#125 - Greta Kemp Martin

Join us for a candid conversation with Mississippi Attorney General candidate, Greta Kemp Martin. Greta, with her deep-rooted history in law and her passionate advocacy at Disability Rights Mississippi, touches upon her perceived palpable shift in the voting mindset, where voters are choosing the individual over party lines.

In the course of our discussion, we try to unravel the complexities surrounding the Dobbs Decision and the Attorney General's office. Greta's observations suggest a questionable representation of the Department of Human Services by a private firm and an alarming absence of the Attorney General's office in the investigation. She also shares her perspective on key issues like gun laws, felon rights, and the inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars by Attorney General Fitch to manipulate other states' policymaking.

We then delve into the heart of Mississippi, unearthing the challenges that the state grapples with, such as dire political polarization, failing mental health systems, and the dire need for community-centered resources in rural locales. Greta provides her insights into these pressing issues and articulates her plans to confront them, should she be elected as Attorney General. This episode offers a rare, insightful glimpse into the heart of Mississippi politics, making it an essential listen for anyone wishing to understand the political undercurrents better.

GRETA KEMP MARTIN: https://www.gretaforag.com/
GRETA KEMP MARTIN INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/gretaforag/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where's The County Line:
Website: https://www.countylinepodcast.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/countylinepodcast/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/countylinepodcastms
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@thecountylinepodcast/about
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/countylinepodcast

Submit content, questions, and topics you would like to hear on The County Line to: countylinepodcast@gmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(0:20) Greta Kemp Martin's Run for Attorney General

(12:54) Dobbs Decision and Attorney General's Involvement

(29:47) Gun Laws and Felon Rights

(45:19) Voting and Political Alignment in Mississippi

(58:05) Mental Health Systems Failures

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:20

Greta Kemp-Lartin here with us today on the county line. Greta, thank you so much, as I mentioned before coming on air, for taking the time out here. I'm glad you're out of your day to spend this with us and explain what it is you're trying to do here with the run for the Attorney General's office. So let's just jump right into it. What are you currently doing, or what have you been doing prior to running for office of the Attorney General?

Speaker 2: 0:48

So I've been an attorney in Mississippi for almost gosh I think I'm 14 years now. I started in private practice. I worked with former Supreme Court Justice Chuck McCrae in private practice. We handled a lot of civil rights cases, medical malpractice, just almost, you know, whatever would come through the door type work representing people across the state. And then for the last six years I have been the litigation director for a group called Disability Rights Mississippi and what that is is the protection and advocacy agency for the state. There's one in every state and territory in the country and we provide free advocacy and legal services to Mississippians with disabilities who are, you know, running into issues because of their disability. So it can be employment discrimination, it can be service animal violations, it can be housing issues. We handle advocacy and legal work for them for free.

Speaker 1: 1:48

Did you see yourself going into that space when you were training and studying as an attorney?

Speaker 2: 1:58

Well, I knew I wanted to represent people. You know there's lots of ways you can go about practicing law after you get your bar license and all of them are noble endeavors. But I knew that I wanted to represent people in courtrooms and I wanted to be their voice and I wanted to advocate for them when they needed someone to speak for them. And I knew I wanted to be a litigator. I knew I wanted to be in court in front of judges and juries, so it's been kind of the plan. But I have really enjoyed finding myself in the disability rights space.

Speaker 2: 2:33

I don't know that I had planned for that, but that role popped up and I was enjoying private practice. But I really was happy to get into a role that you know when you're in private practice you do have to look at things, like you know bottom lines and you have to look at what your return on investment for cases are. But in my disability rights role I'm really just able to focus on the individual and on the person because, like I said, we work on a pro bono basis. Any monies recovered go directly to the client and it's just been very rewarding to work in that nonprofit advocacy space and I don't know that I planned for it, but I really enjoy it.

Speaker 1: 3:14

Well, it's definitely a anything. In my view, serving the disabled in our society is obviously very necessary, but noble at the same time, because it's not for the faint of heart. Regardless, you know, if we're talking about a special education teacher, someone that's serving in the role that you are, it's very noble for and commendable for, people that do choose and opt to serve the disabled in our state. So we really do appreciate that. Moving into this, the hot season of this race, I mean we're getting, we're getting down to the nitty gritty. It's almost election day. We're less than a month out. How are you and your team feeling right now as you make your make your way across and through the state? What is the pulse of the state right now in regards to support for your campaign?

Speaker 2: 4:07

You know we're feeling good, we're feeling very encouraged. You know I have not in my time. You know I'm a lifelong Mississippian. I've I've been a voter here for, for you know, 20 years. This is the first time I have ever seen so many people so engaged so early and really paying attention to these races. Now obviously we have a gubernatorial race and that has been kind of the ground, the crown jewel of this election season so far. People have paid, paid attention, but but what that race has done has really motivated people to look into the down ballot races and to really get engaged.

Speaker 2: 4:47

We have, we've been across the state. We've almost made it to all 82 counties. We got a few more to go before election day and we're just getting a really strong message of positivity and the belief that we can make some changes on November 7th and I believe it's possible. I believe from the top down. I think we're going to see when we wake up on November 8th. We're going to see a leadership that is new and ready to get in there and work for Mississippians.

Speaker 1: 5:15

So it sounds like you have seen great support, not only for your campaign but the democratic up and down, the democratic ticket. What do you attribute that to?

Speaker 2: 5:29

You know I'll be honest, I think Mississippians are just sick and tired of being sick and tired. And look, I think this goes beyond Republican and Democrat. You know, obviously I'm the Democratic candidate, but what I'm seeing and it gives me a little hope because I think this is how we all should do it I'm seeing people who are looking to vote for the person and not necessarily the party. I think they are seeing that voting along party lines is not working in Mississippi. It's just not. We could list all the data and all the lists that we're at the bottom of and all the reasons that Mississippians have been failed, and I think it can be attributed to people voting along party lines.

Speaker 2: 6:14

And so my hope is, and what I'm hearing along the trail, is that folks are really trying to look at the candidate and I really. I think that's encouraging because you know I'm a Democrat, but that doesn't solely define me and I didn't jump into this race for Democrats. I jumped into this race for Mississippians and I think what I have been really shocked to find is is, even in the most conservative of areas, I'm finding topics and concerns and issues where me and people that I might not otherwise agree with we're finding common ground because we're really tired of seeing Mississippi be 50th and everything. We want to see Mississippi improve, and I think that's just something we can all get on board with, no matter the party.

