NAMIC Enters Battle Over Judicial Immunity In S.D.

The leader of a movement to end South Dakota judges' immunity from legal action said opposition to his ballot initiative from an insurance trade group and others is unwarranted.

William Stegmeier, owner of a manufacturing company in Tea, S.D., who heads up the Amendment E effort, said he does not understand why the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and other business and political interests are against the proposition.

"It's hard to figure out their motives," he said. "What do they think they are going to lose? Why should they stand for judicial misconduct? We are trying to create an entity that will hear judicial complaints."

The Indianapolis, Ind.-based NAMIC said it is working with a broad-based coalition in South Dakota to defeat the initiative. It would amend the state's constitution to allow citizens to bring lawsuits against judges and other public figures with public decision-making power.

Amendment E, also known as the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (JAIL), would remove the immunity judges have enjoyed over their decisions and possibly subject them to a 13-member special grand jury to be set up for the purpose of indictment and eventual trial before a special prosecutor, jury and judge.

The initiative, which received more than 46,000 petition signatures, will be decided upon in this November's election. The state requires 33,456 signatures for a constitutional ballot amendment. South Dakota is ranked the 46th most populous state, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, with a population of 754,844.

The initiative, which is posted on the Web site of South Dakota's secretary of state, aims to remove judges who have been found guilty of violations determined by the special grand jury.

Violations would involve both civil and criminal matters. A complainant would have to exhaust all judicial review before bringing a complaint to the special grand jury. A judge would be allowed three adverse judgments before removal.

Funding for the special grand jury would be through a deduction of judge's salaries, filing fees, surcharges on civil court filing fees of corporate litigants, and forfeiture of benefits from those judges removed from the bench.

Joe Thesing, NAMIC's state affair manager for north central region, said the business community has begun to band with opponents of the initiative including state legislators, who almost unanimously passed resolutions opposing the amendment, law enforcement and others.

Mr. Thesing said the state has a system in place to deal with judicial misconduct. As he reads it, the amendment would go well beyond the courts and apply to governmental boards, jurors, prosecutors and other public officials.

"If successful, this initiative would seriously undermine not only South Dakota's state judicial system, but also any citizen board with public decision-making power," said Roger H. Schmelzer, NAMIC senior vice president, in a statement.

"Given that property-casualty insurance is state regulated, and that state law is critical to the way our businesses are run, we are obliged to resist vigorously any attempt to introduce unpredictability to state legal systems," said Mr. Schmelzer.

Mr. Stegmeier believes the proposition stands a good chance of passage because of anti-judiciary sentiment in the state, especially in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year defending government rights of eminent domain.

As for his own motivation for this amendment, he said he has seen instances of judicial misconduct, but not been a victim of it himself.

"I see this as my civic contribution to society," he said.

Mr. Stegmeier said Ronald Branson, a California minister who began the JAIL initiative in California, is no longer affiliated with the South Dakota initiative. However, Amendment E is based upon the California initiative, which has been unsuccessful in reaching the ballot there, he said.