When the J.A.I.L. initiative was on the ballot in 2006 why did Bill Stegmeir suite over the South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long's ballot explanation?

Comparison between the official ballot explanations in California and South Dakota is of interest because both initiatives are nearly identical.

The California the explanation was written by Attorney General Bill Lockyer. It is regarded by the J.A.I.L. organization as fair and accurate:

JUDGES. RESTRICTIONS ON JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Supersedes existing judicial immunity and creates three 25-member 'Special Grand Juries' empowered to: determine if a judge may invoke judicial immunity in a civil suit; indict and, through a special trial jury, convict and sentence a judge for criminal conduct; and permanently remove a judge who receives three adverse immunity decisions or three criminal convictions. Disallows immunity for deliberate violations of law, fraud, conspiracy, intentional due process violations, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts outside the court's jurisdiction, unreasonable delay of a case, or any deliberate constitutional violation.

Contrast this with South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long's ballot explanation:

Citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, or in similar capacities, and prosecutors and judges, are all required to make judicial decisions. Their decisions may be reversed on appeal, or they may be removed from office for misconduct or by election. However, they cannot be made to pay money damages for making such decisions. This allows them to do their job without fear of threat or reprisal from either side. "The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would allow thirteen volunteers to expose these decision makers to fines and jail, and strip them of public insurance coverage and up to one-half of their retirement benefits, for making decisions which break rules defined by the volunteers. Volunteers are drawn from those who submit their names and registered voters. "The proposed amendment is retroactive. The volunteers may penalize any decision-maker still alive for decisions made many years ago. "If approved, the proposed amendment will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the US Constitution. If so, the State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs. "A vote "Yes" will change the Constitution. "A vote "No" will leave the Constitution as it is."

The J.A.I.L. initiative is worded to apply to any that have a judge's function. This is so the J.A.I.L. Amendment can not be escaped by giving judges a title other than "judge." Nevertheless the J.A.I.L. organization does not agree the wording would cause the inclusion of juries, school boards, and city councils.