Speaker 1: 7:04

Yes, yes, one would hope so, and I've talked to Shawasky Young, who has resigned from the campaign, as I understand, but I would. I posed similar questions to him in regards to the Democratic Party and how being associated with the Democratic Party in Mississippi is a very is a tall hurdle to cross for to gain a lot of voters over from whether it be the Republican side or more conservative side. How have you tried to gain the attention of those potential crossover voters that you're ultimately going to need to win?

Speaker 2: 7:45

Yeah, I think again, I think it's really getting in there and talking about those issues that cross party lines. I mean you don't have to be a Democrat, you don't have to be a Republican to worry about the fact that we've got unchecked corruption happening in this state. Democrats are just as concerned about that as Republicans. In my opinion, from what I'm seeing on the trail, you also get to cross party lines when you're talking about things like supporting law enforcement. That's just something that we can all get on the same page about. You can also cross party lines and you find that Democrats and Republicans are equally equally worried about our health care crisis. Again, it's just finding common ground, issues where Mississippians have been repeatedly underserved and failed.

Speaker 2: 8:30

And then really, I'll tell you, what's winning people over for us at least, is we're telling them what that plan is, what my plan is when I get elected, on how we're going to tackle each of these issues. We rolled out a very comprehensive plan that we've called our roadmap to restoring public integrity. It covers about nine different areas of places where I know that I want to immediately get in and work on to expand and improve the AG's office. By no means is everything I want to do. But it's areas where I think people, once they hear that and once they see my plan and they know that I'm ready to work on day one, I think it excites people, no matter their party, and to see that is encouraging Because I do have a plan and I do want to put it to work for Mississippians. I just got to get elected first.

Speaker 1: 9:21

Are there any issues or cases that, in particular, that Attorney General Fitch has overseen and produced a narrative or a stance on that you oppose staunchly? That would fall within the parameters of those, those roadmap to recovery that you alluded to earlier.

Speaker 2: 9:45

Well, I think you know, first and foremost it's the first stop on our roadmap is her inactivity within the case of regarding the TANF funds that have been stolen from Mississippians. You know, I think that is on the forefront of all Mississippians' minds. We've all heard about the Brett Favre, the Phil Bryant, the monies that went to volleyball stadiums and personal trainers, and what people find most shocking is that our attorney general has in no way been involved in the investigation or, you know, prosecution or working to get that money back. As a matter of fact, attorney General Fitch has not even made a comment about it, and that's not normal. The attorney general should be wrapped around this scandal. I tell people she should be wrapped around it and completely involved in it from day one. Our auditor gave her all the information they had back in 2021, and this was punnied to private firms at additional costs to the taxpayers, and it's still, as we're sitting here today, all that's out.

Speaker 2: 10:49

There is one civil case that you know we've seen in the last two weeks they're punting depositions down the road. They're not even going to have a deposition before election day, but your attorney general is not involved in that civil case. The state is being represented by private law firms that donate to Tate Reeves and Lynn Fitch. And Attorney General Fitch has allowed Governor Reeves, who we all know is entangled in this narrative whether he's guilty or not, he's involved in it and she's allowed him to call the shots on this case, and that's just.

Speaker 2: 11:25

It's a dereliction of her duties. So when you ask that question, that's the first big case that comes to mind. She should have her own independent investigations going. She should be telling the public that she's investigating. She doesn't have to get into details, but she should be letting Mississippians know that she's involved in this case and that not only is she going to get involved in getting this money back from Mississippians, but that she's going to criminally prosecute those that have stolen the money. I mean, this is AG 101. This is exactly what she should be doing and she's been silent for over two years.

Speaker 1: 12:02

Yeah, it's not a good look for the Attorney General to not be involved to some extent as a protagonist it's not in any of the things to the largest corruption case in the state of Mississippi's history. I mean, all I've seen mostly are Shad White leading the investigation, which I think he does a tremendous job uncovering the things that he's uncovered in just the short time that he's been in the role that he's in. But it does strike me as odd that Attorney General Fitch has not been involved to the extent that you alluded to. So that begs the question. Why is that? And I think we can all come to our own conclusions about that. It's probably party crony politics, if I had to guess. I mean, that's what it looks like. I'm still unclear on where they are in the process of the case In the investigation. Where do they stand currently?

Speaker 2: 13:05

So right now, there's one case that's being pursued civilly. It's the one that you all have been reading about in the news, the one that they just requested Brett Farve's deposition, which has now been delayed until December. That case was brought by the Department of Human Services, represented by a private firm called Jones Walker. It's the private firm that I just alluded to that donates to both Tate Reeves and Lynn Fitch's campaigns, and historically, the Department of Human Services and any state agency is typically represented by the Attorney General's office. As a matter of fact, I'm in a lawsuit right now where I have sued the Department of Corrections and the AG's office represents the Department of Corrections. That's just how this goes, and so that's the only active case right now.

Speaker 2: 13:53

Now, obviously, we all know that in recent history that folks like Nancy and Zack New they have gotten criminally charged, they are serving sentences, but that to date is the only legal action that has happened with regards to this scandal.

Speaker 2: 14:14

My question is, and what I intend to look into if elected, is we've all read the text messages. We've all seen that former Governor Phil Bryant has had text messaging and has been involved in the discussion of this money. We know we have now seen that Governor Reeves and his brother has been heavily involved in some of the text messaging and the information going back and forth. And again, I don't expect General Fitch to come out and do a press conference and tell Mississippians step by step what her plan is, but my concern is that she's been completely silent and what that makes me believe is that there's no investigation in place, there's no involvement with the AG's office, that she is punting this all over to private law firms to handle on her behalf.

Speaker 2: 15:09

And again, this is all additional taxpayer dollars and the fact that she has allowed Governor Reeves to be so key in the legal strategy of these cases when he is clearly involved somehow. Now, again, I don't know how deeply he's involved and that's why it begs for an investigation, but someone whose brother has been named as a potential witness has been seen to be involved in these text messages. You yourself, governor Reeves, have been involved. You should not be involved in dictating legal strategy. He should recuse himself and allow the AG's office to handle the legal strategy for this case. And she, honestly, this has just shown a weak point for her office, a weak point for her as Attorney General to allow this to continue.

Speaker 1: 15:59

I mean what would even be a reasonable response from her office or any Attorney General's office if asked why there is a lack of involvement in this case.

