The Jen Jordan Interview

A state senator from Atlanta speaking frankly about guns, gangs and Buckhead sausage-making at the capitol's back rooms.

Barring something unexpected, State Senator Jennifer Jordan has a clear shot at the Democratic nomination for Georgia Attorney General this year. Her primary opponent, Charlie Bailey just jumped out of the race to run for lieutenant governor instead.

Jordan and I spoke at length in September, before the results of Atlanta’s election had been resolved, before Bill White began saying the quiet parts out loud about the motivations behind the Buckhead cityhood movement, and before the Omicron wave of COVID-19 sent us back to the bunkers.

I’d been holding on to this — and a similar interview with Bailey — for a rainy day. I may profile Bailey later: his interview remains interesting.

Today, as the legislature reopens — and all their fundraising websites close — I think you may find a frank conversation with Jordan valuable. We discuss the politics behind the Buckhead city push, the anxieties of Atlanta voters about crime, and the benefits and risks of operating the Attorney General’s office assertively to fight violence, fraud and environmental damage.

As always, the transcript is edited for length, clarity, and to ensure we both sound as smart as people hope we are.

---

“It's like all of this stuff that we've never had to deal with before. And oh yeah: we've got guns everywhere. It's kind of this perfect storm.”

George Chidi: I'm grateful for your time; it's precious and I don't want to waste it. What I'd like to discuss is basically what's going on with crime in Atlanta, and what the role of an attorney general might be in getting at some of this. Given the fact that you're also a state senator who represents a fairly significant part of Atlanta, that makes this a much more interesting conversation.

State Sen. Jen Jordan: Yeah, yeah. I mean, look: the homicide rate is incredible right now. And, you know, after we passed over 100 deaths, I went through all the people who had been murdered this year. And I think 95 out of 100 were shot. It's gun violence. But you don't hear anybody talking about guns. Right?

GC: I wonder how much of that is people throwing their hands up in the air and saying that the political conditions are such that there's nothing to be done?

JJ: But you can’t think like that, right? I mean, we've got a serious problem here. Clearly, that is affecting not only the people in the city of Atlanta, but the people in this state. And so, you know, it's imperative, I think, for elected officials – for people who just care about their communities – to drill down and say, “Okay, what's really the problem,” right? Because you can't solve something if you're not trying to look at all the variables that may be at play. And in terms of what's going on in Atlanta, in terms of crime, there's not one thing, I mean, it's a complex kind of multi-factorial kind of thing.

GC: I completely agree with you. I just wanted to ask you just, what do you think those factors are?

JJ: I think COVID. People are at home. Secondarily, you have all of these kinds of social services that shut down that are usually the social safety nets, and a lot of these communities that are at a lot higher likelihood of gun violence. You have schools that weren't open for a long time. So kids — especially older kids — were left to their own devices because a lot of them had single parents that are working.

And so you have all of this stuff coming together: social isolation, people worried about jobs, the economy kind of going off the cliff there for a while. It's like all of this stuff that we've never had to deal with before. And oh yeah: we've got guns everywhere. It's kind of this perfect storm. And it's not just happening in Atlanta, you know. It's happening nationwide. That's why we have to step back and say, “All right, so we know that a lot of things are going into this.” There's not going to be a silver bullet or some kind of panacea. We can't put our head in the sand. We have to look at every variable and deal with that and say, “What can we do specifically with respect to this.”

We may not get it right, but that doesn't mean you don't try to push for a solution that could work.

GC: I'm gratified to hear everything that you just said. The three points that you just made I think are incredibly vital; that it's a bunch of different things, that you can't throw your hands up in the air and say there's nothing we can do, and that we have to have room for error.

JJ: Right! And that's it, we've got to give each other grace, right? Because if you don't, then people won't try anymore.

Or you'll hear a lot of the stuff you hear politically: “Well, you know, you're not going to be able to get that through” or “there's not the political will for that.” Well, it's got to start somewhere. And you know, it's one of those things where, if you push hard enough, and you get people behind it, you're going to get to a point where there is the political will.

It may take some time, but I think we all agree that this is a really serious problem, in that it's worth having to get in there and fight for what we think might actually help folks.

“In other states, they filed against gun manufacturers, because, they believe that they're unsafe. If we find that there is something that is causing this gun violence … the Attorney General has the ability to go after them in civil court ...”

GC: So, what do you want to do? Let's say you get elected. What do you start with?

