From our statehouse studio in Montgomery.

I'm Todd Stacey, welcome to Capitol Journal.

Alabama's top political leaders are reacting to the biggest story in the world this week, the conviction of former President Donald Trump by a New York jury.

The charges related to covering up hush money payments to an adult film actress in the course of the 2016 election.

The tweets and press releases came quickly, almost as soon as the verdict was announced, mostly from Alabama's Republican leaders who are supportive of Trump.

Governor Kay Ivey said that despite this New York jury, as President Trump said, the real verdict will be by the people on Election Day, November 5th, Lieutenant Governor Will Ainsworth said, the weaponization of our justice system and the use of guerrilla warfare against President Trump caused this asinine verdict.

US Senator Tommy Tuberville called the trial a political witch hunt, adding, if we don't return to our Constitution, we are no better than Venezuela or Communist China.

US Senator Katie Britt had similar thoughts, saying this is a hallmark of a banana republic, not a constitutional republic.

Secretary of State Wes Allen said the verdict is a perfect example of why our justice system has an appeals process in place.

And Congresswoman Terri Sewell, the lone Democrat in Alabama's congressional delegation, had a different take than her Republican colleagues.

She said, quote, today's verdict confirms that no one is above the law, not even a former president.

Justice has been served, end quote.

Attorney General Steve Marshall also denounced the ruling.

He previously traveled to New York to sit in on the trial in support of Trump.

I'll speak with him in more detail about this case later in the show.

Some signs of returning to normal at the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles.

A new report this week shows that the board's parole grant rate increased for the third straight month.

You may remember that the rate at which the board grants parole to eligible inmates plummeted.

Beginning in 2019, it had been as high as 55%, but changes in policy and the structure of the board saw that rate slow drastically, to the point that last year the grant rate was just 8%.

February's rate was 24%, up from 23% in January.

Those are the latest month that data is available.

I'll speak to Bureau of Pardons and Paroles Director Cam Ward about these numbers later in the show.

Here in the state House this week, a special task force met to discuss ways the state can help those impacted by Alzheimer's disease.

Any family that has experienced Alzheimer's or dementia knows how difficult that journey can be, and this group is exploring possible solutions.

Randy Scott has that story.

2014 since the last statewide plan for for Alzheimer's.

So it was quite out of date and and needed to be updated.

We have currently around 100,000 Alabamians who suffer from Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia.

Ginny Shaver serves as a member of the Alabama House of Representatives, but on this day, she chairs the Alabama Alzheimer's Task Force.

This group of lawmakers, medical professionals and citizens are meeting to find ways to help those dealing with Alzheimer's and their caretakers.

Alzheimer's is the most common form of dementia, and that rate is increasing at almost 15%.

So the needs are currently great, but they are growing.

You have experts from many agencies at this meeting, including health care and education professionals.

So we've drafted an initial assessment that the Alabama Department of Public Health has been reviewing.

They made a few requests for edits, and so we will resubmit the draft to them after we incorporate those changes.

Doctor Aimee Brunson is a clinical assistant professor from the University of Alabama.

We really want to learn about what the public understands about risk factors related to dementia.

So we're looking to to ascertain people's knowledge about dementia and dementia risk.

Um, learn about their experience with finding the information that they need within their community regarding dementia as well as caregiving.

Representative Shaver has a unique point of view on this issue.

My 68 year old sister suffers from dementia and I take care of her.

So this is a personal issue for me.

So I can tell you firsthand that that it is, um, quite taxing on caregivers.

And I'm probably more connected than most people in seeking out services and finding out what's available as far as health care and other services.

You know, for someone with dementia.

Giving this group a clear purpose.

To combine all of the what's available, all the resources that are available and make it more accessible to the people who need it so they can get the the services for their loved ones.

In Montgomery, Randy Scott, Capital Journal.

Alabama now has a stricter law on the books when it comes to distracted driving, and state authorities want you to take it seriously.

Jeff Sanders reports.

We've all seen it, and if we're honest, we've all done it.

Driving while distracted.

But starting in June, picking up your phone while driving in Alabama could cost you.

In 2022, we had 67 people who were killed related to distracted driving crashes.

Alison Green is the drive safe Alabama coordinator for the Department of Transportation.

The legislature decided, hey, how can we stem this growth in distracted driving?

How can we decrease it?

And one of the ways is to put a law out there that hopefully will change behavior.

To help educate the public, Aldot has commissioned a series of public service announcements to educate drivers on the new law.

Alabama has a hands free driving law, and that means you can't hold your mobile phone while making a call.

Oh, and no riding messages, recording or watching videos either.

Now, it's important to point out that this new hands free law in Alabama is what's considered a secondary offense.

That means if a law enforcement officer does see you driving down the highway with, say, a phone or another device in your hand, they cannot pull you over solely for that reason.

There has to be another superseding traffic violation to do so.

But either way, officials say the law is just a good reminder for all Alabamians to drive safer on the highways.

Some new technologies available now, of course, a lot of cars have Bluetooth where you can actually use your phone without touching it.

There are things that you can buy for $5 online.

You can download free apps that make your phone hands free.

This is especially important in work zones and construction areas.

Aldot workers that are out in the work zone see distracted drivers driving through those work zones every day, and they are some of the most vulnerable people on the road when they have nothing to protect them.

And in turn, creating a hands free driving experience for you helps protect everyone else on the highway.

Reporting for Capital Journal.

I'm Jeff Sanders.

Aldot will soon begin airing public service announcements informing Alabama drivers about the new law.

