If you think you have troubles... Think of what the AG and SOS have to deal with this week

This evening has been kind of a bummer. At about the end of the workday, I got a call from my wife notifying me that she was involved in a fender bender. Rats. Insurance, car repairs, and all the pain-in-the-rear things that go with it. That, and I have to try to make it better from a distance of 200 miles. (Don't worry, she's ok.) "Why me? Now I'm worrying about my absent family."

It started an admittedly self-indulgent personal episode of "look at all my troubles." I tried to lament to one of my friends about it, asking him "do you ever have one of those days when you feel like you're living under a dark cloud?"

Of course, I failed to take into account that I'm saying this to a newly minted divorcee, who just yesterday was informing me that his ex just got married out in Sturgis about a whole month after the divorce was finalized.

His reply? "You're really asking the wrong person that."

Uh, yeah. He's completely correct. I rightfully felt like a boob because my momentary problem does pale in comparison. I wouldn't want to trade places with him. And tonight, there's two other people who's shoes I wouldn't want to be stuck in.

As reported tonight at the Rapid City Journal's website, Attorney General Larry Long and Secretary of State Chris Nelson are going to be stuck in a courtroom this Thursday arguing over the merits of ballot initiative language with the fun-filled folks over at Amendment E:

Sponsors of a proposed South Dakota constitutional amendment that would allow people to sue judges and other officials filed a lawsuit Monday seeking a change in the attorney general's official explanation of the ballot measure. Circuit Judge Max Gors of Pierre will hold a hearing Thursday to determine whether the attorney general's explanation, which will appear on the November ballot as a guide to voters, should be changed.

In court documents, sponsors of the proposed constitutional amendment argue that Attorney General Larry Long's ballot explanation is flawed because two sentences go beyond what he is authorized to say in such explanations.

"The Attorney General's statement contains a purely political opinion and a deliberate attempt to convince the people of South Dakota to vote against Amendment E," the document argues. "Language which encompasses the Attorney General's beliefs as to the consequences of the adoption of an initiated measure rather than its purpose and legal effect is inappropriate for a ballot explanation."

Long declined to comment on the specific changes sought by the lawsuit.

"We stand by our ballot explanation and will do our talking in the courtroom," the attorney general said.

Read it all here. And if that wasn't good enough, then the AG gets a double whammy from Daniel Brendtro also complaining about the language used in the ballot explanation on Video Lottery:

The head of a group that collected thousands of signatures to put the issue to a statewide vote says it is misleading for Long to explain only that the measure would eliminate $112 million in state revenues each year.

Dan Brendtro said the ballot explanation is biased unless it also says the lost revenues amount to just 4 percent of the annual state budget.

"It is written in a way that suggests to the voters that our state government will collapse without video lottery funding," Brendtro said.

and...

Long said Monday he would not comment on Brendtro's complaint about the wording of the ballot explanation. He said the attorney general's office would make its comments in the courtroom if Brendtro seeks a court order aimed at changing the ballot explanation.

You can read it here too (scroll to the bottom). I think I'd rather be tied in a bag with a mountain lion than to have to listen to the video lottery forces on voting for a fourth time AND the paranoid anti-guv'mint Amendment E forces whining about what they ended up with - both in the same day.

Poor me? Nah.

Tonight, I might not be great, but I'm good. Why? Because I don't have to listen to those guys complain about the truth being told about their amendments, with the subsequent whining to follow.

Nothing like a little perspective.