INDIANAPOLIS — When Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill first found himself accused of pawing and groping a series of women at a party marking the end of the 2018 legislative session, he and his defenders issued a rallying cry.
They asserted that Hill was being convicted without a trial.
Curtis Hill deserves due process, they yelled.
Well, now he’s getting what he asked for — and probably not liking it much.
Last week, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission issued a 10-page complaint regarding Hill’s conduct. The complaint detailed much of what we already know.
We read again that Hill moved through the sine die party like a drunken octopus. He couldn’t or wouldn’t keep his hands to himself. He grabbed or gripped at least four women, three of them young enough to be his daughters, without their consent. He rubbed their backs and groped their buttocks even after they told him to stop or tried to distance themselves from him.
The disciplinary commission argues that these acts should be considered misdemeanors or, in one case, even a felony.
From there, it gets even worse for Hill:
“When first confronted by legislative leaders about the conduct at the sine die event, the respondent admitted repeatedly that he had had too much to drink or words to that effect. Thereafter, the respondent changed his story and claimed that he was not inebriated,” the complaint says.
That’s polite legalese for:
Hill lied.
Since the allegations against Hill surfaced, the state’s power structure has performed a complicated dance of accusation and avoidance.
Gov. Eric Holcomb, like Hill a Republican, called on the attorney general to do the decent thing and resign his office. Lt. Gov. Suzanne Crouch followed suit. So did each of the four leaders of the Indiana General Assembly’s legislative caucuses.
But there the matter stopped.
The lawmakers, in their wisdom, opted not to try to impeach Hill and remove him from office.
At first, legislative leaders hinted they were waiting for the results of an investigation by a special prosecutor and the state’s inspector general.
That report came.
The prosecutor and the inspector general declined to file criminal charges against Hill, but the report was blistering, nonetheless. It depicted the attorney general as a besotted lout, behaving, one witness memorably reported, “like a freshman at a college frat party.”
Still, the legislators chose not to act — perhaps because at least a few lawmakers have their own private and unstated motivations for not encouraging close examination of elected officials’ sexual conduct.
And misconduct.
So, the legislature continued about its business and went about ignoring the elephant officed at the north end of the Statehouse — the one whose conduct would have merited dismissal from employment in this me-too era from even the most godless Hollywood studio.
Determined ignorance, it seems, was bliss.
The disciplinary commission complaint changes things. The time for happy slumber is over.
The complaint establishes, in terms both legal and moral, all the ways Curtis Hill has failed to meet the responsibilities not just of his office, but those of any officer of the court. His case now will go before the five justices of the Indiana Supreme Court.
Perhaps this is as it should be.
Contrary to what Hill and his defenders argued, he never was entitled to “due process” when regarding staying in office. Unlike maintaining one’s personal freedom, holding elected office is not a right. It’s a privilege and, yes, an obligation.
One Curtis Hill has failed to meet.
But it appears he’s going to get his day in court.
The Indiana Supreme Court cannot throw Hill in jail. Nor can the justices usurp the legislature’s responsibility and impeach him.
But they can strip Hill of his license to practice law, which would have the effect of removing him from office. To serve, the attorney general must be a lawyer in good standing.
In addition to meting out some measure of justice to the attorney general, the Indiana Supreme Court can demonstrate it has two things the Indiana General Assembly seems to lack.
The first is a moral compass.
The second is a spine.