Here's one of those made for TV.

Alabama has a hands free driving law, and that means you can't hold your mobile phone while making a call.

Oh, and no writing messages, recording or watching videos either.

Plus, you can only use a single button or swipe of a finger to answer a call.

So what's a driver to do?

Alabama's hands free driving law is in effect.

Follow it.

If you're looking for some great educational family fun this summer, consider visiting destinations in Alabama's Black Belt.

The region is rich with culture and history, and a new report commissioned by the Alabama Black Belt Adventures Association aims to help communities work together to grow tourism.

Pam Swanner of the Alabama of the association, said the region is poised to benefit from a tourism boom.

There is so much to offer and this report just kind of highlights those things that we know exist here, but we have to tell the rest of the world and the development and the recommendations that are for the development that are coming forthcoming, play into the rural back road experiences.

And it also will piggyback with the Alabama Black Belt National Heritage Area, also in process of being developed with the University of West Alabama, who applied for that designation.

Our congressional delegation this past year made sure that we did become a national area, and so that's really going to put a lot of focus when that is put into place.

So everything is going to piggyback together, and I really feel like the black belt is just ready to explode.

Coming up after the break, I'll be joined by Attorney General Steve Marshall to talk about that Trump verdict, the transgender treatment ban case and what's next on ethics reform.

After that, I'll talk with Bureau of Pardons and Paroles director cam Ward about the uptick in parole numbers and what his department is doing to reduce recidivism.

And later in the show, I'll be joined by AL.com senior education reporter Trish Crane to break down several of the significant education bills that passed in the legislative session.

We'll be right back.

You can watch past episodes of Capital Journal online at videotape Tv.org.

Capital Journal episodes are also available on AP TV's free mobile app.

You can also connect with Capital Journal and link to past episodes on Capital Journal's Facebook page.

And you can listen to past episodes of Capital Journal when you're driving or on the go with Capital Journal podcasts.

Welcome back to Capital Journal.

Joining me next is Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall.

Mr. Marshall, thanks for coming on the show.

Good to be here.

Thanks.

Lots to talk about.

And I guess we we better start with the top news of the week, the top news in the world really.

And that is the conviction of former President Donald Trump.

It's just huge implications.

You were up there a couple of weeks ago.

You attended the trial, spoke in his defense about, you know, your disagreements over this case being brought.

But now that it's over, at least the trial part and he's been convicted on all these counts.

Let me ask you, were you surprised to see the jury's verdict come back this quickly and to be all guilty?

Well, I think the critical question was going to be, how did the judge instruct the jury?

You know, all along you've heard me and others talk about this idea of the due process rights of a defendant generally to have knowledge of what it is that they're actually charged with.

And fundamentally, the case involving all 34 counts.

And by the way, people make, you know, sort of, hey, of it was 34 counts.

It's really the same course of conduct, right?

I mean, it's the same circumstance.

It's just different records and different payments that reflected that.

But the the charge itself was falsifying business records with the fraudulent intent to conceal another crime.

And always the question has been what is that other crime?

Was it a federal elections crime which we know that the FEC refused to, to pursue?

Was it going to be some state related election offense, or is it sort of popped up at the end?

Was it some type of tax crime?

And what everybody was curious about is how would the judge instruct the jury about what that additional element was?

Because why that was so critical was that's what took what was a misdemeanor under New York law into a felony, because if it had been a misdemeanor, it was time barred and wouldn't have been applicable.

But what was going to be that crime that made it a felony?

And what we saw the judge do was to be able to instruct the jury that they didn't have to agree on what the crime was, didn't instruct them on what even the specific crime that President Trump could have been concealing, but really left it very open ended, which I think is hugely problematic for purposes of appeal and this this conviction being sustained.

But when we saw the court go that direction and there were other charges that were clearly much more aligned with the prosecution's theory of the case and the defense, it really seemed like that dictated what the outcome was ultimately going to be.

Hmm.

So you're saying they kind of took some legal leaps in terms of bringing the charges?

Well, what happens now?

You mentioned appeal.

I assume the former president is going to appeal.

How does that process work?

Yeah, they'll have to go through the sentencing hearing.

It's right now.

And I don't think it all coincidentally four days before the Republican convention begins.

But once that sentencing hearing takes place, at that point in time, President Trump has the opportunity to take an appeal of that conviction.

Okay.

So you have to wait until the sentencing.

They will now, I'm sure there will be a motion for a new trial that will be filed that will occur before the appeal takes place.

They'll set out the grounds to give the trial court another opportunity to be able to weigh in before the appellate court does.

But from what I can tell, New York has a very similar system to Alabama and a two tiered level of appellate courts, one an intermediate level of appeal, which actually they call their Supreme Court.

And then they have their Court of appeals, which is their highest level court.

That may be the ultimate arbiter, but I still think there is also a federal nexus as well.

And whether or not this is if it got this far and it never should, by the way, in my opinion, but it could potentially go to the United States Supreme Court around a very specific issue about what the jury had to find.

I won't get in the weeds about what that looks like and kind of where where it applies.

But going back to that, what was the other crime, what the jury had to specifically find as a matter of fact and law before it would ultimately been applied to the verdict that he was found guilty of this week.

I know the Supreme Court just can't wait to hear to hear that case.

Well, look, I walked me through how this works.

So sentencing hearing, I guess July 11th or something like that.

Um, so if he's if he's sentenced to jail, would he then be escorted to the jail, like right then?

Well, I think, you know, if it's a procedure similar to Alabama, they could walk him there, but he'll get an appeal bond.

That's what I was saying.

So.

So he's not going to be sitting in jail waiting for the Republican convention.

Yeah.

That's what.

Now first of all, I think it's highly unlikely if you see how New York approaches nonviolent offenders.

And one of the things I think is a unique irony in this case, it doesn't need to get lost, is that Michael Cohen on the witness stand, admitted to a crime of a much more serious offense under New York law than the one for which President Trump was convicted.

This is considered a class E felony in New York.

And the theft of the money that Michael Cohen.

Described in the courtroom was a more significant offense under the severity levels of the felonies in New York.

And so how can a judge do something very harsh to President Trump when the accomplice under there, the prosecution's theory admits to committing not only a crime that President Trump was convicted of, but also something more serious and for which he will face no prosecution and suffer no jail time.

Well, let me ask you this.

You know, some a lot of Republicans describe what's going on as lawfare, right?

Not warfare, but lawfare using the law and the legal process to defeat your enemies, in this case, former President Trump.

But I've also noticed over the last several years that the left and the right seem to try to one up each other right.

If the the left does one thing well, the right says, well, we can play that game too.

And it kind of escalates, whether that's rhetoric or actual tactics like this.

So my question is, do you is there a chance that there could be some kind of legal retaliation?

Would one of your colleagues, a Republican prosecutor, go and try to prosecute the president or some other Democrat?

Can you see that temptation on the right to try to use that kind of tactics on people from the left?

Oh, I think.

There's clearly that temptation.

And it's you know, I've seen people describe this as sort of opening Pandora's box.

And one thing that troubles me, and one of the real reasons why I wanted to be in New York, is sort of this broader question of the role of the criminal justice system.

And what is a prosecutor supposed to do?

I mean, I was offended by this idea of my colleague Tish James in New York when she was running for AG, specifically said, I'm going after Donald Trump, the Da in New York, saying that if you elect me, I'm going to hold Donald Trump accountable.

And I think there's a significant issue that people need to grapple with.

Is is that an appropriate way for those that hold public office with the ability to indict?

Is that the way that we ought to conduct elections?

Because, again, what's good for the goose is good for the gander for some.

And I will tell you that I have always been a firm believer that you chase facts and not people, that you don't identify somebody you think is a bad actor and go after them as opposed to investigate reported or suspected crimes.

I think there's a big difference there.

And I think here they clearly went after Donald Trump as a person, to the point they could find something that they could charge him with.

But it's also raises the issue that we've talked about in the Supreme Court that President Trump has raised in some of the other prosecutions about the ability to assert presidential immunity.

You know, there's clearly presidential immunity on the civil side, but we've never as a country had to deal with that on the criminal side.

And what we've argued is the policy reasons for it on the civil side are equal to the criminal side, because what you don't want is a president making decisions while in office that they believe that they could be subject to either civil or criminal penalties down the road by a new party in power coming in that doesn't like them.

That's not the way for the executive branch to be able to operate in the chief of the executive branch, to be able to make decisions.

And it's one of the reasons why, I think the oral argument before the Supreme Court, you had both the liberal justices and the conservative justices accepting much of what President Trump's team was, was arguing that when you're looking at the official acts of the person who holds the presidency, and there's a compelling reason to be able to make those immune not only from civil prosecution but also criminal hmm'hmm.

Okay.

Switching gears.

Uh, there's.

Other things to talk.

About.

Well, I mean, look, the partisan lines are drawn, and it's it's in many ways, just really frustrating and kind of hard to talk about in an interview wise, but I appreciate I know you have you know, you have chosen a side here, but I appreciate your explanation of of your perspective.

Talk about the transgender minor treatment ban ban on transgender treatments for minors.

That case is being litigated.

It's it's in the federal courts.

Can you give us an update on where we are with that?

Yeah, I mean, this case has had a long history thus far, actually going back and forth to the 11th Circuit as well.

But, you know, Alabama adopted a law that said we're going to protect kids from puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, as well as gender changing surgeries.

I think it was a very proactive.

And Alabama was one of the first states to be able to do it.

Now, we've seen almost half of the states in the union be able to adopt it.

We were challenged almost immediately.

The Department of Justice also weighed in on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Judge Burke entered an injunction was consistent then with other states around the country enjoining the enforcement of this act.

But we've seen that change in Alabama.

We've led through the AGS office efforts to help Tennessee and Kentucky to be able to change their law.

That was really the first case that weighed in with a very different result.

We've been able to reverse Judge Burke to now remove that injunction at the state level.

So Alabama's law is in place right now, but we still have to litigate it.

And so Judge Burke has set that case for trial in October.

But just this week we filed a motion for summary judgment where we put before the court, some of it under seal as a result of a protective order in place.

But we've engaged in mounds of discovery, whether it be deposition or review, of hundreds of thousands of records from Non-parties, as well as parties, to be able to say very clearly that Alabama has a rational basis to be able to protect kids, because we've talked about this before on the show, this is a failed European experiment, and we continue to see more and more of the data come out out of Europe about why this gender affirming care doesn't need to be the way that kids are treated for gender dysphoria.

In fact, you've seen wholesale change in England recently as a result of the Cass report come out.

But also we've seen studies refute this idea, for example, that if we don't provide gender affirming care, kids are more likely to commit suicide.

In fact, recent study shows the exact opposite to be the case, and we worry about what happens during their adult life.

But we think that we've given Judge Burke a very compelling reason to rule out Alabama as a matter of law.

