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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT