More on the JAIL Amendment

Today's Rapid City Journal has more on the JAIL amendment (Otherwise known as Amendment E) from South Dakota two-star state Jailer in chief Bill Stegmeier and Bar Association executive Tom Barnett:
Hanes said that South Dakota Judicial Accountability — the political group backing Amendment E — would continue the legal battle to get Long’s ballot explanation thrown out. Ballots already have been printed and distributed, and people are already voting absentee, but Hanes said, “We have some things brewing.” That could include having the election results thrown out and holding a special election on the measure later.

Barnett predicted the result on Nov. 7 would be a rejection of Amendment E.

A telephone poll Wednesday and Thursday by the No on E committee contacted 400 “likely voters.” The results showed the “yes” vote at just 8 percent, Barnett said. (“Definitely yes,” 4 percent. “Probably yes,” 4 percent.)

The “no” vote was 51 percent. (“Definitely no,” 40 percent; “probably no,” 11 percent.)

The undecideds were 42 percent.

But Amendment E, which runs to 2,000 words, is so complicated that it’s difficult to craft a polling question.

For example, the No on E poll did not explain the amendment. Rather, it identified the measure three ways: as “a constitutional amendment relating to judicial accountability,” as “the JAIL Initiative” and as the “Judicial Accountability Initiative Law.” The pollster asked participants how they would vote “based on what you know now.”

Both Hanes and Stegmeier have objected to calling Amendment E the “JAIL Amendment” (as Judge Gors did) — though the amendment closely follows a template developed by an organization called “JAIL 4 Judges.” Founder Ron Branson of North Hollywood, Calif., who once tried to appeal a parking ticket to the U.S. Supreme Court, is a controversial figure who also protests the power of the Federal Reserve and a “New World Order.”
Read it all here. 8% yes and only 4% of that a hard yes? Man are they going to get killed in a week. But of course, if they lose - it's all a conspiracy, and they're going to sue for a special election. Using those Judges they so disdain.

Lots of luck.


Anonymous said…
Good news! Tired of all the lies and Deliberate distortions filed suit.
Anonymous said…
If you have not voted yet, simply ask yourself whether a juror, who is compelled to serve, should be held liable for money damages for their decisions?

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.