Michael McEwen:Can you just begin by telling me why you initially filed a complaint against House Bill 1020? What's your opposition to it or your concerns?
Ann Saunders:Well, the main concern had to do with what I perceive as an injustice being done on a lot of different fronts. First of all, it was it was suggested that the lawmaker who brought forth the bill was doing it on behalf of Jackson and the community. And yet there were no meetings, there was no discussion with the community at all. And so it felt very paternalistic and very unfair. Then once you looked closer at the bill and saw what it was doing, especially since the initial CCID was developed to help beautify Jackson, not to create a secondary police force and not to create a court. So there were a lot of aspects to it that just felt very unfair, and the deeper my understanding of it, the more I began to realize that my rights were being violated and, um, the rights of everyone in the Jackson community and who was going to be impacted by the law.
Dorothy Triplett: When Ann asked me if I would be willing to to do it, I immediately said yes because I think anything that is eroding our voters rights, we have to say no to. And that's what we were doing. We were saying, 'no, you are not going to appoint judges when our Constitution says they shall be elected, not can be or should be, but shall be. And as Ann was saying about the community not being asked asked for their opinions, it was not only the community as a whole, but the Jackson legislative delegation was not even informed or asked for their input, and yet it was only going to be applicable to Jackson. And not only that, but the two legislators that proposed the bill were from northern Mississippi and on the coast. There are always questions when it only applies to a certain group of people and when another group of people are proposing it. It's pretty obvious to me why that happened, but it still is eroding our voting rights and it's unconstitutional. Anything that takes away power of the people and of the voters needs to be examined and said no to. And I don't think many people knew what was happening, really.
Ann Saunders: I think that one of the main reasons to stand up and say no had to do with the fact that, for the most part, when I spoke to other people would say, 'well, it's going to mean that we'll have more police,' and I would say, 'but that's not the only thing it's going to mean.' And when I would explain to them some of the other things, like the fact that there would be judges appointed and they would have almost the same terms as a circuit court judge and that we would not be able to have any say so about who those judges were, that they would be appointed and that there was no right to appeal their decision in a case. Then they started saying, 'oh my God, I didn't know it meant all that.' And did you also know that if you are arrested on a misdemeanor and it is deemed necessary for you to go to jail, that you have to go to a state penitentiary? Did you know that? No, they didn't know that. So it really demonstrated how these lawmakers who came up with this idea, they didn't care anything about this community, they didn't care anything about what we thought, because if they did they would have at least laid those kinds of things out and made them more public.
Michael McEwen:As I understand it, House Bill 1020 is meant to address a crime issue in Jackson that proponents of the bill have described as violent and out of control. It's also meant to address a backlog of criminal cases in the Hinds County Justice Court through the formation of the CCID court, staffed by appointed judges and prosecutors. As residents of Northwest Jackson and the Belhaven neighborhood respectively, what do you understand crime and the level of violence to be in Jackson and, as you understand that, how effectively do you think the changes under HB 1020 will address it, if at all?
Ann Saunders:Certainly, I have seen an increase in crime, mostly since Katrina when we had a large influx of people who had been displaced by the storm. So that's when I started seeing a change in what was happening, but I also asked, what were we doing, really, to try and help those individuals? Also, if we look at what's going on in the rest of the state in terms of crime, that is never brought up because Jackson is not necessarily the crime center of Mississippi, although that's what it is purported to be. So I think two things that have been misrepresented in large part by people who are supposed to represent the truth because they're trying to fashion laws that are benefiting us, but they're not fashioning them based on honesty. They're fashioning them based on misrepresentation of accurate information.
Michael McEwen:How do you think 1020 will actually address those issues? It's proposed a solution to an issue. How do you feel about that solution as someone who understands the issue?
Ann Saunders:The issue with regards to crime is that we're not looking at what is creating the crime. We're not looking at the poverty, the unemployment and where that is taking place. We're not looking at adequate education. The governor just yesterday was talking about how we've done so much for education, but educators are saying, well, wait, wait, wait. Yes, we got a raise, but most of that has been sucked up by an increase in our insurance. So I think the things that are driving crime need to be looked at more, as opposed to thinking that the only way that you can address crime is through policing.
Dorothy Triplett: The percentage of people in prisons in the United States is so much higher than anywhere else, and there are better solutions to the crime problem in Jackson and in Mississippi than making the Capitol Police responsible for expanding the Jackson Police Department. The Jackson Police Department is not at the full number that they're supposed to have. I can remember years ago we were told by a study that was done that Jackson needed to have at least 500 police officers in order to adequately cover the territory and the number of people -- we have never had that number of officers. We have a few more now, but the Capitol Police are paid more than the Jackson police, and they are investing a lot of money in building a new force and hiring more capital police and that's fine. I think that the capital area should be policed adequately, but I think all of Jackson and its surrounding areas should be adequately policed also. But those police should be paid a living wage with good benefits and should have a competitive wage relative to the Capitol Police and police in the surrounding areas. We train them at the police academy, they stay for a year, and then they go to another area that is better funded with more resources and higher pay. Most of the police officers have families to support.
Michael McEwen:Are either of you at all surprised that community input wasn't gathered or even taken into consideration?
Ann Saunders: I have to say I was sort of surprised because it never occurred to me that someone from outside of my community could present a bill that was for my community, and that in spite of the fact that the representatives of my community and their outright and clear rejection of the proposed bill was not considered. The fact that somebody from outside the area would suggest something, and that when it comes before the people who it's going to impact, they get negative feedback and they don't stop? That surprised me.
Dorothy Triplett: Judges are opposed to it as well. And if the problem is, as they tried to say, that there's a backlog of cases, well then have another municipal court where the people will elect the judges. It doesn't have to be done the way this was done. This was so openly wrong. And people always say, 'oh, don't throw the race card at it,' but if that's what it is, that's what it is.
Michael McEwen: As I understand it, the Fifth Circuit Court has now ruled against two injunctions to delay the implementation of the law. So July of this year, 2024, is when both the expansion of the CCID and the new court will go into effect. How do both of you feel now? You really kickstarted the process, at least formally, in appealing this law. How do you feel now about where it stands and the future of policing in Jackson?
Ann Saunders: Well, I have no regrets about what we did. I think it drew attention to the situation, and I think we were able to prevail in two instances: one, making sure that it was an inferior court that was created, and that the Supreme Court Chief Justice did not have the right to appoint circuit court judges over us. And then the other aspect of it had to do with the right of appeal that exists now that did not exist before. So if someone is found guilty within the CCID court, they do have the right of appeal, although they may end up having to spend time waiting for that appeal in a state penitentiary if they can't get a public defender. But at least they do have the right of appeal, and that right of appeal will be before a circuit court judge that is elected by the people. It's unfortunate that the law still stands and I would love to see it repealed, or it may be that there are ways to amend it so that i does represent things that would be acceptable to the people that it is going to impact.
Dorothy Triplett: Well, I don't want to bad mouth the Capitol Police, because they're excellent police officers on that police force, just as there are excellent police officers in every force. But perhaps the policies are a little different, and there needs to be more commonality in those policies. And as far as high speed chases for a shoplifting crime, you're putting people in danger, and that became very clear in other incidences also of property or people being damaged or people being injured or killed because of high speed chases for crimes that really were not so urgent. They knew who it was, they had the license, they could pick them up later and the crime did not fit having a high speed chase.
Ann Saunders: And I would just say that I think that when a family decides to sue a police force, usually there's a good reason for it. And I think Dorothy's absolutely right -- policies need to be looked at and established in terms of what warrants a high speed chase, what warrants even the removal of your gun from your holster? What what warrants that?