Speaker 2: 16:14

You know, I sit and think about that, lee. Honestly, what could they say that would convince me that they have in some way been involved? And I just don't know that there is a response at this point. I mean, I think, even today, if she stepped out and she said okay, we've decided to open up an investigation, we've decided to do A, b and C. I mean we're almost three years into this thing. I mean we're.

Speaker 2: 16:40

I mean, this was discovered in 2020, late 2020, I think, is when Auditor Shadwhite first uncovered the start of this. I think November 2021 is when he turned everything over to the AG's office in hopes that there would be some movement from them. Look, auditor White, it's not his job to prosecute. His job is to do exactly what he did, which is turn over the information to the agency who has the law enforcement abilities in this state. And she has done nothing and I think, even if she came out today and started, I think it's too little, too late. I think she has smart, I think she has, like, breached her duties as attorney general, and I think it's time for somebody that can step in and it's not scared to do what needs to be done, because she has clearly shown that she's not going to do it, and even if she did it today, you know she's she's kind of notorious for starting things and there being no adequate resolution.

Speaker 1: 17:42

So, at the very base level for an attorney general's office, for those who may not be very astute in state politics and the responsibilities of executive offices, what is the responsibility primarily of the attorney general?

Speaker 2: 18:03

So the attorney general is what I like to say. The best way to explain to people is they are the chief legal officer for the state of Mississippi. They represent Mississippi in lawsuits and that can be both defending and bringing lawsuits. So you know, like I said, they're defending a lawsuit that that my agency disability rights has against the department of corrections. So they represent Mississippi in that regard. But they also seek out litigation that might that you know that might have been subject Mississippians might have been subject to harm. So you see attorney generals bringing lawsuits against big pharma when there has been indications that people in their state have been harmed against big pharma. You've seen attorney generals across the country may be involved in things like opioid litigation and that's a way that AGs can bring money through settlements into the state to help pay for things like healthcare and anything else that our state might need. But the other thing that the attorney general does is, like I said, they're the chief law enforcement officer in the state. So they typically have divisions in their office that handle things like consumer litigation, that handle things like civil rights. Lots of AGs across the country have fair labor divisions and those are just specialized units where the AG can bring in advocates and attorneys to support people with special interests. So, like fair labor divisions would help represent Mississippi workers and employers across the state.

Speaker 2: 19:37

Now, what we have seen in the last four years with Linfidge is very different than what we have seen in previous AG administrations. So previous administrations, like Jim Hood and Mike Moore, they had very robust consumer litigation divisions, which means they brought in things, like you know, like the Tibetans tobacco litigation A lot of your listeners might be familiar with that that was brought with Mike Moore. You know they've had very robust law enforcement support units that allowed for law enforcement training and support and resources for our law enforcement across the state. But four years ago, in 2019, when Linfidge took over, it's no secret that she decimated the administration that Jim Hood had built up and so she dissolved a lot of those specialized units and actually let go of quite a few of the employees that had been there for decades under Jim Hood, and we just haven't seen any significant divisions built back up in her administration to help with some of the specialized needs of Mississippians.

Speaker 1: 20:47

Inevitably you know I was going to ask you about the ruling on the overturning of Roe V Wade as a result of Dobbs and Casey. All right to overturn Casey as well as Roe V.

Speaker 2: 21:02

Wade Right.

Speaker 1: 21:05

Do you agree with the ruling by the Supreme Court to send the abortion issue back to the states to be decided upon?

Speaker 2: 21:16

No, I don't. I don't agree with the Dobbs decision. It was one of the deciding factors for me to run against Linfidge there. Of course there are many, but it was definitely one of the top reasons. I don't believe that that was Linfidge's intent to use Dobbs to return those policies back to the states, and I think she has shown in her actions since the overturning of Roe that that was not the intent.

Speaker 2: 21:46

But all that aside, I have my beliefs about abortion.

Speaker 2: 21:52

I have my beliefs about Roe versus Wade and I'm not out here trying to change anybody's beliefs about that. What I want people to see is how dangerous Dobbs is, separate and apart from the issue of abortion, and how dangerous it is to healthcare decision making, because what Dobbs does and I've read every letter of that decision what Dobbs does is it allows any healthcare procedure, anything controversial that could be birth control, that could be vaccines, anything that might be deemed controversial. We have now opened a door that Dobbs opened to bring the government into those decision making abilities. And so what I have told people across the state because it's a very controversial topic and I know that is that. Look, I firmly believe that you can be pro-life and still be anti-Dobbs. You can be pro-life and believe that Dobbs went too far, and I think it went too far. I think it's a dangerous door to open and I think there will be repercussions. And I think that if Lenfitch gets another four years, if Tate Reeves gets another four years, we're going to see government overreach into medical decision making.

Speaker 1: 23:13

Above and beyond abortion.

Speaker 2: 23:17

Yes, absolutely.

Speaker 2: 23:19

So I mean it was just in June. Well, it was just in June that Len Fitz wrote, you know, in a letter opposing a potential HIPAA regulation edition that she wants to be the ability to track medical records across state lines. So that means she believes that anybody in Mississippi who goes outside of Mississippi to get any care that they cannot get in this state, she wants to be able to track them across state lines to find out where they're getting it. And she talks about abortion in that letter. But she also talks about some other things, and we know that there are other things in this state that can be deemed controversial.

Speaker 2: 23:59

We have a governor and an attorney general who won't even say if they're going to oppose restrictions to birth control. I mean, I really think that we've opened the door to a very slippery slope with dogs and I think that we are seeing in some of our sister states, some of our neighboring states, like Alabama, we are about to see a criminalization of women who attempt to go out of the state to get abortion care. Now, you know, this is women that are traveling out of state to go to where it's legal to get the care that they need, and I just think that it's government overreach at its finest, and I think you know if you're holding yourself out to wanting limited government. I think the last place you want them is in your doctor's offices or in your medical records.

Speaker 1: 24:45

So currently, the way it stands? In Mississippi, as a result of the overturning of Roe v Wade, we have an abortion ban across the board, with the exception of instances in which we save the life of the mother or rapist, or rape or incest. Is that correct?

Speaker 2: 25:05

Just rape? There is no, there is no exception for incest, currently in Mississippi, not specifically.

Speaker 1: 25:12

Does that fit your, your mental framework for how abortion should look, or the access to?