We hope that he will take that under advisement here soon, with the opportunity as well, to potentially allow the world to be able to see that what we've discovered that's not eligible yet.

But if, in fact, he doesn't rule in our favor on summary judgment, then we're fully prepared to be able to try this case before him in October.

Another issue ethics had this big bill this session from Representative Matt Simpson trying to reform Alabama's ethics law.

I guess maybe a better word would be update, but it's a pretty wholesale change in many ways.

No, I.

Think it is a significantly wholesale change, particularly if you compare what was done in 2010 to what was proposed here.

This was a fundamental change in how we would approach ethics.

So you opposed the bill.

You had some problems with it.

Um, but you also talked about there is a need to, you know, reform Alabama's ethics code to make it clearer, easier to follow, I guess.

So can this happen?

I mean, I know this one passed the House, didn't get there in the Senate partially because of your opposition.

Is there something that can be done in terms of a compromise where everybody can get on the same page and say, okay, this is a positive update to the law that benefits everybody?

I think there's a roadmap that is out there based upon a committee that the legislature form, that Tom Albrecht and I both chaired, which we issued a report afterwards saying that these are areas that Alabama could look at to be able to update its ethics laws.

Now, I would tell you, I don't think I'm not one that says that we need to reform.

And I think the question is, what's the definition of reform?

I think we can clarify certain areas that would make sense.

We can make changes that would update the 2010 law to where we are currently in our state.

But yet, I don't think there is a clamoring from the public to expand the amount of gifts that legislators can get from lobbyists, which is one of the key elements of the bill that just came out of the most session, the most recent session that we opposed.

I think Senator Orr was very engaged in the effort of that committee that I described for you earlier.

I think he has thoughts about what we can do moving forward, but we're happy to have discussions with him and others about what that may look like.

But we were opposed to the bill that came out of the House, and we remain opposed to it before it actually died in Senate committee.

Do you think those conversations will happen over the break?

I mean, are you open to talking with Mr. Simpson or Mr. Orr about, you know, possible remedies?

Yeah.

Now, we gave Representative Simpson a list of changes that we believe needed to be made to his bill.

Those were all almost universally rejected.

That was his call.

I respect that, but to the extent that dialogue needs to take place, our office is there.

I know that Senator Orr said pretty specifically at the end of the session, that he wanted to be able to look at that now that there's maybe some more time for him to be able to do it.

And we look forward to seeing what folks come up with.

I don't have much time, but while I have you, um, on our long list of issues to talk about redistricting, you've had, you know, obviously, um, Alabama was unsuccessful at the Supreme Court in terms of, you know, the arguments you all were making.

Two other rulings have recently come out to the one with South Carolina's redistricting case that was at the Supreme Court level.

There was also a Louisiana case that I guess was a circuit level fifth circuit.

Yeah.

So talk about the differences that these rulings and maybe the different tactics the states took and how it might impact Alabama's redistricting efforts going forward.

Yeah, we think both of those cases are impactful.

On the trial that would take place for us on the three judge panel involving our congressional districts.

Um, the Supreme Court weighed in in the South Carolina case recently, and where we think that's most relevant is going to be will it narrow the claims that plaintiffs can ultimately make in these type of cases?

We think it ties specifically into a few of the complaints made by both the Singleton plaintiffs and the Milligan plaintiffs, and we'll present those arguments before the three judge panel.

Secondarily, the Louisiana case, which is, uh, determined by the Fifth Circuit.

So that's right before the Supreme Court really adopted an argument that we made before the three judge panel is that once the Supreme Court ruled in Milligan and came back for the Alabama legislature to redraw their map was how much could race predominate in drawing those lines?

Was it the ultimate factor, and how it is that you drew those new districts?

And what the Fifth Circuit came back and said is that's a bridge too far.

And frankly, it's more analogous to what we saw come from the Supreme Court and the Harvard admission cases, the North Carolina admission cases, where chief justice said, you know, racial discrimination to solve racial discrimination is not where we need to be.

And the Fifth Circuit really sort of saw that same analogy.

It was an argument that we made consistent to the three judge panel.

They rejected.

I think the fact that the Fifth Circuit has embraced that particular assertion that we've made supports the argument that we'll make with them moving forward.

It'd be interesting to be able to see whether the Supreme Court will also take up what the Fifth Circuit did in Louisiana.

But then there's also another case that's traveling out of North Dakota that's going to be worth watching.

But what all this says is when the court thought in Milligan that they were providing clarity to section two claims that in fact hasn't taken place.

And what we have seen now is consistently the appellate courts and district courts ruling in ways that don't necessarily make sense and definitely not consistent.

We think in Alabama has done not only through the original map that we had, but also through the redraw map.

The legislature has done that.

We've followed the consistent guidelines of redistricting principles.

And again, we look forward to being able to to go before the three judge panel with those same arguments, um.

Lots of issues on your plate and we will try to follow them all.

Thanks again for coming on the show.

Thank you.

We'll be right back.

You can watch past episodes of Capital Journal online anytime at Alabama Public Television's website at iptv.org.

Click on the online video tab on the main page.

You can also connect with Capital Journal and link to past episodes on Capital Journal's Facebook page.

You're watching Alabama Public Television.

Welcome back to Capital Journal.

Joining me next is cam Ward, director of the Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Parole director.

Thanks for coming on the show.

Thanks for having.

Me back, Ian Todd.

Well, you're in the news this week, or the pardons and Parole Board is at least, um, some promising news, I'd say, in terms of what we have been talking about, the parole rate.

The parole grant rate, it's up for the third straight month.

Parole grant rate is up to 24%.

Um, talk about what goes into that.

You know, were you surprised to see that?

Well, you've had some changes.

One for the most of last year where we had a basically a lifetime low of 8 to 4%.

I mean, it was a very low rate, but also for a third of last year, you only had two board members, so we only have two board members out of three.

That means you can have a 1 to 1 split.

Someone gets denied.

So that drove part of those numbers.

But also to this year.

Now that we have three full working board members, and at the same time, we've increased some of the supervision that we provide, such as electronic monitoring, such as better facilities to send people to.

I think that's given more comfort to that board, to send more people to us to supervise in the community.

Sure.

Yeah.

And one of those new board members is a product of the pardons and paroles.

Former parole former employee of mine, Gabrielle Simmons, who was a board officer.

And so she knows it firsthand.

She didn't need any on the job training.

She's doing a great job and we have a very diverse board.

We have two law enforcement officers, a former assistant Da.

So it's a very diverse board, but it's a board that I think is working right now.

Um, we'll talk about that history because, you know, go back to 2018 where the grant rate for parole really peaked at 55%, I believe, then down last year to 8%.

You talked about some of the fundamental reasons for that.

But I mean, it really took a nosedive after 2018.

And I have to think that it was much in response to that awful triple murder.

Jimmy O'Neill.

Spencer, who was out on parole, really a shocking story that probably, you know, led to policy changes at the board.

Back then, there was a mistake made by both the bureau and the board back then.

What happened was he really should have never been out.

And it goes back to a fundamental lack of communication that he was let go.

He was sent on parole.

One, his parole officer didn't know he was out on parole.

Two, local law enforcement didn't know he was out.

So but by the time they figured out that this person needed supervision, he'd already committed three murders up in Marshall County.

It was very tragic, very sad situation.

But you're right.

I was still in the legislature at the time, and in 2019, legislation was passed that really put a lot of restrictions on the parole board due to that case of the murders he committed.

Mhm.

Well, what goes into those risk assessments.

Right.

Because if you're coming up for parole, you go before the board and there's a risk assessment sort of attached to you.

What goes into that.

So in Alabama like most states they use that board uses what's called auras.

The Ohio risk Assessment System.

And what that does is it basically says what is the risk level that this person, one through ten, may get out and commit a crime or hurt someone?

Again, what are the odds they're going to hurt someone?

And I can tell you the most interesting thing is on auras your risk assessment of committing a new crime.

In other words, I was in am I going to hurt somebody?

Again?

The highest risk assessment, hands down.

Or property crimes usually fueled by a drug addiction causing the property crime to occur, robbery, burglary, that kind of stuff.

The lowest risk assessment, believe it or not.

And people will still not believe me when I tell them this, but actually murders the lowest risk assessment.

Wow.

But now if you look at the parole grant rates, that board is doing grant rates primarily.

It's the medium risk.

Low risk is who they're draining the most of the higher risk they usually don't touch.

But you don't see a whole lot of murderers, rapists, those kind of folks getting parole.

It's usually somewhere in the moderate property crime range.

Um hum.

Well, that does stand to reason though, because if if I went to jail because of a crime that resulted from my addiction.

Right.

And, and, you know, whatever, for whatever reason, don't get it treated, then I'm a lot more likely to be fueled by addiction to another crime.

That's correct.

And so that's one reason why the last three and a half years, we've invested a lot of money into drug treatment, mental health treatment and job training.

Those three areas can actually reduce the recidivism rate greatly, which is why we joined reentry 2030.

Um, but it reduces the chance of committing a crime.

And I think that's given the board a little more comfort showing that if someone has an addiction, we're focused heavily in the Bureau on making sure that they get the treatment they need so they don't commit a crime.

Again, I think that's given a comfort to them.

Allow them to do a higher grant rate.

Um, well, I'm really glad you explained all that, because when you talk about grant rates and all that and your explanation is, is necessary because it's easy to kind of draw conclusions based on, you know, limited information.

So I appreciate the the explanation.

Well, you brought up.

Re-Entry 2030.

Talk about this.

This seems like a really exciting step for the state to be taking.

It is so we we were the second state.

There are now four states in the country.

Missouri was first.

We were second, North Carolina's third, now Nebraska's fourth.

We've taken on this.

It's a national initiative to reduce recidivism.

And actually Alabama has actually gone down recently.

We were 25th in the country.

We're now 23rd in the country in recidivism rates.

Is that.

A.

Good it's a good thing.

Yeah.

Number one is good.

Number 50 is bad.

The worst in the country actually is Alaska.

Second worst is Delaware.

Don't know why I know why Alaska is.

But for Alabama, what's happened with us is it's basically going into getting serious about the drug addiction problem, whether it be the opioid problem.

We've had several councils and commission address it, but we're starting to see a decrease.

Reentry 2030.

We're committed to using the tools and resources necessary to take us from 29% recidivism down to under 15%.

If we got under 15%, we'd be one of the top five best in the country of tackling recidivism.

And that's my goal by the end of this decade, is to have us there.

You talked about treating addiction, job training, doing the things that just make it a lot less likely that somebody's going to commit another crime.

Right.

Um, we'll talk about that.

Um, you know, you we just finished this legislative session.

I know you're involved in all kinds of conversations and bills.

There's plenty of bills that impact your your bureau.

Um, but we're now out of session.

Talk about what happens now.

Are there conversations that continue about policy, legislation, budgets with lawmakers, maybe with a budget, chairs the judiciary chairs in this kind of off season.

