The South Dakota Supreme Court leaves us wondering about the legitimacy of the upcoming Special Session to impeach Jason Ravnsborg. Yesterday the high Court shot down the press’s lawsuit to obtain the names of the House members who signed onto the petition calling for that Special Session:
“The non-disclosure of the names of the members of the House of Representatives who signed the petition does not in and of itself implicate a question of whether Speaker Gosch convened a special session ‘in excess of the powers of authority conferred by law upon’ him,” wrote Chief Justice Steven Jensen in the two-page opinion [Joe Sneve, “SD Supreme Court: Votes to Hold Special Lawmaker Gatherings in South Dakota Can Be Kept Secret,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2021.10.27].
Chief Justice Jensen is stunningly wrong. The Speaker has the authority to convene a Special Session only when two thirds of the members of the House petition in writing for such a Session. We have seen no such petition in writing; we have only been given the Speaker’s claim that he has received such petition. No one, not the public, not even the members of the House, can know if this Special Session is legitimate without seeing the names of at least 47 members of the House who have called in writing for this Special Session.
Some members of the House, like Rep. Tim Goodwin, have said they called for the impeachment Special Session. Since Chief Justice Jensen appears to be ignoring the need for open government, it falls to all House members to voluntarily declare whether they called for this Special Session and assure the public that Speaker Gosch is properly wielding an extraordinary power that could result in the Legislative removal of an elected official.
Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg is holding the South Dakota Republican Party for ransom. Think about it. If Governor Kristi Noem had any power whatsoever killer and incel Ravnsborg would be in jail. There is certainly no doubt in my mind he is a sociopath who has dirt on every Republican in South Dakota including Denny Sanford.
Larry, I was thinking your post also works if you exchange the names Ravnsborg and Noem.
Ravnsborg wouldn’t be smart enough to do anything with any dirt he might have. Besides, if he had dirt and posed any risk of revealing it, wouldn’t the local mafia just take him out to Jim Johanneson’s back 40 and give him the Richard Benda treatment?
I can’t figure out why Speaker Gosch is afraid to release the names of House members calling for the Special Session. They’ll all be on the record with their votes when they get there, so it’s not like keeping their names secret now protects them from any backlash or any release of dirt that we might fantasize Ravnsborg has on them.
The court’s conclusory opinion appears as a stunning betrayal of democracy and open, transparent government. As such, a court apparently calls into question its legitimacy.
You want tyranny? The SD Supreme Court just gave you the precedent.
It’s all about the money. Thanks for the Richard Benda blog post. Republicans have a long history of deadly political coverups in the state. Richard Benda’s case showed clearly how a sitting attorney general could make stuff go away, like the autopsy of Richard Benda. One has to wonder how much the pay off was and how either the money or the fear has kept that family from allowing the facts to come forward.
Mr. Kurtz also brings to the table that dirt, and so money, also seems to be the main factor in why Denny Sanford’s case seems to have fallen down the attorney general’s rat hole. The political race between Ravansborg and Jackley will be determined on how much they can squeeze out of the guilty party’s to run their campaigns. Either way, as always, South Dakota will be the loser.
No depravity is off limits to the South Dakota Republican Party. Jason Ravnsborg was installed to be the stooge Sanford and his apostles need to ensure the state will always be a corporatist tax haven for an exclusive set of Republicans no matter the consequences. Lawrence County’s John Fitzgerald would not have been nearly as easily manipulated.
Kurtz-South Dakota voters had a choice to put a HIGHLY qualified lawyer with extensive experience into the State’s Attorney general office – a Mr. Seiler.
but, the GOP republican voter as a whole doesn’t look for ‘quality’ in its candidates to votefor, it only looks for an “R” after the name, it seems. That’s how we’ve gotten. as a state, where we are today.
I am lobbying Brendan Johnson quite vociferously to throw his hat into the AG ring at the Democratic convention next year. He won’t have to move his family to the cesspool that is Pierre and he has a real chance to beat Marty Jackley.
Nothing screams “good government” like court ordered secrecy! How many times have we heard, “If the vote could be taken in secret, Trump would have been convicted?” There is a word for such character. Use the ol’ Webster to find pics of these folks under the word COWARD!
