INSTRUCTIONS TO THE VOTER
To vote on a ballot question fill in the oval (R) next to "Yes" or "No". DO NOT cast more votes than are allowed in each race.
GO TO TOP OF NEXT COLUMN
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT E
Title: An Amendment to Article VI of the South Dakota Constitution, relating to judicial decisions.
Attorney General Explanation: 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 special grand jurors 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 special grand jurors. Special grand jurors are drawn from those who submit their names and registered voters.
The proposed amendment is retroactive. The special grand jurors may penalize any decision-maker still alive for decisions made many years ago.
If approved, the proposed amendment will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the US Constitution. If so, the State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs.
Yes A vote “Yes” will change the Constitution.
No A vote “No” will leave the Constitution as it is.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That is what the voters in South Dakota are reading on their 2006 ballot regarding Amendment E, called "The J.A.I.L. Amendment." Now, I ask everyone to go to http://www.sd-jail4judges.org/ and click on "South Dakota Amendment E" in the left-hand menu and READ THE AMENDMENT. Then compare "The Attorney General Explanation" with what the Amendment itself actually provides.
I encourage you to read Mr. Branson's expose` of the South Dakota Attorney General's "explanation" on the Home Page of the website for details. But more importantly, I encourage everyone, especially South Dakota voters, to read the Amendment yourself, and decide for yourself whether the Attorney General has truthfully and neutrally explained the Amendment for the voters. Make your own determination--don't believe us. Check it out! What do you conclude?
Defrauding and misleading the voters is a crime. The entire "government" of South Dakota is in opposition to Amendment E; and the State Attorney General of that government should be disqualified from writing any "explanation" of the Amendment for the ballot because of his obvious conflict of interest in the subject matter. The Attorney General is the defense counsel for all judges of the State.
Explanations of Initiative measures on the ballot should properly be written by the Proponent of the Amendment for an accurate account of what it provides. Voters should read the provision itself, but many won't take the time to do so; they will depend on the "Attorney General Explanation" and assume that the Attorney General is honest and upright in that fiducial responsibility. South Dakota voters should be very concerned about this matter!
Because of this serious misrepresentation of Amendment E on the ballot by the Attorney General of South Dakota, many voters will be deceived, and by that deception will vote "No" for the Amendment while they would otherwise vote "Yes." This is a serious situation and will affect not only South Dakota, but the entire country because this is of nationwide concern. South Dakota is our pioneer state and will set the example for other states. That is why it is important that each of you take the time to check out the truth before voting this Tuesday. KNOW and BE INFORMED of what you are voting for on all issues, and certainly Amendment E.
Forewarned is forearmed!
"Who stands to be hurt if Amendment E is not passed?"
Would it be the South Dakota Bar Association and lawyers? NO!
Would it be the South Dakota Legislature? NO!