When the J.A.I.L. initiative was on the ballot in 2006 why did Bill Stegmeir suite over the South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long's ballot explanation?
Comparison between the official ballot explanations in California and South Dakota is of interest because both initiatives are nearly identical.
The California the explanation was written by Attorney General Bill Lockyer. It is regarded by the J.A.I.L. organization as fair and accurate:
JUDGES. RESTRICTIONS ON JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Supersedes existing judicial immunity and creates three 25-member 'Special Grand Juries' empowered to: determine if a judge may invoke judicial immunity in a civil suit; indict and, through a special trial jury, convict and sentence a judge for criminal conduct; and permanently remove a judge who receives three adverse immunity decisions or three criminal convictions. Disallows immunity for deliberate violations of law, fraud, conspiracy, intentional due process violations, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts outside the court's jurisdiction, unreasonable delay of a case, or any deliberate constitutional violation.
Contrast this with South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long's ballot explanation:
The J.A.I.L. initiative is worded to apply to any that have a judge's function. This is so the J.A.I.L. Amendment can not be escaped by giving judges a title other than "judge." Nevertheless the J.A.I.L. organization does not agree the wording would cause the inclusion of juries, school boards, and city councils.