Greenpeace seeks to reduce jury's award of $667M in Dakota Access Pipeline trial
Greenpeace Senior Legal Adviser Deepa Padmanabha, second from left, and other attorneys representing Greenpeace speak to the media March 19, 2025, outside the Morton County Courthouse. (Amy Dalrymple/North Dakota Monitor)
Greenpeace wants a North Dakota judge to reduce the nearly $667 million in damages it was ordered to pay the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline in March, arguing that the award is excessive and unreasonable.
A Morton County jury handed down the sum following a more than three-week trial earlier this year. Jurors found the environmental group at fault for damages related to protests against the pipeline in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017, and for publishing defamatory statements that harmed Energy Transfer's business.
Greenpeace was one of many activist groups that backed the movement, which drew thousands to rural south-central North Dakota to protest in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
Greenpeace denies Energy Transfer's allegations and says the company only brought the lawsuit to chill environmental activism. The defendants have yet to appeal.
In the meantime, attorneys for Greenpeace have asked Southwest Judicial District Judge James Gion to slash the nearly $667 million award, claiming it exceeds statutory caps on damages and that the verdict is riddled with inconsistencies.
'This is the poster child of where the court needs to step in,' Steven Caplow, an attorney representing Greenpeace, said in a Thursday morning remote hearing.
Jury finds Greenpeace at fault for protest damages, awards pipeline developer more than $660 million
Energy Transfer says Gion should let the jury's award stand. Trey Cox, an attorney representing the pipeline developer, called the damages 'consistent with the evidence produced at trial and the law of the state of North Dakota.'
In North Dakota, a punitive damage award cannot exceed two times the compensatory damage award, or the amount granted to make up for financial losses a party suffered.
Greenpeace and Energy Transfer disagree as to whether the verdict meets this requirement. Caplow argued that the punitive damages must be reduced by roughly $43 million to be consistent with state law, while Cox said the damages don't exceed the cap and ought to be left in place.
Greenpeace also claims the award includes costs that should actually be attributed to Energy Transfer or other third parties. Greenpeace maintains it only had six employees visit the protest camps, and that its presence was small compared to the many other activist groups that supported the movement.
Caplow argued that Energy Transfer without sufficient evidence is holding Greenpeace responsible for all damages the company incurred in connection to the protests. He said the award unfairly compensates Energy Transfer for expenses it sustained before any Greenpeace employees set foot in North Dakota, for example.
Greenpeace also alleges the jury form — which the jurors had to fill out to issue their verdict — was flawed in a way that inflated the damages attributed to the environmental group.
Before the jurors deliberated, Gion directed them to consider whether each damage Energy Transfer claimed was directly caused by Greenpeace, or whether and to what extent they resulted from the actions of another group. Despite this being part of the instructions, there wasn't space on the form for the jury to conduct this analysis, Caplow said.
More Dakota Access Pipeline coverage
That meant jurors were deprived of an opportunity to voice whether they believe Energy Transfer or other groups shared responsibility for any of the $667 million award, Caplow argued.
Cox said Greenpeace could have proposed changes to the form to address this issue, but didn't.
Greenpeace also asked Gion to remove hundreds of millions of dollars of defamation-related damages, claiming the award is not supported by the evidence presented at trial. The jury awarded Energy Transfer damages for statements Greenpeace published about the pipeline between November 2016 and June 2018.
The environmental group maintains that none of the statements are defamatory, but also says that even if they were, they cannot be held solely responsible for defamation. Greenpeace says the statements originated with other sources — including the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe — and were circulated by hundreds of other outlets well before it published anything about the pipeline.
Additionally, Greenpeace says a significant portion of the $667 million includes compensation for damages Energy Transfer did not formally request relief for, including some Greenpeace says the company referenced during trial but didn't claim in its written complaint.
Energy Transfer disputes the notion that Gion has discretion to reduce the jury's award.
Energy Transfer's lawsuit is against three Greenpeace entities — Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund. Greenpeace USA was found at fault for most of the claims brought by Energy Transfer. The jury did not find Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund responsible for on-the-ground harms committed by protesters, though it did find those entities responsible for defamation and interfering with Energy Transfer's business. Additionally, the jury found Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International liable for conspiracy.
