PIERRE, S.D. -- Government accountability is part of the debate surrounding South Dakota's attorney general, who faces pressure to resign over a fatal crash, but a political expert said with conflicting actions, it's hard for the public to know whether its best interests are being served.

Many lawmakers, as well as Gov. Kristi Noem, have called on Jason Ravnsborg to resign over charges he now faces for fatally striking a pedestrian with his car last fall.

Ravnsborg refuses to resign, and although lawmakers introduced plans for impeachment, that effort essentially has paused following a gag order in his court case.

Michael Card, assistant professor of political science at the University of South Dakota, suggested it has resulted in confusion for the public.

"They're confused as to why the Legislature didn't appeal the judge's order, because it's clearly constitutional for the Legislature to entertain articles of impeachment," Card explained.

He observed residents might also wonder why the governor didn't appeal, even though she ordered the release of interrogation videos.

The attorney general faces misdemeanor charges, but his actions immediately following the crash have come under scrutiny.

Card pointed out the public might ask how an average citizen would have fared in this situation, but added the right to a fair trial is a key factor for policymakers to consider before acting.

Meanwhile, Card added if the Legislature waits until the criminal case is resolved to reconsider impeachment, there might not be as much public pressure at that point.

"As it drags out, I think it's less likely that the public will call for action that the legislators will respond to," Card projected.

However, he cautioned if Ravnsborg avoids any serious punishment, that might renew any calls from the public for action.

Card noted the release of the interrogation videos underscored the conflict between concerns about accountability and the right for the attorney general to receive a fair trial.

He remarked as publicly damning as they might be, wide circulation of the videos before a trial have raised questions among legal experts.


get more stories like this via email

Loretta Rush, Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, has released the 2023-24 annual report for the state's courts.

The report shows Indiana's judicial system is taking big steps to tackle the mental health crisis. The Supreme Court recently launched the Office of Behavioral Health and hired Brittany Kelly as its behavioral health specialist, making Indiana the tenth state in the country to embed a mental health professional within its judiciary.

"She's off and running. She's had hundreds of inquiries from around the state. She's meeting with judges," Rush outlined. "She's helping with things like competency evaluations, access to Medicaid, how do I get somebody who's going through dementia through the court system?"

Rush pointed out Kelly will help the courts manage the mental health and substance use issues flooding Indiana's courtrooms daily. The latest report shows more than 1 million cases passed through the courts this past fiscal year, including almost 20,000 involuntary mental health hearings and a sharp rise in protective orders for domestic violence.

Rush highlighted the strain on local courts, noting about 70% of people in jail have behavioral health issues.

"How do we make sure we have diversion programs in place? How do we make sure that the services we're ordering for people to do are the right services?" Rush asked. "We've done a lot at the national level with regard to substance abuse and mental health, realizing programs that are working."

The judiciary is working with state agencies to reform policies and address the impact of mental health issues on the system. Kelly has training in both social work and law, and helps judges connect with treatment resources to get people the support they need and keep them out of jail.


get more stories like this via email

Survivors of crime are speaking out against Proposition 36, which goes before California voters in November.

The ballot measure would increase penalties for some theft and drug crimes - and undo parts of Proposition 47, which took savings from decreased incarceration and put the money into harm-reduction programs.

Tinisch Hollins, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice, spoke Wednesday at the opening of a new trauma recovery center in Oakland.

"It's pushing the state to move back towards 'tough-on-crime.' We are pushing back on that. You need to prioritize resources to create trauma-recovery centers because this is the way to create safety in our community." Hollins said.

Supporters of Prop. 36 say current laws are too lenient, particularly concerning retail theft. But the state legislative analyst has suggested Prop. 36 will send many more people to jail, increasing criminal-justice costs anywhere from tens of millions to the low hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Hollins said that would mean less money for programs that actually address poverty and desperation - the root cause of crime.

"Folks who have been touched by incarceration, folks who are experiencing homelessness, folks who are experiencing barriers to employment, they can actually get a full range of services to stabilize," Hollins added. "Think about how impactful this will be if we're able to continue expanding this model."

Advocates of Prop. 36 project that it would mean $850 million less over the next decade for trauma recovery centers, mental health, drug treatment, victim services, re-entry and crime-prevention programs.

Groups across Alabama are joining forces to advocate for big changes to what they see as the state's flawed parole system.

In a panel discussion led by the group Alabama Values, speakers focused on improving the parole process and addressing its broader impact.

John Woods, who spent 10 years repeatedly being denied parole, shared his story. He said the system creates a sense of hopelessness, not only for those behind bars but also their families and shared a recent conversation with another person still waiting for a chance at parole.

"He said, 'I'm going out into society every day working a real a job,'" Woods explained. "He said, 'I go home every other week.' He said, 'I haven't did nothing and I've been there for seven years.' He said, 'What more can you get out of me in a work release?'"

Despite work release programs proving many individuals are not a threat to public safety, panelists noted few are granted parole. The latest Alabama Department of Corrections report showed state prisons are holding more than twice their intended capacity. The overcrowding, combined with rising violence, has heightened concerns.

Katie Glenn, policy associate for the Southern Poverty Law Center, cited the parole board's inconsistent application of its own guidelines as a major issue.

"The guidelines that the parole board uses, if they actually followed them, something like 70% of people who are up for parole would be paroled," Glenn contended. "I think now, we're seeing numbers as high as maybe, like, in the 20%."

Alison Mollman, interim legal director for the ACLU of Alabama, suggested borrowing parole models from other states to make improvements, including offering virtual attendance for parole hearings and reducing the lengthy wait times between hearings.

"In Alabama, you can be set off -- or you can have to wait for another parole hearing -- up to five years," Mollman pointed out. "That's a really, really long time, and I think a lot of times we hear, in the legislature, them wanting to move things so that everybody has to wait five years. But in states like Louisiana, most people wait one year."

Mollman also favors gradual release programs to reintegrate people through structured stages, as well as restorative justice practices, which allow some offenders to seek reconciliation with victims. The Alabama Legislature's next opportunity to address parole system issues is in its 2025 session.