What I learned when I was in the legislature for my two decades is one.

Once a session ends, give them about 2 or 3 weeks to breathe and kind of catch up, particularly after this session.

As rough as they had it, give me a little time to breathe and catch up.

But the best policy discussions occur sometime this summer and fall before they go back in, because when they're here in session, it's really hard to have those conversations.

You're getting 32nd snippets for a five minute policy talk.

So yeah, we have a lot of conversations now.

We meet with lawmakers.

We're actually going out in the community to meet with lawmakers saying these are some needs.

These are things we're seeing.

And then we also ask what their concerns are to make sure we're addressing their concerns, since they're making the laws themselves.

So yeah, now is the time to get those policy initiatives underway.

Sure.

Back to recidivism and reducing that rate.

I mean, getting it under 15% would be a giant leap.

You're not in charge of the prisons.

Um, but they talk a lot.

I mean, I had Commissioner Hamlin here the other day.

Um, and yeah, they are concerned about the rising prison population, all these new laws that get passed that result in, uh.

But I have to think if if we do make progress on recidivism, that will help the prison overall overcrowding situation.

You don't see the repeat offender come back, and that's one that's a public safety win.

It's a win for prisons.

It's a win for everybody.

And I like you know I, I spearheaded reentry 2030.

But this is not just a pardon parole issue.

This is a mental health.

This is doc public safety.

Dr.. Medicaid.

It goes on and on and on.

Veterans affairs.

We're all in it together.

Part of that reentry 2030.

We created a reentry Council where we all talk and share is about 14 agencies, 5 or 6 private stakeholders that sit around and talk about what can we do to reduce the number of people going back into prison system.

So yes, it works, but it's also a lot of boring stuff.

I mean, no one wants to sit around and talk about reentry solutions, but at the end of the day, if you're successful 4 or 5 years from now, the data will show that we did a good job in reducing those people.

Going back to Doc's custody.

Sure.

You got to start somewhere.

Yeah.

We like boring stuff here.

Sometimes boring, sometimes boring is not bad.

We have so much entertainment and politics these days.

Sometimes boring is not a bad thing.

Oh, yeah, that's right.

Well, I know that you've been kind of going around the state educating people about reentry 2030.

How's the how's it been received?

How's the feedback been?

It's been received very well, particularly among some of our business owners.

We've had a lot of companies.

I'll be speaking with Alabama Power coming up here next week talking about their job initiative.

There is a huge there's a labor shortage.

Secretary of labor will tell you, Secretary Washington will say we need more people participating in the workforce.

Well, for me being selfish, if I want you to not commit a crime again, getting your drug treatment, getting your mental health treatment and getting you a good paying job keeps you from coming back to prison.

So they've been very receptive.

The business community has been very receptive, and I can go around to civic clubs, whether it be rotary, Kiwanis, they talk about, hey, this is yes, we need people to work for us.

And it tends to be when you have someone who is formerly incarcerated, if they're screened and supervised well and they go to work, they're generally very good employees.

And people are looking for good employees these days.

That's right.

Yes.

One of the biggest issues facing the state.

We're out of time.

But thanks again for coming on.

And we're going to keep this conversation going about because it is an.

An issue for the state.

I appreciate your explanation.

Thanks, Todd.

We'll be right back.

You can watch past episodes of Capital Journal online at videotaped TV.

Org.

Capital Journal episodes are also available on AP TV's free mobile app.

You can also connect with Capital Journal and link to past episodes on Capital Journal's Facebook page.

And you can listen to past episodes of Capital Journal when you're driving or on the go with Capital Journal podcasts.

Welcome back to Capital Journal.

Joining me next is Trish Crane, senior education reporter for AL.com.

Trish, thanks for coming on the show.

Thank you for having me, Todd.

It's good to be here.

Well, I wanted to have you on because you reported this really in-depth, thorough article about kind of the aftermath of the session.

Right?

A lot of education policies, laws were passed during this legislative session.

You kind of did a soup to nuts, you know, review of all of these different bills that were passed.

So I really want to go over some of these with you.

Let's start with ESA's education savings account, the Choose act.

Governor Ivey's top legislative priority got passed.

Right.

Talk about this.

It's obviously a school choice.

Initiative involves allowing students or families up to $7,000 to go to a private school or other schools.

What can parents expect from this new policy?

Well, it's going to be a little while before it gets up and running.

So we've got like a year on ramp.

It's going to first be available in the 2526 school year.

And that's going to be for children who are from low income families.

And that is defined as 300% of the federal poverty level right now.

For a family of four, that'd be about $95,000.

So I think you'll find the Alabama Department of Revenue, which is going to be administering the program.

They've already got a web page set up to sort of describe year one, two, three, because for the first two years it's going to be low income students.

And then for the third year it opens up to everybody.

So they have a lot of paperwork, things I'm sure, and rules.

And, you know, how is this going to work and who is going to approve it and that sort of thing.

So I'm waiting to see myself.

Like with so many laws, implementation really matters.

Right.

And how you go about, you know, adjudicating it and implementing it.

So what has to happen in the interim in that, like you said, on ramp year to prepare schools, to prepare families.

And I guess the the Department of Revenue as well.

Well, that's a great question from what I can tell.

I think the biggest decision right now is schools are going private schools, non-public schools are going to have to decide whether they want to participate or not.

Right?

Okay.

So they're not you're not required to participate.

Oh no no no no.

You choose to participate and you know there will be some small qualifications that come with that.

