A Progressive on the Prairie

Backers of Amendment E love to invoke the founders of this nation in attacking the judiciary and government as a whole. In an insightful op-ed column in today’s Rapid City Journal, Connie Pich takes a look at the true impact of J.A.I.L. on the basic structure of government. She writes:

No matter how sincere the JAIL supporters are, this amendment dismantles the judiciary’s autonomy thus leaving S.D. vulnerable to special interest groups. Special interest groups could endlessly sue public officials who didn’t see things their way until the official resigned. The special interest group could then replace them with officials that supported only their viewpoint. These hand-picked officials (judges) would have the potential to ignore or disallow the rights of ordinary citizens.This scenario was our Founding Father’s greatest fear. They could foresee that, because of political process, the executive branch (president or governor) and the legislative branch could fall into the hands of a special interest. To prevent a takeover of all three branches, it was essential that the court system be immune from pressure to interpret the Constitution in favor of a special interest.

The proposed JAIL amendment dangerously dismantles the constitutional protection of the judiciary by subjecting it to pressure from individuals and special interest groups. As outlined in the JAIL amendment, a Special Grand Jury would be selected from citizens that volunteer specifically for the jury and also from the state’s list of registered voters. Anyone having a vendetta against the official could volunteer to serve on the jury to “get even” with that judge or elected official.

This contaminates the judicial process. Just think if you were being sued and everyone that was ever angry at you volunteered to be on the jury! You have to agree, this would not be justice. Furthermore, the JAIL amendment instructs the jury to favor the complainant. By the JAIL amendment’s instructions to favor the person who is suing you and the jury stacked with people against you, the court is unfairly set up for you to lose!

* * *

South Dakota cannot afford to unknowingly sabotage democracy by passing Amendment E. It is time to start using the legal remedies already in the Constitution to make the court system accountable without destroying the foundations of democracy.

“No” is the only vote that will protect South Dakota from killing our form of government that we proudly call democracy!

James Fenimore Cooper, The American Democrat

Even those who think there’s too much litigation in society recognize that Amendment E isn’t the solution. Overlawyered.com is a widely respected web site that, in its own words, “explores an American legal system that too often turns litigation into a weapon against guilty and innocent alike, erodes individual responsibility, rewards sharp practice, enriches its participants at the public’s expense, and resists even modest efforts at reform and accountability.”

Yet here’s what Ted Frank of that site had to say about Amendment E:

Let’s be clear: one can take the position that there needs to be more judicial accountability and that too many judges overstep their bounds, and still think that Amendment E — the likely-unconstitutional South Dakota ballot proposal to end civil immunity for judges and jurors and establish an unanswerable “special grand jury” to oversee these things — is positively insane cuckoo bonkers.

I take it he doesn’t mean “positively insane cuckoo bonkers” in a good way.

Thomas Henry Huxley, “On the Study of Biology“

Can you smell the desperation?

South Dakota J.A.I.L.er-in-chief Bill Stegmeier has taken his part of the campaign to commenting on blogs. There is plenty of top-notch political discourse, such as calling people “ass” and “coward.” He also posts comments like “I really don’t care” if Amendment E passes. Maybe the poll he commissioned from Zogby (which is now being questioned about push polling on another ballot issue) told Stegmeier more than he revealed.

But California “publicist” Bonnie Russell seems to have the most unique campaign approach. Her tactic is attacking and blaming the media for J.A.I.L.’s self-inflicted pain. For a while now, she’s been holding out the South Dakota media as a prime example of what she terms “media distortion reporting” and “campaigns of DIS-information (sic) on Amendment E.” The latest stems from a phone call she had with an Argus Leader reporter. Among other things she

educate[d] [him] as to the Argus Leaders (sic) complete lack of integrity in reporting about Amendment E…; adding that the Leader (sic) was only following the rest of South Dakota media’s (sic) complete lack of integrity. . . . . Then I mentioned it was fortunate South Dakotans have via [her] website, (sic) the ability to educate themselves as to the deliberate machinations of [his] and other news organizations (sic) ongoing dedication in subverting facts.

Here’s a few of her other tidbits:

“When the South Dakota press isn’t pandering, they (sic) opt for mute.””[T]he Argus Leader and Rapid City Journal slyly and repeatedly refer to Amendment E by its initiative status.” (My rhetorical question: What else do you call an initiated measure?)

“The ongoing demonstration of bias exhibited by South Dakota media, along with a reluctance to fact check; (sic) demonstrates not only a total disregard for subscribers, but also media’s (sic) willingness to dupe South Dakota voters.”

“South Dakota’s ‘watchdog press’ continues its twenty year history of asleep (sic) at the wheel.”

But you’ll be glad (or sad) to know South Dakota’s newspapers and broadcasters aren’t alone in “pandering to the big oil vote.” Thanks to Russell, “[a]lert South Dakotans” are aware of “long-time, openly biased AP ‘reporters’ covering Amendment E.” According to her, “While staffing is an issue, surely there’s an intern somewhere who knows both how to write objectively, and equally important, who also believes journalistic integrity when covering an issue, (sic) is critically important.” (Emphasis in original.)

When she added NPR to the mix, she told everyone the radio network is the new FOX. (I’m not sure which of the two news organizations is more likely to be distressed by that comparison.) It’s probably coincidence, not coordination, that the California-based Russell is joined by the California-based national JAIL4Judges organization in attacking NPR. But I note the latter does not claim the J.A.I.L. proponents whose voices appear in the broadcast were not interviewed by NPR. And at least NPR doesn’t practice “distortion reporting.” Evidently, its size enables it to engage in what Russell calls “shriek journalism.”

If you don’t think this is all shoot the messenger stuff, Russell is not only posting such information on the “South Dakotan’s (sic) for Amendment E” site, she is busy posting comments attacking the media on South Dakota blogs. Seems like a wonderful way for a “publicist” to engender good will for a client. But then, since she lives in southern California, Russell could care less about South Dakota come Nov. 8.

Some credit should probably go to spokesman Jake Hanes for being innovative enough to come up with a label that covers both the state and national media. In Mitchell Tuesday night

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.

What an idea! Just combine the first word of NPR’s “shriek journalism” and the last word of the state media’s “distortion reporting” and you can cover the waterfront.

I’ve never been or claimed to be a political or campaign strategist. But something tells me you don’t win elections by attacking the media. It also seems there are only two reasons for such attacks. One is you’re looking for someone to blame. The other is when you’re intent on self-immolation for yourself and your campaign.

“Life is a Lemon,” Meat Loaf, Bat Out of Hell II