Scandalized Season 1 Episode 6: “His face was in your windshield, Jason.”


KETTLER: A terrible accident in the Dakotas. The state attorney general in legal trouble and refusing to resign. A culture of secrecy. Rumors about blackmail and corruption. Out of state special investigators. Basically unbelievable details. Scandinavian names. This all sounds like something out of the Fargo franchise. Except this is actually a true story. On September 12th, 2020, South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg hit something with his car while driving the two hour trip back to Pierre, the South Dakota state capital, after leaving a Republican fundraiser in Redfield. Brownsburg called 911 shortly after the crash.


911 CALL: 911, this is Ali. How can I help you?


Ali, this is. Well, Ali, I'm the attorney general, and I am, I don't know, I hit something, I hit something by high more, high more. And I was in the middle of the road.


Oh, no. Okay. Do you think it was a deer or something?


I have no idea. Okay. Yeah, it could be.


KETTLER: As someone who grew up in the general region, I can attest that hitting deer is all too common in the Midwest and Great Plains. Certainly not an event worthy of a podcast episode, but unfortunately, this wasn't what happened. As would become clear later on. Ravnsborg had actually struck and killed not a deer, but a person. A 55 year old man named Joseph Boever.


HUNT: It strikes me, Jaci, that this is sort of concerningly common for politicians and elected officials to get into trouble behind the steering wheel. DUIs, speeding, distracted driving. Regardless of their poor decision making, these types of incidents are not generally career ending. However, it sounds like this is not really the standard driving related scandal.


KETTLER: Definitely not. Raising even more questions, Ravnsborg denied knowing he hit a man until he returned to the scene the following day with his chief of staff and found the body. Ravnsborg also appears to have lied about multiple aspects of this crash. So how does it play out when a public official is directly responsible for the death of one of their constituents, and what happens when their excuses and explanations just don't add up. From Boise State Public Radio, this is Scandalized. A podcast of political impropriety. I'm Jacie Kettler.


HUNT: And I'm Charlie Hunt. We're both political scientists, and we're fascinated by political scandals from across American history. On Scandalized, we go deep on these events. We talk through the scandalous details and try to learn something about American politics along the way, with a little assist from political science.


KETTLER: In today's episode, we're headed to South Dakota, the location of this tragic accident. We'll cover Ravnsborg's background and horrendous driving record, the accident and its aftermath, the resulting political battles and power struggles in South Dakota, and Ravnsborg's eventual impeachment. So, Charlie, the attorney general is in office. We tend to associate with the presidency and federal government. But states also have their own attorneys general. And I actually think the job that AGs are supposed to do for their states is a pretty important element of the story. Do you want to fill us in?


HUNT: So state attorneys general have a variety of responsibilities, including issuing legal opinions to state agencies, protecting consumers, enforcing state laws, and representing the state when they go to court. But Jaci, what happens when the top legal officer in the state commits a crime, especially one as serious as this?


KETTLER: Yeah, this ends up being a major sticking point in the aftermath of the accident. Given his background, a decorated military career and a law degree from the University of South Dakota Law School, Jason Ravnsborg appeared to have a bright future in politics. He won a three way race in the Republican primary for A.G. in 2018, with the support of groups like the Fraternal Order of Police. Once elected, he worked on legislation regarding missing persons, law enforcement partnerships and consumer protection awareness campaigns.


HUNT: So all in all, Jaci, I mean, this sounds like a fairly run of the mill start to an elected official's time in office, especially for, you know, someone like Ravnsborg, a Republican attorney general, which is what makes some of this seem so out of the blue. Like, was this out of nowhere for Ravnsborg to get into trouble like this while driving? Had he gotten into trouble before?


KETTLER: That is an excellent question, Charlie. Dana Hess, a retired journalist, perhaps put it best, saying that Ravnsborg belonged in the Distracted Driving Hall of Fame due to his numerous previous traffic violations. This troubling driving history includes 27 traffic stops, 27. These resulted in him being given warnings or tickets for various traffic violations, including speeding, use of an electronic device while driving, and illegal lane changes. 19 of the pullovers were for speeding.


HUNT: Okay, Jaci. So look, I'm human. I've been pulled over a couple times in my life as well. I'm not ashamed to admit it, but how on earth was this guy still allowed to drive a car after 19 speeding violations?


KETTLER: Well, it turns out that speeding violations don't count towards licenses being revoked in South Dakota, which also might help explain how this behavior continued once he took office in 2019. Two months before the accident, Ravnsborg was cited for an illegal lane change after he almost hit a highway patrol car in Sioux Falls. He seemed confused about the lanes, asking which lane he should drive in. In traffic stop videos collected by Fox Dakota News Now, he would frequently identify himself as the attorney general to law enforcement.


BODY CAM AUDIO: If you have a driver's license, proof of insurance on you.


My driver's license.


Okay. State car.


Okay. I'm actually the attorney general.


Okay. Could I just see your license and registration and insurance for the vehicle, please.


Okay, so my other thing is okay, I'm also the attorney general in South Dakota. This is a vehicle. That's the state vehicle.


Okay. So I can prove who I am.


HUNT: Well, so, Jaci, it sounds to me like Ravnsborg is in some ways trying to get preferential treatment from law enforcement during these traffic stops. Why else would he identify himself as the attorney general? You know, we generally consider this kind of action or behavior to be, you know, a kind of abuse of power or a misuse of the public office. And remember that we also heard him identify himself as the AG before sharing his name in the 911 call. It's literally the first thing he says to the 911 operator before telling them about the accident. So all of this kind of feels like a pattern of behavior instead of just an isolated incident. So, Jaci, how did this play out in the accident that really ended up landing him in some deep trouble.


KETTLER: From all the evidence that came out later, it became pretty clear that Ravnsborg was distracted at the time. We don't know for sure what was distracting him. Authorities concluded that Ravnsborg was not on his phone at the time of the accident, but he had spent most of the drive up until that point on his phone. He had two of them, believe it or not, a state issued phone and a personal phone. Later reviews of text messages and emails Ravnsborg had sent indicated he was using the state issued one a number of times during the drive. Meanwhile, his personal phone was also serving a purpose. Ravnsborg was using the On My Way app, which rewards drivers for not using their phone while driving.


HUNT: So let me get this straight, Jackie. He has two phones. One of them he seems to be using pretty regularly, right? Like texting people while driving already? Not good. But then the purpose, apparently, of his second phone is to accumulate prizes for all the safe driving that he's not actually doing. And this is all happening right before he strikes and kills a person.


KETTLER: Yep, that pretty much sums it up.


HUNT: All right. So at this point, it seems like we can say that this accident, while obviously horrible and devastating for Joe Boever's family, is sadly not all that surprising given what we've learned about Ravnsborg's driving record.


KETTLER: Exactly. And if Ravnsborg had handled the aftermath of the accident by the book, there might not be much more to the story than a distracted driver. But it's a series of baffling choices that Ravnsborg makes after the crash that takes the story from a tragic accident to an increasingly unbelievable scandal. Mike Volek, the Hyde County sheriff, responded to the scene after the 911 call that Ravnsborg made after the crash. Once Volek arrives, he and Ravnsborg search the area to see if they could identify what had been hit, while both claimed they didn't see anything that night. Cell phone data shows that Reynoldsburg actually walked right near Beaver's body at the time. Volek gives Reynoldsburg some routine paperwork and lends his personal vehicle to Reynoldsburg to drive home. But weirdly, and we might say suspiciously, Ravnsborg actually returned to the scene of the accident the following day with his chief of staff, and they find Boever's body. They then go to Sheriff Volek's house to call it in.


HUNT: So this is a big red flag for me. Why? If he thought he had hit a deer, he would go back to the accident. I mean, it sounds like he's literally returning to the scene of the crime here with his political advisor.


KETTLER: But the story gets much weirder once the team investigating the incident gathers evidence. They sit down with Ravnsborg in the weeks that follow to question him about their findings. But their questions make it pretty clear that they are not buying Ravnsborg's story.


INVESTIGATORS: So I was in a meeting with a group of investigators and I said, how many of you hit a deer? Every single one in that room. Right. The other thing, that question that I brought up to this group, I asked them, how many of you went back to look at the deer? Right. To find the deer. Right. And none of them did.


HUNT: So basically, they're implying that Ravnsborg's behavior was pretty weird or out of the ordinary for someone who genuinely thought that they had hit a deer.


KETTLER: Exactly. The interview continues. But the more discrepancies the investigators find, the less they seem to buy. Ravnsborg's story.


INVESTIGATORS: I got another question for you. Okay. Okay. Did you see the flashlight he was carrying?


KETTLER: For one thing, it seems that Joe Boever was carrying a flashlight. A very bright one, while he was walking that night. Ravnsborg denies that he saw it either before or after he hit him. But the investigators are pretty skeptical of this, too.


INVESTIGATORS: It was pitch dark out there, right? The flashlight was still on when Joe and I got to the scene. Okay. It had not been touched. Huh. We talked to a witness that had seen him walking with the light after the crash. Did you see that light in the dark? Because it's pitch dark. If there's something going right, you would. It would make sense for you to see it. I did not see any light. No. Are you certain? I am absolutely certain. Just because. Jason, we went out there another night with that flashlight recently and put it back in the same spot it was in. Okay, with it back on. And, I mean, it truly is hard to miss when you're out there, especially if you're walking back towards Highmore.