But not testing, right.

It doesn't like in the Alabama Accountability Act under that tax credit scholarship program, another kind of school choice.

Uh, schools have to test kids.

The non-public schools, participating schools have to test kids.

So at this point, it's just going to be a matter of do they want to participate?

What does that mean for them?

We don't have those rules yet.

You know, it's always in it's it's great on paper.

And then you have to kind of figure out how are you going to implement this?

Alabama has best I can tell, about 600, 500 to 600 private schools.

But remember this money two can be used for home schoolers.

And in the concept of micro schools, which is I kind of think of them as home schools, the sort of traditional ones that had a cover school, but they're a little bit different and I'm still digging into those.

So there are a lot of options for parents.

And with home school, you family will be able to get $2,000 per student up to $4,000 for the family.

Interesting.

What about other states?

I know there are other states that have passed similar laws to this.

What have we learned from some of those examples?

Well, we.

So Arizona is probably the one with the most experience, um, esas education savings accounts.

Sometimes they're referred to as vouchers.

There is, you know, distinct terminology that you need to use when you talk about these things.

But until people get familiar with the term ESA, we're kind of calling them vouchers.

Also, um, ESAs, they're not new in concept, but the idea of universal ESAs, meaning all children are eligible for an ESA that is new and even some conservatives are concerned I've talked with are concerned about the cost.

You know, what will happen when if.

Everybody takes $7,000 out of the, uh, you know, out of the kitty, out of the big pool of money.

We're not quite sure.

Um, Arizona started theirs this year, and they hit a few bumps, but they had a lot of a lot of students, most of whom had either been in private school or were entering kindergarten.

About maybe 3500 kids were entering kindergarten.

So technically, they get that you weren't in public school before, you know, reporting.

Like, you know, I love data.

I love to get the real information.

And so I'm hoping that we're that our state will be doing some very careful reporting so we can sort through these things so we can tell.

Will Alabama follow that trend of the first year?

Most of the people that enter the program have been in private school.

Will that be the case here?

You know, um, and I don't know I'm not familiar with the the details of the reporting requirements.

Yeah.

I mean, I'm going to be curious about that because this is brand new.

And all along during the, um, you know, the negotiations, the debate on all this, you know, proponents, including the governor, would stress, like this is about helping students get out of maybe bad situations into better situations based on what their family chooses to do.

But yeah, if when it becomes eligible to everybody, um, you could see a lot of just people basically getting a tax break for the current choice they've already made, and that's fine.

It's just let's be honest about what a, what a whatever it is.

Moving on.

Okay.

First grade readiness.

I don't know how many years this bill has been, uh, proposed by Representative Warren.

Seven eight, something like that.

Something like that.

Yeah, it's been quite a journey.

Talk about first grade readiness, the quasi requirement to attend kindergarten.

And again, what parents need to know.

So parents with young children do need to know that if the basic tenet of this law is that if your child doesn't attend a formal kindergarten program, it can be a church program, it can be a public school program, non-public school program.

But if you want to enroll in a couple of years when the full requirements go into effect, um, if you want to enroll your child in first grade and you haven't been in a formal kindergarten program, your child will be assessed, which it may not be a written test.

It might be something that the teachers work through with, with the child to see if they're ready for first grade.

Because, you know, the bill has come around.

Most kids go to some sort of kindergarten.

You're talking.

About a small percentage.

Right?

But in the case where you get children who have not been in a school setting before, you just have such a wide array of learners from, you know, in one class in the first grade.

So the idea and that makes it difficult to teach any of them, right?

I mean, if you're a single teacher and you have 15 or 16 kids in your class and you've got everything from children who don't know their letters to children who can spell their names, you know, so that's supposed to help with that.

Um, but right now, you know, parents just need to be thinking about what am I going to do for for when my child is five years old?

Am I going to enroll them in public school?

Um, a lot of folks are in the states nationally recognized first class pre-K program.

They're going to be fine.

They're in a formal program.

You know, there are records exist.

So but it's important, you know, it's important for kids to be ready to go to first grade.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

And congratulations to Representative Warren.

Uh, I mean, lots of years of work on that.

Another issue I wanted to ask you about student discipline.

Legislature passed this teachers bill of rights.

I believe it was Senator Ohr's bill dealing with classroom discipline, maybe empowering teachers, empowering administrators to deal with what sounds like a growing problem of discipline in the classroom.

Yes.

Yeah.

This is really unique, very innovative.

It really didn't get much opposition.

I think it may have passed unanimously in both houses.

It's called the teacher Bill of rights.

And what it does, it lays out reasons for children to be removed from the classroom.

Right.

So we can remember seeing children, other people's children getting sent out in the hall.

Right.

Never us no no no no no no.

But, you know, go to the principal's office.

And what was happening was in a lot of cases, principals may not have taken any action.

And the child just gets sent back to the teacher's classroom, which sets up a real power struggle right between students and teachers if the teacher doesn't have any power.

So this definitely gives the teachers some leverage when they send a child out of the classroom.

For there's a list of five behaviors things like willful disobedience.

I don't have a memorized yet, but they can be sent out of the classroom, and when they are sent out of the classroom, that incident has to be documented, which right now that's not a requirement.

There's some flexibility in how incidents are recorded of discipline, and so it has to be documented.

And then the principal or his designee.

Assistant principal, you know, somebody counselor has to certify that the child is ready to go back to the classroom.

So something will be done.

I mean, I think it's going to be interesting to see how those rules get written up.

Um, because I don't know, you know, sometimes they enact laws and they're just there.

