House Amendment Could Force Attorney General Hill From Office

By Lacey Watt
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS—Attorney General Curtis Hill doesn’t have many friends in the Indiana State House of Representatives.

Monday, the House adopted an amendment to Senate Bill 178 that would bar anyone from holding the attorney general’s office if their law license has been suspended for more than 30 days in the previous five years and further prevent them from running for office.

The amendment, authored by Rep. Timothy Wesco, R-Osceola, passed the House by 83-9 vote. It clearly targets Hill, who faces a suspension of his law license following a Supreme Court disciplinary hearing where there was testimony he grabbed and groped four women at a legislative party in 2018.

“We must address this question,” Wesco said in offering the amendment to the miscellaneous election bill. “Is it acceptable for the attorney general of the state of Indiana to hold a suspended law license?”

Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, asked Wesco to confirm that the amendment would apply to the current Supreme Court disciplinary case against Hill, who is also seeking a second term as attorney general.

The four women—three legislative staff members and one lawmaker—testified before a state Supreme Court disciplinary hearing in October that a drunken Hill groped them at the party.

Last month, former Indiana Supreme Court Justice Myra Selby recommended that Hill be suspended for 60 days without an automatic reinstatement, which could mean he could be without his law license much longer than the suspension period. Selby served as the hearing officer for the Disciplinary Commission and the final decision about Hill’s punishment rests with the five justices of the state Supreme Court.

“This is impeachment in disguise,” said Delaney, who subsequently voted for the amendment.

Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary, was one of the few no votes in the House.

“I think they are trying to disguise the fact that they don’t want him on the ticket and it’s political,” Smith said after the vote. “It’s not because it is what is good for that particular office.”

As House members debated the amendment that could eventually force Hill from office, U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson delivered better news to the attorney general. In a 37-page opinion, she dismissed a federal lawsuit filed against Hill and the state of Indiana because the women weren’t directly employed by Hill, which is required under the law.

Calling Hill’s conduct at the end of session party “disgraceful and reprehensible,” she wrote, “But the highly offensive nature of the alleged acts does not meet the legal standard necessary to establish a violation of any federal law or the Constitution of the United States by Attorney General Curtis Hill.”

She did leave open a way for the women to take some of their claims to state court.

Meanwhile, Hill is among the three candidates seeking the Republican nomination for attorney general. The other two are John Westercamp and former Indiana Department of Revenue Commissioner Adam Krupp. The candidate who will appear on the November ballot will be chosen at a state party convention in June.

FOOTNOTE: Lacey Watt is a reporter for TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.