UP IN ELMORE COUNTY.

DOWN IN THE 1ST DISTRICT, SOME CHANGE ON COVINGTON COUNTY.

THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCES OF THE TWO MAPS.

IT IMPROVED -- WENT IN TO THREE AS A WHOLE.

>> IF YOU GOOGLE NON-COME COMPLIANT THAT MAP WOULD POP UP.

THE NUMBERS THAT UNDERLIE IT, THAT WE JUST GOT A FEW MINUTES AGO, ALSO DEMONSTRATE A DISREGARD FOR THE SUPREME COURT ORDER.

ALSO, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE WERE ARGUMENTS MADE IN THE SUPREME COURT ABOUT COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST, BLACK BELT BEING ONE OF THEM.

THIS CRACKS THE BLACK BELT AND REJECTS THE ARGUMENT BY THE SUPREME COURT.

LOOKING AT THIS PROCESS, BECAUSE THIS IS THE THIRD MAP, ALL OF WHICH HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF SOMEHOW AVOIDING PUBLIC SCRUTINY, AVOIDED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THURSDAY -- OR FRIDAY, ON THE DEADLINE, WE PASS A BRAND NEW MAP THAT WAS INTRODUCED THIS MORNING.

>> ALL WEEK, THE DEBATE AND THE VOTES HAVE BEEN ALONG PARTY LINES.

DEMOCRATS PROPOSED MULTIPLE MAPS THAT THEY FELT BETTER MET THE COURT'S RULING IN TERMS OF BLACK POPULATION, ONLY TO BE REJECTED.

REPUBLICAN MAJORITY.

REPUBLICANS ARGUED THAT THEIR MAP FIXES THE ISSUE OF PACKING, KEEPS COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST TOGETHER AND CREATES TWO DISTRICTS IN WHICH BLACK VOTERS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ELECT A CANDIDATE OF THEIR CHOICE.

>> THE PLAN IS NOT BASED ON RACE.

THE RESULT IS FAIRLY APPLIED WITH THE NEUTRAL PRINCIPLES THAT IS DISTRICT 2 HAS GONE FROM 30.1% AND UNDER THE 2021 PLAN TO 38.3 UNDER THE 2023 PLAN.

>> I THINK YOUR DISTRICT 2 IS NOW IN VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

BECAUSE IN VIOLATION AGAINST THE COURT'S ORDER BY GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR BLACKS TO BE ABLE TO WIN.

WE CAN'T SHOW PERFORMANCE DUTY.

I'M JUST SHOWING YOU, 2017 IS THE CLOSEST A DEMOCRAT HAS EVER COME AND THAT WAS IN A HIGHLY POLARIZED VOTE BECAUSE A LOT OF WHITE VOTERS DIDN'T WANT MOORE BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO GET JONES.

THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.

>> THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS OPPORTUNITY?

I THINK EVERYBODY HAS A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF WHAT OPPORTUNITY IS.

SOME OF THE FINEST PLANS, 40, 45%.

SO IS 38 THERE?

THAT'S WHERE WE COULD SETTLE.

>> BECAUSE IT'S LOOKING LIKE IT WILL BE THE SPECIAL MASTER THAT WILL DRAW THE MAP BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL WE WILL ULTIMATELY END UP DOING WHAT THE SUPREME COURT TOLD US TO DO.

>> WE TRIED TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER ON THE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST AND COMPACTNESS AND HAVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY THERE TO WIN.

>> IN THE END, THE PLAN DUBBED LIVINGSTON 3 WAS PASSED BY THE HOUSE AND SENATE IN VOTES THAT WENT ALONG PARTY LINES.

>> THE SENATE CONCURS ON SENATE BILL 5.

SENATOR LIVINGSTON.

>> PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.

I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY TODAY FOR THEIR HELP, THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND MEMBERS PRESENT HERE, ESPECIALLY THE FOLKS DOWN HERE AND REAPPORTIONMENT IN THE OFFICE.

WE ARE A LITTLE SHORT HANDED DUE TO SICKNESS AND THINGS AND THEY HAVE DONE A FANTASTIC JOB GETTING EVERYTHING WE NEED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FUNCTIONALITY REPORTS BUT I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S PATIENCE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> HERE'S A BETTER LOOK AT THE FINAL MAP COMPARED TO THE CURRENT MAP.

THE 1ST DISTRICT PICKS UP COVINGTON COUNTY AND LOOSES WASHINGTON AND MONROE COUNTIES, THE 2ND DISTRICT PICKS UP ALL OF MONTGOMERY, PLUS LOWNDES, MACON AND RUSSELL, THEN LOSES AUTAUGA AND PART OF ELMORE.

THE THIRD DISTRICT PICKS UP ETOWAH COUNTY.

THE FOURTH DISTRICT LOSES LAWERENCE COUNTY AND PICKS UP BLOUNT COUNTY PLUS GREATER SHARES OF LAUDERDALE AND TUSCALOOSA.

THE 5TH DISTRICT PICKS UP LAWRENCE COUNTY AND LOSES A PORTION OF LAUDERDALE.

THE 6TH DISTRICT LOSES BLOUNT COUNTY AND PICKS UP AUTAUGA AND COOSA.

AND THE 7TH DISTRICT LOSES LOWDENES COUNTY, PARTS OF TUSCALOOSA AND PICKS UP CONECUH, MONROE AND WASHINGTON.

THE BUZZ PHRASE THIS SPECIAL SESSION HAS BEEN BVAP - THAT STANDS FOR BLACK VOTING AGE POPULATION.

MOST PROPOSED MAPS SOUGHT TO INCREASE THE BLACK VOTING AGE POPULATION OF THE 2ND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, WHICH IS CURRENTLY AT ABOUT 30%.

UNDER THE PLAN PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE, DISTRICT 2 WILL HAVE 39.93 BVAP, SO ALMOST 40%.

DISTRICT 7 WOULD HAVE 50.65% BVAP, THAT'S DOWN FROM ABOUT 54%.

OF COURSE, IT IS THOSE NUMBERS THAT CONVINCE DEMOCRATS THAT THE NEW MAP DOES NOT MEET THE MANDATE FROM THE SUPREME COURT.

A THREE-JUDGE PANEL WILL TAKE UP THE MATTER IN FEDERAL COURT ON AUGUST 14TH.

THE ISSUE OF REDISTRICTING IS ALWAYS POLITICALLY FRAUGHT, WITH PASSIONATE OPINIONS ON BOTH SIDES.

"CAPITOL JOURNAL'S" RANDY SCOTT HAS SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS FROM A LONG WEEK IN THE STATE HOUSE.

>> THE SPECIAL SESSION ON REDRAWING ALABAMA'S DISTRICTS DIDN'T START WITH LOWER ACTION BUT A COMMITTEE MEETING AND SPARKS FLEW EARLY.

>> THIS PROCESS FEELS LIKE WE'RE -- KIND OF THESE MAPS WERE FORCED ON US.

ALSO, TO POINT OUT WE DIDN'T GET THESE UNTIL FRIDAY.

I JUST -- AGAIN, THE PROCESS ITSELF JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S WORKING VERY WELL.

>> WHEN WE CONCENTRATED ON MAPS PUT IN BY MEMBERS AND THE PLAINTIFFS.

I WANT TO PUT A MAP IN YOU COULD HAVE VERY WELL PUT A MAP IN.

>> THE MEETING LEFT SOME WITH CONCERNS.

>> IT'S REALLY NOT AN OPEN PROCESS.

IT'S NOT TRANSPARENT.

IT IS A PROCESS BASED ON PARTY PREFERENCE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MERITS OTHER THAN TRYING TO DO THE BARE MINIMUM TO TRY TO GET PAST THE COURT RULING.