KETTLER: But one very chilling piece of evidence that seemed to make them most suspicious of all comes out while they're discussing what Ravnsborg does immediately after the crash.


INVESTIGATORS: Did you have to take things out of the. Yes. I had to move stuff around. Yes. Did you notice anything on the passenger side while you were doing that? Just glass. I mean, I was staying away from the glass, I guess. Okay. Did you see the glasses right next to that.


KETTLER: The investigators found in the passenger seat of Ravnsborg's car Joe Boever's glasses. And what that implies about the accident is pretty damning for Ravnsborg.


INVESTIGATORS: His glasses are right there. Jason, those are Joe's. That means his face came through your windshield. Oh, it's a tough thing. Oh, there is bone scrape on the inside of the bumper bars. And that's where his leg was likely broke. That's where the pieces were at. So how did he get farther down the road? I mean, how did that his face was in your windshield. Jason, think about that.


KETTLER: Despite all of this evidence, Ravnsborg denies over and over again having seen Boever the night of the crash. But as the investigators keep pressing, it's clear they're having trouble believing him.


INVESTIGATORS: You have to look at it from our side of it. We're just trying to find the facts. We know what we know. We know certain things. We know those are his glasses. They were on his head. They ended up in your car. I never saw him. Okay. I never saw him. No. One of the other things that we know, Jason, is he weren't in the middle of the road. You were on the shoulder. We have three people putting him next to the grass. I mean, you're a smart man. You know where Joe and I have done this job a long time?


KETTLER: The more the investigators learn about that night, the more it seems that Ravnsborg is not being truthful about what happened.


INVESTIGATORS: We know that his face came through your windshield. We know that. We already talked about that. That's, I would think, substantially clear that that's what happened. We also have the imprint on the hood. At some point in time, he rolls off, takes out the mirror and slides into the ditch. I want you to be really honest right now. I am, I never saw him. Things haven't been straightforward by any means. In fact, some people would call you a liar. I am not a liar. Some people I'm not. I'm not calling you a liar. I'm saying there's some. There's some mistakes made here, though. You would have to agree with that. People make mistakes, right? And we're thinking you made one.




KETTLER: We'll cover the consequences that you faced in the next segment. But first we're going to discuss his concerning approach to his office and response to the accident, including attempts to seemingly abuse his office or at least try to receive preferential treatment.


HUNT: Yeah. I mean, unfortunately, Jaci, we frequently see politicians and other, you know, elected officials getting in trouble for incidents that happen while driving. So in June 2024, for example, Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman and his wife were in a car crash that was later determined to be that he was at fault for this. Eventually brought to light several speeding tickets he had received and serious staff concerns about his distracted driving. On top of that, he was ordered to complete a safe driving course following one of his speeding tickets.


KETTLER: Interestingly, these sort of driving related incidents often become campaign issues as well. Right, Charlie?


HUNT: Yeah, that's right Jaci. These things frequently come up during, you know, major campaigns for office. So, you know, back in 2000, when he was first running for president, George W Bush had to answer again for a DUI. He had gotten back in the 1970s. And more recently, we saw a similar instance with Beto O'Rourke, the former Texas congressman who ran for U.S. Senate against Ted Cruz in 2018. He also ran for president and ran for governor of Texas, a DWI of his that had originally happened in 1998, but this came up again during a couple of these high profile runs for office in Texas. And so these things can come back up again. You know, opponents will bring these things up. Absolutely. And, you know, in light of these two examples, we do want to make sure to note here that despite the real seriousness of this incident in Ravnsborg's case, there's no evidence that he had been drinking. No alcohol was found in his system.


KETTLER: But this does go to the point about raising concerns about behavior in office. Another recent example was the Montana State Superintendent of Public Instruction illegally passing a school bus when it was stopped with the stop arm and flashing lights activated in 2022. This can be really dangerous as kids may be crossing the street. Drivers may not be able to see them, which is why it is illegal to pass a stopped school bus.


HUNT: That's why they have those flashing lights and the arm going out right.


KETTLER: And this has become a widespread problem in the country. For example, in 2023, the Boise School District was seen about ten of these violations a day. Then, to have the elected state superintendent of Public Instruction engage in this behavior in Montana looks really bad. She ultimately pleaded no contest and paid a small fine.


HUNT: Yeah, in this case, Jaci, you know, this wasn't some random elected official doing this. This was a superintendent of schools who, of all people, should really know better about these laws. And I think this gets to what, in this case is a larger and, you know, you would think obvious point, which is that we expect elected officials in particular to follow the law, perhaps especially so when we're talking about an attorney general of a state. Right. They're the they're the chief legal officer of the state. They are the top law enforcement official. They are literally in charge of enforcing many of these laws, and they represent the state in legal matters. Right? If there is anyone who we maybe should expect to be fine, upstanding citizens adhering to the letter and the spirit of the law. We might think it would be the Attorney General to sort of respect these laws rather than break them.