Other times they write extra rules down for how it's going to be implemented.

But I know teachers were very excited to see this pass.

Yeah.

Well, when you're talking about retaining teachers, um, recruiting teachers, things like that, I can imagine, um, empowerment in the classroom and improving discipline might be a factor in that.

Absolutely.

I think classroom management, and that is one reason why I would never become a teacher.

I think it's the idea of managing 26, 28 sixth graders in one classroom in the, you know, in August when they've just come back, I can just see all of the problems.

But this will allow teachers, you know, I think there's going to be a balance, right?

Because teachers have to make sure they're not too quick to send kids out because you don't want kids sent out.

If this is part, you know, there's this whole idea from the disability community, right?

I mean, that's a whole nother topic.

But you could have.

Kids with, you know, behavioral.

Issues, right?

That may require more, you know, different solutions than just the principal's office.

Absolutely.

And so that's I'm watching that carefully.

I'm hearing from some parents and some disability advocates right now who are a little concerned about how this gets implemented, but it goes into effect before the start of this school year.

So it'll it'll be it'll be happening.

Moving on to teacher pay and benefits.

Another pay raise this year is several years of pay increases.

Yeah.

You reported in your story that starting teacher salary will be more than $47,000.

That's pretty good, certainly from where we've been.

And I'm also correct that at the moment at least, we're leading our neighbor states in that starting teacher salary.

Yes.

So it's funny how difficult that information can be to find on other state's websites.

But I was able to figure out Tennessee, Mississippi, Florida and Georgia, what do their starting salaries look like?

You may recall that Governor Ivey said in her state of the state, I want our starting salaries for teachers to be the highest of the neighboring states.

So right now that is true.

Um, and for for how long?

I don't know, like Alabama's I believe is 47,700, Florida's is 47,600.

So we're not far ahead.

Um, and in a couple of years, Georgia, they've already signed a law that says their starting salary will be $50,000.

So we're going to have to if we want to keep pace, we're going to have to keep, you know, watching those numbers.

It's a bit of an arms race, almost in a very good way.

I mean, that's that's I remember talking with Senator Orr and Representative Garrett, the budget chairman, because they obviously want to increase teacher pay.

And there's just a kind of a formula every year because they don't want to overdo it and get into a probation situation.

But everybody is excited to see that number go up.

And if we're competing with other states and it keeps getting raised out of competition, I suppose that's a good thing.

Well, it is, and I'll just share this.

You may remember the team's act where we were now paying Alabama's paying math and science teachers from a higher salary schedule if you're teaching middle or high school.

And I got word from some of the neighboring districts that indeed we are attracting teachers from over the border.

Um, they may live in Georgia but teach in Alabama because Alabama's pay scale was higher.

That's important.

You know, everybody wants higher pay, right?

I mean, that's just and teachers work very, very hard.

I've learned that.

Well.

And yeah, it's especially encouraging considering our history.

I remember when it was the opposite.

We had teachers going to Georgia in Tennessee and Florida because there were so much better paid.

So yeah, that's good news.

A little bit of time left.

I wanted to ask you about the issue of Dei.

Diversity, equity and inclusion took a couple of years for the legislature to enact this ban as well.

But I'm curious as to the impact, right, because it applies to all public schools, K through 12 and higher ed, but is there really going to be anything different in terms of what parents can expect, what students can expect, what teachers and administrators can expect on the K through 12 side?

K through 12.

As you know, the State Board of Education passed a resolution a few years ago that said, you know, we don't want this divisive, divisive discussion, right?

Let's just stay out of that teachers.

And to the best of my knowledge, I asked a few months ago, asked the State Department, has any, you know, has any teacher been, you know, brought up on charges which it's just a disciplinary process, but the answer was no.

So I think k 12 has that part under control.

Um, there are provisions that I do believe are going to impact, uh, higher ed a lot more.

We've already seen one state university close its diversity, equity and inclusion office.

Right.

Um, higher ed is much more likely to have one of those offices.

But I will say, you know, a number of Alabama schools are still under federal school desegregation orders from the 1960s, the late 1960s.

And often the people that are affiliated with those efforts that are trying to get them out from under those orders, they might have a title like Dei coordinator.

So those things are going to have to change.

But there are provisions in the law to say, you know, if federal law says you have to do these things, we're not going to preclude that.

So probably.

A lot more on the higher ed side, though, I.

Think.

So, yeah.

And that was where we saw a lot of the protests was from higher ed.

You know, they were very concerned.

I think teachers are worried about professors are worried about academic freedom.

But, you know, until I think we'll see beginning in the fall.

Right.

What really happens, our professors leaving our offices, closing our efforts, just being renamed.

That's a possibility, right?

Yeah, that's why I ask.

I mean, what what's really going to happen.

And it will be interesting to watch a lot of education issues up this session.

Of course, this continues.

You cover the board, you cover the department.

And we really appreciate your thorough reporting on education.

It's such an important topic.

So thanks again for coming on the show.

Thanks for having me.

We'll be right back.

Russell Cave is located in northeast Alabama in Jackson County.

It is a significant archaeological site with deep deposits that are a result of frequent use by Native Americans for thousands of years and offer a glimpse of lifeways from the archaic to the historic period.

Russell Cave was named a national monument in 1961.

Today, the cave is part of the national Park system.

That's our show for this week.

Thanks for watching.

We'll be back next week.

At the same time right here on Alabama Public Television for our Capital Journal team I'm Todd Stacy.

We'll see you next time.