>> TUESDAY FEATURES MORE COMMITTEE ACTION WITH NEW MAPS BEFORE LAWMAKERS AND NEW DISAGREEMENTS.

>> THE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST MAP HAS 51.55 BVAP.

OTHER MAPS THAT HAVE BEING PRESENTED TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY, THE OPPORTUNITY MAP, YOU'LL SEE, HAS 38.137 BVAP IN THE SECOND DISTRICT.

>> THEY ARE DRAWING LINES AROUND PERFORMANCE, OPPOSED TO RACE.

RACE IS WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED RIGHT NOW.

LET'S NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO GET CONFUSED.

WHEN IT COMES TO PERCENTAGES, BASED ON WHAT THE COURTS ARE SAYING, HOW CAN AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY ELECT THEIR PERSON OF CHOICE IF THEY ARE NOT THE MAJORITY IN THAT DISTRICT?

>> THE CHOICES OF MAP SHRINKS AND CONCERNS OF POLITICAL FAIRNESS INCREASE.

>> ONCE AGAIN, THE STATE, THE SUPER MAJORITY DECIDED THAT THE VOTING RIGHTS OF BLACK PEOPLE ARE NOTHING THAT THE STATE IS BOUND TO RESPECT.

>> THE HOUSE MAJORITY SELECTS AND PASSES A MAP SUPPORTED BY REPUBLICANS.

>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, SENATE BILL 5 WAS SUBSTITUTED YESTERDAY IN STATE GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE, AND IT'S NOW THE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST PLAN.

IT'S THE SAME PLAN WE PASSED OUT OF THIS BODY ON WEDNESDAY.

>> IT'S A MAP, DEMOCRATS SAY, DISOBEYS ORDERS FROM THE SUPREME COURT AND LIKELY CAUSE SOMEONE ELSE TO REDRAW STATE DISTRICT LINES.

>> WE WILL BE VERY BLIND TO THE REALITY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS ASKING US TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

>> FOR "CAPITOL JOURNAL," I'M RANDY SCOTT.

>> FROM THE VERY FIRST PUBLIC HEARING ON REDISTRICTING, LAWMAKERS, ACTIVISTS AND ORDINARY CITIZENS HAVE ANALYZED THE VOTING PATTERNS OF BLACK ALABAMIANS THAT REALLY IS AT THE CORE OF THIS ISSUE.

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

>> THE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT VOTING IN ALABAMA IS HIGHLY RACIALLY POLARIZED, WHICH MY COLLEAGUE JUST MENTIONED.

BLACK VOTERS IN ALABAMA VOTE IN A COHESIVE MANNER.

BLACKS VOTE FOR BLACK CANDIDATES AT 92% RATE PER THE SUPREME COURT.

THESE ARE NOT MY NUMBERS.

>> THIS TOPIC WAS FURTHER EXPLORED IN A RECENT "CAPITOL JOURNAL" EPISODE.

>> WHITES TEND TO VOTE FOR WHITE AND BLACK TEND TO VOTE FOR BLACK CANDIDATES.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE VOTING PATTERN, YOU MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION RACE WHEN YOU ARE DRAWING UP DISTRICTS.

>> THAT'S WHY DEMOCRATS ADVOCATE FOR MORE THAN 50% BLACK VOTING AGE POPULATION IN A DISTRICT.

>> WHEN YOU START TO LOOK AT WHAT IT HAS TAKEN BLACKS TO WIN.

MOST OF OUR DISTRICTS HAVE BEEN 55, 65% TO WIN IN THE PAST.

>> A DISTRICT LESS THAN 50% -- >> IT WILL BE -- [ INDISCERNABLE ] >> BLACK REPUBLICANS ARE GAINING GROUND.

TWO YEARS AGO, PASCAL BECAME THE FIRST BLACK REPUBLICAN ELECTED TO THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE IN 140 YEARS.

>> THE PEOPLE IN SHELBY COUNTY, MY DISTRICT, THEY DID NOT VOTE FOR ME BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF MY SKIN.

THEY VOTED FOR ME BECAUSE THEY SAW A GOD-FEARING MAN, A VETERAN WHO SERVED HIS COUNTRY, LOVED THE COUNTRY, WHO GOT OUT AND ENGAGED WITH THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY.

>> AND THE FIRST BLACK CITY COUNCIL MEMBER WON AS A REPUBLICAN.

>> I WAS ELECTED FOR MY BELIEFS AND WHAT I WANTED TO DO FOR THE PEOPLE, NOT BECAUSE OF MY COLOR.

I'M A PATRIOT.

I'M A REPUBLICAN.

I LOVE THIS STATE.

ALABAMA'S REPUBLICAN PARTY SAYS.

>> THERE ARE ISSUES AND VALUES OUT THERE THE PEOPLE OF ALABAMA, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT WILL AGREE WITH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT THOSE, DEFEND OUR VALUES AND TALK ABOUT PROTECTING PEOPLE'S RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND WE PLAN TO BE COMPETITIVE AND WILL DO OUR BEST TO WIN ALL SEVEN DISTRICTS.

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

>> WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK WITH TONIGHT'S GUESTS.

>> YOU CAN WATCH PAST EPISODES OF "CAPITOL JOURNAL" ONLINE ANYTIME AT ALABAMA PUBLIC TELEVISION'S WEBSITE APTV.ORG.

CLICK ON THE ONLINE VIDEO TAB ON THE MAIN PAGE.

YOU CAN ALSO CONNECT WITH "CAPITOL JOURNAL" AND LINK TO PAST EPISODES ON "CAPITOL JOURNAL'S" FACEBOOK PAGE.

>> JOINING ME NEXT IS ALABAMA GOVERNOR KAY IVEY.

GOVERNOR, THANK YOU FOR COMING ON THE SHOW.

>> THANK YOU, TODD.

IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO BE WITH YOU AND YOUR VIEWERS.

>> YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T CAUGHT UP SINCE THE REGULAR SESSION ENDED.

I WAS CURIOUS YOUR THOUGHTS.

WHAT WERE YOUR TAKEAWAYS FROM THE FINAL RESULT.

>> I COMMEND OUR LEGISLATURE FOR A JOB WELL DONE.

THERE'S A STRONG WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LEADERSHIP AND LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR.

BECAUSE OF THAT, WE CAN BE MORE PRODUCTIVE.

SO I WAS REAL PROUD OF THE WORK THEY GOT DONE.

WE HAD THE REGULAR BUSINESS OF THE LEGISLATURE ALLOCATING THE ARPA FUNDS, AND THEN WE ADDRESSED SOME HEAVY LIFTS LIKE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES PACKAGE.

THEN SOME IMPORTANT BILLS ACROSS THE FINISH LINE, LIKE REPRESENTATIVE SYMPTOM'S FENTANYL BILL.

SO IT WAS A GOOD SESSION AND VERY PRODUCTIVE AND I'M PROUD OF THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE AND PROUD TO WORK WITH THEM.

>> I KNOW THERE WERE SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT YOU PROPOSED AND WHAT THE LEGISLATURE DID.

ONE WAS ON THE TAX REBATES, THE MONEY -- WE HAD ALL OF THIS SURPLUS MONEY.

SO, YOU PROPOSED AT THE VERY BEGINNING GIVING SOME OF THAT BACK IN THE FORM OF TAX REBATES TO INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS.

THE FINAL REBATE ENDED UP BEING $150 PER TAXPAYER.

WERE YOU DISAPPOINTED THE LEGISLATURE DIDN'T GO QUITE TO THE AMOUNT YOU WANTED?

>> MY GOAL WITH THE REBATES AT THE OUTSET WAS TO PROVIDE REAL RELIEF FOR OUR PEOPLE.

I THOUGHT A LARGE REBATE FOR INDIVIDUAL TAX FILER WOULD HELP DO THAT, BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS AND THE FAMILIES WILL GET IT IN TIME TO SPEND FOR CHRISTMAS AND WE HAVE ALREADY INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TO GET THOSE CHECKS PREPARED IN A TIMELY FASHION SO THOSE CHECKS CAN GO OUT IN TIME FOR CHRISTMAS.

>> I KNOW THERE WAS THIS ISSUE OF THE FENTANYL SENTENCING BILL THE WRONG VERSION GOT TRANSMITTED TO YOUR OFFICE AND IT HAS TO BE REDONE SOMEHOW.

EVERYONE WAS PRETTY MUCH SUPPORTIVE OF THIS TO MY RECOLLECTION.

MY QUESTION, WHY NOT INCLUDE THAT IN THE SPECIAL SESSION?

THEY WERE IN SPECIAL SESSION THIS WEEK.

WHY NOT INCLUDE THAT TO GET THAT CLEARED UP RIGHT NOW INSTEAD OF WAITING UNTIL NEXT YEAR?

>> BECAUSE, TODD, SPECIAL SESSION WAS CALLED FOR A VERY, VERY A CRITICAL ISSUE, DRAWING NEW MAPS FOR LEGISLATION AND THE LEGISLATORS DIDN'T NEED ANY OTHER DISTRACTION.

THEY NEEDED TO GIVE THE TOPIC FULL FOCUS IN THE FIVE SHORT DAYS THEY HAD.

WE WILL TALK ABOUT IT AT A LATER SESSION.

>> LET'S TALK SCHOOL CHOICE.

YOU HAD THE BILL IMPROVING THE CHART SCHOOL LAW.

YOU HAD THE BILL EXPANDING THE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT.

SOME ARE PUSHING FOR LARGER SCHOOL CHOICE, SPECIFICALLY IN THE VOUCHER AREA.

YOU HAD THE PRICE ACT.

YOU HAVE SOME OTHERS IN THE PAST.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO PURSUE IN THE FUTURE.

>> MY GOAL IS FOR ALABAMA TO BE THE MOST SCHOOL CHOICE STATE IN THE NATION.

WE WILL BE WORKING ON A BILL ESA, EDUCATIONAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT BILL, TO PRESENT TO THE LEGISLATURE FOR THE NEXT SESSION.

AND I'M OPTIMISTIC IT WILL PASS.

IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR CHILDREN -- PARENTS OF THE CHOICES TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO SCHOOL, WHETHER IT IS PUBLIC, PRIVATE, HOME SCHOOLING, WHATEVER.

THE GOAL IS TO GET OUR CHILDREN A QUALITY EDUCATION.

>> THAT'S SOME NEWS.

WORKING ON AN ESA BILL FOR NEXT SESSION.

WE WILL CERTAINLY FOLLOW THAT AND FOLLOW UP.

ALSO ON THE ISSUE OF EDUCATION, THIS LAST WEEK WE HAD SOME MIXED RESULTS COMING OUT OF THE STATE'S ACAP SCORES.

THESE ARE THE SCORES THAT ALL OF OUR STUDENTS TAKE TO MAKE EFFECTIVENESS AND PROFICIENCY.

YOU HAD A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS IN MATH.

SOME IMPROVEMENTS IN READING.

THERE WERE MIXED RESULTS THERE.

WHAT CAUGHT EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION, THOUGH, WAS THE NUMBER OF THIRD GRADERS THAT IF THE LITERACY ACT RETENTION PROVISION WOULD HAVE BEEN IN PLACE THIS LAST YEAR HOW MANY WOULD HAVE BEEN, AT LEAST, CAPABLE OF BEING HELD BACK, CAPABLE OF BEING RETAINED.

LAST TIME WE TALKED, YOU TOLD ME YOU WOULD VETO ANY FURTHER DELAY OF THE LITERACY ACT'S RETENTION PROVISION.

IS THAT STILL THE CASE?

>> VERY DEFINITELY.

WE DO NO SERVICE TO A CHILD TO PASS THEM ON WITHOUT THEM READING PROFICIENTLY.

WE HAVE TO HAVE CHILDREN READING PROFICIENTLY WHEN THEY LEAVE THE THIRD GRADE.

>> WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT PROGRESS.

WE ARE DOING NAPE AGAIN THIS YEAR.

HAVE YOU BEEN PLEASED SO FAR AND ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH OUR READERS, GIVEN WE HAD SOME STRUGGLES THERE FOR A WHILE?

>> WE CONTINUE TO PROMOTE READING AND MATH EXCELLENCE AND ACHIEVEMENT.

IN READING WE HAVE HAD SOME ACCOUNTS THAT -- SUMMER READING CAMPS.

EXCUSE ME.

WE HAVE DOLLY PARTON LIBRARY AVAILABLE TO ALL PARENTS OF NEWBORNS UP TO 5 YEARS OF AGE.

WE CONTINUE TO PUSH READING IN THE SUMMER READING PROGRAM.

I HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED HUNDREDS OF LETTERS FROM SCHOOL CHILDREN TELLING ME ABOUT THE BOOKS THEY ARE READING AND HOW MUCH FUN THEY HAVE READING BOOKS.

IT'S IMPORTANT.

WHAT REALLY IS IMPORTANT IS OUR PARENTS TO START TO READ TO THEIR CHILDREN WHEN THE CHILDREN ARE JUST BABIES.

PARENTS ARE OUR FIRST TEACHERS.

>> YEAH.

I REMEMBER SEEING SOME OF THESE LETTERS YOU GOT, I GUESS POSTED ON INSTAGRAM OR FACEBOOK OR WHATEVER.

IT HAS TO BE GRATIFYING TO SEE SOME OF THESE POLICIES, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY -- THE STUDENTS ACTUALLY SENDING YOU LETTERS AND SHOWING YOU WHAT THEY ARE LEARNING.

>> IT'S IMPRESSIVE TO ME AND I'M THRILLED TO DEATH THEY CARE ENOUGH ABOUT READING, FIRST OF ALL AND SECONDLY TO LET ME KNOW ABOUT IT MEANS A LOT.

>> LET'S TURN TO THE ISSUE OF PRISONS.

THIS IS NOT EXACTLY A FUN TOPIC BECAUSE WE ARE STRUGGLING IN THIS AREA.

THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CONCERNS HERE RECENTLY EXPRESSED IN THIS BUILDING, IN THE LEGISLATURE ABOUT COST OVERRUNS ON THE BUILDINGS BUILT IN ELMORE AND ESCAMBIA AND WITH LEGAL CONTRACTS, COST OVERRUNS WITH THOSE.

ARE WE ANY CLOSER TO GETTING THE SITUATION WITH PRISONS TO A RESOLUTION, SOMETHING WE CAN LIVE WITH?

>> LET ME POINT OUT, TODD, THAT WE HAVE NOT BUILT A NEW PRISON IN 50 YEARS.

IF THIS WAS EASY TO DO, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY GOVERNORS WAY AHEAD OF ME.

I'M NOT AFRAID OF THE HARD TASK AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE HARD TASKS BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE EFFECTIVE PRISONS.

THEY HAVE TO BE BUILT.

WE ARE GOING TO BUILD THEM.

AND THE LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN SUPPORTIVE AND UNDERSTANDING OF OUR DILEMMA RIGHT NOW, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO BE COST EFFECTIVE, AS WELL AS MAKE THE CHANGES IN THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS THAT WE SET IN BEFORE THE COURT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE COURT ORDER HAS.

WE ARE WORKING ON IT AND I'M OPTIMISTIC, BUT PRISONS ARE VITAL TO OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, TO PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THIS IS JUST A PROJECT THAT HAS TO BE COMPLETED.

ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE OVERRUNS?

WHAT IS EXPRESSED TO ME IS THE CONTRACTS CAN CHARGE WHATEVER THEY WANT BECAUSE WE ARE BACKED INTO A CORNER.