KETTLER: That is such an important point, Charlie. Moreover, how Ravnsborg handled himself when pulled over or interacting with law enforcement raises additional concerns. We've discussed his tendency to identify himself as attorney general to law enforcement when pulled over for traffic violations, as well as on the 911 call the night he hit Beaver. While he disputes this interpretation, this behavior raised concerns that he was seeking preferential treatment in favor from law enforcement by emphasizing his title.


HUNT: And this is, again, sadly, something we've seen before from other politicians there. You know, I grew up in Rhode Island, and there was one high profile incident with a majority leader in the Rhode Island Senate giving the whole, don't you know who I am kind of speech, right? That sort of leveraging their position to basically try and get out of a jam, right? There are a lot of people, many people, maybe even most who would not get that same benefit of the doubt. Especially when we're talking about someone who I can't emphasize this enough, had 27 traffic stops and 19 of them for speeding like this is someone who you would think sort of long ago would have had his license suspended. But, you know, we heard in that tape him the very first thing he said was, you know, hey, it's the attorney general. And you got to believe that something that's going through his head at the time.


KETTLER: The South Dakota State Bar agreed. They eventually recommended that Ravnsborg law license be suspended for two years due to three violations of the rules of professional conduct for South Dakota lawyers. This included that his statements to law enforcement were attempts to, quote, use his office for improper purposes, end quote, as well as failing to accept responsibility for his involvement in the accident, killing Boever, and how his concerns were focused more on his career rather than the family following the incident.


HUNT: And this is sort of an interesting intersection this brings up, I think, of sort of a professional code of conduct that a lot of different professions have, whether it's lawyers or teachers or whatever else. And then these ethics laws that apply to public officials. Right. Ravnsborg is a public official. He was elected statewide as the attorney general, and he was elected to this office, in part because he presumably had some kind of a reputation as a lawyer, as a professional. And so, you know, maybe you get a variety of different types of punishments coming in from both of these kinds of angles, which maybe kind of complicates the situation.


KETTLER: After the accident, Ravnsborg also tried to get information from an agent in the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation about what authorities could collect from his cell phone data. This raised additional concerns about improper use of his office.


HUNT: Yeah. So this is also really concerning. On top of causing the death of a person, which is obviously really bad by itself, you have all these kinds of professional concerns in how he handled the aftermath from a professional perspective as a lawyer and from the perspective of, you know, his public office holding as the attorney general. And so it does sort of seem here, Jaci, like there's enough here to sort of establish malfeasance in office or maybe abuse of power. You know, these are generally the kinds of charges that are used to argue that someone, you know, a public official is no longer able to appropriately perform the duties of the office and is often used as grounds for impeachment. So, you know, for example, this was sort of the main impeachment charge leveled against Donald Trump in his first impeachment over the call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, that this was essentially an abuse of power, that he was using the power of his office beyond what any reasonable person could do to try and get himself out of a jam, or, in Trump's case, to try to win the next election, right? Things like abuse of power are a common impeachment charge, I think, at the state and federal level, mainly because they're exactly the kind of thing that the drafters of constitutions, especially the US Constitution, really had in mind as the kinds of misdeeds that a public official might get up to.


KETTLER: Right. And as we'll discuss in the next segment, those were exactly some of the charges included in the resolution. Moving to impeach Ravnsborg.


[Break]


HUNT: So, Jackie, we know there was a fairly in-depth investigation of the crash, which uncovered evidence that Ravnsborg had been distracted during the drive and clearly had not been honest about actually hitting a person. Did he end up getting charged with anything?


KETTLER: Yes. He was ultimately charged with three misdemeanors. In August 2021, he pleaded no contest to two driving out of his lane and driving while using a mobile electronic device. He paid a fine of $500 for each. Although he did not end up getting charged with vehicular manslaughter. Ravnsborg agreed to a settlement with Boever's family for an undisclosed sum of money in September 2021.


HUNT: But throughout this whole time, Ravnsborg was still South Dakota's attorney general. Right. I mean, did he end up facing any political consequences?


KETTLER: That's right. He is still the state's chief law enforcement officer. Ravnsborg refused to resign, despite numerous other office holders and political leaders calling for him to do so. While the Republican Party wasn't united in how to handle the situation. Governor Kristi Noem encouraged Ravnsborg to resign.