Speaker 2: 25:24

So my concern with Mississippi's current policies is that, I mean, I do personally believe they're too restrictive. That's me personally. But I believe even if we're going to have restrictive policies, like the 15 week man, and we're going to have those exceptions, the exceptions need to be able to be utilized and what we have right now are exceptions that doctors are scared to even use because of the heavy potential for criminalization in this state. You know, I think the story out of Clark sale is one that keeps reverberating in my mind that the 12 year old who was raped and essentially you know as a 12 year old does, did not share it with anyone Was found to be pregnant. Later Her OBGYN explained that she would fit within that exception of rape, but the problem was that the doctor wasn't sure what the rape exception, how to utilize it right. So does there need to be someone charged? Does there need to be a police report? Does there need to actually be, you know, someone arrested for it to be? You know, there's just so much confusion around the exceptions and I can't even I mean, in talking with doctors, can't even get into the confusion around the life of the mother exception. So what does that mean? It's just way too broadly presented for physicians to feel comfortable enough utilizing those exceptions, even when the scenario would fit into those exceptions. So look, you know I can't go in there and I can't change jobs, right, it's the law of the land, it is what it is.

Speaker 2: 27:10

So all I can do as attorney general is ensure that women are as protected as they can be, and the way I see women being protected is knowing how they can utilize those exceptions if they are in the unfortunate situation of needing them. And so right now, I don't think that we're there. I think we have a failing healthcare system where doctors, when it comes to the situations of pregnancy and abortion, I think they are very gunshot. Right now, I've talked to doctors who feel like they have to pick up their phone and call their malpractice lawyer before they can diagnose a woman who might need an abortion for, you know, because the pregnancy is going to risk their life.

Speaker 2: 27:59

I mean, I've had literal conversations with doctors like that, and so I just think there's not enough clarity around these exceptions and if you're going to have restrictive policies like that, you've got to make it clear, and I think there's room for more exceptions. You mentioned incest. I think there should be a direct exception for incest. I just do, and I think there's room for other exceptions. We've seen other exceptions work in neighboring states.

Speaker 1: 28:25

Yeah, unfortunately we do live in one of the states who that has the highest, one of the highest rates of ancestral relations, and so I think that's common sense to protect particularly children from those instances that we know are occurring and will continue to occur. I think there should be some guardrails in place. I agree with you there. Can you help me clear up in my mind how we got from the 15 week ban to now a total ban? When did that? When did that take place and how?

Speaker 2: 29:03

So well, you know, for many, many, many years, Mississippi has attempted to pass different types of bans on abortion, which ultimately ended up in litigation and ultimately, you know, tried to be pushed up to the Supreme Court. And, to be honest, it just so happened. That was what was in place when Roe fell. Right, it was immediately. It was immediately triggered upon the fall of Roe. You know, it's honestly, it's just what was in place when Roe fell. I mean, that's just, that's essentially how we got here.

Speaker 2: 29:47

Over and over, we have seen that people across the state believe that our bans go too far. I think it was 2011,. The state overwhelmingly refused a personhood amendment to our Constitution. We've seen time and time again that these restrictive bans are not popular, even with Mississippians, and that, you know, if we are going to have bans in place, we've seen polling that showed that Mississippians believe there should be significant exceptions. So, honestly, we just got here because this is where we were when Roe fell and you know, any law that would have been in place when Roe fell would have immediately went into effect the day that that happened.

Speaker 1: 30:34

Is that? Is that what's meant when it's referred to as a trigger law?

Speaker 2: 30:40

Yes, yes.

Speaker 1: 30:42

So that whenever that federal law overturned, that whatever we've got in place automatically is implemented. So but the Dobs case posed a 15 week ban. Is that correct?

Speaker 2: 31:00

Yes, that's correct.

Speaker 1: 31:01

Okay, and that's correct. Excuse me, and that law, if I recall correctly, as I was following it, there were many different iterations, not only from Mississippi but other majority pro life states, of a bill that it seemed to me was being created with the intention of trying to overturn Roe v Wade. So you mentioning that that was not Fitch's intention with the Dobs case, what do you believe the true intention on her part was?

Speaker 2: 31:40

So I mean, I'll be honest, I think the intention was to push this really extreme agenda across the country. Let me tell you why. If you you know her position is that she outwardly is that she perceived the Dobs case to return these policies back to the state. But what we have seen since the Dobs case came about is Attorney General Fitch going to multiple states where they have tried to implement their own policies, and we've seen her participate in amicus briefs and litigation opposing those policies.

Speaker 2: 32:21

So if it's your main priority to return policies to the states, why are you going to five or six other states trying to get involved in their policymaking? And so to me it's her pushing an agenda above and beyond just returning these policies to the states. Why are you spending taxpayer dollars going and worrying yourself with Florida or Virginia or, you know, ohio or Kansas? Why are you using our taxpayer hours and your taxpayer dollars to go and get involved in the policymaking of other states, if it was your intent to give to make this case the reason that they get those policymaking abilities back? And so I've never gotten a real explanation or really seen an explanation for that, but that is certainly what she has spent the last year doing, since Dobs is inserting herself into other states policymaking when that is not what she said. The purpose of Dobs was.

Speaker 1: 33:27

I see. I see, when we look at convicted felons returning home after doing their time in prison in the correctional system and we look at their Second Amendment rights and we look at their voting rights, where do you stand on giving convicted felons either and or both of these rights back to them after they've paid their debt to society, do you agree that they should have them, or should we keep it the way it is and have them forego those rights?

Speaker 2: 34:03

So you know I am 100% of the mind that if somebody pays their debt to society, they serve their sentence, that they deserve to be able to come back into their community as a citizen and our rights as a citizen. Second Amendment voting rights. Those are precious rights. You know the I've been pretty vocal about my position regarding the lifetime felony voting ban being deemed unconstitutional by the Fifth Circuit. I agree with that decision.

Speaker 2: 34:38

I disagree with General Fitch's decision to appeal that we cannot expect individuals who've been incarcerated to serve their time to leave that facility, to come back into the community.

Speaker 2: 34:53

If we continue their punishment by taking away these rights, then we are almost guaranteeing their return back into incarceration. We do not provide formerly incarcerated people with enough support already so to take away their rights to allow them to become full members of society again. I just I don't agree with that. We have to. When people serve their time and they want to come back out into our communities, we have to give them every fighting chance we can to come back and be productive members of our society. We have one of the states with the highest recidivism rates in the nation and it's because we do not provide enough supports for people transitioning out of those roles. And, you know, I just, I truly believe to take away someone's constitutional rights on top of the fact that they've already they're coming out into a society, that's, that's, they're already working 10 steps behind the regular person. We're just, we're just feeling our own re-incarceration rates.