In 1803, in Marbury v. Madison the SCOTUS issued a unanimous decison establishing the constitutional principle of judicial review, the power of the courts to declare the meaning of the constitution and statutes. Marbury applies to the federal government and the federal courts but the same principles have been applied in the various states, including SD, based on Marbury. Thus the SD Supreme has been vested with the constitutional power of judicial review. Some scholars have argued that the decision in Marburywas wrong and that courts should have no such power, yet for centuries those arguments have failed to result in legislation, constitutional amendments, or new SCOTUS decision restricting or eliminating this power of judicial review, and thus the decision in Marbury’s has remained the law of our land.
Thus when Cory writes “Chief Justice Jensen is stunningly wrong” he overlooks the law of the land under Marbury. Justice Jensen is not wrong, and he has done nothing to delegitimize the SD Supreme Court. Rather the Chief Justice has merely stated the court’s decision as to what the current law requires in this particular controversy.
Demeaning the Court simply because one disagrees with the justice’s views is no different than Trumpists demeaning a secretary of state, county auditor or election official because Trumpists don’t like the decision of the official to accept the results of the election. These election officials are tasked with carrying out a legal duty, just as the justices of the SD Supreme Court are tasked with deciding the meaning of statutes and constituional provisions.
I fully agree that full disclosure of the names of legislators calling for a special session is the best policy for the State, yet until the principles established so long ago in Marbury are abandoned it seems the Court and the difficult jobs of the Justices deserve respect rather than condemnation, even in cases where we might have made a different ruling if we sat on the Court.
For those who respect our government and the processes we have implemented for establishing and enforcing laws, the response to an objectionable court decision should be to appeal to a higher court, or, if none, then to enact legislation addressing and correcting the problems with the court’s interpretation of the law, rather than criticizing judges and justices for merely trying to do their jobs. We can disagree with the SD Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law, but interpreting the law is their contitutional duty, not our job. Thus, under the principles of judicial review established in Marbury, the highest court with the constitutional authority to decide a case cannot be “wrong,” at least not until that same court says otherwise (See e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education (overruling Plessy). Under the principles of our existing government Chief Justice Jenson was not “wrong.”
Bear, I appreciate the separation of powers, but if the Legislative branch fails to provide the Constitutional evidence that it is calling a Special Session with a legitimate mandate, where else can we get relief? How is the question of whether the Legislature is acting legitimately, within its Constitutional bounds, not open to judicial review?
Cory, judicial review is designed to address “the question of whether the Legislature is acting legitimately, within its Constitutional bounds.” I note the relevant special session constitutional provision addresses actions by “the presiding officers of both houses” rather than the Legislature itself, if that distinction make any difference.
As for Justice Jensen’s order, I haven’t been able to find it online so I can’t address exactly what the Court has done. If you can find a link or post a pdf of Justice Jensen’s 2 page order it might shed additional light on the matter.
From your story it seems as if the Court did in fact conduct judicial review over what steps must be taken by “the presiding officers of both houses” to call the special session, and apparently ruled (without dissent) that the Constitution does not require “the presiding officers of both houses” to publicly disclose each legislator’s vote. While I am not defending that ruling, it is now the law of the land, hence Justice Jensen was not wrong to publish the Court’s ruling.
Well Cory, all goverment in our democracy or republic as you will used to have to obey the law. Nixon left rather than be impeached. Trump laughed at that. Now it’s just chaos, the Republican party has surrendered itself to the lowest of the low. Until they are defeated, the laws won’t apply to any of them.
So, can’t we reasonably assume that Gosch doesn’t have the needed signatures if he doesn’t want to share that information publicly?
Caroline, I’m not prepared to make that conclusion. Gosch may simply be stuck in the elitist privilege that infects SDGOP thinking. he may have some crazy idea that releasing the names of those who called for the impeachment Session, or those who didn’t call for it, will somehow subject those callers to undue criticism or pressure from their constituents (and in SDGOP thinking, any criticism or pressure from constituents is undue; South Dakota Republicans need to be free to make all of their decisions based on pressure from their caucus leaders without the complication of public input).