Poll: Voters favor JAIL amendment

Interesting.

A poll paid for by supporters of the “Judicial Accountability Amendment” shows that two-thirds of likely voters favor the ballot measure, but opponents of the amendment say the survey was a “push poll” designed to skew the results.

From the question, it didn’t look too much like a “push” question to the Chief, but hey, what do I know? All I can do is look at the English language of it, not having been trained in the details of legal deconstruction in law school.

Amendment E – also nicknamed “JAIL” for “Judicial Accountability Initiative Law” – would establish a permanent, paid grand jury of citizens who would hear complaints about judges. The grand jury would also have the power to investigate and discipline judges – removing them from the bench, cutting their retirement and even indicting them.

Another interesting point here is the totally unanimous opposition to the JAIL amendment by the political establishment. I don’t know WHY I have such trouble thinking that this is at least partially viewed as a serious threat to…what? Power, prestige, independence on active review of the judiciary by (gasp, shudder) PEOPLE outside of the legal old-boys club comprising the bar?

Much of the STATED opposition comes in from this (as far as the Chief can tell):

Opponents, such as Tom Barnett of Pierre, a spokesman for the Vote No on E Committee, say the measure would put at personal risk many public officials such as school board members and judges….South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long’s official explanation of the amendment, which will appear on ballots, says “citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, or in similar capacities” could be stripped of immunity and liability insurance.

Again, the Chief really can’t see this. The amendment refers repeatedly to “JUDGES” – not all the rest. Of course, Atty. Gen. Long MAY be thinking that some twisted legal opinion MIGHT lead to an interpretation that those other officials could be included, and that WOULD be a serious flaw in the plan.

But then again, if such legal deconstruction is so likely to occur, then THAT itself is a strong argument in support of a need for an independent review of a judiciary that could twist things to that extent.