South Dakota Judicial Accountability, Amendment E (2006)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on
State Judiciary
State judiciary.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
South Dakota Constitution
Seal of South Dakota.jpg
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXXXIXIIXIIIXIVXVXVIXVIIXVIIIXIXXXXXIXXIIXXIIIXXIVXXVXXVIXXVIIXXVIIIXXIX

The South Dakota Judicial Accountability Amendment, also known as Amendment E, was on the November 7, 2006 ballot in South Dakota as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. The measure allowed a special grand jury to expose citizens who have made judicial decisions, such as citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, prosecutors and judges, to fines, jail and strip them of public insurance coverage and half of their retirement for making decisions which broke rules defined by the special grand jurors. The measure would have been retroactive and would have likely been challenged and declared unconstitutional had it been approved.[1][2]

Election results

South Dakota Amendment E (2006)
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No294,73489.21%
Yes 35,641 10.79%

Election results via: South Dakota Political Almanac, South Dakota Constitutional Amendments, Initiatives and Referendums 1970-2010

Text of measure

The text of the measure can be read here.

Support

The group South Dakota Judicial Accountability worked on the effort to get Amendment E on the 2006 ballot. Some of the reasons they were in favor of the initiative included the perception that there was no way to hold a judge accountable should they violate someone's rights, and that there was no way to get rid of corrupt judges one at a time because the whole system is corrupt[3].

Campaign contributions

Donors to the campaign for the measure:[4]

  • South Dakota Judicial Accountability Campaign: $225,626
  • Total: $225,626

Opponents

Opposition to Amendment E came from various groups who indicated concern that the measure was further-reaching than appropriate, and that it had the potential to result in many lawsuits against judges stemming from convicted criminals seeking retribution.[5][6]

Campaign contributions

Donors to the campaign against the measure:[4]

  • No on E Coalition: $1,099,049
  • Total: $1,099,049

See also

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

External links

References


BallotMeasureFinal badge.png
This historical ballot measure article requires the text of the measure to be added to the page.