Suit asks judge to decide AG Hill’s eligibility before suspension ends

Plaintiffs who have filed a lawsuit seeking to remove suspended Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill have asked the judge in the case to rule on Hill’s eligibility to continue to serve before his 30-day suspension concludes on Wednesday.

In a motion filed Thursday, attorney Bill Groth renewed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of four plaintiffs — James and Kathy Perron, Julia Vaughn and John Windle. They sued Hill and chief deputy attorney general Aaron Negangard May 21, claiming Hill is no longer eligible to continue as AG due to his suspension from the practice of law related to a sexual misconduct scandal. The suit also argues Hill lacked the authority to appoint Negangard to oversee the office’s legal operations in his stead.

Additionally, the motion specifically asks Marion Superior Judge Gary Miller to “advance this case on its docket and order accelerated briefing with respect to this motion and decide this motion prior to June 17,” the date Hill’s suspension will expire. He will be automatically reinstated that day.

Miller has set a status conference for Friday after assuming jurisdiction in the case June 5.

Hill has moved to continue the proceedings until after his suspension concludes, prompting Groth to allege the AG’s office is stalling. A spokesperson for the AG’s office did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment about Thursday’s filings.

“The disciplinary suspension of an attorney occupying an elected office requiring license to practice law prohibits that official from performing any of his or her duties and responsibilities,” the plaintiffs argued in support of their motion for summary judgment. “As our Supreme Court has often held, and as Gov. Holcomb himself argued to the Supreme Court, Mr. Hill’s suspension creates (a) ‘vacancy’ in the elected office he occupied, citing In re Szilagyi, 969 N.E.2d 1007 (Ind. 2012) (holding that lawyer’s suspension had created ‘vacancy in the office of prosecuting attorney’); In re Appointment of Temporary Prosecuting Attorney, 834 N.E.2d 656, 657 (Ind. 2005)”.

The Indiana Supreme Court did not address Holcomb’s question about whether a vacancy was created after the court suspended Hill for allegations of sexual misconduct. The court denied Holcomb’s motion to intervene in Hill’s discipline case when he sought clarification on whether the suspension created a vacancy.

Groth criticized the AG’s office for seeking to extend the lawsuit past the expiration of Hill’s suspension as “a game of trying to run out the clock.”

Hill, 59, has denied doing anything wrong at a party marking the end of the 2018 state legislative session where the groping occurred.

Democratic Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon testified during an October hearing that Hill, smelling of alcohol and with glassy eyes, was holding a drink in his right hand and put his left hand on her shoulder, then slid his hand down her dress to clench her buttocks.

“A squeeze, a firm grasp,” she said.

Three female legislative staffers — ages 23 to 26 at the time — testified Hill inappropriately touched their backs or buttocks and made unwelcome sexual comments during the party.

The state Supreme Court said in a unanimous ruling last month suspending Hill that the state’s attorney disciplinary commission “proved by clear and convincing evidence that (Hill) committed the criminal act of battery.”

Hill has rebuffed calls from Holcomb and other state Republican leaders for his resignation and is being challenged by three other Republicans in his reelection bid. Holcomb said after last month’s Supreme Court decision that he wouldn’t take further action toward possibly appointing a replacement for Hill.