Secretary of state seeks final decision on ballot wording
Posted: Friday, September 01, 2006
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- A pending court case has Secretary of State Chris Nelson worried about getting ballots and voting machines ready to start absentee voting on time.
State election officials have not yet received a final court decision on the wording that will appear on South Dakota's ballot to explain a proposed constitutional amendment that would let people sue judges and other officials.
Its sponsors have asked the state Supreme Court to order changes in the explanation written by Attorney General Larry Long, but the high court on Thursday had not indicated when it would decide the appeal.
"We've made it very clear to the Supreme Court we need to get some things resolved by tomorrow," Nelson said Thursday.
Early voting is scheduled to begin Sept. 26, and Nelson said election officials can have printed ballots done by then if a final decision on ballot wording is made by Sept. 8. But in order to have new electronic voting machines ready by Sept. 26, state and county election officials need to know by Friday what wording will appear on the ballots to explain the proposed constitutional amendment, he said.
A delay also could make it difficult for soldiers and others living overseas to get ballots and return them in time to be counted in the Nov. 7 election.
A circuit judge earlier ordered only a one-word change in the ballot explanation for Amendment E. The measure's sponsors then asked the Supreme Court to order further changes.
The amendment's main sponsor, businessman Bill Stegmeier of Tea, wants the Supreme Court to require that the ballot explanation be changed to say that the measure would let people sue judges for deliberately violating their rights. He also wants it to say the measure's purpose is to hold judges and other officials accountable for such violations.
"The only way to make this ballot statement accurate in all respects is to include language in the explanation that informs the voters that this amendment seeks to hold those persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity 'accountable for deliberate violations of law,"' lawyer Tara Glasford wrote in her arguments to the Supreme Court.
The attorney general's office argues that Long's ballot explanation is accurate and is an objective, clear and simple summary that would educate voters about the measure's purpose and effect.
Long's ballot explanation says the measure would allow lawsuits and criminal charges not only against judges, but also against members of city councils, county commissions, school boards and other government officials who make judicial decisions.
The amendment's sponsors initially sought to have the reference to those other government officials removed from the attorney general's explanation, but they dropped that issue in the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supporters say Amendment E is needed to hold judges accountable for intentionally violating people's rights. Opponents contend it would create chaos by allowing disgruntled people to seek criminal charges or file lawsuits against the personal assets of judges and members of boards and commissions that make decisions of a judicial nature.
Judges now have immunity from lawsuits over their official acts. Opponents of the proposed amendment say judicial immunity helps protect the fairness and independence of judges by preventing the intimidation that would arise from the threat of lawsuits.
The proposed amendment to the South Dakota Constitution would eliminate judges' immunity in cases involving deliberate violations of the law or deliberate disregard of the facts. A special 13-member grand jury, selected at random from registered voters or volunteers, would handle complaints and decide whether judges could be sued or prosecuted.
Opponents argue that bad court decisions can be overturned on appeal, and judges who break the rules can be removed by a disciplinary board or voted out of office. Supporters contend the current system does not prevent abuses by judges.
When Judge Gors issued his decision in the case last week, he said there is no need for the ballot explanation to say judges would face penalties only for "deliberate" violations. He said judges never accidentally decide a case, accidentally sign an order or accidentally send someone to prison.
State election officials have not yet received a final court decision on the wording that will appear on South Dakota's ballot to explain a proposed constitutional amendment that would let people sue judges and other officials.
Its sponsors have asked the state Supreme Court to order changes in the explanation written by Attorney General Larry Long, but the high court on Thursday had not indicated when it would decide the appeal.
"We've made it very clear to the Supreme Court we need to get some things resolved by tomorrow," Nelson said Thursday.
Early voting is scheduled to begin Sept. 26, and Nelson said election officials can have printed ballots done by then if a final decision on ballot wording is made by Sept. 8. But in order to have new electronic voting machines ready by Sept. 26, state and county election officials need to know by Friday what wording will appear on the ballots to explain the proposed constitutional amendment, he said.
A delay also could make it difficult for soldiers and others living overseas to get ballots and return them in time to be counted in the Nov. 7 election.
A circuit judge earlier ordered only a one-word change in the ballot explanation for Amendment E. The measure's sponsors then asked the Supreme Court to order further changes.
The amendment's main sponsor, businessman Bill Stegmeier of Tea, wants the Supreme Court to require that the ballot explanation be changed to say that the measure would let people sue judges for deliberately violating their rights. He also wants it to say the measure's purpose is to hold judges and other officials accountable for such violations.
"The only way to make this ballot statement accurate in all respects is to include language in the explanation that informs the voters that this amendment seeks to hold those persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity 'accountable for deliberate violations of law,"' lawyer Tara Glasford wrote in her arguments to the Supreme Court.
The attorney general's office argues that Long's ballot explanation is accurate and is an objective, clear and simple summary that would educate voters about the measure's purpose and effect.
Long's ballot explanation says the measure would allow lawsuits and criminal charges not only against judges, but also against members of city councils, county commissions, school boards and other government officials who make judicial decisions.
The amendment's sponsors initially sought to have the reference to those other government officials removed from the attorney general's explanation, but they dropped that issue in the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supporters say Amendment E is needed to hold judges accountable for intentionally violating people's rights. Opponents contend it would create chaos by allowing disgruntled people to seek criminal charges or file lawsuits against the personal assets of judges and members of boards and commissions that make decisions of a judicial nature.
Judges now have immunity from lawsuits over their official acts. Opponents of the proposed amendment say judicial immunity helps protect the fairness and independence of judges by preventing the intimidation that would arise from the threat of lawsuits.
The proposed amendment to the South Dakota Constitution would eliminate judges' immunity in cases involving deliberate violations of the law or deliberate disregard of the facts. A special 13-member grand jury, selected at random from registered voters or volunteers, would handle complaints and decide whether judges could be sued or prosecuted.
Opponents argue that bad court decisions can be overturned on appeal, and judges who break the rules can be removed by a disciplinary board or voted out of office. Supporters contend the current system does not prevent abuses by judges.
When Judge Gors issued his decision in the case last week, he said there is no need for the ballot explanation to say judges would face penalties only for "deliberate" violations. He said judges never accidentally decide a case, accidentally sign an order or accidentally send someone to prison.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 0 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
