2021 S.D. Legislature: Haugaard explains AG’s ‘no contest’ plea

By: 
District 10 Rep. Steve Haugaard, R-Sioux Falls
This past week there were two issues of public interest which made the news. One was the Attorney General’s plea of “No Contest” to two of the misdemeanors which were charged following the September 2020 accident that resulted in Joe Boever’s death. The “No Contest” plea allows an individual to basically say, “I am willing to resolve these claims against me without contesting the charges.” The judge then makes no finding of guilt and simply imposes a sentence. This resolved the misdemeanor charges. The only thing left to address is the likely civil claim brought by Joe Boever’s estate, or possibly by his estranged wife.  
Following the resolution of the misdemeanors, the Governor again called for the Attorney General’s resignation, but that is not going to happen. Her actions since the accident so tainted any chance of an unbiased hearing that the facts seemed to be irrelevant and there was little chance of honestly evaluating the accident.  
 
What seems to be missing in all of this is any indication that there was any action on the part of the Attorney General that rises to the level of maliciousness, recklessness or even carelessness. That is why the ‘careless’ charge was dismissed in an effort to resolve the case. Anyone who has operated a motor vehicle knows that there are very brief moments when our eyes are not focused on the road ahead or something suddenly comes at us from the side, and that is apparently what happened that tragic night. If that happened to anyone else it would be found as tragic and the matter would be at an end.  
 
Certainly, we should hold our elected leaders to a higher standard, but should one be forced to resign based upon an absolute accident? No one can seriously believe that the Attorney General sought to cause a death, or now, based upon the evidence, that the Attorney General was ‘reckless’ or even ‘careless?’ After an exhaustive review of the actual evidence, the State’s Attorney could not find ‘reckless’ behavior and willingly dismissed the ‘careless’ charge apparently due to the fact that the evidence would not ultimately be found sufficient.  
 
When anyone reviews the work of AG Ravnsborg since his election, and especially since last September, it will be apparent that he has done an excellent job overseeing the Attorney General’s office and that he has continued to do his job, serve the state, accomplish victories for the State and developed relationships with the tribes that create a pathway for ongoing success.  
 
The other significant news item this past week involved the work of two members of the House of Representatives, Speaker Pro Tem Jon Hansen and Rep. Scott Odenbach. Both are very accomplished attorneys and previously were considered allies of the Governor. They proposed a Bill that would restrict employers from making employment or continued employment contingent upon receiving the vaccine for COVID-19. They simply were looking for a means of bringing some certainty to employees who might otherwise be required to do something that is either against their firmly held religious convictions or contrary to their understanding of what might be in their best interests. 
 
Since the beginning of the pandemic, it has been unclear what caused the virus, the spread of the virus, and whether there is an effective vaccine. People on both sides of this matter appear to be entrenched in their convictions that the vaccine is either the only solution or that the vaccine is unproven and dangerous. There are credible arguments on both sides of the issue. When one considers the limited statistical data, we are left with more questions than answers.  
 
The most recent hospitalization numbers in South Dakota show that 20 percent of those hospitalized for COVID-19 or its variants have previously been vaccinated. What we do not know is if that percentage is potentially even higher for those who have been vaccinated but do not need hospitalization. Throughout this pandemic we have received limited and conflicting information as well as prevention advice.  
 
So, the proposed legislation in regard to limiting employers from requiring vaccination begs the question, “Should the state be involved in private business relationships?” From a ‘Republican’ standpoint we will likely say “No.” However, given the massive involvement and interference of the State and Federal governments in our lives over the past 18 months and the seriously flawed development of data, one can make a credible argument that the Legislature is trying to best represent the people of our state who have already suffered the ravages of the pandemic and they should not have yet another battle to fight for the very opportunity to be employed.  
 
When you review all of the Governor’s Executive Orders from last year you will find that South Dakota was no different than many other states in the control exerted by the Governor over business and individuals.  (https://sdsos.gov/general-information/executive-actions/executive-orders...Contrary to her claims, the Governor did ‘mandate’ limitations on businesses and also required individuals to ‘shelter in place’, to follow CDC guidelines, to ‘socially distance’, to shun businesses that did not follow CDC guidelines, and she even intimidated a Sioux Falls business to close their doors and continue to pay their employees.  
 
Given the coercive approach taken by our governing leaders and the implied threat of adverse consequences for individuals or businesses that are or were not compliant, the legislation being proposed is something of a preemptive strike by the Legislature to ensure that individual employees are not saddled with the need to either sue to assert their right to work or that they are forced to do something they fear or are opposed to for other reasons.
 
Sadly, more government involvement (this time by the Legislature) in the form of this Bill, or a revision to it, might be a means of reducing the potential for more unintended consequences resulting from the pandemic and the way in which it has been handled. The current opposition from the Governor is the opposite of what she actually did herself last year. One of the only things that is different at this point in time is the fact that Sanford Health (one of the state’s largest employers) has already drawn a line in the sand for its employees.
 
Please feel free to contact me with questions or comments or go to www.sdlegislature.gov to see what is happening in state government.
 

Category:

The Brandon Valley Journal

 

The Brandon Valley Journal
1404 E. Cedar St.
Brandon, SD 57005
(605) 582-9999

Email Us

Facebook Twitter

Please Login for Premium Content