ILNews

US Attorney Hogsett steps down amid mayoral talk

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett announced Monday he will step down from the post by the end of the month and several prominent Democrats said they hope it is a sign he plans to run for mayor of Indianapolis next year.

Hogsett's resignation letter to Attorney General Eric Holder didn't give a reason for his decision to step down as the top federal prosecutor for central and southern Indiana and his spokesman, Tim Horty, said Hogsett had no further comment on the decision. Federal law prohibits Hogsett, who previously said he planned to stay on as U.S. attorney through 2016, from being involved in politics while in office.

Former Sen. Even Bayh, who named Hogsett his chief of staff when he was governor and nominated him for the U.S. attorney post four years ago, said he hopes his longtime friend will run for mayor.

"I think he would be a great mayor, particularly with his record on fighting crime and violence in our streets," he said.

Dan Parker, who resigned as Indiana Democratic Party chairman in 2011, said Hogsett should run, citing the biggest issue before Indianapolis "spiraling violent crime." Parker has ruled out running for mayor.

"Given his background as the U.S. attorney and what he's done in that office, his record of achievement, he'd have the strongest background of anyone in our party here in the city to tackle that," Parker said.

Indianapolis has been struggling with a spike in violence, with 72 homicides in just over six months — a pace that could rival 1998, when the city set a record with 162 homicides. Over the Fourth of July weekend, a police officer was fatally shot and seven people were wounded in a gun battle in a popular nightlife district.

Parker said Indianapolis needs a leader who knows how to deal with crime.

"He has shown he can be effective in prosecuting crimes — going after illegal possession of guns by criminals and public corruption. He has a record of trying to hold public officials up to the highest standard," Parker said.

Hogsett doesn't have a strong record of winning elections. He was appointed secretary of state to complete Bayh's unfinished term when he became governor in 1989 and was elected to the office in 1990. He ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 1992, for Congress in 1994 and for Indiana attorney general in 2004.

Bayh said he thinks this time could be different.

"Sometimes, the man and the moment happen to meet, and he's had an outstanding record of fighting crime and violence across the Southern District of Indiana. That happens to be the foremost challenge facing the city of Indianapolis right now, and so that might be a nice combination to have in the next mayor," Bayh said.

Asked whether he would be willing to share with Hogsett some of the $9.8 million cash on hand in campaign funds he has, according to a Federal Election Commission campaign finance report, Bayh said: "I'll be happy to do whatever I'm legally allowed to do for him."

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard, a Republican, is expected to seek a third term but hasn't yet announced he will run. Frank Short, a Democratic trustee for Washington Township and a former Indianapolis city-county councilor, announced in February he would run for mayor.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT