A former congressman will challenge Attorney General Curtis Hill for the Republican nomination at Indiana’s June Republican State Convention.
Todd Rokita announced Wednesday that he is entering the race for Indiana’s attorney general.
“Running against a Republican officeholder is not something I ever would want to do, in just about any circumstance. But our incumbent is wounded. The unanimous Supreme Court ruling, by Republican-appointed and conservative Justices, comes after a significant investigation of the facts made this choice clear.”
The former fourth district congressman and Indiana secretary of state had previously sought the Republican nomination for Indiana’s U.S. Senate seat in 2018, losing to Sen. Mike Braun.
Indiana Democratic Party Executive Director Lauren Ganapini issued the following statement after former Congressman Todd Rokita entered the race to be the Republican nominee for Attorney General.
“Counting on perennial candidate Todd Rokita to buoy the AG’s race is like counting on gasoline to put out a house fire. Todd Rokita’s eleventh-hour entrance is poised to implode what was already an embarrassing effort from Indiana Republicans. Todd Rokita will all but ensure the GOP AG’s race devolves into a bare-knuckled brawl. Indiana Republicans’ meltdown continues to make the Attorney General’s race a prime pick-up opportunity for Hoosier Democrats.”
The Indiana Supreme Court announced a decision Monday to decline Gov. Eric Holcomb’s request to tell him whether state Attorney General Curtis Hill will lose his office following his law license suspension for groping a state legislator and three other women.
Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb’s office asked the court for the ruling a day after it released a decision suspending Hill’s law license for 30 days effective May 18.
State law requires the attorney general to be “duly licensed to practice law in Indiana,” but it doesn’t specify whether the person can continue serving under a temporary suspension.
The court Monday said it would be “inappropriate” to intervene in this case.
“These issues were not litigated by the parties and are extraneous to our disciplinary opinion, making intervention inappropriate,” the order reads in part. “Moreover, courts generally should not issue advisory opinions…or decide issues if there is no case or controversy before them.”