Speaker 1: 36:03

In my opinion, yeah, I think it's counterintuitive and against our Christian ideals, largely in Mississippi, to send somebody to prison and then they do their full time that they were supposed to serve and then they return to our community and we do not allow them to have every right or the rights that every human being should have, especially since they've done their, paid their debt to society. I can't, I can't find them what we're saying about rehabilitation in that way, because we're essentially saying, yes, you did, you paid your debt to society, but you've still got this lifetime of alienation of rights hanging over your head. And I just think that's. I think that's counterintuitive and for many of the same reasons that you outlined, as it stands right now, convicted felons who go to prison and are and serve their time and come back out into the community correct me if I'm wrong, but they cannot vote, nor can they bear arms, can they?

Speaker 2: 37:17

So I think so. There are certain felonies that lift the lifetime, the voting ban. Now that doesn't change my position, because we're talking about one of those felonies is like writing a bad check. I mean you can write a bad check, go to jail, save your time and come out and not be able to vote, and that is insane to me. So there are certain felonies that do equal a lifetime voting ban, but not all. They're not all crimes.

Speaker 1: 37:53

Is there a correlation between what those felonies are and the demographic of the people who commit those felonies at the highest rate? In other words, do you think they're targeted to disenfranchise a certain group of people?

Speaker 2: 38:12

I do, I do, I do, I do Because I mean you know, we all see the data right. We all know that, with regards to incarceration rates, it is overwhelmingly the black community that is affected. And so you know as one I mean it doesn't take a lot to put two and two together that these types of laws are targeting that population. And again, you look at the incarceration rates and who is being incarcerated, and then you look at who these laws are. You know what population these laws affect, and so I do think that they're targeted. I mean, you know, had this lifetime felony voting ban, had that unconstitution, that ruling by the Fifth Circuit, been allowed to stay you're talking about two over 200,000 new Mississippi voters that would be allowed to now vote, and looking at the breakdown on the demographics of that number, it is overwhelmingly the black community.

Speaker 1: 39:21

Yeah, I think that's an unfortunate consequence of historical racial discrimination. Now, whether or not it's being upheld in current day and current times for that purpose, or has it just been grandfathered in, who knows but the direct result is, you know, we're getting a lot of people that should be able to vote are disenfranchised Again. I think it's very simple, especially for people who are of the Christian mindset which many voters in Mississippi claim to be. I mean, I think it's against that way of life and way of thinking to have somebody pay their debts to society but then not regain full citizenship when returning back to the community, and so I think those are things that we have to look at moving forward. Now the firearms. The Second Amendment rights. All felons suffer from that ban, correct? Or is it just certain felonies in that regard too?

Speaker 2: 40:30

I believe you're correct. I think you're correct.

Speaker 1: 40:32

And I think you know I think you could look at certain criminals on a case-by-case basis and determine whether or not they should be allowed to be a gun-toting citizen when they return back to society. As you know, we don't want people who have committed violent crimes to have easier access, but if someone has truly exhibited rehabilitation and they've done their time, then I think they should have their rights restored. Do you think that we're getting closer to being able to see that come to fruition?

Speaker 2: 41:11

I hope so. I mean, I think, look, I think there are some common-sense gun laws we can put into place to ensure that guns do not get into the wrong hands period. I really do. You know I think this is a very common misconception that Democrats like myself are anti-Second Amendment. I mean, I'm like my father's police officer.

Speaker 2: 41:34

I grew up with, you know, with learning gun safety and you know I believe in the Second Amendment. I'm a gun owner. I mean, I get it, but I do think there is a need for common-sense gun laws, and it's to keep guns out of the hands of the individuals that you just highlighted. It's to ensure that guns don't get into the hands of people that are then going to, you know, go and commit mass shootings. I mean that's what we want to try to make guns as safe as possible, and I think I truly believe we're getting close to that. I really hope so, because the level of gun violence that we are seeing across the nation is heartbreaking, and I think that we are all closer than we realize we are on the Second Amendment. We just have to come together with some more common-sense gun safety laws.

Speaker 1: 42:28

What are some of the biggest talking points? Political talking points that in Mississippi, running as a Democrat, you have to, or you feel that you have to, skirt the national political ideology, so to speak, Is guns sounds like guns is probably one of those topics.

Speaker 2: 42:50

Well, you know guns. Guns is definitely one of those. For sure, you know we do have to.

Speaker 2: 42:56

I do feel, as a Democrat, that I have to really reiterate my support of the law enforcement community. You know that has been a very touchy subject over the last few years, and rightly so. We've had some very horrific historical incidents happen between the community and police officers. But I'm the daughter of a police officer, I'm the granddaughter of two police officers. My uncle was a police officer. You know I come from a very law enforcement rich family and so I understand the need, the delicate balance that you have to play as a Democrat between being an ally for law enforcement, which I am, but also knowing that we still have incidents like what occurred in Rankin County in the last you know year with the Rankin County Goon Squad. That requires some significant oversight and some immediate action.

Speaker 2: 43:53

And, look, I think it's a delicate balance but it's one that someone who is familiar with the law enforcement community can manage. So I do feel like I have to approach that narrative a little different, just given the fact that there's a narrative out there that Democrats are anti-police, which is not true. But you know the abortion topic that you and I just discussed. I do have to watch my approach with that because I know that it's a controversial subject and, like I said before, I'm not out here to change anybody's mind about abortion, because nobody's going to change my mind. I just want people to look at it from a bird's eye view, like I said, looking at it at what dobs can affect outside of the abortion issue. But you know, those are just some topics that we have to really just have a conversation with voters and we have to let them know that we are actually closer to common ground than most people would think if we just have a conversation.

Speaker 2: 44:57

And you don't immediately say, oh well, she's a Democrat, she's anti-police, she's anti-gun, which is not true. But once we have a conversation and we see that we can meet in the middle a little bit closer than we thought, but I've really enjoyed having those conversations with voters.

