Everyone Dog pile on Amendment E (again)

I think I used that post title before, but it's so darned appropriate.

First, according to Roger Larsen of the Huron Daily Plainsman, the Huron City Commission kicked their rear ends on Monday:

The city of Huron has gone on record opposing Amendment E, a November ballot issue that it says in a resolution would abolish judicial immunity, create a special grand jury and allow for jury nullification.

In the resolution adopted Monday, the City Commission said the amendment, if approved by voters, would cause potential damage not only to the state’s judicial system but would threaten those who serve on municipal boards.

The Legislature unanimously approved a concurrent resolution earlier this year strongly urging the ballot issue’s defeat “to protect our system of justice, to protect economic development” and “to protect citizens from frivolous lawsuits.”

Next, the Pierre City Commission gave them what for according to Tony Mangan over at KCCR Radio:

Pierre city commissioners have gone on record opposing Amendment E – the so-called J-A-I-L Amendment.

The commission overwhelming approved a resolution opposing the amendment. City attorney John Brown says while many people think the amendment is directed at only judges, he says members of city commissions and boards could also be sued if the amendment passes.

and...

Brown says if passed, the amendment would create “absolute anarchy.”

Strike two. Yesterday afternoon, Judge Lori Wilbur gave some of her podium time as speaker at the Hughes County GOP Luncheon (which I skipped, sorry) over to Bob Miller who is very active in opposing J.A.I.L. for his comments on the measure as noted in the Pierre Capitol Journal:

Bob Miller of Pierre, state treasurer of the No on E Committee, told a group of Hughes County Republicans Tuesday that he would give up his seat on a local government board “in a heartbeat”

if Amendment E, or the JAIL Amendment, passes this fall. Miller currently serves on the Pierre board of adjustment and believes that Amendment E would make him and others personally liable for any decisions they make in an official capacity.

“I would resign right away,” Miller said. “Why would I place my family in jeopardy?”

Amendment E opponents believe that the amendment’s supporters have been less than honest with the public in stating that Amendment E would only hold judges accountable for their abuse of power. Miller pointed out that the amendment defines a judge as, “Justice, judge, magistrate judge, judge pro tem, and all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity.”

Miller said the amendment would affect other government officials and board members in South Dakota who are given quasi-judicial powers by the state.

and..

According to Miller, convicted felons will have the opportunity to go after the prosecutors, judges and jurors who found them guilty and incarcerated them, even if those convictions are upheld by the state Supreme Court.

Go read all of this article for a run down on some of Amendment E's highlights. (or low points).

And the "bestest" one of all comes courtesy of breaking news via the AP wire as listed in the Argus leader’s website. And, I started giggling to myself when I read this one:

The sponsor of a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow people to sue judges and other officials said Wednesday he will go to court in an attempt to change the attorney general's official explanation of the ballot measure.

And….

Long said if Stegmeier wants to go to court, the system is designed to handle such a legal challenge in time to get a ruling before ballots must be printed for the fall election. A court challenge would mean a judge would determine if the explanation is accurate. "I'm OK with that," he said.

So, the ballot initiative designed to punish judges is now going to be asking a judge to change how the attorney generals explanation reads.

Oh! Sweet irony. Lot's of luck on that one when you put it in front of someone you're calling "corrupt" and "out-of-control". Especially when you're still trying to sell that tired old line that "The attorney general's explanation also should not focus on school boards, city councils and county commissions because the measure would not affect them" (as Stegmeier said.).

Because nobody bought that old nag of a line in the beginning, and they still aren't buying it now that it's a dusty pile of bones.