Matt Kelly, an attorney representing Greenpeace Fund, said during Thursday's hearing that the award against the organization should be tossed out. The jury ordered Greenpeace Fund to pay roughly $130 million despite the fact that it did not find the organization at fault for most of the major claims in the case, Kelly said.
'We were forced to litigate for seven years on claims where there was no basis for any liability against Greenpeace Fund,' Kelly said during the hearing. 'The idea that we should be forced to bear those costs, at this point, is ridiculous.'
Greenpeace International in court filings argued similarly that the nearly $132 million in damages it was ordered to pay should be dropped.
Energy Transfer says that the awards are valid because the jury found both of the organizations at fault for interfering with the company's business.
Gion took the motion under advisement. Greenpeace in separate motions has asked Gion to fully reverse the jury's verdict. The parties are scheduled to reconvene for another hearing on May 27.
Greenpeace USA has announced its intent to appeal the verdict to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Will the New Licensing Requirement Impact ET's Export Volume to China
Energy Transfer LP ET, a leading U.S. exporter of Liquefied Natural Gas ('LNG'), has substantial exposure to the ethane market of China through its Orbit joint venture with the country's Satellite Petrochemical. This partnership has made China a key destination for ET's ethane exports. However, new licensing requirements introduced by the U.S. Commerce Department in May 2025 have created fresh uncertainty around existing agreements and future shipment volumes to licensing rule, aimed at addressing national security concerns, could delay or block ethane shipments if export licenses are not granted in a timely manner. Since China accounts for nearly 50% of all the U.S. ethane exports, any disruption would pose a significant risk to Energy Transfer's operations and revenues, particularly those tied to its Mont Belvieu and Nederland export terminals, which are critical for the NGL and ethane Transfer is preparing to apply for the required export licenses and reviewing the scope of deals potentially affected by this change. The company is also evaluating how denied or delayed authorizations might impact overall export volumes and revenue streams tied to its operations related to these near-term risks, Energy Transfer's long-term prospects remain strong. Take-or-pay contracts help secure steady revenues, even amid shipping delays. In addition, the company's diversified infrastructure and growing global demand for ethane offer flexibility to redirect volumes to alternative markets in Asia, reducing dependency on exports to China. This new licensing requirement can adversely impact the prospects of other ethane exporters to Products Partners EPD recently announced that the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce has sent out a notice of intent to refuse export licenses for three 2.2-million-barrel ethane shipments to China. EPD's export terminals are used to export a major volume of ethane to 66 PSX has a significant presence in the global ethane market, and China is a key destination for the U.S. ethane exports. PSX may also need a license to export ethane to China. Units of ET have risen 3.2% in the past three months against the Zacks Oil and Gas - Production Pipeline - MLB industry's decline of 4.3%. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Phillips 66's shares have lagged its industry in the past three months. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Energy Transfer's 2025 and 2026 earnings per unit indicates year-over-year growth of 12.5% and 1.88%, respectively. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Energy Transfer units are somewhat inexpensive relative to the industry. ET's current trailing 12-month Enterprise Value/Earnings before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortization (EV/EBITDA) is 10.18X compared with the industry average of 11.08X. This indicates that the firm is presently undervalued compared with its industry. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Another operator in the same space, Enterprise Products Partners' is also trading at 10.07X, which is a discount to its industry on an EV/EBITDA basis. Energy Transfer currently has a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy). You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (EPD) : Free Stock Analysis Report Phillips 66 (PSX) : Free Stock Analysis Report Energy Transfer LP (ET) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
I Am Beyond Thrilled That Corporations Are Defunding Pride. No, Not for the Reason You Think.
This is part of Slate's Pride 2025 package on how America is celebrating queerness during one of the most challenging years on record. I have never seen a group of gays as mad as the ones I met at Washington Pride in 2017. That year, I took part in a protest action that halted the annual parade. A hundred or more of us split into groups to block the passage of three separate marching contingents: the D.C. police department, for perpetrating violence against Black people; Lockheed Martin, for manufacturing weapons of war; and Wells Fargo, for lending money to the Dakota Access Pipeline. The thrust of the protest was simple. There isn't anything inherently queer or trans about these morally objectionable institutions, and they don't improve the lots of LGBTQ+ people in any meaningful way. Why should they get a place of honor at our party? My group filed into the street to block the Lockheed Martin delegation just as their float turned a corner on the parade route. We didn't know in advance what the Lockheed float would look like, and when I saw it, I gasped. Motoring down the street to thumping disco beats and applause from revelers in tutus and jockstraps were two large to-scale models of Lockheed products, a warplane and a drone. This tasteless, macabre display was great for the protest, I figured. There could not be a more vivid illustration of the discord between a celebration of human rights and a purveyor of instruments of death. I guess I thought the Pridegoers would greet us as liberators. That wasn't how it played out. While plenty of spectators cheered us on, many more brimmed with anger. They yelled and cried and spit at us. Trash and cups full of alcohol rained down on us from the apartment balconies above. One man positioned his face an inch from mine and screamed, 'You ruined Pride!' I've given that man a lot of thought in the years since. He was probably talking about the parade as a whole, which was delayed and rerouted by our blockades, and not about our infringement of his right to clap for Lockheed Martin in particular. But to me, they were one and the same, because the D.C. Pride parade was bloated with soulless corporate activations. So while I felt genuine guilt for raining on that man's Pride parade, his words drove home just how differently we saw Pride. If I could ruin his Pride just by pressing pause on an hourslong commercial for goods and services, what did Pride mean to him? This year, as companies pull their sponsorships from major metropolitan Prides in deference to the rising anti-LGBTQ+ movement, the time is ripe to reconsider what Pride has become and what we want it to be. For decades, heavy corporate involvement in Pride events has been a given—welcomed by many, ignored by some, protested by a few. If this year's trend continues, Pride as we know it will drastically change. And that would be a good thing: Even if corporations come crawling back once President Pete Buttigieg clinches the White House in 2028, big-city Pride organizers should rebuff them, in favor of the homegrown celebrations of LGBTQ+ culture and resistance we all deserve. The slowdown of corporate Pride began a few years ago, when right-wing advocates pressured the likes of Target, Starbucks, and Budweiser to back off their LGBTQ+ marketing campaigns. Companies started doing fewer thirsty Pride stunts, like redesigning their social media avatars in rainbow for the month of June. This year, the exodus ramped up. In one survey of 49 executives at Fortune 1000 companies, nearly 40 percent said their businesses planned to dial back their engagement with Pride month this year, either internally or externally. Only 9 percent said the same last year. Pride event sponsorships are a major part of the drop-off. In cities across the country, companies that once gave tens of thousands of dollars or more to individual Pride celebrations have now declined to contribute. San Francisco said goodbye to Anheuser-Busch and Comcast. New York is missing Citi and PepsiCo. D.C. is getting no love from Booz Allen Hamilton, Deloitte, Visa, or Mastercard. These are just a few examples among many, which add up to a multimillion-dollar slump in Pride event funding nationwide. A spokesperson for the United States Association of Prides told reporter Nico Lang that donations to some smaller Prides have dropped 70 to 90 percent. Pride organizers are bemoaning the loss, suggesting they may need to drastically downsize next year's celebrations. It's often said that the first Pride was a riot, because Pride celebrations started out to commemorate the June 1969 Stonewall uprising. But Pride soon became a business proposition. In the late 1970s, less than a decade after Stonewall, activists in San Francisco were already launching an effort to take over what was then called Gay Freedom Day and make it more political, because they that believed local business owners had turned it into a glorified bar crawl. But corporate Pride as we know it today is a more recent invention. Major Prides now rely on big-ticket sponsorships to execute events on a scale and level of professionalism that the first organizers could have never imagined. Today's Prides often comprise a city's largest and most elaborate parade, a festival with multiple stages, a weekend packed with parties, and sophisticated marketing and logistics support. These things cost a lot of money, and corporate sponsors foot the bill in exchange for advertising. We get a bigger party. They get to make nice with potential queer employees and build goodwill among a demographic with robust spending power. Many Pridegoers see this as a fair trade. For some, it feels like even more than that. It's flattering, in a way, to see mainstream brands—the popular clique of American capitalism—beg for our business with rainbow logos and pro-gay slogans. (I still respect the $5 gift card Chipotle gave me at one Pride, which read 'Homo Estás' above a rainbow burrito, essentially outing me when I used it.) If you came of age when gay sex was criminalized and certain professions were unavailable to out queers, seeing big-name brands don your colors for a week could make you feel as if you'd made it, as if you're a fully integrated part of the American project. It could even feel healing to get a nod of recognition from the businesses that take our money and employ our friends. At the very least, it felt like progress. And it was, in a sense. Companies are risk-averse, so they follow the zeitgeist, reflecting changing public views on homosexuality and other social issues. When they adopted corporate Pride, it was likely because their risk-benefit analyses told them that they'd earn more by embracing gays than by ignoring them. That's why they're pulling out of Pride now, to curry favor with Donald Trump and appease a general public that is growing more hostile to LGBTQ+ rights. But the equating of corporate involvement with progress is a trap, because it lends a false sense of permanence to political changes that can be fleeting. If we expected our comrades at Anheuser-Busch and Comcast to have our backs when the going got rough, even if only to keep our business, we were sorely mistaken. 'We need our business allies,' argued a 2022 Washington Blade op-ed in defense of corporate Pride, illustrated with a photo of the Amazon float in the D.C. Pride parade. Two years later, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos quashed the Washington Post's endorsement of Kamala Harris, contorted the paper's opinion section to favor Trump, and got a front-row seat to the president's inauguration, to which Amazon donated $1 million. Business ally indeed. That's not the only pitfall to inviting corporations to our parties. Celebrating them alongside LGBTQ+ activists, nonprofits, and advocacy groups runs the risk of 'pinkwashing,' or papering over major misdeeds with feel-good gestures of support for LGBTQ+ people. (In 2017, as Facebook facilitated a genocide in Myanmar, it released a rainbow Pride 'reaction'—but only in cities deemed to be queer-friendly—then showed off at Prides all June.) And, though it might sound petty, company Pride contingents simply don't feel as if they belong. Credit card companies and consulting firms are culturally and aesthetically irrelevant to Pride events, because they do not pertain to the actual subject matter of Pride: the art, history, sex, politics, and social bonds of queer life. The proliferation of corporations at Pride has opened the door to another entity that has watered down Pride's purpose: straight people. Every Pride, at parades across the country, thousands of queer people who suffer actual trans- and homophobia line the streets to applaud marching cohorts of heterosexual, cisgender people, who do not. Why? Because companies often encourage self-appointed allies to join their queer colleagues in the parade. I've heard of straight people spearheading their companies' Pride floats. Crowds of queer people cheering for rainbow-clad straight people on a day meant to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community—it's as dissonant as sending a model of a drone down the parade route, and it's a sign of how far Pride has drifted from its origins as a show of queer visibility and power. We compromise our self-worth when we lavish praise on straight people and corporations on the one weekend of the year that's ours, simply because they don't profess to hate us. The upshot is that, today, Prides have become too big to fail. Inflated by corporate dollars, they have conditioned urban gays to expect massive, polished productions with celebrity guests and sponsor-branded freebies. Anything less will feel like a letdown—like a 'ruined' Pride. But what Pride is today is not the only thing it can be. Some cities are already reimagining their fundraising models. Cincinnati Pride opted this year to forgo sponsorships from companies that canceled their DEI programs, making up the difference with a wildly successful crowdfunding campaign. Pride organizers in Springfield, Missouri, are courting donations from local independent businesses, like a cannabis dispensary, a boutique hotel, and an 'at-home pet euthanasia service.' In small towns and cities in conservative areas, where new Pride events are springing up and thriving, volunteers make do with ragtag fundraisers, mom-and-pop sponsorships, and right-sized ambitions. The corporate exodus that has sent Pride organizers scrambling for alternative funding sources could be a blessing in disguise, paving the way for more meaningful celebrations. Instead of a four-hour parade for multinational companies, we could have a two-hour parade for community groups, queer businesses, and the local gay baton-twirling club. Instead of spending tens of thousands of Booz Allen Hamilton dollars to hire a heterosexual A-list musical performer for a generic outdoor concert, we could focus on local queer bands, comedians, and DJs. It's time to take better advantage of untapped community spending power: I'd gladly pay $25 to enter a sliding-scale Pride festival if it meant others could attend for free, the drag artists got paid, and Raytheon got no advertising space. Queers in big cities are already hosting massive events with minimal operating costs and no sponsors. They're called Dyke Marches, and they run on volunteer labor, community fundraising, and a lot of nerve. At the annual New York City march, with no permit for their event, marshals block traffic by linking arms across intersections for nearly 2 miles. Tens of thousands of people march the route—waving signs, playing music, running into friends and future friends, exes and future exes. There are children, and there are leather harnesses, and no one cares that they're in the same place. The spectacle—a sea of blissed-out queers blazing down Fifth Avenue, seizing control of the street without anyone's permission—embodies the purest essence of Pride. None of it has been sold off to advertisers. If I had to pinpoint the purpose of Pride, it would be not a specific event or political ambition but a feeling. You find it in those transcendent Pride moments when you're surrounded by a mix of loved ones and strangers, sensing that everyone around you is linked by a mutual history, touching the possibility of a future that gives our freest, most joyous selves adequate space to grow. There are those of us who get that feeling on a sweaty dance floor, at a lesbian photography showcase, or watching young trans people take giddy selfies in their favorite outfits. Others get it at big-budget parades and concerts. But I'm willing to bet that if you stripped away all the commercial elements of Pride, the parade and concert people would still be able to capture that feeling. A more modest, homespun celebration would give us everything we need without commodifying our movement for the benefit of fair-weather friends. There is a long legacy of trans and queer people making unimaginably beautiful, world-changing things from whatever scraps they could get their hands on. It's time we claimed it.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
ND Ethics Commission has no authority to punish officials violating ethics laws, state leaders argue
Photo illustration by Mark Harris for ProPublica. Source images: Getty, Kyle Martin for the North Dakota Monitor. This article was produced for ProPublica's Local Reporting Network in partnership with the North Dakota Monitor. Sign up for Dispatches to get our stories in your inbox every week. Ever since North Dakota voters created an ethics watchdog agency seven years ago, dubious lawmakers have pushed back against giving it power to actually keep an eye on state officials. That was true in the session that just ended, as legislators shut down many requests from the Ethics Commission, keeping the agency on a modest budget and rebuffing measures that would have given it more latitude in its investigations. The offices of the governor and attorney general also argued during the session that the state constitution does not permit the commission to create or impose penalties for ethics-related violations. 'I was hopeful that the tide was turning,' said Rep. Karla Rose Hanson, a Democrat from Fargo and member of the Appropriations Committee, which worked on the commission's budget. 'But my general perspective is that the legislative body as a whole, specifically the majority party, is very hostile to the Ethics Commission and their work.' Voters created an ethics commission in North Dakota. Then the Legislature limited its power. North Dakotans, fed up with what they saw as ethical lapses by public officials, voted in 2018 to amend the state constitution and create the Ethics Commission. The amendment set rules for public officials and empowered the commission to both create more rules and investigate alleged violations related to corruption, elections, lobbying and transparency. North Dakota was one of the last states to establish an ethics agency and since then, the commission has struggled to fulfill its mission, the North Dakota Monitor and ProPublica reported this year. The amendment left some ambiguity about the commission's role and whether it can enforce ethics laws, leading to ongoing disagreements about how it operates. State leaders' actions this year further hamstrung the agency at a time when public officials across the country have been working, in various ways, to reverse or rein in policies created through citizen-led ballot initiatives, including those related to abortion and employee benefits. Danielle Caputo of the national nonprofit Campaign Legal Center said several state governments have worked to undermine ethics initiatives in particular. North Dakota leaders' assertions this year that the ethics agency cannot punish officials for wrongdoing is another example of that, she said. 'We have seen what appears to be a concerted effort in those states to overturn ballot initiatives or to twist their language in a way that's most beneficial to those who want less enforcement,' said Caputo, whose organization has studied the issue. She said North Dakota is 'one of the more egregious examples of that that I've seen.' In an email to the North Dakota Monitor and ProPublica, the governor's office called Caputo's take a 'gross mischaracterization' and said the governor does not oppose the Ethics Commission. In a separate email, Chief Deputy Attorney General Claire Ness called the notion that the attorney general's office is undermining the intent of voters 'unimaginable.' As government officials debate the commission's authority, North Dakotans have reported more concerns about ethics violations to the agency this year than in any other. The commission as of late May had received 72 complaints this year. There were 41 complaints filed in all of 2024. By the end of last month, the commission had 63 pending complaints, some of which date back to 2022. The agency — which has three full-time staff members and five commissioners who receive a small stipend to oversee the work — has yet to disclose whether it has substantiated a complaint. (State law requires that the commission keep complaints confidential until the end of the process, so little is known about the nature of the filings.) The Ethics Commission supported House Bill 1360 this session that it said would have overhauled its process to speed up investigations and allow it to close cases sooner. Under the measure, sponsored by eight Republicans and two Democrats, the commission would have been able to settle and dismiss complaints at any time instead of at only certain stages in the complaint process. It also would have been allowed to investigate alleged ethics violations without someone filing an official complaint. The agency currently cannot investigate some North Dakotans' tips because they must be submitted as formal complaints, which some complainants are uncomfortable doing, agency staff have said. Staff from the offices of Gov. Kelly Armstrong and Attorney General Drew Wrigley, both Republicans, testified against the bill because they said it would have given the commission too much power. Faced with strong opposition from state leaders and their own reluctance to give the agency more authority, the House voted overwhelmingly to reject the legislation. Most of the House sponsors voted against it. Rep. Austen Schauer, a West Fargo Republican who chaired the committee that worked on the legislation, acknowledged tension between the Ethics Commission and the Legislature and oppositional testimony from the executive branch. 'The bill was basically DOA, and we just had to move on,' Schauer said. Lawmakers instead settled on tweaks to the existing process; one requires the commission to develop time management standards and another allows it to informally settle ethics complaints with the accused. Those settlements would only be made public if all parties to the agreement consent. 'There's people that for years have been sitting with this complaint over their head, which is absolutely unfair,' said Rep. Mike Nathe, a Bismarck Republican who has criticized the commission and proposed some of the changes. He also said he thinks the commission's caseload includes fake complaints submitted by North Dakotans who want to 'weaponize' the system against their political opponents. (Because state law requires that the commission keep complaints confidential, this claim cannot be verified.) Rebecca Binstock, the Ethics Commission's executive director, said the agency will look for ways to work around the hurdles that continue to slow down the investigation process. 'The Commission must now consider how to fix the process absent legislation,' Binstock wrote in an email. The Legislature also approved a measure that protects its members from prosecution for voting on something that would provide them with a financial benefit as long as they disclose their conflicts. Lawmakers, some of whom said they want to keep the commission small out of consideration to taxpayers, also turned down the agency's request for $250,000 over the next two years for a fourth staff member who would conduct training and education for the public. That would have allowed current employees to spend more time investigating complaints, agency staff said. 'I don't recall a discussion with the public being, 'We're gonna have a multimillion-dollar branch of government,'' Rep. Scott Louser, a Minot Republican, said during a legislative hearing in April. State leaders also argued the Legislature is the only entity that can create penalties for ethics violations and delegate enforcement of those penalties to state agencies. The commission can only punish officials for wrongdoing if the Legislature gives it that authority, they said. Chris Joseph, the governor's general counsel, testified this year that if the commission were given the power to both create and enforce penalties, it would be 'defining, executing and interpreting its own rules' without oversight from other parts of state government. The commission, however, says its enforcement authority is implicit in the constitutional amendment. That interpretation could soon be tested. Binstock indicated in an email that commission staff members have wrapped up investigating several cases and are waiting on commissioners to take action, which could include imposing penalties. Ellen Chaffee, part of a group called the Badass Grandmas that organized the ballot initiative and drafted the amendment, said voters intended for the Ethics Commission to impose punishments for wrongdoing. 'The people who worked on the amendment had understood that the only way to have unbiased follow-up on any violations of ethics rules was for the Ethics Commission to have that responsibility,' she said. Mike Nowatzki, the governor's spokesperson, said if the amendment does not reflect what the advocates wanted, 'they can always seek to clarify it with another constitutional amendment.'