JJ: Just to step back a little bit, in terms of the Attorney General. It's interesting, because it's framed a lot of times as though the Attorney General is like the top cop in the state, or the top law enforcement person. In Georgia, we have a very strong local prosecution model. So, the district attorneys are the ones that will prosecute the crimes, unless there is an issue of recusal or conflict. And then normally what has happened is that it goes up to the Attorney General's office, and then they give it to another district attorney to actually prosecute, although the Attorney General can take that on if he or she wants to.

So, you have to understand the role of the Attorney General, in terms of crime and criminal prosecution. That I think is one of the things that is key with respect to that role. It’s almost being the spokes of the wheel, in terms of bringing these various district attorneys together – law enforcement, federal prosecutors – having them all come to the table. Because we're all seeing the same thing.

I mean, like I said, this isn't just some isolated thing that's happening in one neighborhood in the city of Atlanta. This is affecting a lot of people in this state, and all over the country. So why wouldn't we bring all of our resources together, and then kind of go from there? That's one thing, in terms of the Attorney General actually pulling the resources together and getting people to the table, and talking about what the solutions are.

Then really, when we figure out what the issues are, the Attorney General has the ability to file civil lawsuits. You've seen some of that in terms of opioids, for example, right? In other states, they filed against gun manufacturers, because, they believe that they're unsafe. If we find that there is something that is causing this gun violence that can be attributed to an entity or an individual or somebody outside of the state or even inside of the state, the Attorney General has the ability to go after them in civil court and try to get redress for the people that he or she represents.

GC: That's a tough fight, I have to say. It sounds like it, anyway.

JJ: Well, that's the whole point. Right? I mean, when you represent the people of the state, and when you have the power of the state behind you, it takes on a different form. It's not criminal, because it's in civil court. But it's a civil prosecution; it is a prosecution, you know, of an entity. And the whole point is, if you've hurt people, or if you've wronged people and it's caused damages, then then you're responsible for those damages. And I think we need more of that in the state, not less. Definitely at the state level, because district attorneys can't do that. District attorneys can't go into civil court and hold bad actors responsible in terms of money damages. You know as well as I do that a lot of times, the only thing that a lot of these bad actors will respond to or care about is the bottom line profit margin:  whether or not it's going to cost them money.

GC: I agree. Completely. What are people telling you? You're out on the campaign trail. People are talking to you. I'm specifically interested in how people are thinking about violent crime right now. What's the conversation sound like from your end?

JJ: It's been interesting. I think folks are a little bit scared. And these are really uneasy times. I think how we feel about the economy or how we feel about COVID is feeding into kind of this fear around violent crime in the city. But what I try to talk to folks about is that this isn't a Buckhead problem. This isn't a North Atlanta problem. This is happening everywhere. We've got to think more holistically. This isn’t just going on in your street or in your backyard, but it's happening to everybody who lives here.

So, you know, that's how we have to approach it. Which is why the whole Buckhead thing is kind of crazy. But if we actually show them the numbers in terms of crime and what's actually happening, and we get away kind of from some of the headlines – and maybe not even headlines, really: social media –

people are reasonable. They just want somebody to do something. I think that's what it comes down to. I think folks feel like people aren't doing anything. And they're just so desperate for someone to step up and lead.

“I mean, we at least used to agree — we could agree — on facts, right?”

GC: I have to tell you, I find that dangerous, This idea of “just do something” without any rigor associated with it.

JJ: You got to know what the problem is. You can't put a Band-Aid on something. You've got to say, “Well, that's a nice solution. But what is it a solution to?” if whatever it is isn't actually one of the root causes of crime in the city. So, I completely agree with you.

But I do think I think that's how people feel.

And, you know, the mayoral candidates, city council candidates, they need to take that into consideration, you know, when they're out on the trail, that there is a lot of uneasiness and insecurity, if people just want a leader, it can be dangerous, because just “doing something” isn't always right.

GC: So, I'm with you when I say that I think people are persuadable, when they hear facts. I'm operating under the presumption that if I put the numbers in front of somebody, that they'll accept them. On the other hand, there's this tremendous skepticism of any sort of authority; that I'll put numbers in front of somebody and they'll question the numbers because they don't like what they're seeing. I don't know what to do about that.

JJ: You know, it is problematic. I mean, we at least used to agree — we could agree — on facts, right? I mean, we may disagree on policy and approach and all that stuff. But we could at least say four plus four equals eight and agree.

The fact that we seem to be dealing with different facts makes what we're trying to do that much harder. And what I've seen is that there are these kinds of influencers out there in the community, all over the place all over Atlanta, that people are going to get their information from, and these influencers are causing people to get really upset, and react emotionally.

It’s one of those things where ... on the one hand, I get it. Look. We're dealing with a really serious problem. But on the other hand, we get some adults in the room and you’ve just got to figure out next steps because the city just has too much on the line across the board, whether you're talking about economically or in terms of our people. I mean, the city of Buckhead thing is a real threat. A real threat.

“(On Buckhead) The fact that they're even playing around with it is so dangerous to the health and vitality of the city.”

GC: Do you really think so? I need to ask you this because you're the subject matter expert on this legislatively. Do they have a chance?

JJ: Yeah, they do. They do.

More on the politics of Buckhead, civil lawsuits as an enforcement mechanism and partisan politics at the Attorney General’s office after the break.

GC: Because I'm fairly dismissive of this from the politics of it.

JJ: So, we have rules in our chamber ... I don't know if you're familiar with what happened with Stockbridge and all that. That was a very emotional fight, and there were a lot of scars left. So, one of the rules that we have is that a majority of the of the senators that represent -- well, actually, I think we changed it to say that if it's local legislation, which is how a lot of these things are done, or how they're, they're normally done – you have to have sign off from everybody if you're going to annex part of a city.  Okay? So de-annexation requires everybody to be on the same page.

The issue is that if Republicans really want to get this through, all they have to do is run it as a general bill, a general law. I’m sorry, but this gets way in the weeds ...

GC: (interjecting) I want to be in the weeds.

JJ: ... and then you don't have to follow the rules with respect to local legislation. Then you just get a vote up or down. And I remember during the Stockbridge thing, they did it effectively like that, but we had different rules then, too.

The issue is how they spin it. They, being Republicans, means “Oh, all this is is just a referendum; it just gives people the ability to choose,” right? And so, they're like, “I'm absolutely in favor of that.”

The issue is, the more we talk about this ... and then if this actually moves through to the next step, which is an actual referendum? I mean, it is so hurtful to the city of Atlanta, just from a business perspective, economically. The fact that they're even playing around with it is so dangerous to the health and vitality of the city. I really wish that – and I'm hopeful that – it won't be run like a general bill, that they’ll just stick to how they're normally supposed to do these things.

GC: I've been under the presumption that the bond guys would talk to the Republicans in the legislature and tell them that anything that moves on this would risk bond ratings across the board.

JJ: Well, there's that, right? I mean, so you've got the bond rating of the state of Georgia issue; that that was an issue in Stockbridge, too. But secondarily, you've got a constitutional contract issue, where you can't mess with people's contracts under the Constitution, in a very simplistic way. And that's what this would do with those bonds.

That's what came at Stockbridge. It’s really, really helpful in terms of what we're likely to see if this gets passed, You had every big firm in the city of Atlanta in court immediately, representing some of the largest lenders in the country, trying to stop it. Their view was that it was unconstitutional and it was messing with their contracts with the municipality, with respect to the bonds.

So, there are major legal issues around the city of Buckhead stuff. That's what I'm saying. I don't even know if legally it can be done, you know? Because of those bigger issues in terms of the bonds. And so what are we going to do? Are we going to really push this through, and then have to go through all this litigation, just to be told its unconstitutional anyway? I mean, the scars would be just incredible in terms of a fight like that, and I really wish that people would take all that energy, get involved in politics, and try to solve the problems that they say they care about so much instead of trying to break away from the city of Atlanta.

What do you think that's going to do? Do you draw some kind of imaginary boundary? And then all of a sudden people can't pass it? That no crime will happen now that you've got this imaginary boundary? I mean, it's just ... it just doesn't make sense. But I think that shows you just how uneasy people are, that if they're willing to hook into that, that we've got some serious issues in terms of people's trust in government and interest in their elected officials.

GC: I agree. I'm following this because it's centered on this broader public discussion about crime, and violent crime in particular. The folks who are pushing this are looking at every headline of every shooting that happens in Atlanta, and saying, “Well, this is why you don't want to be part of Atlanta.” And it's demagoguery. And it's disingenuous. And yet, the governor just appointed Bill White to serve on the board of the of the Department of Corrections. I'm looking at that, like, why are you elevating this man?

JJ: Well, there’s some real signaling going on. Right from the top. Again, when you think about the bond ratings ... I mean, the role that Atlanta plays in terms of revenue to the state, and business, and, you know, just how vibrant it is and how important it is to the country, and definitely to the southeast and an important international city. All of this stuff, and we're going to mess around with something like this? I think it's political, obviously. But man, is it dangerous.

GC: So, how's the campaign going?

JJ: It's good! It's good. You know, it's harder during COVID. You know, but we're kind of marching along.

GC: I mean, it's early.

JJ: It is early. I felt like I needed to get in, because Charlie has been raising money for a while, and has been out there. I thought that the clock was ticking for me. So I needed to jump in. And we've had a really positive response, we outraised Chris Carr, the sitting Attorney General, outraised Charlie, and that's what people kind of look at it, especially if you're a woman running. There used to be kind of the saw that women couldn't raise money, they couldn't win, you know. And so that's why it's that much more important to kind of turn that stereotype on its head.

“I want people to understand that (Attorney General Chris Carr) can step in, if you have a bad actor or company that is spewing cancer causing chemicals and hurting people.”

GC: You're talking about issues around gun violence as an issue for this campaign in this race. What are the other things that you think people need to know that the Attorney General's office can address ... and isn't?

JJ: So, for example, in my district ... and I know you're aware of this, because you're aware ...

GC: (interjecting) I know everything.

JJ: ... but the Sterigenics plant in the district, when it came out about the ethylene oxide, I did a lot of research to try to figure out if legally ... can I do anything? Who has the ability to shut the plant down, at least until we can figure out what is going on? And what it came down to is that the person with the ability to do that was Chris Carr.

You know, it had been done in Chicago and in other places. Specifically in Chicago in a suburb called Willowbrook. The Attorney General had stepped in there and had shut the plant down for a period of time. And so, I reached out to Carr and he politely declined to do anything.

What I started to see is the things that I really cared about in terms of environmental justice issues or fraud, like Medicare, Medicaid and going after that tax money for tax payers and trying to bring it back in, or even some of the bigger cases that are being pursued nationwide, by other agencies on behalf of the states – that Chris Carr wasn't doing it. He wasn't willing to do it.

It just kind of got cut down to “what do I want to do?” I want people to understand that he can step in, if you have a bad actor or company that is spewing cancer causing chemicals and hurting people. That is an instance where the AG can step in on behalf of the people.

The voter suppression stuff with SB 202: the Attorney General really is tasked with protecting the rights of the people of the state. The AG’s office could be a really powerful tool in terms of not pushing suppression or fighting for it, but actually fighting against it and preventing it in the first instance.

What it tells me is that the AG’s office has the ability to do some incredible things. Protecting nursing homes, with the elderly, in COVID, the ability to make sure that the most vulnerable among us are not being abused, mistreated or neglected. I mean, all of those things are super-important things, and the person who has the power to protect the people of this state, to protect their rights and adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law, that person is the Attorney General of the state of Georgia.

GC: I'm looking through the press releases from Carr over the last couple of months. There’s a lot of stuff on gangs, and a lot of fighting with the federal government. Let me ask you about gang stuff, just to start. Is there a role for the Attorney General's office in terms of enforcing racketeering, gang stuff?

JJ: I think there could be. You’ve got to have a hook with it, though.

The deal is, you have criminal jurisdiction over agencies, public officials. It's just like anything that's a state created entity, right? You have jurisdiction to criminally prosecute. For individuals and kind of these gangs, these localized gangs, you usually rely on the locals to do that. But there's definitely a role, and I know with the gangs statutes that were passed, they tried to empower the Attorney General more, because I think Republicans were unhappy with what the district attorneys were doing locally.

But you know what? The prosecutors locally know what's going on, on the ground. They're the ones that are elected by the people. And so really, as an Attorney General, with respect to gang stuff, it goes back to being more of a resource and a partner than trying to take cases away from them and tell them how to do their job.

I think there's a real opportunity for partnership, because I think everybody wants the same thing. At the end of the day, they want safer communities. I would really rely on local district attorneys a lot in terms of what their judgment is with respect to the gang issue and be more of a partner as opposed to what I think a lot of Republicans were thinking the law would do, which would allow Carr to go in and grab a prosecution from somebody else.

GC: The other thing I'm thinking about is how the Attorney General's office changes, if it's a Democrat and not a Republican, where the natural partisan animosity isn't present. What changes in your opinion?

JJ: To be quite frank, if I were Attorney General, I don't think it really matters in terms of a Democrat or Republican, and who are the other elected officials and in control because the law is the law. You need to be doing exactly what I've talked about, regardless of if there's a Republican governor or a Democratic governor.

And, you know, one of the things that can make an AG really unpopular with elected officials across the board is the fact that they're supposed to be holding elected officials responsible if they're breaching the public trust in some way. If an AG is really doing their job, it isn't partisan in nature. You know, is this the law, right? It's the Constitution, it's people's rights. It's protecting folks, protecting the people that you were elected to protect. And that really shouldn't change if it's a Republican or a Democrat.

The problem is what we've seen, especially recently, under Carr, is that he's really just been very partisan. And he clearly views the role in a partisan way. So, anything he does is kind of done through that lens with a nod toward the Republican base in throwing them some red meat. And that is not what the chief legal officer of the state should be. The law shouldn't be partisan. The law is the law.

“Yeah, I've talked to (former Attorney General Mike Bowers). And he said, “You know that if you do this, you won't be liked. And I basically said, “Well, I'm used to it, so it’s OK, Mike.”

GC: There's one thing I wanted to put in your ear right now, because I'm tracking it. I'm not all the way through it yet. The state prison system is falling apart right now. The death rates quadrupled in the last year. And I can't seem to shake anybody at the Department of Corrections into having a frank discussion about what's going on.

JJ: Look. I think in the next few years, with both the correction system, but like when I was talking about nursing homes or nursing facilities and stuff, there has been really a lack of information and transparency. Not just our jails and prisons but these homes, due to COVID. Everybody kind of leans back on COVID and says, “Well, we can't ... we're not going to tell you, we can't.” You know, we're not going to answer this open records act request, or whatever it is. But as we come out of COVID, and some of this information comes out, I think it's going to be pretty startling. And it's worrisome, right? It's really, really worrisome.

GC: I'm seeing it too. And I'm worried. And I'm getting dragged into looking more closely at the prison system, because once I've taken a look, it's ... it's hard to justify looking at other things.

JJ: And it's happening in real time, right?.

GC: There was a death last night, as a matter of fact. Another one. They’re averaging one every six days now.

JJ: That's also something that an AG would look into, right? Because you have an agency in the state where there are some concerns. There have been allegations. There have been deaths, suspicious or otherwise. And so, that is the role of the Attorney General to step in, and do an investigation and see what's going on. Because, obviously, you have people whose lives are at stake, who have lost their lives. If you don't, it doesn't look right, because people aren't being transparent. You don't pre-judge. You go in and say you want the facts. You want the evidence. But an AG would be asking for that evidence and asking to talk to people and say, “What was going on here?”

GC: You know, I'm going to ping Carr. I mean, what else can I do right now? And say, “Hey, are you actually looking?”

JJ: I mean, because that would be his role. Now, what's interesting, the AG is a really interesting official in that he would be tasked with representing the corrections department, arguably, but he can also go after the corrections department.

So, my guess is that that Carr will say, “Oh, well, we represent the Department of Corrections. So, you know, we're not going to do that.” But that's not a have-to. If you think an agency is doing something bad, then you definitely aren't going to defend them. You’re going to hold them responsible.

Mike Bowers was probably one of the last active AGs we’ve had. Really active. And he was not popular by any stretch.

GC: (laughing) He’d be the first person to say that, too.

JJ: Yeah, I've talked to him. And he said, “You know that if you do this, you won't be liked. And I basically said, “Well, I'm used to it, so it’s OK, Mike.”

GC: Being liked is overrated.

JJ: Yeah, well, especially when there's real issues on the line. I mean, like you said: people's lives. I mean, if we have custody of human beings, then there are certain obligations and responsibilities that go with that. And I do think that it's Chris Carr's job to make sure that we are living up to those duties and responsibilities.

GC: I agree. Is there anything I should have asked you about that I didn't?

JJ: No ... (long pause). I always worry when I have a freewheeling conversation.

GC: Understood. I'm grateful for your time. This is what I needed.

JJ: Oh, and I'm very I'm grateful for the job you're doing in terms of following the crime stuff. I've been reading a lot of your stuff. You are really following it in a way that nobody else is. And it's been good and I know a lot of other elected officials who are reading it. Just FYI.

GC: I appreciate that. It's always weird to hear that. It's shocking to me. I feel I'm talking baked potato, but I'm grateful. I'm at your disposal.