HUNT: So I have to admit, Jaci, before we started this, I had never heard of Jason Ravnsborg. I have heard of Kristi Noem and many of our listeners may have as well. She is, you know, someone that clearly seems to have national sort of major political ambitions. For a while in 2024, she was trying to position herself as a contender for Donald Trump's vice president.


MEDIA: For news, former President Trump revealing his short list for vice president candidates last night. And Governor Noem did make that cut.


HUNT: And so while Senator JD Vance was ultimately selected as Trump's VP nominee, Noem's national ambitions could right motivate her to try to avoid some major political scandals. Governors also tend to want to prevent or minimize the damage from political scandals to basically protect their legacy as governor.


KETTLER: Yeah, even though the attorney general is elected separately, scandals can reflect poorly on the entire executive branch of state government, in addition to other Republicans and many Democrats calling for his resignation. Law enforcement officials did the same, but he didn't resign. Ravnsborg argued that he was able to effectively carry out the responsibilities of the office. As a result, state legislators moved to impeach him in 2021.


HUNT: It's interesting, Jaci, because when we think of elected officials being impeached, we usually think of presidents like Donald Trump or Bill Clinton, or governors like Illinois Rod Blagojevich, who listeners will, of course, remember from an earlier episode. But other state officials, like the attorney general, can also be impeached by state legislatures. And it seems like we're seeing more impeachments recently, something we'll discuss later in the episode. But, Jaci, I believe impeachment processes vary across states in this case. So so what was the process here in South Dakota?


KETTLER: South Dakota's process is similar to that of the US Congress and a majority of other states. First, a majority of all elected members in the South Dakota House must vote to impeach. The Senate holds a trial and then a vote if two thirds of the Senate votes in favor. The official is convicted and removed from office. In South Dakota, grounds for impeachment include, quote, drunkenness, crimes, corrupt conduct or malfeasance or misdemeanor in office.


HUNT: That's quite a list. But given what we discussed previously, there does seem to be some evidence here for malfeasance in office, depending on how you look at how the crash unfolded and his conduct before and after it. I think the argument could also be made that some kinds of crimes were committed here as well.


KETTLER: As we'll discuss later, both of those were cited in the articles of impeachment.


HUNT: I'm curious, too, Jaci, about how the partizan and political context might have shaped this situation. As we know, South Dakota is a very Republican state, and at this time, Republicans held a supermajority of seats in the legislature. They had a huge advantage, and so was it expected that the impeachment charges would easily pass in this situation?


KETTLER: No. Even with some Republicans calling for Ravnsborg to resign, legislators were divided on whether impeachment was an appropriate action, although public opinion did support it. One poll conducted by South Dakota State University in 2022 found that 70% of South Dakotans believed that he should be removed from office. Legislative leadership selected to slow the impeachment process, regardless of public opinion. In a special session in 2021, two resolutions were introduced in the House. One created a special committee to investigate and evaluate whether impeachment offenses had been committed by Ravnsborg. This resolution passed with the committee beginning its work following the session. 


The second resolution contained the articles of impeachment. The committee started its work in late 2021 and continued into early 2022. Their meetings included public testimony from individuals involved in the investigation into the crash. After months of work, the committee recommended not to impeach Ravnsborg on a 6 to 2 vote. They argued the lane violation wasn't an offense worthy of an impeachment. In response, Governor Noem called on the House to, quote, do the right thing and remove him from office. There were two articles of impeachment for Ravnsborg introduced by representative Will Mortenson.


MORTENSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the body.


KETTLER: Article one for crimes related to the death of Boever and one concerning malfeasance in office. The resolution also stated that Ravnsborg had lost the faith of law enforcement and the executive branch.


MORTENSON: We find ourselves today in a grave and exceptional situation. The Attorney General has broken the law and as a result of that, one of our citizens has died. Our top law enforcement officer has misled law enforcement during the investigation of those crimes. This is a grave and exceptional situation.


HUNT: So how did Ravnsborg respond to this impeachment? I'm guessing he was not thrilled.


KETTLER: No, he definitely wasn't. While some continued to hope he would resign once the House moved forward on the impeachment, he continued to fight against the impeachment charges. The night before, the House voted on his impeachment, Ravnsborg released a statement noting that no official had previously been impeached for a traffic violation, and the incident didn't affect his ability to do his job. 


He also claimed that Governor Noem's calls for him to resign in support of the impeachment proceedings were a political move, trying to prevent his office from investigating potentially corrupt activities happening in her office.


HUNT: And we've seen this before, Jaci, with public officials who are under fire trying to turn the tables and say, you know, I'm not corrupt, you're corrupt. And he's basically trying to kind of, you know, throw everything at the wall here and see what sticks.