IS THERE ANY RECOURSE THE STATE HAS TO ENFORCE COST-SAVING MEASURES AND GET THE COSTS DOWN?

>> I ASSURE YOU WE ARE TAKING EVERY OPPORTUNITY WITH JOHN HAMM AND OTHERS LOOKING AT THAT ISSUE TO KEEP COST DOWN BY BE EFFECTIVE.

WE ARE WORKING ON THAT.

>> HOW'S HE DOING?

HE'S BEEN ON THE JOB A YEAR NOW.

ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH HIS LEADERSHIP OF THE DEPARTMENT?

>> JOHN HAMM?

>> YES.

>> HE'S DOING A GOOD JOB.

WE HAVE AN EXECUTION TONIGHT.

THAT WILL BE ANOTHER BIG EVENT IN HIS ADMINISTRATION.

I HOPE EVERYTHING GOES WELL.

THEY HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN REHEARSING AND REVIEWING THEIR PROTOCOLS.

>> GOVERNOR, I CAN'T LET YOU GO WITHOUT ASKING YOU ABOUT THIS NEW BEER.

THIS KAY IVEY SWEET TEA SOUR ALE WITH YOUR UNMISTAKABLE LIKENESS ON THE CAN.

THIS IS REALLY INTERESTING.

DID YOU EVER THINK YOU WOULD HAVE A BEER WITH YOUR LIKENESS AND IMAGE?

>> OF COURSE NOT.

I THINK THEY HAD A LOT OF FUN WITH IT BUT I WANTED YOU TO HAVE A MOMENTO OF THIS FUN.

I APPRECIATE PEOPLE TRYING TO BE FUN AND THE BEER TASTE KIND OF GOOD.

>> I WILL GIVE IT A TRY.

NEVER A DULL MOMENT IN ALABAMA POLITICS.

>> THANK YOU FOR COMING ON THE SHOW.

>> THANK YOU, TODD.

>> YOU ARE WATCHING ALABAMA PUBLIC TELEVISION.

JOINING ME NEXT IS ALABAMA ATTORNEY GENERAL STEVE MARSHALL.

MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, THANK YOU FOR COMING ON THE SHOW.

>> ALWAYS GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.

>> WE ARE DEALING THIS WEEK WITH THE STICKY ISSUE OF REDISTRICTING.

IT'S BEEN A LONG WEEK, FRANKLY, DEALING WITH IT.

THE ONLY REASON WE ARE HERE IS BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT RULED, ESPECIALLY AGREED WITH THE 11TH CIRCUIT PANT THAT THE MAPS PASSED IN 2021, THE CURRENT MAPS, LIKELY VIOLATED THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

I'LL GET TO WHAT THE FUTURE MIGHT LOOK LIKE IN A MINUTE.

LOOKING BACK AT THAT CASE, I WONDERED WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS WERE.

WERE YOU DISAPPOINTED, SURPRISED?

WHAT WERE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE COURT'S LEGAL RULING.

>> WE WERE DISAPPOINTED IN THE RULING BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THE LEGISLATURE ACTED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDANCE RECEIVED BY THE COURT OF HOW TOLL DRAW THE ALABAMA DISTRICT.

THERE WASN'T MUCH CHANGE IN THE LINES AND APPROVED IN THE FEDERAL COURT MANY YEARS AGO IN A SIMILAR WAY.

IT IS NOT LIKE THE LEGISLATURE DEVIATED WITH A NEW STRUCTURE OR PLAN BUT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAST 30 YEARS IN OUR STATE.

CLEARLY SURPRISED BY THE RULING, BUT SO ARE LEGAL COMMENTATORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

THEY FULLY BELIEVED WHEN WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE STAY GRANTED THE COURT INDICATED THEY WANTED TO COME IN AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CLARITY AROUND THE CASE LAW SURROUNDING SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

IN FACT, YOU SAW EVEN THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN THE DENY OF STAY IN HIS DISSENT.

AND THAT PORTION ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE COURT NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN AND PROVIDE CLARITY.

WHEN WE SAW THE CHIEF WRITE IT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFFS WE WERE SURPRISED.

THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE CLARITY.

WE HEARD FROM THE LEGISLATURE THIS WEEK, ONE OF THE COMMITTEES SAY THE COURT DIDN'T GIVE MUCH GUIDANCE.

ACKNOWLEDGED THE LEGISLATURE NEEDED TO DRAW A NEW MAP AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING NOW.

AT THE SAME TIME, DIDN'T REALLY GIVE ADDITIONAL CLARITY AROUND THE FACTORS THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL WAS GOING TO CONSIDER.

I BELIEVE THE LEGISLATURE IS ACTING DILIGENTLY AND WEIGHING MULTIPLE FACTORS.

IT IS MORE THAN RACE WHICH DOMINATES THE CONVERSATION BUT THERE ARE MULTIPLE REDISTRICTING PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED INCLUDING THE COMPACTNESS OF THE DISTRICT, THE COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST, GOING ABOUT DRAWING THESE LINES AND I WANT TO COMMEND THE CHAIRMAN FOR BEING THOUGHTFUL OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND I THINK THEY ARE ENGAGING IN IT THE RIGHT WAY.

>> I FOUND THOSE COMMENTS INTERESTING.

WE HAVE SEEN THE PREVAILING MAP THAT WILL GO BACK TO COURT TOO THE SAME THREE-JUDGE PANEL TO REVIEW AUGUST 14TH.

YOU DIDN'T DRAW THE MAP SO IT IS NOT A PRODUCT OF THE TOGETHER BUT LAWMAKERS FOLLOWED YOUR LEGAL CUES THAT YOU LAID OUT IN THAT LETTER TO THE COMMITTEE LAST WEEK.

I WAS HOPING YOU COULD SPELL OUT WHAT YOUR CASE WAS IN THAT LETTER FOR OUR VIEWERS.

>> IT WAS NOT A LETTER WE INITIATED.

IT WAS, IN FACT, IN RESPONSE TO THE PLAINTIFFS THEMSELVES SENDING A LETTER TO THE REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE THAT WAS CONTRARY OR INCONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE SUBMISSIONS THEY MADE IN PUBLIC STATEMENTS OR, IN FACT, IN WRITING.

THAT CENTERED AROUND THIS IDEA OF THE LEGISLATURE'S REQUIREMENT MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS NEW MAP TO DRAW TWO MAJORITY MINORITY DISTRICTS.

WHAT WE SAW IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF PLAINTIFFS TO THE COURT IS THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT CERTAIN PLANS THAT WERE CONSIDERED DURING THE EARLIER LITIGATION THAT DIDN'T HAVE TWO MAJORITY MINORITY DISTRICTS WERE APPROPRIATE AND WOULD BE COMPLIANT WITH SECTION 2.

WE SAW THE PLAINTIFF HIMSELF, MR. MILLIGAN ASKED ABOUT THIS QUESTION AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT A SINGLETON PLAN, PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED AS ANOTHER GROUP OF PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE THAT 50-PLUS PERCENT THRESHOLD WAS SUFFICIENT.

IN THEIR LETTER TO THIS COMMITTEE WHERE THEY TOOK A VERY DIFFERENT POSITION, WE FELT IT WAS INCUMBENT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT AND NOT JUST MAKE STATEMENTS BUT CITE STATEMENTS AND SPECIFIC COMMENTS MADE BY THOSE INVOLVED IN THE CASE.

AND ALTHOUGH THEY RESPONDED BACK TO SAY, OH, NO, THOSE WERE NUANCED LEGAL ARGUMENTS, THEIR COMMENTS WERE DIRECT AND SPECIFIC AND INCLUDING TO THE SUPREME COURT AND WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMITTEE TO KNOW THAT.

>> I GUESS WE WILL ALL SEE AUGUST 14TH WHAT THE COURT THINKS.

