|
|
With today being the deadline for pre-election campaign finance reports, it will be interesting to see if and when the state gets a report from “South Dakotan’s (sic) for Amendment E.”
As I’ve pointed out before, state law requires any “ballot question committee” to file campaign finance reports. That term is defined as “any two or more people who cooperate for the purpose of raising, collecting, or disbursing money for the adoption or defeat of any question submitted to the voters at any election.”
The Amendment E website has solicited contributions. It necessarily spent money to register, host, set up and operate the web site. Its domain name is not registered in the name of South Dakota Judicial Accountability Campaign, the only registered ballot committee and the only one which has filed a report so far this year (but for which one for today’s deadline does not appear on the campaign finance website). It plainly advocates adoption of the measure. Moreover, it has become clear the site is an active part of the Amendment E campaign.
In a recent appearance on “Inside KELOLAND,” Jake Hanes was asked to summarize why J.A.I.L. should be adopted. He directed people to the “South Dakotan’s (sic) for Amendment E” website. Then, in a debate in Mitchell Tuesday night, Hanes echoed the language of the website:
Hanes concluded the debate by asking voters to not listen to media reports, which he said are distorting facts about Amendment E. He called it “shriek reporting,” and urged voters to go the group’s Web site.
The phrase shriek reporting comes directly from the South Dakotan’s (sic) for Amendment E site.
Likewise, when a lawsuit against the No on E Committee was filed yesterday, the California “publicist” for South Dakotan’s (sic) for Amendment E posted a comment on PP’s blog that “www.AmendmentE.com filed suit.”
I imagine, though, that it’s too much to ask people demanding accountability to comply with state laws and file campaign finance reports.
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth.
“Gimme Some Truth,” John Lennon, Imagine
PP stays up later than I do so he picked up on South Dakota J.A.I.L.er-in-chief Bill Stegmeier’s lawsuit against the No on E Committee. PP makes several good points but in looking at the pleadings, something jumped out at me.
You may recall that the Amendment E people have taken to holding up a ruling by Judge Rusch as a poster child for J.A.I.L. Their complaint? That because this individual supports Amendment E, Rusch violated the man’s First Amendment rights by telling him he could not post information about his ex-wife on the internet. As I’ve pointed out, this claim is bogus. But what shows up in the pleadings by these great defenders of the Fist Amendment?
It asks the trial judge to enter an “exparte (sic) temporary restraining order” forbidding No on E from airing any television commercials or distributing pamphlets or other materials the litigation claims are untrue. An “ex parte” order is one issued without notice to or a hearing afforded the party against whom the order is sought. So, the people who complain about the judicial system want an order without notice or hearing. While such orders are authorized under limited circumstances, it seems that under Amendment E any judge who issued such an order could be the subject of a J.A.I.L. complaint and sued.
These great defenders of the First Amendment also apparently skipped several days of whatever class they took about the First Amendment. First, the Supreme Court has said in no uncertain terms that the First Amendment “affords the broadest protection to . . . political expression in order ‘to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.'” Buckley v. Valeo (1976) (quoting Roth v. United States (1957)). In fact, the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan dealt with a political campaign ad.
Similarly, the order seeks to restrain speech (hence a “restraining order”) before it takes place. The Supreme Court has been as blunt about prior restraints as political speech, saying “prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976). So Amendment E, which trumpets the First Amendment on its web sites and inane blog comments, wants a judge to issue a prior restraint on political speech. Even though hypocrisy isn’t spelled with an e, it sure rhymes with it.
If this is how Stegmeier and Amendment E supporters view the First Amendment, perhaps you’re getting an insight into how they hope J.A.I.L.’s “special grand jury” will work and what they want to use it for.
UPDATE: I understand Judge Gors has scheduled a hearing in the lawsuit for 9 a.m. Wednesday morning The fact a hearing is scheduled would lead me to believe the “exparte” request for a TRO was denied or, at least, deferred.
Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. This of course includes discussions of candidates, structures and forms of government, the manner in which government is operated or should be operated, and all such matters relating to political processes.
Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218-19 (1966)
The Rapid City Journal certainly pulled no punches with its editorial today urging a “No” vote on Amendment E. And the Journal nailed the J.A.I.L.ers in an area they’ve been skating around since the measure made it to the ballot.
The editorial says:
Supporters of the judicial accountability law say judges in South Dakota need to be stripped of their immunity from lawsuits in order to hold them accountable for their “unchecked judicial misconduct.” In fact, the pro statement explaining the amendment states that a lack of oversight over judges’ courtroom conduct “often lead(s) to judicial misconduct.”How often is “often”? How many examples of judicial misconduct, which we are told happens “often,” can Amendment E supporters cite? Judicial immunity has been around as long as South Dakota has been a state. During 117 years of statehood, surely there must be many examples of egregious behavior by judges that have violated citizens’ civil rights. There must be thousands of cases that can be cited. How about just publishing the instances of judicial misconduct that has occurred in South Dakota in the last five years? Are there any?
We have patiently waited for supporters of the JAIL Amendment to provide specific cases where judges have violated citizens’ rights and engaged in judicial misconduct. We have seen none.