Speaker 1: 45:15

I can imagine it being very eye-opening for the voters. Obviously, you know where you stand in relation to the National Democratic Party as far as where you fall on that political spectrum. But for many people who probably call themselves Republicans and I had this same conversation with Shawasky although you carry the D in the blue, it doesn't necessarily mean you check the Democratic talking points all the way down the ballot. You know you y'all have expressed that although you may be with the Democratic Party, you do have beliefs and ideals down the ticket that you differ from the National Party on. And I think, speaking as a voter and as a member of the community, that's refreshing, because you know I'm 30 and for my entire life the polarization has been there for the most part Ever since I can remember paying attention to politics, starting in, you know, when I was 14, 15, 15 years ago watching Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. The polarization has been there since day one, and well, for me at least, following politics. So my point is is that people, particularly of my generation, have become just accustomed to voting for an R or a D as opposed to getting to know the individual and where the individual themselves stand on certain issues. And so that's why I say it's refreshing to hear y'all speak the way you do, and I recognize there's.

Speaker 1: 46:52

You know Mississippi's a unique state. The demographics are unique. We've got the highest percentage of African Americans of any state in the union and you know that in and of itself poses a different course, so to speak, as opposed to someone running for Attorney General in, say, kansas. You know where it's lily white. Now I wouldn't. I wouldn't change the makeup of Mississippi for anything. I think our best days by far are still ahead of us in the not too distant future. Why do you think we vote largely in Mississippi on racial lines?

Speaker 2: 47:36

Oh, you know that's a. That's a great question. I really believe that. You know it's. It's really hard, and this is where our campaign has struggled as well. It's really hard to get messages out into those rural communities. Right, it's been a struggle to us to make sure that our campaign and our message and what we, our platform, gets out to those rural communities. And, of course, those communities are predominantly our black communities.

Speaker 2: 48:11

And I think you know it's really easy to divert to what you know, right, I think that's why so many people look for that D and so many people look for that R, because at the end of the day, it's almost safe to them, it's almost like a comfort to vote for what they are accustomed to. You know, I think they want to see the state do better, but there we have some voters that are afraid of what change might bring, because they've become accustomed to. Mississippi is just, you know, you said it it's a very different state. It's. You know, people love the slow pace here. They love, you know, that are. We have small communities that come together and work together in those times of need, and I think there's a demographic of voters and I think there's it's black, it's white. It's just it's it's just this group of voters that they will only vote for what they know, because they feel like it's safe. And while they want Mississippi to do better, they're scared of what change might come and will it change our state and make it unrecognizable to us.

Speaker 2: 49:20

And you know, talking to people across the state, you know it's very clear that Mississippians want to move forward and they want to be better. And I agree with you. I know our best days are ahead of us, but they're also scared that their way of life might be changed right, their slow pace, their, you know, you know just neighborly hospitality state kind of community. And and I don't think they have to be worried about that I don't think we have to change the, the community based way of life that we have in in order to get better, to get better healthcare, to get better education, to get better infrastructure. I think that would only improve upon the, the, the community we have in this state. I really, I really do.

Speaker 1: 50:10

So you're going to have to inevitably get some crossovers from the Republican or independent sex of the voting block right.

Speaker 1: 50:19

Now it seems to me, when trying to woo those voters, if you will, the president and the media makes that very difficult for you to be able to differentiate yourself from what these Republican voters are watching on television. And you've outlined, you know, a couple of couple of ways that you can differentiate yourself and I believe that you can have. You have you found it difficult to reach these people and actually reach them in a format in which they are hearing you?

Speaker 2: 50:59

Um, you know, we've been very intentional to try to reach that group of voters, um, you know, at the end of the day, there are going to be some people that are going to hear our message and it's not they're going to vote the way they're going to vote. I mean that's it's a deep core belief for them. It's not about the candidate, it's about the party. They don't trust Joe Biden, they don't trust Democrats, um, and they have translated that into their state politics and, and, look, that is their right, and I understand that, um, but I'll tell you, uh, you know, going back to what I said before about how this election just has felt different, um, that it has felt like more people are engaged in actually looking at the candidate and actually trying to, to, to look past the party, into what the candidate's position is, what their plan is.

Speaker 2: 51:57

And, look, I can attribute some of that to Brandon Presley, right?

Speaker 2: 52:00

I mean, brandon has come in, um, as a Democrat, um, as a conservative Democrat. Um, brandon and I don't agree on everything. I mean no two people ever will but, um, but we agree more than we disagree and I like his vision for Mississippi and he has been able to really help bring in those moderate Republicans and those independence, and I think he has shown them that you can. You can have a Democratic candidate. That is the preferable choice right, that you can really just look at the candidate, look at their plan, look at what they want to do for Mississippi and, and, and I think, look, I think, he has motivated people to do that down ballot. I really do, I, we, we are seeing more and more moderate Republicans and independence reach out to our campaign and resonate with our message and I can, I think I can attribute that to Mississippians wanting change, but also, uh, just this dynamic movement that Presley really engaged voters very early and started, you know, having people pay attention to politics earlier than I've ever seen people pay attention.

Speaker 1: 53:10

Yeah, I think that that's healthy to have the people along all along the political spectrum tuning into the candidates of either party for the with the intention of getting to know the candidate, as opposed to just voting for the party. I think that also is stemming from what we're seeing at the national stage, with people recognizing that at this point, joe Biden is not even a shell of himself, excuse me and recognizing that, um, he's not. He's, he's not in control, which no president is solely in control. I recognize that, but he's not even in control of his own faculties at this point, and that that's obvious. So people are asking the question all right, well, if he's not capable, then who's really thinking this thing? Who's pulling the strings here?

Speaker 1: 54:05

And so I think that's leading a lot of people to look into different candidates, particularly RFK Jr. If RFK Jr was on the Democratic ticket, I mean, I lean conservative but I love what RFK Jr saying, but it seems to me the Democrats have boxed him out of even trying to make a run on the Democratic ticket. Um, so I think that's another component that's contributing to the to the voter at the state level really doing more research on the candidate than normal is because they're starting to recognize, um, that everything may not be as it seems if you just vote for the party blindly Right.

Speaker 2: 54:46

And you know it's also been very helpful when I, when, when, when national politics come into the, the narrative when we're out on the campaign trail is, you know I'll be on it. I'm focused on Mississippi. Um, that's that's my focus. And and to to pay any attention to the, the shenanigans that are going on in Washington this, this a year, out from a presidential election, while while we're just trying to get our state organized and in order, um, you know I can't, I can't do it, you know I just I just have to be like you know, right now we're focused on Mississippi and moving Mississippi forward and, um, you know, once we get that shake, shake, doubt on November 7th, we'll we'll focus on what's happened nationally, because it's it's you mean, you're right, it's crazy and um, but but we have plenty to worry about right here in Mississippi. And and getting everything, um, you know, moving forward and and I am confident we can do that on November 7th.

