Indiana Republicans propose allowing Democrats to disqualify any Republican AG from running
An amendment to an Indiana bill could give an unelected, Democrat-dominated committee the power to control the candidates for state attorney general that Hoosiers can vote for.
This amendment aims to prevent any attorney general candidate who has been disbarred or suspended from appearing on the ballot within a year of the election. Democrats have been using law license challenges as a political tool to hinder their opponents’ legal representation.
Groups like The 65 Project and Lawyers Defending Democracy have emerged to harass and intimidate their political opponents, burdening them with costly legal representation fees for exercising their constitutionally protected free speech. This means that any Republican attorney general is at risk of facing an ethics complaint unless they avoid challenging Democrat priorities.
Several attorneys in Indiana and across the country have already faced ethics challenges simply for representing Democrats in court. Even sitting Republican attorneys general, including Indiana AG Todd Rokita, have been targeted with such charges.
Rokita, known for his conservative stance, is part of a group of state attorneys general who are challenging President Joe Biden in significant constitutional cases. Interestingly, the lawyer representing Rokita in his ethics complaint has also faced an ethics complaint from the same person who filed the complaint against Rokita, according to Rokita’s spokesman Benjamin Fearnow.
The proposed Indiana amendment would grant an unelected state commission, which is supportive of abortion rights, the authority to determine the eligibility of attorney general candidates, effectively taking away the power from voters. The chairman of the Senate Elections Committee, Republican Sen. Mike Gaskill, who added the amendment to House Bill 1265, has not disclosed the author of the amendment. Requests for comment from Gaskill’s spokeswoman have gone unanswered.
Secret Proceedings Control Ballot Access
The proceedings of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission are conducted in secret, although their conclusions are made public. The commission’s recent disciplinary action against Rokita, for speaking truthfully and within legal ethics boundaries about an abortion case involving a 10-year-old rape victim, exposed its vulnerability to politicization, as stated in legal documents.
Rokita settled the complaint by agreeing not to contest it and paying a fine of $250. However, he was immediately hit with another pending complaint because leftists believed he did not show enough remorse for challenging the medical license of a woman who performs abortions. Rokita was the only lawyer reprimanded by the commission for speech in 2023.
Instead of supporting his fellow Republican against a board dominated by Democrats who often favor abortion rights, Madison County Prosecutor Rodney Cummings announced his consideration of primarying Rokita. Cummings claimed that the disciplinary board could potentially remove Rokita from the ballot due to his opposition to abortion. He cited the HB 1256 amendment as evidence of Indiana Republican legislative leadership’s agreement with him.
When asked about the amendment author, whether he believes unelected pro-abortion bureaucrats should have the power to determine candidates, and his plan to address the issue of Democrats weaponizing the legal system against their political opponents and the rule of law, a spokeswoman for Indiana Senate Pro Tem Rodric Bray declined to comment.
State lawmakers are well aware of the potential to use ethics complaints as a means to intimidate their political adversaries. During a recent Senate committee hearing, Democrat Minority Leader Greg Taylor hinted that lawmakers who voted against Democrats could face ethics complaints, leveraging their legal backgrounds: “Have you ever had a disciplinary action filed against you? We all know what happens.”
Democrat Donors Decide Who Republicans Can Vote For
The executive director of the disciplinary commission has a long history of advocating for Marxist identity politics. She has used her position to publicly endorse judges who participated in Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. According to OpenSecrets.org records, every lawyer on the nine-member commission has made campaign donations to Democrats, with some also contributing to Republicans.
Chairman Bernard Carter, a Lake County prosecutor, has been an elected Democrat official for over 30 years and has made numerous donations to Democratic candidates. Among his contributions are donations to pro-abortion Democrat Woody Myers’ campaign for Indiana governor in 2020, his local state Rep. Vernon Smith, a supporter of critical race theory, and Gary, Indiana Mayor Eddie Melton, who strongly supports a lawsuit that has jeopardized the privacy of gun owners.
Other commission members have also made donations to Democrats, including attorney Daniel Vinovich, who supported a Democrat candidate for state Senate in 2017, and member Cara Weineke, who donated to the Indiana Senate Democratic Committee in 2006.
Abortion-Friendly Conflicts of Interest
The abortionist whom Rokita criticized, Caitlin Bernard, is employed by Indiana University Health as a doctor and professor. Rokita is currently suing IU Health, arguing that their public endorsement of Bernard’s actions, which he believes violated privacy laws, has created confusion and threatens the privacy of Indiana patients. Several members of the disciplinary board have financial ties to IU and IU Health, creating a significant conflict of interest in overseeing the law license of an attorney general who challenged the medical license of an IU Health employee and sued the institution for endorsing her alleged breach of the law.
It is worth noting that the proposed amendment to House Bill 1265 has passed the Senate Elections Committee and is awaiting a vote in the full Indiana Senate. It will then return for another House vote. The original bill sponsor, Rep. Timothy Wesco, a Republican, has not provided further comments on the matter.
rnrn
How does the amendment to the Indiana bill raise concerns about Democratic control over attorney general candidates?
An Amendment to Indiana Bill Raises Concerns about Democratic Control over Attorney General Candidates
An amendment to an Indiana bill has raised concerns about the potential for an unelected, Democrat-dominated committee to have control over the candidates for state attorney general that Hoosiers can vote for. The amendment aims to prevent any attorney general candidate who has been disbarred or suspended from appearing on the ballot within a year of the election. However, this amendment has been seen by many as a political tool used by Democrats to hinder their opponents’ legal representation.
Groups like The 65 Project and Lawyers Defending Democracy have emerged and have been accused of harassing and intimidating their political opponents, burdening them with costly legal representation fees for exercising their constitutionally protected free speech. This means that any Republican attorney general is at risk of facing an ethics complaint unless they avoid challenging Democrat priorities.
Even attorneys across the country, including sitting Republican attorneys general like Indiana AG Todd Rokita, have already faced ethics challenges simply for representing Democrats in court. In fact, Rokita, known for his conservative stance, is part of a group of state attorneys general who are challenging President Joe Biden in significant constitutional cases. Interestingly, the lawyer representing Rokita in his ethics complaint has also faced an ethics complaint from the same person who filed the complaint against Rokita, according to Rokita’s spokesman Benjamin Fearnow.
The proposed Indiana amendment would grant an unelected state commission, which is supportive of abortion rights, the authority to determine the eligibility of attorney general candidates, effectively taking away the power from voters. The chairman of the Senate Elections Committee, Republican Sen. Mike Gaskill, who added the amendment to House Bill 1265, has not disclosed the author of the amendment, and requests for comment from Gaskill’s spokeswoman have gone unanswered.
One of the main concerns raised is the secret proceedings of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. While their conclusions are made public, the proceedings themselves are conducted in secret. This recent disciplinary action against Rokita has exposed the vulnerability of the commission to politicization, as stated in legal documents. Rokita settled the complaint by agreeing not to contest it and paying a fine of $250. However, he was immediately hit with another pending complaint because leftists believed he did not show enough remorse for challenging the medical license of a woman who performs abortions. Rokita was the only lawyer reprimanded by the commission for speech in 2023.
Furthermore, instead of supporting his fellow Republican against a board dominated by Democrats who often favor abortion rights, Madison County Prosecutor Rodney Cummings announced his consideration of primarying Rokita. Cummings claimed that the disciplinary board could potentially remove Rokita from the ballot due to his opposition to abortion, citing the HB 1256 amendment as evidence of Indiana Republican legislative leadership’s agreement with him.
When approached for comments on the amendment author, whether he believes unelected pro-abortion bureaucrats should have the power to determine candidates, and his plan to address the issue of Democrats weaponizing the legal system against their political opponents and the rule of law, a spokeswoman for Indiana Senate Pro Tem Rodric Bray declined to comment.
State lawmakers are well aware of the potential to use ethics complaints as a means to intimidate their political adversaries. During a recent Senate committee hearing, Democrat Minority Leader Greg Taylor hinted that lawmakers who voted against Democrats could face ethics complaints, leveraging their legal backgrounds.
Another concern is the composition of the disciplinary commission. The executive director of the commission has a long history of advocating for Marxist identity politics and has used her position to publicly endorse judges who participated in Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. Additionally, according to OpenSecrets.org records, every lawyer on the nine-member commission has made campaign donations to Democrats, with some also contributing to Republicans.
The amendment to the Indiana bill raises serious concerns about the potential for Democratic control over attorney general candidates. The unelected committee’s power to determine the eligibility of candidates and the history of using ethics complaints as political tools are examples of attempts to manipulate the legal system for political gain. The decision to grant such power to unelected pro-abortion bureaucrats undermines the power of voters and raises questions about fairness and democracy in the state of Indiana.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
