About that Curtis Hill

Not only is he a creepy groper, drug warrior, and the worst kind of attorney (prosecutor), he also wastes our money on stupid partisan snipe hunts:

Last month, judge Sarah Evans Barker approved a consent decree reached by plaintiffs Common Cause Indiana and the Indianapolis NAACP and the defendant, the Marion County Election Board.

In a filing Tuesday, the attorney general argued that the consent decree cannot replace an election board's legal requirement to decide unanimously to create in-person early voting sites.

 For those following at home, the backdrop to this is that state law requires unanimity among the members of a county election board in order to open up new voting sites. The Marion County election board has consistently lacked such unanimity, as the Republican members of such board have repeatedly and consistently refused to agree to open new voting sites . . . seemingly part of the ongoing project to protect against voter fraud discourage voting.

Anyway, the county election board got sued. They eventually settled and agreed to put new voting sites in. Of course, Mr. AG had to come along and do anything he could to help his team distract from his own problems.

Marion County’s decision to open additional voting centers is being contested by Attorney General Curtis Hill, but the Marion County Election Board disputes his assertion that the agreement to offer more early voting sites is contrary to Indiana law or that the board lacked a unanimous vote.

A consent decree settling a lawsuit over access to early voting was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in mid-July in Common Cause Indiana et al. v. Marion County Election Board, 1:17-cv-1388.

Hill, on behalf of the state, is challenging the consent decree that opens additional satellite voting centers in Marion County for the 2018 general election. He filed a motion Tuesday asking the federal court to withdraw the agreement. The board last month announced six early-voting sites around Indianapolis would be open in time for November’s mid-term election.

OK. What is Mr. Hill's reasoning for bringing a lawsuit, paid for by the taxpayers of Indiana, whose general purpose is to prevent those same taxpayers from being able to vote (without waiting in line for what tends to be, by most estimates, "forever")?

Hill’s office also argued “it is not in the public interest for a federal court to enter, enforce, and monitor a consent decree that dictates the operation of state-run elections.” Further, the AG’s office said the public interest is “jeopardized by the removal of (Defendant Election Board’s) minority leverage in the political process.”

You know, the candor of that is quite surprising. What is the AG talking about when he mentions "minority leverage in the political process?" Well, that's just what was mentioned above: Republicans wanted to make sure that voting remained inconvenient in Indianapolis, presumably to drive down turnout of what is viewed as a "liberal" electorate. You will note that polling places in rural locales far outnumber, on a per-capita basis, those in liberal urban locales.

Anyway, as to the two objections, I will let the Article III Judge Sarah Evans Barker have the honors:

The State argues that the consent decree is contrary both to state law as well as the public interest. Neither objection has merit.

That is nice judge speak for, "Get the hell out of my courtroom you clown." However, at least we can rest assured that, at least for a few minutes, AG Hill wasn't ass-grabbing all over downtown, as is rumored to be his style.