Speaker 1: 55:44

I saw where they recently rolled on an appeal for the treatment of the mentally ill. I believe the federal government sued the state of Mississippi and now it's come out. Originally it was ruled that Mississippi was mistreating the mentally ill in our state and now it was, and then it was appealed and now it's come back and overturned. Am I right on on that?

Speaker 2: 56:10

You are, you are. What was the?

Speaker 1: 56:11

basis of that case, and it was like 20 years long, wasn't it, or something crazy like that.

Speaker 2: 56:16

Yes, it was crazy. So, um, what a lot of people don't know is that before the government, before the United States, filed suit, they issued a findings letter to the state of Mississippi 10 years before they filed a lawsuit. So they gave Mississippi 10 years to work on their mental health care system and their community based services. And it's all centered around a case, a pretty famous case, called Olmstead, and Olmstead basically said that the states have to have a plan that both provides mental health care services to, um you know, its citizens, but also has community based services, so that, um, the whole idea is to move towards, um, not um, not immediately institutionalizing everyone with mental health issues, right, that allows them to live in the communities but also receive, commie and get community based services. And what the government found, well over 10 years before they filed a lawsuit, is that Mississippi did not have an Olmstead plan. They were failing, uh, patients of mental, of our mental health care system, and they we did not have appropriate community based systems in place to service. I said we were, we were heavily relying on institutions in this state. Um, obviously, there was a trial, um, the state lost and the ultimate result of that is that a special master was then appointed to help Mississippi develop a plan, an Olmstead plan, that would help improve our department of mental health care services, as well as improve our community based services. Now, um, everything was going swimmingly until the AG decided that that just this was too much. They didn't want the federal government in here telling them what to do, and so they appealed it, and it has ultimately been overruled by the fifth circuit. So, um, you know, I don't know where this leaves us with mental health care systems.

Speaker 2: 58:10

Um, uh, as as an attorney in the disability community, I will tell you that the court got this right that Mississippi is failing people when it comes to mental health care services, especially in the community. We heavily rely on institutionalizing people that could probably be living successfully in their community if they had the supports in their like, in their local communities, to help them. Um, and I think that the state should have allowed the federal government to continue working on this plan. Um, like I said, before they ever filed suit, the federal government gave them 10 years a decade to fix this before they filed a lawsuit, and Mississippi continued to ignore it, and so a lawsuit was filed because they didn't step in and they didn't fix what was identified as as being a failure.

Speaker 2: 59:04

So, you know, I don't know where this goes now. Um, it's something that I'm watching closely, not just as, hopefully, the future attorney general, but also as a disability rights advocate and attorney, um, but you know, the one chance that we had to get someone in here to help us fix our mental health care system is now gone, and it's gone because of Lynn Fitch and her office. So, um, again, I'm not sure where it goes from here, um, but, but improvement is needed.

Speaker 1: 59:35

So where? Where are we dropping the ball the most specifically? If you can be a little bit more specific about where we are failing the mentally ill in our state?

Speaker 2: 59:48

So I think number one is the lack of appropriate community services. Like I said, we have people. Our gut check reaction for mentally ill individuals is to put them in an institution, stick them in there and forget about them. Um, and there are some people who are experiencing mental health issues that that that's necessary. But there are also some people that if they had the appropriate community services in their counties, in these rural counties that have no community health care services, they could live in their own homes, they could work in jobs if they had those community resources in their area. Um, and we just lack that.

Speaker 2: 1:00:31

We do not have appropriate community services across uh, across the state, but it it's strongly um deficit in the Delta, um, in these rural areas of Mississippi, where you know it's. It's no coincidence. This is also where our healthcare is failing Um, so it goes hand in hand with our healthcare crisis. I mean, we're seeing that as a result of our failing um hospitals. I mean, even places like St Dominic's have had to shut down their mental health care services because they're not getting adequate funding, and that's one of the biggest hospitals in Mississippi. So you can imagine the community resources in Issaquena County um are are flailing as well.

Speaker 2: 1:01:13

So, uh, you know, it's just that community centered piece that we're. We are truly failing Mississippians and and, as a result, we're shipping more people to places like state hospital and, and you know, east Mississippi State Hospital, we're putting them in these long-term care facilities and, um, you know, clogging up our, our systems in those in those institutions for people that really need it. Um, and it's just creating this ever consistent backlog. Um, so, you know, I would say my, and from my viewpoint, the number one problem is the lack of community services.

Speaker 2: 1:01:51

Um that was one of the main points of the trial.

Speaker 1: 1:01:56

So we've. I hear Republican legislators, particularly around session time at the beginning of the year, into the spring, they tout the rainy day fund and Mississippi's in the best economic shape that it's ever been in, and I don't doubt that. I don't doubt that we've got more savings than we've ever had. I don't doubt that we're making more money than we've ever made. We should be. That's how it should be. I mean, we're coming from the bottom, so we should see very rapid growth.

Speaker 1: 1:02:23

Um, however, when I get to a scenario like this and we look at this lack of community services for these people related to this lawsuit, I then asked myself where are our priorities? Again, we claim to be these, these Christian, you know, have these Christian ideals, uh, in Mississippi and in the Bible belt, yet we still have a lot of people in our state who don't have the community resources and services that you're speaking of, and it just makes me wonder what do we, you know, if we're just going to sit on all of that funding or all of that money and not even try to attempt to address something that the federal government has told us for 20 years that we need to address, uh, then I, you know, I'm at a loss for words. I don't really know how to um compartmentalize that in my brain. Um now looking at, you know, looking at the Amazon antitrust suit. Are you familiar?

Speaker 2: 1:03:26

I believe so. Yes, so the federal yeah.

Speaker 1: 1:03:30

The federal government has brought suit against Amazon, um the FTC, because of antitrust behavior and basically harming consumers by higher prices. Uh, I'd know, when Jim hood was in office, I think, he went after Google and was was quite successful. Uh, ultimately, and whatever it was that he was doing with Google, and it was that an antitrust situation too, or uh, like monopoly on the search engine or something.

Speaker 2: 1:04:02

Yes, yes, it was so these are these types.

Speaker 1: 1:04:06

Are these type cases that you foresee yourself being particularly abreast on when becoming AG? Is this something that's on your radar when it comes to monopolistic activities and how that impacts the state of Mississippi? Are those are those issues that that you're going to be on top of when in office?

