Judge: Change ballot amendment wording
Posted: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- State officials must make a small change in the wording that will appear on the fall ballot to explain a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow people to sue judges and other officials, a judge ruled Monday.
However, Circuit Judge Max Gors of Pierre rejected the other changes requested by sponsors of proposed Constitutional Amendment E.
Gors' decision will be appealed to the state Supreme Court in an attempt to get approval of the other requested changes, said Sioux Falls lawyer Tara Glasford, representing the amendment's sponsors.
Sponsors had asked that Attorney General Larry Long's explanation be changed to say the measure would allow people to sue judges for deliberately violating their rights. They also want to delete language that says such lawsuits would be allowed not only against judges, but also against members of county commissions, city councils, school boards and other government officials who make judicial decisions.
A special grand jury would decide if judges and other officials would be subject to such lawsuits or could be prosecuted for crimes.
The only change ordered by Gors is that the attorney general's ballot explanation refer to members of the grand jury as "special grand jurors," not as "volunteers."
The circuit judge said the ballot explanation is accurate when it says lawsuits and other penalties would be allowed against members of county commissions, city councils, school boards and other officials who make judicial decisions.
The ballot explanation says current law allows such decisions to be overturned on appeal, but judges and other officials cannot be forced to pay damages for those decisions.
Long's explanation says the proposed amendment would allow the special grand jury to expose such decision-makers to fines and jail, strip them of public insurance coverage and up to half their retirement benefits.
Gors said that explanation is accurate.
The judge noted that the proposal's main sponsor, businessman Bill Stegmeier of Tea, acknowledged in a paid political statement that the measure would apply to any government officials who have been shielded by judicial immunity. Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts have extended judicial immunity to members of juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, licensing boards and others who make decisions of a judicial nature.
Stegmeier also sought to change the ballot explanation to say judges could face penalties only if they "deliberately" violate the law or constitution or ignore material facts.
But Gors said there is no need to insert the word "deliberate."
"Judges do not accidentally decide a case or accidentally sign an order or accidentally send someone to prison. Judges do not accidentally do anything. Every act a judge does is deliberate," Gors wrote.
Stegmeier also asked that the word "accountability" be included in the ballot explanation, but the circuit judge said that word does not have to be included.
"The attorney general could have said with a straight face that the real purpose and effect of the proposed JAIL amendment is to destroy justice in South Dakota by harassment of public decision makers with lawsuits, but he did not. His actual description is quite tame," Gors wrote.
Secretary of State Chris Nelson has said he needs to know the final wording that will appear on ballots as soon as possible so ballots can be prepared in time for absentee voting to begin Sept. 26. He said Monday the deadline can be met if ballots are written and checked for errors for all counties by Friday.
Glasford said the appeal by Amendment E sponsors will be filed as soon as possible.
Gors also is considering a request to change the attorney general's explanation of a proposal that would allow marijuana for medical use, but he had not issued a decision in that case by late Monday.
However, Circuit Judge Max Gors of Pierre rejected the other changes requested by sponsors of proposed Constitutional Amendment E.
Gors' decision will be appealed to the state Supreme Court in an attempt to get approval of the other requested changes, said Sioux Falls lawyer Tara Glasford, representing the amendment's sponsors.
Sponsors had asked that Attorney General Larry Long's explanation be changed to say the measure would allow people to sue judges for deliberately violating their rights. They also want to delete language that says such lawsuits would be allowed not only against judges, but also against members of county commissions, city councils, school boards and other government officials who make judicial decisions.
A special grand jury would decide if judges and other officials would be subject to such lawsuits or could be prosecuted for crimes.
The only change ordered by Gors is that the attorney general's ballot explanation refer to members of the grand jury as "special grand jurors," not as "volunteers."
The circuit judge said the ballot explanation is accurate when it says lawsuits and other penalties would be allowed against members of county commissions, city councils, school boards and other officials who make judicial decisions.
The ballot explanation says current law allows such decisions to be overturned on appeal, but judges and other officials cannot be forced to pay damages for those decisions.
Long's explanation says the proposed amendment would allow the special grand jury to expose such decision-makers to fines and jail, strip them of public insurance coverage and up to half their retirement benefits.
Gors said that explanation is accurate.
The judge noted that the proposal's main sponsor, businessman Bill Stegmeier of Tea, acknowledged in a paid political statement that the measure would apply to any government officials who have been shielded by judicial immunity. Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts have extended judicial immunity to members of juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, licensing boards and others who make decisions of a judicial nature.
Stegmeier also sought to change the ballot explanation to say judges could face penalties only if they "deliberately" violate the law or constitution or ignore material facts.
But Gors said there is no need to insert the word "deliberate."
"Judges do not accidentally decide a case or accidentally sign an order or accidentally send someone to prison. Judges do not accidentally do anything. Every act a judge does is deliberate," Gors wrote.
Stegmeier also asked that the word "accountability" be included in the ballot explanation, but the circuit judge said that word does not have to be included.
"The attorney general could have said with a straight face that the real purpose and effect of the proposed JAIL amendment is to destroy justice in South Dakota by harassment of public decision makers with lawsuits, but he did not. His actual description is quite tame," Gors wrote.
Secretary of State Chris Nelson has said he needs to know the final wording that will appear on ballots as soon as possible so ballots can be prepared in time for absentee voting to begin Sept. 26. He said Monday the deadline can be met if ballots are written and checked for errors for all counties by Friday.
Glasford said the appeal by Amendment E sponsors will be filed as soon as possible.
Gors also is considering a request to change the attorney general's explanation of a proposal that would allow marijuana for medical use, but he had not issued a decision in that case by late Monday.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 1 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
AmendmentE.com wrote on Aug 22, 2006 11:04 AM: