Is South Dakota's Amendment E, Jail-Four-Judges good or bad for the country?

Great Debates
1

I heard about this today on NPR.
If this amendment passes, a pool of 13 special grand jury members will selected at random to review claims that a Judge or other public official made a bad judgment and is subject to lawsuit. NPR reported that trade unions, Big Business, Banks and Public officials are all uniting to fight this amendment. The belief is that the new amendment could be used to sue individual School board members, delay worker comp cases and etcetera. The proponents of Amendment E led by William Stegmeier say this is not true.

**The actual Amendment is here: **
Look for the Read the Amendment link on the left hand side.

** Is Amendment E good, bad, or somewhere in between? **
It sounds like a fair and worthwhile amendment to me; I do not understand the large array of groups against it.
**Was the NPR report fair and balanced? **
The NPR report did not appear to be their usual balanced reporting. They accuse the proponent of believing in 9/11 conspiracy and mentions his DUIs. It almost appeared they were trying to smear him. I wanted to call in and ask for some cites. They never seem to address the actual amendment itself, just what others felt about it. They spoke to a “conservative” and a “liberal” blogger that were both against it but not to a blogger that was in favor of it. I fee it was a terrible reporting job.
**Is the amendment a good idea with some serious flaws? **
I do not know, I have some serious questions over the definition of Judge. Bullet 1, definitions point B: “Judge: Justice, judge, magistrate judge, judge pro tem, and all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity.” The all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity part appears to be a possibly large flaw.

What does everyone else think? I am especially interested in hearing from the lawyers and public officials on the board.

[QUOTE=Morning Edition, October 18, 2006]
South Dakotans will vote next month on a proposed state constitutional amendment known as Jail-Four-Judges. The judicial accountability initiative law would open judges to prosecution for their decisions. The proposal has alarmed not only judges, but also large swathes of South Dakota society. Nina Totenberg reports.
[/QUOTE]

From this anti Amendment E website:

[QUOTE=Carter Wood]
“Amendment E, known in the vernacular as Jail4Justices. This is an initiative that holds judges accountable by allowing a statewide grand jury to review their decisions, and punish these judges personally for decisions they reject.”… Amendment E has nothing to do with the judge’s decision. It has everything to do with the judge’s courtroom procedure. …
Immunity. No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State for any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute.

[/QUOTE]

More reading Washing Post article
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2006/10/11/news/state/state01.txt
Google News Search:
Official Ammendment E Pro-site:
They claim:

Thank You,
Jim

2

Speaking as a judicial clerk, that amendment, if it passes, will get ludicrously overused by pro se litigants (people representing themselves). As it is we already have numerous plaintiffs who, upon dismissal of their patently meritless lawsuits, continue to file motion upon motion attacking the judge, seeking to reinstate their action, and often even naming the judge as a defendant in a new civil suit. This will just exacerbate and even legitimize that sort of behavior.

3

Do judges have immunity for those things now? I doubt it. Isn’t there judicial review and such things (my knowledge of court stuff is minimal at best). Parking tickets, maybe, but immunity from fraud? Maybe in SD, but certainly not here in IL. Wasn’t there a huge sting operation a few years back-Operation Greylord (I think) that indicted any number of judges in Chicago? They are subject to some recourse, if memory serves.
I have not studied this, but on the surface it seems to be an odd bit of legislation. I smell an agenda of sorts behind it (not sure just what, but feel there is something).
I firmly believe that judges should be held accountable for their actions within and outside the court room–thing is, does this amendment do that? Or is it broadly written so that its intent (if its intent is this to begin with) can and will be obscured?

I am puzzled by how this amendment got to where it did, considering the outcry against it. I will try to follow this more (in my copious free time…).

I am left with wondering if South Dakota is in step with most of the rest of the US, frankly…

4

[QUOTE=Gadarene]
Speaking as a judicial clerk, that amendment, if it passes, will get ludicrously overused by pro se litigants (people representing themselves). As it is we already have numerous plaintiffs who, upon dismissal of their patently meritless lawsuits, continue to file motion upon motion attacking the judge, seeking to reinstate their action, and often even naming the judge as a defendant in a new civil suit. This will just exacerbate and even legitimize that sort of behavior.
[/QUOTE]

I think I understand what you are saying, but it looked liked the Special Grand Jury is charged with dismissing such nuisance suits. Would it actually make things any worse?

eleanorigby: If I am reading it correctly, judges currently have immunity from lawsuits against them even in cases of fraud. However, I can easily be wrong, as I am far from an expert on legal matters, and just got very curious about this report on NPR.

Jim

5

I think so. My understanding is that the judge would have to demonstrate to the Special Grand Jury in some way that a nuisance suit is a nuisance suit, which wastes time all the way around.

Look, there are two issues here. (1) Should judges be held accountable for criminal behavior? (2) Should judges be held accountable (by someone other than an appellate court) for “blocking [the] lawful conclusion of a case”?

As to the first, judges are already not immune from criminal prosecution for criminal acts. They are, however, immune from civil liability for the results of decisions made in the course of their duties. That appears to be what this amendment is trying to change. I think it’s a horrific idea.

6

Good lord, what a terrible proposal! The losing party in a court case frequently says that the judge/jury disregarded material facts, when what actually happened was that the judge/jury didn’t believe the losing party’s version of the story because the losing party lacked credibility. This proposal is going to give the losing party the chance to take vengence on the court that found against them. Good people of South Dakata, reject this amendment!

7

If passed, I would guess that South Dakota will be looking outside the state to find judges to recruit by the busload in about five years. Why would I agree to be a judge if every single decision opened me up to the need to provide a response to some plaintiff who did not like my decisions? Mind you, I’m only addressing the doubling or trebling of the workload and not even worrying (at this point) about the risk a judge takes in making an unpopular decision.

8

This amendment would institutionalize kangaroo courts, answerable to no one. To me this amendment smells of axe-grinding by one individual. Everything about it – for example, the faux constitutional language ("…that when judges do abuse their power, the People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity," etc.) – sets my crackpot meter to clanging.

9

And just as an example of the crackpotism, look at the website maintained by one of the amendment’s named supporters: Police and military against the new world order.

10

You realize, of course, what will happen, right? Every single person convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail, no matter how long or how short, will appeal to the grand jury. Approximately five minutes after that happens every judge will resign and every lawyer will move to a different state (I would, without question).

If this passes I might have to move there. I always wanted to live in the Wild West.

11

Sounds like they want to be able to go after any judge who issues a ruling that those gays have rights too

12

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
Sounds like they want to be able to go after any judge who issues a ruling that those gays have rights too
[/QUOTE]

I did not see anything like that. Where did you find that piece? Or are you just conjecturing? (Not that conjecturing would be bad, just seeking clarification)

Thanks for the replies so far everyone. Anyone one to take a shot at my question if NPR failed to be fair and objective in this report?

Jim

13

[QUOTE=zamboniracer]
Good people of South Dakata, reject this amendment!
[/QUOTE]

or of South Dakota. :smack:

14

You’ve got to be kidding me? I heard the report this morning also. It was extremely fair - don’t you think it is relevant if the person pushing and paying for this initiative has a record? You think the info that this guy is a 9/11 conspiracy loon isn’t useful?

This is from the FAQ

Right - people only get sued for wrongdoing. What fantasy land does this guy live in anyway?

Did you notice how this grand jury gets picked? Thirteen people picked at random, excluding anyone who knows about the law. There appear to be no qualifications except not being involved in the law and not being a felon (and being 30 and a citizen.) IQ of 50 - okay. 2nd grade education. No problem. When you are on a jury you get instructed in the law by the judge, and that is damn important. Here - nothing.

Are you familiar with the anti-tax and white supremacist types who filed nuisance lawsuits against judges and city officials? This is just making that official. If this passes, it makes South Dakota take the lead in states full of morons.

The only thing that made me happy was that these clowns couldn’t get enough signatures to put this on the ballot in California.

15

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Thanks for the replies so far everyone. Anyone one to take a shot at my question if NPR failed to be fair and objective in this report?

Jim
[/QUOTE]

I heard the report this morning as well. You first need to understand that this proposed legislation is an absolute disaster. Airman Doors is right, this law would destroy South Dakota’s legal system in a matter of days.

With that in mind, I think that by allowing the proponents of this law to speak as if they were rational humans was tipping the bar way too far in their direction. These people are crackpots, and should be shouted down. I am concerned that anyone could have listened to that report and think that the proposistion “sounds like a fair and worthwhile amendment”.

16

[QUOTE=Voyager]
…Are you familiar with the anti-tax and white supremacist types who filed nuisance lawsuits against judges and city officials? This is just making that official. If this passes, it makes South Dakota take the lead in states full of morons. …
[/QUOTE]

No, I am not aware of those suits, that puts this in better light. Actually I should say it places it in much worse light.

[QUOTE=shelbo]
I heard the report this morning as well. You first need to understand that this proposed legislation is an absolute disaster. Airman Doors is right, this law would destroy South Dakota’s legal system in a matter of days.

With that in mind, I think that by allowing the proponents of this law to speak as if they were rational humans was tipping the bar way too far in their direction. These people are crackpots, and should be shouted down. I am concerned that anyone could have listened to that report and think that the proposistion “sounds like a fair and worthwhile amendment”.
[/QUOTE]

I am seeing that it is wrong, and I am seeing some good reasons why. I admit to the fact that “I am far from an expert on legal matters”. I did not listen to the report and think it was a fair and worthwhile amendment, I thought the report sounded very one-sided and read up more on the amendment and I read the amendment itself and I failed to understand the problem with the amendment and why there were claims it would affect Board of Education members. I hope you did not read my longish Op and think I came to any conclusions based on the Radio news story, all that did was leave me with questions that I attempted to get answered by research and turning it over to the board. I placed it in GD as I suspected strongly it was not suitable for GQ.
I am still wondering were the threat to the BOE members comes into play.
Jim

17

I found the NPR report to be very fair and I thought that the reporter’s bringing up the supporter’s history of 9/11 conspiracy theorism and anti-tax crackpotism to have been very gently done.

It’s too often in national political coverage that the news media out of a fallacious sense of what “fair” means leaves out too much context and factual analysis.

18

Okay, what is UP with the ad at the bottom – Pedophiles love kids but hate us! $3.99 Safety CD www.SingNoToDrugs.com.

What does pedophilia have to do with drugs and what do either have to do with this topic?

19

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I did not see anything like that. Where did you find that piece? Or are you just conjecturing? (Not that conjecturing would be bad, just seeking clarification)

[/QUOTE]

Just conjecture. Not being there, I don’t know, and I could be wrong.

I’m just touchy on the subject because a “family” organization led the effort to recall a judge in my county for ruling in favor of gay rights in a gay marriage case.

If that doesn’t apply to your situation then I withdraw the comment.

20

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
Just conjecture. Not being there, I don’t know, and I could be wrong.

I’m just touchy on the subject because a “family” organization led the effort to recall a judge in my county for ruling in favor of gay rights in a gay marriage case.

If that doesn’t apply to your situation then I withdraw the comment.
[/QUOTE]

the recall effort failed to get enough signatures BTW