KETTLER: Totally. And legislators remain divided on whether Ravnsborg should be impeached. Some didn't believe his actions warranted an impeachment. They argue that while his behavior might be concerning traffic, misdemeanors are not a serious enough crime or offense for removal from office.


HUNT: And I do think, Jaci, that this is a really important debate to have. Right. Impeachment is this kind of last resort. It's a really serious action to take. If you're choosing to remove a popularly elected official from office, you want it to be for a good reason, and you want legislators to take it seriously. And this is an argument that former presidents who have been impeached have made in the past. This is one of the arguments a lot of members of Congress made when Bill Clinton was impeached that, yes, his marital infidelity was not great, but that this wasn't anything that had to do with his job. You saw similar arguments being made by Donald Trump when he was impeached. But either way, I think we we do want legislators to take it seriously and give it some thought.


KETTLER: The house met on April 12th, 2022, to consider the impeachment resolution for 40 minutes. Legislators debated the resolution, with a number of members, including Representative Mortenson, arguing heatedly that Ravrnsborg should be impeached.


MORTENSON: Every single person is in this room because we've been elected by constituents, by voters, by the people of South Dakota. These positions of public trust are a privilege and not a right. What we are talking today is not about taking away Mr. Brown's rights. We're not talking about putting him in jail. We're talking about whether, as a result of his crimes and his malfeasance in office, he's violated his duty to the people of South Dakota. I think he has.


KETTLER: No legislator spoke in defense of Ravnsborg during the debate. The House voted 36-31 to impeach him.


HUNT: So given what we just heard during the debate, that seems like an incredibly close vote. Like it easily could have failed. And I think this tells us a lot that no legislators spoke in his defense on the floor, but still decided not to impeach him. Basically, it seems like they didn't want to defend the action publicly, even if they didn't believe that impeachment was the appropriate route to take here.


KETTLER: I think that's right, Charlie. Following the impeachment vote in the House, there was a mandatory waiting period of at least 20 days before the trial could begin in the Senate. Ravnsborg was placed on leave during this time. In a statement, he said he believed he would be vindicated in the Senate. The Senate's trial of Ravnsborg didn't happen until a special session in June. Before the trial, he announced that he wouldn't run for reelection.


HUNT: So it seems like at this point that Ravnsborg is reading the writing on the wall. But it seems maybe like it's too little, too late. The best action, it seems like, would have just been to resign, which would have removed the need for the legislature to intervene and impeach here in the first place.


KETTLER: Right? I mean, because during the Senate trial, there continues to be debate on whether impeachment is inappropriate action. Take this argument from Senator Tim Johnson, who ended up voting against conviction.


JOHNSON: I think if you don't like the job they do, you vote them out. You don't use impeachment. And I think that's supposed to be held for very, very egregious events. And none of these were. Yeah. So, you know, a man died. That's not good enough reason to impeach.


KETTLER: One senator voting in support of his impeachment was Lee Schoenbeck, the chamber's top ranking Republican.


SHOENBECK: He had no right against self-incrimination. He chose. He chose not to be here to share with us what the hell he was doing killing that person. If this was anybody besides the attorney general that did that to your neighbor, your family, your friend, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Why this is dragged out. Why we're even having this trial is beyond me. There should have been a resignation a long time ago. There should have been contrition. That hasn't happened. And there should be impeachment.


KETTLER: While expected to take two days, the Senate only took one day to try and convict Ravnsborg on both impeachment charges. Remember, a two thirds majority is needed to convict in the Senate.


MEDIA: Members of the Senate present at that trial voted to impeach Ravnsborg on two articles of impeachment. That is, out of 35 senators. The first was on crime causing the death of Joseph Boever, which lawmakers voted 24 to 9. The second was malfeasance in office following the death of Joseph Boever, which they voted 31 to 2. He's also barred from holding any office in the state in the future, and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem tonight reacting to this impeachment on Twitter, saying, quote, after nearly two years, the dark cloud over the attorney general's office has been lifted. It's now time to move on and begin to restore confidence in the office. End quote Noem will have the power to appoint an interim attorney general.


[Break]


KETTLER: Let's unpack this wild story a little bit more. Charlie, I want to start with this really big step of impeachment and removal from office. Impeachments of public officials used to be fairly rare, but they seem to have become more common in recent years. In fact, Ravnsborg's impeachment isn't the only recent impeachment of a state attorney general. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was impeached by the Texas House in 2023 on 16 charges of obstruction, abuse of his office, and bribery. Unlike Ravnsborg, Paxton wasn't convicted in the Senate.


HUNT: I think there are some interesting comparisons to be made here to, for example, the two impeachments of former President Donald Trump. Obviously, they were very different impeachments. But in terms of the response that he gave, we see saw a lot of the same behavior there, right. What seems to happen in a lot of these arguments over impeachment is that the argument ends up being about politics. And this, for example, this accusation that Ravnsborg made and certainly that Trump made as well, that these are politically motivated attacks and that there's nothing to this. It's more just that this person doesn't like me or that this is a result of political disagreements. And it's unfortunate that these arguments tend to devolve into this because, you know, in this case, Ravnsborg is being impeached for some really concerning behavior, and you end up kind of arguing about the politics of it, instead of what the actual thing was that he did. You know.


KETTLER: When you think about it, impeachments are kind of a strange process. They involve charges often related to crimes, but they seem very political in nature.


HUNT: Yeah. I mean, a lot of the language we see associated with impeachment is very legalistic, right? There are charges that are put forward in the lower chamber, usually the house, and then there is a sort of a jury vote on conviction in the Senate. And this mirrors some legal processes. But I do think it's important to remember that this is not a legal process, but a strictly political process. You know, impeachments and the arguments made there do not have that same force in a court of law. This is just a question over whether Ravnsborg gets to keep his job or not.


KETTLER: Beyond these cases, we've also seen motions to impeach sitting governors discussed or introduced in many states, including Idaho, Kentucky and New Mexico. Charlie, why do you think impeachment seemed to be coming more common?


HUNT: I think more and more there are sort of fewer restrictions on what legislators, what lawmakers and politicians see as the tools available to them to hash out political fights. I think that as the polarization between the parties in our country has increased, the stakes of politics and of elections have gotten really, really high. And I think that tends to ratchet up the extent to which impeachment might be seen, might be turned to as a tool for political retribution, or as a tool to use in some of these political fights. And so it's seen as a not as an option of last resort, but as just another tool in the toolbox for sort of hashing out these political disagreements.


KETTLER: I think those are some important points, because at least in some of these debates about impeaching governors, there really seem to be a debate about policy at play and executive actions rather than crimes committed by the governor. Perhaps taking a step back. What is impeachment supposed to remedy? When is it appropriate? I mean, these questions came up in the impeachment debates in South Dakota, and I do think it is an important question.


HUNT: I think it's fair to say that as they are originally included in the federal Constitution and the state constitutions, it's intended to be an option of last resort. Right? We have elections in these states and at the federal level. And so if a president isn't doing a good job, if a governor or an attorney general isn't doing a good job, we can replace him in the next election. But the presence of an impeachment article, right, implies that we need some mechanism of removing somebody if they are so corrupt or committing so many crimes, or doing so many bad things that we can't wait until the next election, we need a mechanism to remove them now. And so I think that gives us some hints as to what kinds of things the framers of these various constitutions had in mind when including impeachment in here, that maybe it wasn't supposed to be just for simple policy disagreements or for just political retribution. Those are things that are resolved sort of respectively, in Congress or in state legislatures or at the ballot box.


KETTLER: What about the final vote taken to bar Ravnsborg from ever holding office again? Was this just rubbing salt in his wounds, or is it a necessary part of the process?


HUNT: Well, in this case, Jaci, you know, you mentioned earlier that Ravnsborg eventually decided not to run for reelection, which was, you know, politically, perhaps a wise choice. But part of the reasons these provisions are in here is back to this idea that impeachment, if it's meant to be for these really, really serious offenses that are, you know, if they're so serious that you can no longer be in your position now, then it stands to reason that it should disqualify you from holding office ever again. And I should note that these kinds of provisions are not just in at the state level, but are also in place at the federal level as well. In fact, if a president is impeached and convicted automatically, they can never run for office again. It doesn't even have to be a separate vote. And this was certainly the center of a lot of discussion during the debate in the Senate over former President Trump's impeachment in 2021, following the January 6th riots. And so, you know, one of the main reasons, I think it's fair to say that a lot of Democrats were eager to convict him is that we would not be in the situation that we are as of recording in 2024, where he's running for president again and is the nominee of the Republican Party. If they had voted to convict him, that would not have happened.


KETTLER: So I've not been in this kind of terrible situation. And I'm guessing you haven't either. Charlie? This makes it a little bit more challenging to get into Ravnsborg's head on this one, but let's try anyways with one of our regular segments. What were they thinking? One thing that strikes me about Ravnsborg's behavior is the very human tendencies that led to this crash. So many people are distracted by their phones or other things when driving.


HUNT: I saw a few on my way while I was driving here to record. We've seen states try to deal with this phenomenon of texting while driving and thinking about, how do you make law in this area? And then here he is, sort of the chief law enforcement officer of the state. You know, I think we all like to think we don't text while driving. We don't look at our phones.


KETTLER: We or we think we're all the ones that can do it successfully.


