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

[Voyager]

@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.

Reading the amendment, I don’t see anything limiting who can bring a complaint. It seems to me that in the case you mention, any homophobe would have the right to bring a complaint against this judge.

Even better - and this was mentioned in the story this morning, is this

@PropE

All allegations in the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complainant. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their decisions, that they are entrusted by the People of this State with the duty of restoring judicial accountability and a perception of justice, and are not to be swayed by artful presentation by the judge. They shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities.

Burden of proof? We don’t need no stinking burden of proof. The amendment basically says that the grand jury shouldn’t listen to the judge. The judge is also personally responsible for the expenses of his defense, even if found innocent.

The guy who proposed this is the real threat to our liberty. He’s the one who belongs in Gitmo.

[carnivorousplant]

Of course, Judges are not always the most sterling of fellows.

[Gadarene]

The judge is also personally responsible for the expenses of his defense, even if found innocent.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

I’d missed that part. Simply stunning.

[What_Exit]

@Gadarene

The judge is also personally responsible for the expenses of his defense, even if found innocent.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

I’d missed that part. Simply stunning.

Wait where is that quote from and is that what item 19 means in the amendment?

@Amendment E point 19

Public Indemnification. No judge complained against, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this Amendment, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this Amendment.

If that is what 19 means, then I have to agree :eek:
I read that as, if the judge is found wrong, public funds could not be used to pay, not that if the Judge is found correct, he still has to pay.

Jim

[Random]

@What Exit?

Wait where is that quote from and is that what item 19 means in the amendment?

If that is what 19 means, then I have to agree :eek:

That’s what the quoted language means.
I have not had time to look into this thoroughly but, based upon what I’ve read, this would destroy any possibility of an umbiased, effective judicial system and local government. It’d be used as a tool by extremists of the type that already abuse the system with nonsense filings.

[Oakminster]

I tried to read that crap. Really, I did. Got about halfway through it and gave up. It’s fucking insane. Stupidest shit I’ve ever seen make it as far as a ballot initiative. Really see no possible way for it to work.

[eleanorigby]

@Oakminster

I tried to read that crap. Really, I did. Got about halfway through it and gave up. It’s fucking insane. Stupidest shit I’ve ever seen make it as far as a ballot initiative. Really see no possible way for it to work.

And so, what are its chances of becoming law? she asked, cynically. This is the state that gave us that whole abortion debacle. god bless South Dakota-it makes Texas look civilized. (ignore snark if not up to par for GD…I’m only a tourist here)

[What_Exit]

@Random

That’s what the quoted language means.
I have not had time to look into this thoroughly but, based upon what I’ve read, this would destroy any possibility of an umbiased, effective judicial system and local government. It’d be used as a tool by extremists of the type that already abuse the system with nonsense filings.

Thank you, well count me in with everyone else that thinks this is retarded. Consider ignorance fought I guess.

Jim

[Bearflag70]

So, if passed, it would put the issue into the hands of judges whether the judicial accountability initiative is constitutional

[Random]

@Bearflag70

So, if passed, it would put the issue into the hands of judges whether the judicial accountability initiative is constitutional

Well, if passed, it would be constitutional under the South Dakota constitution, by definition. That, of course, leaves the question of constitutionality under the U.S. Constitution.

As the amendment does not appear to apply to Federal judges, I’m not sure I see any obvious (federal) Constitutional issue. (I can envision some foreseeable future actions that the new “grand jury” might take that would be unconstitutional, but that doesn’t mean that the whole new system is unconstitutional.)

[Voyager]

@eleanorigby

And so, what are its chances of becoming law? she asked, cynically. This is the state that gave us that whole abortion debacle. god bless South Dakota-it makes Texas look civilized. (ignore snark if not up to par for GD…I’m only a tourist here)

The NPR report today said that it was slightly behind, but the opponents (which seem to be every group in the state, just about) want it to fail big time to keep these clowns from trying again. No one is putting any money into support for the Amendment except the proponent, and there is lots of money against.

Would an attorney like to comment on the federal consitutionality of it? I’d think that a right to a fair trial is guaranteed, even in state courts, and that a good argument could be made that this would prevent that. Consider a civil suit, at the least.

[What_Exit]

I just re-listened to the report. I had the link in my Op but it may have been lost in all the links and quotes.
I still would like someone to comment on how the amendment affect Union members, Banks and School Board Members. Can someone please give it a listen and reconcile those statements/beliefs to the wording of the amendment?

Jim

[Random]

@What Exit?

I still would like someone to comment on how the amendment affect Union members, Banks and School Board Members. Can someone please give it a listen and reconcile those statements/beliefs to the wording of the amendment?

Jim

The doctrine of judicial immunity provides that judges and other officials who make quasi-judicial decisions may not be personally sued for damages by people claiming that the decision was somehow wrongful. The rationale for this? To ensure (or at least make it more likely) that such decisionmakers will render rulings on the law and the merits, without fear of personal financial consequences.

(Note: A judge’s decision can still be appealed, and the judge can be sanctioned or even criminally prosecuted for certain types of egregious wrongdoing. Judicial immunity is therefore limited)

Non judge officials that sometimes act in a quasi-judicial role include town boards, city councils, zoning boards, liquor control boards, school boards, civil service commissions and the like. Judicial immunity therefore extends to these officials.
Under the proposed amendment, its term “Judge” is defined as "Justice, judge, magistrate judge, judge pro tem, and all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity. "

Therefore, under the amendment, if the local zoning board refuses to grant you a variance, you would be able to personally sue each member of the zoning board for damages, and each such person sued would have to pay attorneys’ fees, even if he wins.

(I’m not sure I understand how the amendment would apply to banks. Unions? Perhaps to the extend a union board might be ruling on some sort of member dispute.)
Here’s what the SD attorney general says:

“Citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, or in similar capacities, and prosecutors and judges, are all required to make judicial decisions. Their decisions may be reversed on appeal, or they may be removed from office for misconduct or by election. However, they cannot be made to pay money damages for making such decisions. This allows them to do their job without fear of threat or reprisal from either side. The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would allow thirteen volunteers to expose these decision makers to fines and jail, and strip them of public insurance coverage and up to one-half of their retirement benefits, for making decisions which break rules defined by the volunteers.”

I agree with this interpretation.

[Random]

@Voyager

Would an attorney like to comment on the federal consitutionality of it? I’d think that a right to a fair trial is guaranteed, even in state courts, and that a good argument could be made that this would prevent that. .

I’ve given this some more thought and, although I have never done any research on this issue, I could maybe see a due process argument. It would require a Federal court considering the issue to determine that the judicial immunity doctrine is essential for due process. Possible, I suppose.

(Again, I have not researched this. Take it for what it’s worth.)

[What_Exit]

Random, Thank you very much for helping a lay person understand this issue. Your posts in this thread have been very informative.

Jim

[Random]

Glad to help.

[Miller]

@Random

Here’s what the SD attorney general says:

The Straight Dope has an attorney general?!

[Random]

@Miller

The Straight Dope has an attorney general?!

No, but not a bad idea. Maybe I should run on a platform of summary bans for people who post nonsense responses to legal questions in GQ?
(Actually, I think that GQ’s moderators have been doing a great job on that lately. People seem to be getting the message.)

[Voyager]

@Random

I’ve given this some more thought and, although I have never done any research on this issue, I could maybe see a due process argument. It would require a Federal court considering the issue to determine that the judicial immunity doctrine is essential for due process. Possible, I suppose.

(Again, I have not researched this. Take it for what it’s worth.)

Thanks.

As for banks, my understanding is that there isn’t an issue of judicial immunity - they are worried that if they must use the courts to recover unpaid debts, the debtors would be able to sue the judges presiding, which might hurt their ability to collect. I’m not sure about unions - perhaps if an employer were sued in a labor dispute, the employer could sue a judge? This law would tend to work against anyone expecting to win court disputes, since they might fear a judgement for them would be reduced in order to reduce the chance of the loser suing.

[Acsenray]

@Voyager

I’m not sure about unions - perhaps if an employer were sued in a labor dispute, the employer could sue a judge?

I believe the story says explicitly that unions are afraid of not being able to enforce or obtain workers compensation awards.