Just because Amendment E’s supporters can make the serious charge that South Dakota judges “often” engage in judicial misconduct doesn’t make the charge true. If the accusation were true, we would know who these judges are and what they did in their courtrooms that violated citizens’ civil rights.
* * *
Despite the claims of Amendment E’s sponsors, very few judges, if any, are power-mad tyrants who need to be reined in. If they were, Amendment E’s supporters could cite them by name. Even one example of judicial misconduct in South Dakota would be more than they’re providing to voters now.
Don’t make South Dakota a laughingstock of the nation by passing Amendment E.
The Journal hits it right on the head. For months, we have been asking for an example of why South Dakota needs J.A.I.L. With one exception, all we ever hear about are incidents in other states, virtually all of which have been addressed through mechanisms already in place. The one claimed exception is, as I have pointed out before, bogus.
The Journal’s editorial could well be another chapter in the “J.A.I.L.’s Lies” series.
Opinions have greater power than strength of hands.
Sophocles
Work travel kept me from commenting on today’s column by Dave Kranz until now. All in all it was accurate but let me note that you read it here first. I also would point out that South Dakota J.A.I.L.er-in-chief Bill Stegmeier and his friend who sees taxes and secular schools as part of some Communist plot appear as well educated about the Communist Manifesto as they are about checks and balances and democratic principles.
The Communist Manifesto doesn’t say anything about property taxes. That’s because it proposed abolition of private ownership of property and, hence, there would be nothing upon which to levy a tax. But beware! Parts of the manifesto are apparently dictating public policy in South Dakota.
Among other things, the manifesto proposes free education for all children in public schools. Shockingly, Article 8, § 1 of the South Dakota Constitution guarantees a free public education. Since the Communist Manifesto was published 37 years before the South Dakota Constitution was adopted, it looks like the Commies started taking over the state more than a century ago and about 30 years before the Russian Revolution. And just to forestall what I’m sure I will hear anyway, you’d don’t have to be a Communist to know what the Communist Manifesto advocates. It’s something you can learn in any basic political ideologies class.
Still, I personally thought the cartoon accompanying Kranz’s column was a bit over the top. There’s certainly nothing to indicate the Stegmeier is a front for his Communist-hunting friend. The cartoon does, though, certainly illustrate that there’s plenty of absurd ideas waiting in the wings for which the political fringe associated with J.A.I.L. appear intent to make South Dakota their guinea pig.
The lunatic fringe wags the underdog.
H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy
As the election approaches, I am looking forward to there being far fewer lengthy posts dealing with political matters. In fact, I’m hoping political topics will soon be almost nonexistent here.
For example, you’re not going to be any info or comment on pagegate, gropegate or whatever -gate you want to use for the upcoming special session of the state Senate. J.A.I.L. and the abortion ban are the reason this blog temporarily strayed from the new course charted more than 18 months ago. November 7 can’t come soon enough and there’s plenty of others out there who can delve into the political to their heart’s content.
That said, here’s a lengthy installment of items of political note:
- Amongst those willing and desirous of remaining immersed in politics, Clean Cut Kid and PP are interviewed by SDPB about political blogs in South Dakota.
- Also in that camp is my other-side-of-the-aisle friend JR. I give him credit for once again being frank and honest, saying that what he calls the Republican Governing Coalition “is over.” He dates the problems to the “Terry Schiavo fiasco.” Since then, he says, “Social Conservatives have taken charge of the government and the Economic Conservatives have been pushed aside. Social issues have taken center stage at the expense of economic ones. With the possible exception of the energy bill that while useful is little more that a large expenditure of incentives to encourage production (not altogether a bad thing), not has much has been accomplished that the American people are interested in.”
- Local ranter Scott Hudson on Amendment C, the “gay marriage” amendment.
- Stanford Law School has started an election day bloggers’ legal guide. (Via Boing Boing.)
- Thanks to Coat Hangers at Dawn for leading me to DefCon: The Campaign to Defend the Constitution. It has been added to the list of politically-oriented sites.
- Along similar lines, recent reads (for which reviews are forthcoming) have led to adding Point of Inquiry to the podcast roll, the Center for Inquiry to the list of worthy sites and to remind readers of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, already on the list.
- Lots of us kind of joked about it if Bush won in the 2006 election. I’ve already told my wife I’m relatively serious about getting out of at least the state if voters approve J.A.I.L. and the abortion ban.
- I don’t watch the program (and perhaps I should) but Keith Olbermann does it again: “Beginning of the end of America.” (Via South Dakota Progressive.)
- And to at least end on a slightly humorous note, the Onion’s A.V. Club gives us horror films for left-wingers/horror films for right-wingers.
If telling the truth is treason, you can make the most of it …. I yield to no man in my devotion to the country or the flag … but I have my own opinion as to how its honor may be sustained.
U.S. Sen. Richard F. Pettigrew (R. – S.D.), February 1900
Senate debate over U.S. military
involvement in the Philippines
|
Disclaimer 
Additionally, some links on this blog go to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. There is no additional cost to you. Contact me You can e-mail me at prairieprogressive at gmaildotcom.
|
