South Dakota’s leading liberal and conservative blogs have said that candidates’ positions on the impeachment of killer Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg could affect the outcome of this year’s election. District 13’s four-way Republican House primary provides an opportunity to test that hypothesis.
The District 13 contest includes both of its House incumbents, Representatives Sue Peterson and Richard Thomason. Challenging them are infamous über-insider Tony Venhuizen and darkhorse Convention of States Constitution-wrecker Penny Baybridge. The incumbents split on impeachment: Thomason voted to impeach Ravnsborg and subject him to trial in the Senate; Peterson voted to let the killer off and face no threat to keeping office. The challengers also split: Venhuizen says he supports impeachment; Baybridge says she does not.
The Sioux Falls Argus Leader got the candidates to explain their positions on impeachment. Thomason and Venhuizen say impeachment is justified because Ravsnborg has lost public trust:
Thomason: “I voted to impeach the Attorney General because I do not believe he has maintained the trust of the people or of law enforcement due to his actions since the tragic death of Joe Boever. Public officials should always be held to a high standard and the citizens should have trust in them to carry out their duties. In my opinion, the Attorney General has broken that trust and he deserves to face a trial in the Senate.”
Venhuizen: “I would have voted for impeachment. Impeachment means that the Senate holds a trial, and I believe there is enough evidence to justify holding a trial. Due to his conduct, Attorney General Ravnsborg has lost the confidence of many South Dakotans, especially in law enforcement and the legal community, and that prevents him from doing his job effectively” [Joe Sneve, “Meet the Candidates: District 13 Primary Could Tip Scales in Republicans’ Power Struggle,” Sioux Falls Argus Leader, 2022.05.18].
Peterson and Baybridge make evasive excuses for keeping an ineffective manslaughterer in the highest law enforcement office in South Dakota:
Peterson: “I went into the special session leaning toward voting for impeachment. I listened to the hearings, reviewed the report released by the committee and spoke with members of the select committee. Contrary to their initial belief that there would be an abundance of evidence to warrant impeachment, committee members indicated that the evidence did not meet a clear and convincing standard. Based on their recommendation, especially those in law enforcement, who saw and heard all the evidence, including that not reported by the media, I voted not to impeach.”
Baybridge: “It is important to follow the rule of law. It should be further noted that the law should not be given the appearance of being weaponized by any group of people against another person just to take them out. Jason Ravnsborg went through the legal process and was charged with two misdemeanors. There was nothing in that decision or that process that would call for impeachment. Voting to impeach him set a precedent. If that becomes the new standard, how many elected officials in Pierre will we impeach going forward? Following the law, I would not have voted for impeachment” [Sneve, 2022.05.18].
Peterson says she paid especial attention to the recommendations of law enforcement, but as the articles of impeachment state, Ravnsborg has lost the faith of law enforcement. Over a year ago, three of South Dakota’s major law enforcement organizations said Ravnsborg had lost their confidence and recommended that he resign. The April 6 presentation that the South Dakota Department of Public Safety gave on the investigation of Ravnsborg’s deadly car crash seems to have supported key legislators’ position think impeachment was warranted. Baybridge gets hung up on the technicalities of misdemeanors and uses the code words (e.g. weaponized) deployed by Ravnsborg to distract legislators and the public with political conspiracy theories, but, like Peterson, Baybridge ignores the immediate and relevant facts of the Attorney General’s conduct, his lawbreaking, and his loss of the trust among law enforcement, elected leaders, and the public.
District 13, you have two Republicans asking for your vote who are willing to hold a fellow Republican accountable for breaking the law, killing a man, and lying about it. You have two others who will make excuses for a killer Republican who lacks the faith of law enforcement necessary to do his duties. Those divergent positions seem to offer a pretty good test of which candidates will represent you better in Pierre.
Losing the confidence of law enforcement is not a crime. While I like Tony V. and think he’ll be a credible legislator, Ravensborg, who I think is a terrible public servant, has committed only political crimes and should be tossed off the ticket by the convention. He had his day in court and the justice system in Hyde County failed.
Impeachment IS a political process. There is a reason the burden of proof, evidentiary standards etc are different. Stop pretending as though the criminal outcome is all that matters for an impeachment, Arlo. Its just not factual.
Mr. Dicta is righter-than-right here. The politically right thing to do is to oust Mr. Ravnsborg, with severe prejudice. Those who do not should pay for it with their own re-election chances either now, or later. And be mocked, loudly and often, for the rest of their days. As they shall be.
Grudz–the pot should not call the kettle black. Ravensborg neglect caused the death of Joe Boever and the court chose not to prosecute or convict him of that neglect. The Legislature (actually the Republican Party leadership in Pierre) will, it seems, impeach him, convict him, and mete out other punishment. It’s OK by me. I don’t think that is the appropriate way to dispatch his political career under the circumstances as I think it is an attempt to toss the entire incident, including the corrupt manner the justice system worked in Hyde County, “down the memory hole.” I think the Republican Party meeting in convention, under the circumstances should be accountable to take political action and kick him down the road. The Party foisted this cat onto the public as a responsible, honest attorney suitable to serve as Chief Law Enforcement Officer. The Party, wingnuts and all, should be held accountable for their tribal stupidity. The entire Party should be mocked for the rest of their days.