User uShare Login | Register
Login
Register

Along with posting photos, videos, and stories, your uShare account lets you post Classified Ads, recipes on What's For Dinner, and Announcements.


64° View Weather Current Conditions Sioux Falls Change Location
Set Weather Options

RADAR LOCATION

TEMPERATURE LOCATION

Share your Photos, Videos, and Stories on uShare! Click here to get started.

KELOLAND.com | Sioux Falls News & Weather, South Dakota News & Weather, Minnesota and Iowa News

[0] My Saved Articles
Find local businesses
on the KELO Pages!

 

Amendment E

November 3, 2006, 10:00 PM by Angela Kennecke

The fact that the passage of Amendment E is leading the polls has many, who usually remain neutral on election issues, alarmed. That includes two political science professors who say it could dramatically change government. 

The "Vote No on E Campaign" claimes Amendment E would make jurors vulnerable to criminals who hold a grudge.

Those claims sparked a lawsuit from the amendment's supporters. But the state supreme court already ruled with the attorney general's description of the law; anyone making judical decisions could be sued under Amendment E.

"I think it was originally sold as something to make judges more accountable, but it does seem to have an impact on school boards, city councils and jurors," Augustana Political Science Professor Brent Lerseth said.

Amendment E would allow anyone unhappy with a verdict to sue the decision maker. Currently under South Dakota law, rulings can be appealed and misconduct can result in someone being removed from a school board or city council or other office. But they can't be forced to pay monetary damages. Amendment E would change that, even for citizens serving on juries. 

"Something like that would have a fundamental major impact on decision making if that is something that decision makers always have to take into account," Lerseth said.

The professors say E threatens the independence of the entire judiciary system.

"This is holding them accountable for discretionary decisions they might have made and very seriously threatens integrity and independence of judiciary," South Dakota State Political Science Professor Bob Burns said.

The fact that E is retroactive, allowing for someone to sue for damages from before E went into affect, could also be unconstitutional.

"Article one section ten of U-S constitution specifically prohibits states from approving ex post facto legislation," Burns said.

This week South Dakota's congressional delegation, along with Stephanie Herseth's opponent, Bruce Whalen, and the candidates for governor issued a joint statement in opposition to Amendment E.

Previous Story

Next Story


RELATED STORIES


Sponsored

 


You may also like

Sheriff IDs Woman Who Died At Lake Madison

7/27/2015 4:15 PM

A 25-year-old Sioux Falls woman died after she fell into Lake Madison on Sunday.

Full Story
Lifeguard Rescues Girl From Sioux Falls Pool

7/28/2015 4:10 PM

An alert lifeguard pulled an unconscious child from Laurel Oak pool on Tuesday afternoon

Full Story
Officials Identify Victims In Plane Crash

7/28/2015 11:48 AM

Pipestone County Sheriff's Office said the pilot, 59-year-old Steven Christensen, and passengers 18-year-old Marcos Favela and a 13-year...

Full Story
Josiah's Owner Says He's Targeted By Payday Loan Industry

7/28/2015 6:00 PM

The owner of Josiah's Coffeehouse & Cafe says it's an organized effort to put him out of business by the payday loan industry. 

Full Story | Watch
Allegiant Air Pilot Pleads With Tower To Make Emergency Landing

7/29/2015 1:58 PM

An Allegiant Airlines pilot declared a fuel emergency and had to land at a North Dakota airport even though the airport was closed for the Blue Angels...

Full Story


Events