Speaker 2: 1:04:26

Yes, I, I absolutely, Um, I also, um, am aware just just through the legal community that our current attorney general has been presented several lawsuits not necessarily antitrust, but some massive litigation that has affected Mississippians that she has turned away.

Speaker 2: 1:04:46

Um, you know, I won't get into the details I don't know if those lawyers would want me to, because they presented, uh, you know, they presented to the AG and got rejected. So I'm sure they're hopeful that one day they might have those cases picked up. But but I think, looking forward to any litigation that Mississippi can get involved in, that will do two things One, improve the lives of Mississippians and make it a safer and healthier state to live in. And to bring any monies into the state that will help build up that rainy day fund, build up those savings so that we can, uh, you know, funnel that money into things like mental health, community services and, um, paying for things that the state needs. That would be my, my two main focuses to get involved in any litigation, like the antitrust suit and any other, you know, mass tort litigation.

Speaker 1: 1:05:38

So the attorney general sounds to me like it's not a obviously doesn't make law, it's not a legislator, it is the the. The role is to enforce and determine constitutionality ultimately Is that, is that safe to say? Okay, so when we're looking at the recent case with the mayor of Madison as it pertains to the congressional districts and the elimination of the initiative process in the state of Mississippi, Is there involvement on the AGs? Should there be involvement on the AGs part as it pertains to that case? If there is, I'm unaware.

Speaker 2: 1:06:34

So there's not right now, but here's where I think the AGs should get involved in cases like that. I think that when there is something like the ballot initiative process that's being questioned I think another good example is the HB 1020, the bill that was passed regarding the appointment of judges, the creation of the special capital improvement district. When there are laws that come through like that that are getting challenged in court, I do believe there is a role for the attorney general to step in with an opinion, with an advisory piece to talk about the constitutionality and the legality of these laws that are being created. I think that ultimately, it would save Mississippi a ton of money and a ton of time litigating some of these laws if the AG just provided some advisory piece as this legislation is being passed. Like you know, for example let's say I was attorney general when something like HB 1020 was coming through a session I think there should have been an AG opinion advising the legislature that there is a very unconstitutional piece of this legislation that will likely result in litigation.

Speaker 2: 1:07:57

I just believe that that is being a good advisor to the state of Mississippi to keep your eye on legislation that might cause the state some heartburn. I mean just, you know, hey, heads up lawmakers, because not all of your lawmakers are attorneys. The vast majority of them are not. You know, hey, lawmakers, you are probably fixing to intertwine us in years of litigation because you've taken away the ballot process or you've decided that you want to appoint judges for this new district. So I do think there is a role for the AG in advising our lawmakers on constitutionality and legality of the laws they're creating. And I think you know that doesn't mean they're going to listen to the AG, right, I mean that, but at least you have done your due diligence as the chief legal officer for the state by telling lawmakers you may be stepping into some mud here. We may have some problems.

Speaker 1: 1:08:54

Do you believe it to be unconstitutional to deny transgender minors that suffer from, or that are diagnosed with, gender dysphoria?

Speaker 2: 1:09:09

So unconstitutional? I'm going to say maybe, but here's where. Here's my position on that. I have to trust mamas and daddies. I have to trust doctors. I think that this has been an issue that has been inflated by people who are trying to pull their own issues out of focus. If that makes sense, I think this is a. I don't think this is an issue in Mississippi and if it was, I'm not the person to tell a mother or a father or a doctor what their patient needs. I would not want anyone telling me anything about my children. I just don't believe that the government like I said, even with the abortion issue, I don't believe the government has a say in people's decisions, and that includes gender affirming care. If a doctor has diagnosed it and the mother and the father know the risks and they have informed consent, I'm not somebody to tell a parent how to diagnose and treat their children.

Speaker 1: 1:10:24

Does it worry you as a mother and as a person aside from attorney general, that this could be a fad that young people are becoming, that are jumping on board with the fad to get attention, unknowing to them what the consequences can be down the road, and that parents some of these parents that are allowing their children to do this are also utilizing it in the way of as an attention grab? And I don't know it doesn't the whole thing that the whole concept doesn't make sense to me, much less having a doctor diagnose and ultimately carry out the care? But does it worry you that this may be something that ultimately does come to Mississippi and takes a hold of our young people, as it has in other parts of our country?

Speaker 2: 1:11:20

It doesn't. Again, there are so many barriers that one would have to get through for this to occur. If you're asking me, if my child came to me and wanted to seek this type of care, after a discussion with me and her father, and then we go to a doctor, I just don't, it doesn't concern me, because I cannot see doctors just blatantly diagnosing this type of care for a fad, right? I just don't. I trust doctors, I trust my doctor. I would trust that if I took my child to a doctor and my child was interested in some type of gender affirming care, that the doctor would tell me no, I mean, you know what I'm saying. I just I trust that doctors are the barrier when the care is not needed and I just don't.

Speaker 2: 1:12:21

That's just not a concern that I have as a parent. I trust that I can make the medical decisions for my children, that my husband and I and their mother and their stepfather I mean my children are co-parented by four parents. I would trust that we could all make the decisions and then we would go at the advice of doctors, not politicians. You know, I'm just I'm not in the business of giving people medical advice or advising them on how to care for their children and I honestly, tate Reeves and Lynn Fitch are the last people I would want giving me medical advice for me or my children. So I just trust parents and I trust doctors that the people that are getting that care are the people that need that care.

Speaker 1: 1:13:09

You're at a Kent Martin. You have been stellar on the County line. Once again, I appreciate you taking the time out of your day to speak with me in the County line congregation and I will now turn it over to you for anything else you'd like to tell the listeners.

Speaker 2: 1:13:27

All I can say. We are 21 days out from election and this is an important. This is an important election and no matter how you choose to vote, I just ask that you vote. Mississippi has had historically low turnout voting for the past few elections and we hope to see a heavy turnout on November 7th. And, of course, just want to plug. My website is GretaforAgycom and would love to have anyone volunteer help us out up until election day, and I just appreciate you letting me come on and chat with you today.

Speaker 1: 1:14:03

Any time, any time. I appreciate you sticking your neck out there and putting yourself on the line, and your family in the public eye, to try to better the state of Mississippi. I truly do find that commendable and we will put all of your information in our episode notes for those of y'all listening. Y'all can find all of Greta's information on the notes of this episode. So, greta, thank you very much, and to the County Line congregation, we love y'all Peace.