No on Amendment E responds to Stegmeier's attempt to stop them from telling the truth

The No on Amendment E people put out a press release today on their website in response to the lawsuit that Bill Stegmeier and crew filed against them. And it notes that this is the type of lawsuit we can expect if it passes - frivolous:
No on E Committee Responds to Frivolous Lawsuit from Proponents of Constitutional Amendment

Tue, Oct 31st 2006

PIERRE, S.D. – The No on E Committee rejected as baseless a frivolous lawsuit filed by supporters of proposed Constitutional Amendment E, the so-called judicial accountability amendment (JAIL). The No on E Committee simply stated that their advertising explains exactly what will happen if Amendment E is passed.

“Despite past claims to the contrary, Amendment E treasurer Bill Stegmeier is now claiming that their amendment only applies to judges,” said Dianna Miller, co-chair of the No on E Committee. “In a December 2005 mailer to the residents of Madison, Stegmeier wrote that the amendment applied to ‘any governmental employee of any stripe shape, or flavor.’ In fact, as recently as October 23, Stegmeier told the Pierre Capital Journal that he would throw out the provisions for board and commission members if he proposed Amendment E again. He can’t have it both ways.” (The mailer is available in the downloads section)

“For the second time in three months, supporters of this out-of-state radical idea are showing what the measure has always been about,” said Miller; “frivolous lawsuits and creating judicial chaos when they don’t get their way.”

The opponents are trying to circumvent the attorney general’s ballot explanation which has already been upheld by two courts – the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Hughes County and the South Dakota Supreme Court. According to that ballot explanation, “the measure would apply to jurors, school boards, city councils, county commissions, prosecutors and others serving in similar capacities.”

“The radical fringe who support E are showing their 11th hour desperation,” said Miller. “They’ve seen the polls and are filing this suit because the more South Dakota voters find out about Amendment E, the more they reject it.”

Amendment E would change the South Dakota constitution to allow disgruntled criminals or unsuccessful civil litigants to sue judges if they’re unhappy with how a case turned out. And under the proposed amendment, good honest South Dakotans who serve as members of juries, school boards, city councils or county commissions would be vulnerable to jail terms and fines as well. To read the proponents’ latest lawsuit, click here.


“frivolous lawsuits and creating judicial chaos when they don’t get their way.” I think that sums it up nicely.

Comments

been there said…
We can vote NO and get rid of E, but how do we get rid of Dianna Miller??

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

State to UFWS: It's over