Judicial accountability amendment crushed

By Bill Harlan, Journal Staff Writer | Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Previous Page

Share

• del.icio.us
• Digg
• NewsVine
• Fark

Print

Email

A constitutional amendment to end "judicial immunity" in South Dakota was losing by almost a 9 to 1 margin Tuesday.

With 801 of 818 precincts reporting, Amendment E was losing 89 percent to 11 percent. It won just 33,000 votes, 15,600 fewer than signed the petition to put it on the ballot.

A recent poll by KELO-TV had showed Amendment E "yes" votes leading 51 percent to 40 percent, with 9 percent undecided.

Early returns were far different. "That doesn't track with anything we've seen," Amendment E support Jake Hanes of Sioux Falls said.

Amendment E, also called the Judicial Accountability Amendment, would allow judges to be sued, as individuals, for their decisions.

Opponents of the issue included local and state governments and a host of business and professional organizations, and spending on the "Vote No on E" campaign far outstripped spending by supporters.

Opponents argued that at the least, Amendment E would cost taxpayers money to defend a measure that will be declared unconstitutional.

At worst, opponents said, the measure would cause chaos in government - putting at risk not only judges, but jurors, attorneys, law officers and a host of other government officials who have personal legal immunity for their official decisions.

"It makes ordinary people vulnerable to criminals with a grudge," one anti-Amendment E ad said.

Supporters of the measure insist that it would only apply to judges. Amendment E would help stop judges who abuse their power, Amendment E sponsor Bill Stegmeier of Tea said.

"Who opposes holding judges accountable for judicial misconduct?" Stegmeier asked in an essay for the secretary of state's ballot pamphlet. "It's of course judges. It's also most lawyers, most politicians and most special-interest groups, such as the bankers and the insurance-industry lobby."

Amendment E supporters already have promised to challenge the election in court, saying the attorney general's ballot explanation was misleading. The state Supreme Court upheld the explanation, but early Tuesday evening, Amendment E supporters were alleging voter fraud.

Contact Bill Harlan at 394-8424 or bill.harlan@rapidcityjournal.com