HUNT: Yeah, we're the safe ones. We have the thing on the dashboard so that we're looking at the road while we're driving in a in a weird way, it is kind of humanizing.


KETTLER: You know, what takes us from an accident with tragic consequences to an impeachment is Ravnsborg's poor decision making, Charlie. What do you think Ravnsborg was thinking?


HUNT: Well, like we said earlier, I think a lot of what got him in trouble here was not just the accident itself. Not just hitting this man with his car, but how he handled it from then onwards that, you know, he panicked and then sort of tried to use his office to avoid this punishment for bad behavior. Right. So, yes, this also is a human impulse in some ways. But, you know, I, I've admitted to some moments of poor driving earlier in this podcast, but I think I can pretty confidently say that, you know, I wouldn't have behaved in the same way as Ravnsborg in trying to cover it up. Certainly I hope I would not have.


KETTLER: And this again is very concerning when it is the chief law enforcement officer for the state.


HUNT: Yeah. I mean, this is and this gets back to this idea of trust in our public officials, right? That if we can't even trust the person in charge of law enforcement in the state to follow the most basic laws that we are all expected to follow, that we all deal with on a day to day basis, then that's not bound to inspire a lot of confidence in government in the political process. I do think this is a matter of importance that's greater than just the tragic tale that unfolded here. And so, right, to use one of our other recurring segments, this, this George Costanza test.


COSTANZA: Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here, that that sort of thing was frowned upon.


HUNT: You know? Was this wrong? You know? Yeah. Clearly, hitting and killing a person with your car is wrong. But when these actions add up all of his behavior afterwards, this sort of abuse of power that came from his office, I think we can see that this adds up to something that's much greater than just the sum of its parts. So finally, let's go to our Party Favors segment. Jaci, I am hoping you have a few little nuggets of information or fun facts maybe that we left on the cutting room floor but continue to be fascinated by. So what do you got for us?


KETTLER: Well, I think I have some good ones. So first, since 1959, everyone elected as attorney general in South Dakota have been graduates of the South Dakota School of Law.


HUNT: It's a pretty incredible fact, and I think actually sort of tells us something about the kind of geography we're talking about. When you look at members of Congress and presidents, a lot of them, like, you know, they all went to like Harvard and Yale Law School and these super elite universities. But in these more remote states, there's a lot of, I think, value and culture around these big state schools. And so these local ties to some of these kinds of universities, I think they they do really matter and probably help someone like Ravnsborg before he hits someone with his car. Kind of build a case that, you know, he's a he's a local guy and he clearly fit the profile for attorney general that had been cemented.


KETTLER: Another detail about the night of the crash that kind of fascinated me is that Ravnsborg reported that he tried to listen to two books on tape on the drive to peer the night of the crash, but he didn't like them. Stop listening.


HUNT: So it sounds like Jaci, the person we have to blame for this, is the narrator of these audiobooks. They just weren't a good they weren't an exciting enough narrator.


KETTLER: And hopefully, if you're listening to us while driving, we're engaging enough for you to stay focused on the road. So earlier in the episode, we talked some about how impeachment processes vary across states. I found it really interesting to learn that in Oregon, the legislature actually doesn't have the power to impeach at all.


HUNT: That's really interesting. I mean, I it does make you wonder what they would do if there was some major misbehavior on the part of, you know, a governor or an attorney general. I imagine not everyone in Oregon's history has a sterling record.


KETTLER: Well, Charlie, don't worry, voters will have an opportunity to vote on a ballot initiative in the 2024 general election to give legislature the power to impeach. This was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment with unanimous support in both chambers.


HUNT: And it's interesting, Jaci, you mentioned it was legislatively referred right, meaning that the the legislature themselves were the ones to initiate this process. And I'm not surprised. You know, we talked about the oversight powers that legislatures tend to really like to have over the executive branch. And so we'll certainly be keeping an eye on that vote.


KETTLER: This episode was written by me, Jaci Kettler, and my co-host Charlie Hunt. It was produced and edited by Charlie with research support from our amazing researcher Peyton Jenkins. Our theme music is by Dear Room with incidental sound from Shutterstock music. We also want to thank our seasoned sponsor, the Boise State School of Public Service. For more sources and info on all our episodes, head over to ScandalizedPod.Com.


HUNT: Next time on Scandalized. The first of our two part season finale on the fine art of lying in politics.


BLUMENTHAL: Now, on a few occasions I have misspoken about my service, and I regret that. And I take full responsibility.


HUNT: First, we'll check in on some politicians who got caught inflating their resume.


MAJEWSKI: Anyone insinuating that I did not serve in Afghanistan is lying.


KERRY: In my zeal to rekindle that idealism, I made some mistakes.


HUNT: And some others who might just have been framed.


KERRY: I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty.