SIOUX FALLS ARGUS LEADER

POLL: SD FAVORS NIXING JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
If the results of a new scientific poll bear fruit in Tuesday's election, South Dakotans will get rid of the immunity that protects judges from being sued for the decisions they make.

The poll, done for KELO-TV of Sioux Falls, showed that 51 percent of the respondents said they would vote for constitutional Amendment E, 40 percent were opposed and 9 percent undecided.

Research 2000 of Maryland conducted the random telephone polling of 600 likely voters from Monday through Wednesday. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The measure had support among both genders and both major political parties.
Supporters say Amendment E argue will merely hold judges accountable for intentionally violating people's rights.

But opponents say it would create chaos throughout state and local government because it would apply not only to judges but also to members of local city, county and school boards and other officials who make judicial decisions. That would mean their homes, businesses, farms and other personal assets would be at risk if they made decisions that prompted someone to sue them, according to opponents.

The amendment would let people seek criminal charges or file lawsuits against judges and other government officials they believe have violated their rights.

Opponents say any mistakes by judges can be handled under the present system, either through traditional appeals, a disciplinary panel for judges or judicial elections.

This past week, statewide politicians from both major parties said they oppose Amendment E. The joint statement was issued by U.S. Sens. Tim Johnson and John Thune; U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth and her Republican election opponent, Bruce Whalen; and Republican Gov. Mike Rounds and his Democratic opponent, Jack Billion.

As if we don't have enough frivolous lawsuits in the world.

Sounds like the definition of a frivolous lawsuit is very similar to the definition of minor surgery.

Minor surgery is when someone is going under the knife.

Can't you just see the endless cylcle of lawsuits from this one. Frivolously sue one judge, have that case thrown out by another judge - who in turn gets sued for throwing out the case. Repeat ad infinitem!

This is a great idea! NOT!

Under truth in advertising:

We can call this the tort lawyer's full employment act.

I agree at what point would it stop. What would be the appeal process? Could it go to the US S CT if you don't like what the SD S CT did? I always thought that the appeals process more or less addressed those issues - if the decision is legally wrong than they should already have a process. If the decision is legally sound should citizens have the right to sue over a legally sound decision?

Also, can you imagine the chilling effect it would have on people who might otherwise have made great judges, and decide not to because they don't want to deal with the additional BS of defending themsleves in court against unhappy litigants?

I think Gretchen hits the nail right on the head. The only people who would take on a bench under this proposal are those crazy enough to think that no one would dare disagree with them.

This being a state law issue, I can't see much of a way to get to the big Supremes. But it would be fun to see the order denying cert.:

"Certiorari is denied. The Court further notes that you people are crazy as an outhouse rat."

Yeah, but the subsequent class action lawsuit by the offended outhouse rats would be classic!

Sounds like a great name for a band. And look! It's not taken!

Band Names

quote:

---

The amendment would let people seek criminal charges or file lawsuits against judges and other government officials they believe have violated their rights.

---

You "other government officials" are much more sanguine about your brethren getting sued than I thought you'd be. (No, I don't know if the proposition currently includes S.D. prosecutors -- but if not, you can be sure the next one will.)

Personally, I think the S.D. amendment is a terrible, dangerous idea and would likely lead to all sorts of problematic unintended consequences.

At the same time, however, it will be interesting to see what happens with this election. As Justice Scalia recently suggested in an article posted on this website, as the judiciary becomes more "political" and inclined to usurp the roles of the legislative and executive branches of our democratically elected government, it's little wonder that voters begin to view judges in the same vein as any other "politician." If this amendment is a reaction to that type of judicial "activism," then maybe it will be an eye opener.

Whether amendment E becomes SD constitutional law or not, it is significant that a large number of people apparently favor holding their officials more accountable (or at least accountable by a different procedure). But, this measure would indeed create far more problems than it could ever solve.

Shannon raises a salient point. Prosecutorial immunity is extended precisely because prosecutors serve an intimate and fundamental role in the judicial process, not because we're such good people. So, where does it stop? If judges don't have absolute immunity for their decision-making, why should prosecutors? And why shouldn't adversary lawyers have a direct cause of action against each other for offending conduct in the courtroom? It isn't difficult to imagine the eventual progression of this approach to accountability resulting in Hobbes' "war of every man against every man." And in such an anarchistic state of being, Hobbes' further description of life is appropos: In this "natural state," life is "nasty, brutish and short." This is a potentially mutating trend that needs to be watched like the bird flu.

On a lighter note, I hadn't thought about it, but Gretchen is absolutely right. "Outhouse Rats" would be a fantastic band name. The first cut on the debut album could be a cover of Brownsville Station's "Smokin' in the Boys' Room."

This article (on cnn.com) explains a lot and has the website of the guy behind the drive toward suing judges (and he says in the article that it's limited to judges). I think it speaks volumes that he sues people A LOT and has had many of his lawsuits dismissed - probably as frivolous filings. Sounds like someone with nothing better to do, but with a very poisonous message that people disenfranchised generally could latch onto.

CNN article

BTW, I have searched and can't find anything on what happened with this measure. Anyone else come up with it?

Voters reject J.A.I.L. measure in a landslide
By Argus Leader wire reports
PUBLISHED: November 7, 2006
South Dakotans on Tuesday were turning their backs on a constitutional amendment that opponents said would create chaos in the state�s courthouses and the halls of local government.

With 36 percent of precincts reporting, Amendment E was failing with 90 percent opposing it and 10 percent supporting it.

It would let people seek criminal charges or file lawsuits against judges and other government officials they believe have violated their rights.

Supporters said it would apply only to judges. But opponents said it would include members of school boards, county commissions and city councils because those officials sometimes make decisions of a judicial nature.

Judges have immunity from lawsuits over their official acts.

The amendment�s foes say judicial immunity helps protect the fairness and independence of judges by preventing intimidation that would arise from the threat of lawsuits.

A special 13-member grand jury, selected at random from registered voters or volunteers, would handle complaints and decide whether judges and other officials could be sued or prosecuted.

Opponents said any mistakes by judges can be handled under the present system, either through traditional appeals, a disciplinary panel for judges or judicial elections.

The Argus Leader article