LET'S GO BACK TO THE REGULAR SESSION.

YOU WERE INVOLVED IN LEGISLATION THIS PAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, PARTICULARLY ON THE ISSUE OF CRIME.

YOU GOT CALLED THE ENTERPRISE BILL RENAMED THE GANG BILL.

YOU HELPED TO GET IT ACROSS THE FINISH LINE.

WE ALL HEAR ABOUT GANG CRIME, ESPECIALLY IN CITIES.

I WONDER HOW THIS WILL HELP LAW ENFORCEMENT ATTACK THE PROBLEM OF GANG CRIME.

>> IT GIVES THEM A TOOL THEY DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE.

BEFORE THE LAW WAS PASSED, IT WILL GO IN TO EFFECT IN SEPTEMBER.

THAT IS WHEN YOU HAVE ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

THIS IS NOT JUST GROUPS OF PEOPLE THAT HANG OUT TOGETHER AND ARE PART OF A SOCIAL CLUB.

THESE ARE INDIVIDUALS THAT COME TOGETHER FOR PURPOSES OF PERPETUATING CRIME THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITIES.

WHEN I SPOKE TO MAYORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AROUND THE STATE, WHEN WE LOOK AT AND SEE, FOR EXAMPLE IN BIRMINGHAM, THE ESCALATING NUMBER OF HOMICIDES THAT WE SEE, IT GIVE MESS A DISTRICT TIE TO ORGANIZED GROUPS AND COMMUNITIES.

LET'S NOT SAY IT IS ABOUT THE BLOODS, CRIPS OR MS-13, IT IS LOCAL GROUPS COMING TOGETHER AND MANY TIMES RIVALS WITH ONE ANOTHER MEETING THESE OFFENSES THEM BILL DOES TWO THINGS.

NUMBER ONE, IT ELEVATES GANG MEMBERS COMMITTING CRIMES THAT ELEVATE THE GANG'S PURPOSES.

WE ELEVATE THE PUNISHMENT THERE AND IF YOU DO IT WITH GUNS, POSSESSING, BRANDISHING OR USING THE GUNS WE CAN USE MANDATORY MINIMUMS TO KEEP YOU BEHIND BARS.

WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS BILL WILL NOW PROVIDE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO MAKE THEIR STREETS SAFER, BUT I CAN GUARANTEE IT IS SOMETHING THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE SAID IT ESSENTIAL FOR ALLOWING THEM TO BE ABLE TO MAKE COMMUNITIES SAFER AND THE FACT THE LEGISLATURE DID, BY ALMOST UNANIMOUS VOTE, CAN WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, THAT DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS CAME TOGETHER COMPLETELY IN THE SENATE, ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY IN THE HOUSE BELIEVING IT WAS A VALUABLE TOOL AND WE NEED TO GET BEHIND THE EFFORT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND USING IT EFFECTIVELY IN COMMUNITIES.

>> DOES THE WORD GET OUT?

I'M THINKING TO STOP THE CRIME, THE CRIMINALS THEMSELVES HAVE TO DECIDE -- ENHANCED PENALTIES AND PUNISHMENT, DOES WORD GET OUT IN THE COMMUNITY THAT THIS A BIG RISK AND I'M GOING TO DECIDE NOT TO MAKE THIS CHOICE.

>> I CAN TELL YOU 27 YEARS NOW FOR ME IN PROSECUTION, ONE THING THAT I DO KNOW IS THE CRIMINAL NETWORK HAS A PRETTY GOOD NETWORK OF INFORMATION SHARING.

THE FIRST TIME WE GET ONE OF THESE CASES PROSECUTED WHEN WE ARE ABLE TO USE MANDATORY MINIMUMS AND ELEVATE THE PUNISHMENT, IT WILL SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE.

NOT ONLY OF ACCOUNTABILITY BUT ALSO LET'S HOPE IT CAUSES PEOPLE NOT TO WANT TO COMMIT THESE CRIMES IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I'M CONFIDENT THAT MESSAGE WILL BE LOUD AND CLEAR.

>> LET'S SWITCH GEARS AND TALK ABOUT PRISONS.

I WAS TALKING TO GOVERNOR IVEY EARLIER ABOUT THE NEW FACILITIES AND THE COST OVERRUNS THAT ARE FRUSTRATING TO LAWMAKERS.

THERE'S ALSO CONCERN IN THIS BUILDING ABOUT THESE MOUNTING LEGAL COSTS.

KIND OF CAME INTO RELIEF LAST WEEK AT THE CONTRACT REVIEW MEETING.

KIND OF ILLUMINATED HOW MUCH THE STATE IS SPENDING ON CONTRACTING LAWYERS FOR THESE VARIOUS CASES, THESE VARIOUS LAWSUITS.

IS THERE AN END TO SIGHT TO THESE LAWSUITS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.

>> THERE IS AN END IN SIGHT AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO END IT IS SOMETHING THE STATE SHOULD CONSIDER.

THERE IS MORE THAN SYSTEMIC CASES.

OUR OFFICE DOES 80% OF THE LITIGATION ON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, INDIVIDUAL CASES FILED AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT.

IT'S A SYSTEMIC CASE, THOUGH, THAT PROBABLY GATHERS THE MOST ATTENTION.

LET'S ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN THAT CASE WE HAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WE HAVE FELL-FUNDED GROUPS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE INITIATING THIS, AND ALABAMA NEEDS THE CAPACITY TO RESPOND.

NOT ONLY IS MY OFFICE INVOLVED, BUT IN THIS SITUATION OUTSIDE COUNSEL WHO HAS SPECIFIC EXPERTISE IN NATIONAL CASES BECAUSE LET'S LEAVE NO DOUBT BEHIND.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WANTS TO TAKE OVER THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

THAT'S KNOT THE REMEDY WE BELIEVE IS APPROPRIATE AND AS WE CONTINUE TO EVALUATE THIS CASE AS WE MOVE FORWARD THERE'S TWO THINGS WE ARE LOOKING AT.

ONE IS THE SCOPE OF RELIEF THAT THE PLAINTIFFS WOULD WANT.

FOR EXAMPLE, ARE THEY TALKING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES WITHIN ALL OF THE MALE FACILITIES BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE LITIGATION IS ABOUT RIGHT NOW, OR ARE THEY TARGETED AND LIMITED BASED ON THE FACILITY ITSELF AND THEN WHAT IS THE ULTIMATE REMEDY AS FAR AS RESOLUTION.

IS IT SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE?

IS IT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE THINK THE BEST PRACTICES ARE AROUND THE COUNTRY?

I CAN TELL YOU THIS AND I HAVE BEEN FIRM FROM THE BEGINNING AND THIS WAS LONG BEFORE LITIGATION WAS FILED IS THAT I'M NOT GOING TO ALLOW ALABAMA TO ENTER IN TOO CONSENT DECREE.

THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR THAT AND ONE OF THE BEST DECISIONS SESSIONS DID DURING HIS TIME WAS A MEMO TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONDEMNING CONSENT DECREES AS A WHOLE.

THEY ARE NOT GOOD FOR SETTLEMENT.

THE ONLY THING THAT IS VALUED IS THE THIRD PARTIES THAT GET RICH FROM THOSE AND WE DON'T SEE THE VALUE GO TO THE INSTITUTION IT IS TRYING TO REFORM.

THERE ARE WAYS TO REFORM THEM WITHOUT THE CONSENT DECREE.

WE ARE OPEN TO THAT BUT WE WILL GUARD ALABAMA.

>> A LAWYER FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TOLD LAWMAKERS YOUR OFFICE PROHIBITED THEM FROM ENTERING -- OR NEGOTIATING A SETTLEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT YOUR CHIEF COUNSEL WROTE A MEMO TO THE LEGISLATURE THIS WEEK SAYING THAT WASN'T THE CASE.

>> I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE LAWYER MAY HAVE BEEN REFERENCING.

WE HAVE NEVER STOPPED A SETTLEMENT.

I HAVE BEEN CLEAR ABOUT A CONSENT DECREE, AND YET DISCUSSING THAT LEGAL STRATEGY WITH OUR CLIENT, WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ON THE SAME COURT.

WE WILL DEFEND ALABAMA'S INTEREST CLEARLY.

IF THERE IS A SETTLEMENT THAT MAKES SENSE FOR ALABAMA WE WILL PURSUE THAT LIKE WE DO IN LITIGATION FOR ALL OTHER AGENCIES.

>> ONE OF THE MANY LAWSUITS ON YOUR PLATE IS DEFENDING THE STATE LAW BANNING TRANSGENDER TREATMENTS ON MINORS.

ALABAMA'S LAW IS ENJOINED HERE IN THE 11TH CIRCUIT BUT INTERESTING THE 6TH CIRCUIT HAS ALLOWED TENNESSEE'S SIMILAR LAW TO TAKE EFFECT WHILE IT GETS LITIGATED.

ARE WE HEADED TO A CIRCUIT SPLIT THAT WILL EVENTUALLY GO -- IS THIS QUESTION GOING TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT?

>> I CAN CLEARLY SEE IT GOING TO THE SUPREME COURT.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A REQUEST TO REMOVE THE STAY BEFORE THE 11TH DISTRICT.

WE ARE PLEASED WITH JUDGE SUTTON'S ORDER OUT OF THE 6TH CIRCUIT.

THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE SEEN A THOROUGH ANALYSIS BASED ON THE FACTS AN APPELLATE COURT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER, NOT ONLY THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS AND LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE ALLEGED ALL ALONG IS THE EXPERIMENTAL NATURE OF THE TREATMENT AND WHY STATES HAVE A RIGHT TO WEIGH IN ON BEHALF OF KIDS.

NO DOUBT THAT WITH 20 STATES HAVING LAWS SIMILAR TO THIS, THESE CASES WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE THEIR WAY THROUGH THE APPELLATE COURTS.

ONE THING I'M PROUD OF IS POSITIONING ALABAMA AS A LEADER ON THIS ISSUE.

WE HAVE DONE IT WITH A VICTORY A WEEK AGO FOR THE STATE OF KENTUCKY AND WE WORKED WITH OUR SURROUNDING STATES TO BE ABLE TO EQUIP THEM WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND LEGAL ANALYSIS THAT THE 6TH CIRCUIT FOUND PERSUASIVE TO USE TO DEFEND THEIR CASES, AS WELL.

>> IT'S BEEN A LITIGIOUS SUMMER.

A LOT OF CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

MONUMENTAL CASES THAT HAVE COME THIS SUMMER.

WOULD THIS -- HARD TO PUT A TIMELINE ON IT BUT IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WOULD COME UP NEXT YEAR PERHAPS IN ORAL ARGUMENTS?

HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO GET BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT?

>> THE QUESTION IS HOW FLESHED OUT IS THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE COURT.

THE REDISTRICTING CASE WAS GRANTED ON BASIS OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS.

THE COURT COULD CONSIDER IT.

THE COURT WILL PROBABLY LOOK TO A VETTING OF THE FACTS FOR FINDINGS FOR THE DISTRICT COURT AND WEIGH IN SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE MAKING ALONG WITH THE QUESTION OF WHAT IS A PARENT'S RIGHT AND HOW FAR CAN THEY GO IN ALLOWING CHILDREN TO SEEK THIS TREATMENT CONTRARY TO WHAT STATE LAW HAS PROVIDED.

>> WE WILL BE WATCHING THAT CASE.

MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, WE'RE OUT OF TIME, BUT THANK YOU FOR COMING ON THE SHOW.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> YOU CAN WATCH PAST EPISODES OF "CAPITOL JOURNAL" ONLINE AT VIDEO@APTV.ORG.

"CAPITOL JOURNAL" EPISODES ARE AVAILABLE ON APTV'S FREE MOBILE APP.

YOU CAN CONNECT WITH "CAPITOL JOURNAL" AND LINK TO PAST EPISODES ON "CAPITOL JOURNAL'S" FACEBOOK PAGE.

AND YOU CAN LISTEN TO PAST EPISODES OF "CAPITOL JOURNAL" WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING OR ON THE GO WITH "CAPITOL JOURNAL" PODCASTS.

>> JOINING ME NEXT IS STATE SENATOR RODGER SMITHERMAN FROM BIRMINGHAM.

SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR COMING ON THE SHOW.

>> THANK YOU VERY HAVING ME.

>> IT'S BEEN A LONG WEEK.

>> IT HAS.

>> HERE IN SPECIAL SESSION.

YOU ALL ARE FINISHED AND JUST WALKED OFF THE FLOOR.

WE HAVE A NEW MAP.

WE HAVE A NEW CONGRESSIONAL MAP THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED.

I'M PRESUMING THE GOVERNOR WILL SIGN IT.

IT CAME DOWN TO PARTY-LINE VOTES, PARTY-LINE ARGUMENTS ALL WEEK.

LET ME ASK YOU, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN OPPOSED TO WHAT PASSED ALL WEEK.

CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH YOUR MAIN OBJECTIONS TO WHAT ULTIMATELY PASSED?

>> I SURE CAN.

THE FIRST THING, THE PROCESS STARTED OFF WRONG IN TERMS OF THE COMMITTEE.

THE COMMITTEE -- OBVIOUSLY HAD BEEN DOING SOME WORK ON A BILL THE COMMITTEE WAS GOING TO PRESENT.

THAT WORK THAT THE COMMITTEE PROVIDED NO ONE FROM THE MINORITY SIDE GOT WHEN IT WAS GOING TO WORK OR INFORMATION ON IT OR OPPORTUNITY TO BRING INPUT.

AND THE ACTUAL MAP THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO COME OUT OF THE COMMITTEE.

ULTIMATELY, THE COMMITTEE PRESENTED A MAP TO US AT FIRST IMPRESSION.

FROM THERE SAID THIS IS WHAT WE THINK WE OUGHT TO WORK.

FIRST OF ALL, WE HAD REQUESTED INVOLVEMENT, WHICH IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AUTOMATIC BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE, YOU KNOW, MANY OF US, SEVERAL OF US ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, I'M A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE AND YET IT WAS DONE IN AN ISOLATED MANNER TO EXCLUDE US FROM BEING ABLE TO WORK DIRECTLY WITH THE COMMITTEE.

THEY SAY WHAT DO YOU MEAN, THE FORMULATION OF THE MAP THAT COMES OUT AT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT TOGETHER BY THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE BUT IT WAS NOT.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE -- THESE VOTING POPULATIONS.

KEEP HEARING BVAP, BLACK VOTING AGE POPULATION.

OBVIOUSLY THE SUPREME COURT AND FEDERAL COURT PANEL TALKED ABOUT TWO DISTRICTS WITH MAJORITY BLACK OR CLOSE TO IT, WHICH IS NOT SPECIFIC.

I GUESS THAT'S THE QUESTION.

WHAT IS CLOSE TO IT?

ARE YOU OF THE OPINION THIS NEW DISTRICT WITH JUST ABOUT 40% IN THE SECOND DISTRICT, IS THAT NOT CLOSE TO IT ENOUGH?

>> LET ME SAY THIS, IF YOU ONLY TOOK THE ISOLATED QUESTION ABOUT THE NUMBERS AND THE NUMBERS BEING CLOSE TO IT, THAT'S ONE THING, BUT THE OVERALL SUBJECT MATTER AND IT RELATES TO THE NUMBERS NATURALLY, BUT IT'S JUST AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT.

IF IT IS NOT A MAJORITY AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT, IT IS IN A DISTRICT WHERE AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN, DEMOCRAT, MINORITY, MAY NOT BE AFRICAN-AMERICAN, WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WIN IN THAT DISTRICT.

THAT'S ONE OF THE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THAT DISTRICT THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED.

THERE WAS NOT A FUNCTIONALITY REPORT GIVEN.

WE DIDN'T GET ANY NUMBERS ON IT UNTIL THE LAST THREE HOURS BEFORE IT WAS BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE AND OF COURSE TO BE VOTED.

>> IS THAT THE THING WHERE YOU DISTRICT THE DISTRICT, AS PROPOSED AND GO BACK IN HISTORY AND LOOK AT THE VOTING PATTERNS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

YOU LOOK AT THE VOTING PATTERN AND THE MAKEUP OF THE DISTRICT.

AND IT IS NOT A MAJORITY AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT.

AND THEN LOOK ON THAT, PARTICULARLY, YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY LOOK AT BLACK AND WHITE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DISSECT THAT OUT AND YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT SOLELY UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT YOU CAN LOOK AT WHETHER THEY VOTED DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN BECAUSE MOST OF THIS THE CANDIDATES OF CHOICE, MINORITIES ARE GOING TO RUN AS A DEMOCRAT IN THE STATE.

AND SO YOU LOOK AT THEIR WILLINGNESS TO CROSS OVER.

OR INDEPENDENT THINKING PEOPLE.

THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT DISTRICT IS SO DISMAL THAT THEY SHOULD CALL IT OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT.

I SAID IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO FAIL, TO LOSE.

NOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO WIN.

IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOSE BECAUSE OF THE VOTING PATTERN IN THAT DISTRICT SHOWS THE MAXIMUM, THE BEST CANDIDATE THAT WE PROBABLY PUT OUT AS A DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESIDENT OBAMA.

AND HE ONLY RECEIVED 45% OF THE VOTE.

>> THAT'S IN THE NEW SECOND DISTRICT?

>> YES.

ONCE THEY PUT THE DISTRICT TOGETHER, WE TAKE THE NUMBERS THAT THEN COMPRISE THAT NEW DISTRICT AND THEN YOU DO A FUNCTIONALITY REPORT ON IT TO SEE HOW THIS DISTRICT OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS PUT TOGETHER THIS LIKE THIS IF IT HAD BEEN TOGETHER, HOW WOULD IT PERFORM?

AND THE PERFORMANCE IN THIS NEW DISTRICT CLEARLY SHOWS IT'S A GHOST OF CHANCE THAT A MINORITY WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN.

SO WHAT IS GOING TO END UP HAPPENING, IN ESSENCE, IS THIS DISTRICT IS DESIGNED AS A SAFE DISTRICT FOR THE INCUMBENT PERSON IN CONGRESS RIGHT NOW.

I PREDICT IF THIS DISTRICT IS ENACTED THAT PERSON WILL WIN.

>> IT'S SO INTERESTING.

EVEN SPECIFICALLY ON THE 2ND DISTRICT.

IF YOU GO BACK 15, 20 YEARS, THERE WAS PLENTY OF, YOU KNOW, WHITE VOTERS VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS.

2008 IS A GREAT EXAMPLE BECAUSE THAT WAS THE YEAR BOBBY BRIGHT WON THE 2ND DISTRICT.

I REMEMBER THAT RACE VERY WELL.

THE VOTING PATTERNS HAVE BECOME SO RACIALLY POLARIZED SINCE AND I GUESS THAT IS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT POINTED OUT.

YEARS AGO IF YOU HAD A 45% DISTRICT IT WOULD GO DEMOCRAT BUT NOT NOW.

>> WE ONLY HAVE ONE AREA IN THE STATE THAT HAS CONTINUED TO VOTE IN THAT MANNER.

THAT'S WHAT WE PROPOSED IN THE MAP THAT I PRESENTED AND THE MAP THAT SENATOR -- PRESENTED WAS DISTRICT 6, WHICH BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE WHOLE COUNTY IN TO EFFECT, WAS MADE PRIMARILY OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, 43,000 AND SHELBY COUNTY.

THAT DISTRICT, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ONLY 44% AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT, THAT DISTRICT HAD A PATTERN OVER SINCE 2008 OF BEING SUPPORTIVE OF DEMOCRAT AND MINORITY CANDIDATES, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE A VERY BROAD SPECTRUM OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THAT PARTICULAR COUNTY.

WHERE THEY WERE WILLING ENOUGH TO BE INDEPENDENT AND VOTE FOR CANDIDATES OTHER THAN JUST A CANDIDATE WHO WAS A REPUBLICAN IF THEY THOUGHT THAT CANDIDATE WAS THE BEST CANDIDATE TO BE ABLE TO BE ELECTED.

THAT'S WHAT AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT IS.

A REALISTIC OPPORTUNITY IS BASED ON IF YOU DO THAT YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ELECT AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN OR DEMOCRAT OR MINORITY.

THE REASON I SAY DEMOCRAT IS BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE A WHITE DEMOCRAT FROM THAT MATTER.

BUT THE DISTRICT WILL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE IN THOSE CATEGORIES TO BE ELECTED.

>> UNDERSTAND.

WHEN I TALK TO REPUBLICANS THEY KEEP TALKING ABOUT COMPACTNESS AND COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST AND THIS MAP ACCOMPLISHES THOSE TWO GOALS, DEALING WITH THE PACKING ISSUES THAT WAS MAYBE THE ROOT OF THE OVERTURNING OF THE OLD MAP, BUT ALSO COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST, KEEPING COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST TOGETHER.

THEY KEEP POINTING TO THOSE THINGS AND IT'S NOT AN ACCIDENT.

IT'S NOT A COINCIDENCE BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT JUSTICE KAVANAUGH POINTED OUT IN HIS OPINION, IN ADDITION TO THE RACIAL MAKEUP OF THE DISTRICTS, COMPACTNESS.

DO THEY HAVE A POINT?

DO THEY HAVE AN ARGUMENT FOR MAYBE EVEN TARGETING KAVANAUGH TO SAY IF WE CAN SATISFY THOSE TWO THINGS WITH HIM, MAYBE WE CAN FLIP HIM.

I KEEP HEARING ABOUT THAT.

>> LET ME SAY THIS, THE ORDER THE SUPREME COURT SENT DOWN WAS VERY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR US TO DO.

THE COMPACTNESS WAS ONLY ONE PORTION OF WHAT THEY SENT DOWN.

THEY TALKED ABOUT COMPACTNESS.

AS YOU SAID, THEY TALKED ABOUT COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST.

THEY TALKED ABOUT OPPORTUNITY FOR -- THEY SAID EXPLICITLY IN THERE ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MINORITIES TO ELECT A PERSON OF THEIR CHOICE.

THEY TALKED ABOUT DISTRICT NOT BEING DESIGNED.

THEY USED THESE WORDS.

NOT BEING DESIGNED SO THAT A BLOCK OF VOTERS -- I THINK THEY ACTUALLY SAID WHITE VOTERS WOULD NOT EXIST WHERE IT WOULDN'T BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A MINORITY TO HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN.

AND ONLY WAY YOU CAN TELL THAT -- OR ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO TELL THAT IS WHAT I SAID ABOUT THE FUNCTIONALITY STANDING TO LOOK AT THE PATTERNS.

AND OF COURSE, WE RAN SOME NUMBERS OURSELVES.

THAT'S HOW WE CAME UP WITH 45%.

AND EVEN IN DOUG JONES RACE, WHEN HE RAN AGAINST SENATOR TUBERVILLE, NO MORE THAN 45% OF THE VOTES.

OF COURSE, HE WAS A WHITE DEMOCRAT.

SO YOU SEE WHY I SAID DEMOCRATS, AS WELL.

THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY THERE IN THAT DISTRICT FOR ANYBODY TO COME IN OTHER THAN SOMEONE ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OR, IN PARTICULAR, THE INCUMBENT TO BE ELECTED.

THE DISTRICT DOESN'T SATISFY THOSE THINGS, AS WELL AS QUESTIONABLE ABOUT THE COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST.

YOU SPLIT UP THE BLACK BELT.

PART OF THEM HERE IN 2 AND PART IN 7 AND THEN YOU COME UP IN JEFFERSON COUNTY AND 7 OUT THERE AND PULL OUT PART OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE COMMUNITY INTEREST, MAY HAVE IT IN THE BLACK BELT AND LEAVE THE OTHER ONES THERE AND THEY HAVE TO GO TO 6, WHICH IS NOT AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT IN THE NEW MAP.

SO, NOW THEY ARE OVER THERE AND DON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO ANYTHING.

WHEREAS THE COUNTY ITSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN KEPT WHOLE.

ACTUALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN A SEPARATE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT WITH THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THAT COUNTY.

>> LET'S SAY YOU ARE RIGHT AND THIS MAP THAT JUST PASSED IS UNACCEPTABLE TO, NOT JUST THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL BUT THE SUPREME COURT.

I'M GUESSING WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT.

WHETHER OR NOT THEY TAKE THE CASE IS UP FOR DEBATE.

WHAT HAPPENS THEN ANY REMEMBER YOU TALKING ABOUT A SPECIAL MASTER.

WHAT DOES THAT PROCESS LOOK LIKE?

WHAT IS A SPECIAL MASTER?

IS THAT LIKE A JUDGE?

IF THE COURT DENIES THE MAP, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

>> AS YOU MENTIONED, THEY WILL APPOINT A SPECIAL MASTER AND THE SPECIAL MASTER WOULD BE THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF DRAWING THE DISTRICTS.

WE WON'T HAVE ANY INPUT.

THE LEGISLATURE WILL HAVE ZERO INPUT.

IT WILL LOOK AT THE ORDERS OF THE COURT AND BASED ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THOSE ORDERS OR CLARITY IF HE COMMUNICATES BACK WITH THE COURT, HE WILL DRAW DISTRICTS THAT HE THINKS WILL SATISFY THE COURT.

IF THE COURT ACCEPTS WHAT HE DRAWS, THAT WILL BE THE COURT'S POSITION.

>> IS A SPECIAL MASTER GENERALLY LIKE A GENERAL JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE?

WHAT TYPES OF PEOPLE OR AN ATTORNEY THAT SPECIALIZES IN THIS?

>> I'M NOT SURE WHO THE COURTS USE AS THEIR SPECIAL MASTERS.

MY GUESSTIMATION WOULD BE IT WOULD BE AN ATTORNEY AND/OR A RETIRED JUDGE THAT'S BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS FOR YEARS AND WHO THEY CONSIDER TO BE NEUTRAL AND THAT PERSON WILL BE CHARGED WITH THAT.

>> NEED TO HAPPEN QUICK.

THESE ELECTIONS ARE COMING UP.

RIGHT, QUALIFYING IS LATER THIS YEAR.

>> AND I LOOK FOR EVEN WHEN THIS MAP IS APPROVED, IF IT IS THIS MAP OR ONE THAT FITS THE CRITERIA, WHICH I JUST MENTIONED, I STILL THINK WHEN WE GET TO 2024 IT WILL BE CHALLENGED.

I JUST THINK THAT'S THE WAY IT IS GOING TO GO.

THIS PROCESS WILL BE MOVING A LONG TIME.

>> OH, BOY, REDISTRICTING IS ALWAYS A STICKY ISSUE.

BEFORE I LET YOU GO, I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT ANOTHER ISSUE THAT CAME UP THIS SPECIAL SESSION DEALING WITH THE BUDGET ISOLATION RESOLUTION.

THIS IS A PRETTY IN THE WEEDS ISSUE, BUT DEALING WITH -- SORT OF A PROCEDURAL MOVE.

ONE THAT KIND OF SLOWS YOU DOWN WHEN YOU HAVE TO TAKE EVERY LITTLE VOTE BEFORE THE BUDGET IS PAST.

CAN YOU WALK THROUGH THE CHANGE AND WHAT IT ACCOMPLISHED?

>> AS YOU MENTIONED, ALL THE BILLS THAT COME BEFORE US BEFORE THE BUDGET IS PASSED AND SIGNED REQUIRES A BUDGET ISOLATION RESOLUTION.

THAT REQUIRES THAT 21 LEGISLATORS HAVE TO VOTE YES SO WE CAN TAKE UP THE BILL AND BE ABLE TO CONSIDER IT, WHETHER IT PASSES OR NOT.

THAT IS SORT OF A CHECK AND BALANCE THAT WE STAY FOCUSED ON THE FACT THAT THE NUMBER ONE THING IS THE BUDGET.

>> BEFORE THE BUDGETS PASS, YOU HAVE TO SET THEM ASIDE.

>> IF YOU THINK THESE ITEMS ARE IMPORTANT ENOUGH, THEN MAKE THE STATEMENT BY VOTING AND GETTING 21 VOTES.

THE PROBLEM IS IN THE HOUSE, WE -- THE SENATE TOOK THE POSITION THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE TWO-THIRDS OF THE PEOPLE ON THE ROLL, THAT IS 21.

THE HOUSE TOOK THE POSITION THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE, I THINK LIKE 30 SOMETHING PEOPLE TO SAY YES, AND THEN THAT WILL CONSTITUTE THE NECESSITY -- IN OTHER WORDS, THEY TOOK A PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO VOTED VERSUS THE PERCENTAGE OF THE ENROLLMENT IN THE HOUSE, WHICH IS 105.

SO, AS A RESULT OF THAT, THEY TOOK THE POSITION THEY WERE DOING IT RIGHT.

AND OF COURSE, THE SENATE TOOK THE POSITION THEY WERE DOING IT RIGHT.

SO, IN ORDER TO CUT OFF ANY KIND OF PROBLEMS WITHIN INTERPRETATION IF THEY WERE CHALLENGED, WE HAD TO COME UP WITH A PROCESS THAT WAS PRETTY YOU KNOW FORMATIVE BASED ON THAT.

THE PROCESS WE CAME UP WITH IS ON LOOK LOCAL BILLS WE WOULD ELIMINATE EXCEPT ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

THERE WAS A DESIRE TO HAVE 21 VOTES BEFORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BUT THE CONVERSATION, I THINK, FINALLY CAME TO FRUITION TO HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT YOU HAVE TO HAVE 21 VOTES ANYWAY.

SO WHY IT WON'T PASS UNLESS 21 VOTE FOR IT.

>> I AM SHOCKED TO HEAR DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SENATE AND HOUSE.

WE'RE OUT OF TIME BUT THANK YOU FOR COMING ON THE SHOW AND SAFE TRAVELS COMING HOME.

>> APPRECIATE YOU AND GOOD TO BE HERE.

>> YES, SIR.

WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> YOU CAN WATCH PAST EPISODES OF "CAPITOL JOURNAL" ONLINE ANYTIME AT ALABAMA PUBLIC TELEVISION'S WEBSITE, APTV.ORG.

CLICK ON THE ONLINE VIDEO TAB ON THE MAIN PAGE.

YOU CAN ALSO CONNECT WITH "CAPITOL JOURNAL" AND LINK TO PAST EPISODES ON "CAPITOL JOURNAL'S" FACEBOOK PAGE.

>> THAT'S OUR SHOW FOR THIS WEEK.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

WE WILL BE BACK NEXT WEEK AT THE SAME TIME WITH MORE "CAPITOL JOURNAL" RIGHT HERE ON ALABAMA PUBLIC TELEVISION.

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

WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT TIME.