An Overview of the Republican Candidates for Indiana Secretary of State

Every two years, the respective political parties in the state of Indiana have a political convention where elected or appointed delegates select their candidates for statewide elected office.  This year, the Democrats and Republicans will be selecting candidates for the state’s Treasurer, Auditor, and Secretary of State.  Now, for the Republicans, the first two slots are running unopposed.  However, the Secretary of State race is facing a divided four way race that is getting particularly nasty.  To help ease some of the contention, this post is going to give a basic overview of each candidate with their strengths and weaknesses to help interested delegates make a more informed decision.

To start off with, it’s important to understand the stakes Republicans are facing when selecting their candidates as this will play a part in determining who the best candidate is for the job.  First of all, the Democrats selected Birch Evans “Beau” Bayh IV, son of former Indiana governor and US Senator Birch Evans “Evan” Bayh III and grandson of former state Speaker of the House and US Senator Birch Evans Bayh Jr.  Meanwhile, there is also an independent challenger who is gaining some attention as former Indianapolis Mayor, Greg Ballard, is running for Secretary of State as a member of the “Lincoln Party.”  Some polling does have him doing well so there is concern that he might be a spoiler for the GOP or possibly win.

Now, it’s worth stressing that both concerns are likely overrated.  Beau’s father was supposed to win his old senate seat back in 2016 and polled ahead throughout the entire race until the last week of the election and yet still lost by almost 10 points.  Considering that Democrats consistently polled ahead in the race for this seat and still lost back in 2022, it’s reasonable to assume that there isn’t as much enthusiasm for another Bayh.

Similarly, Greg Ballard hasn’t been in office since 2016 and the party has changed drastically since then.  At the time, he opposed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and made support for “rainbow” causes a feature of his administration.  Now, a majority of Republicans (nationally) no longer support gay marriage and not only want religious tolerance, but actively want religious values in governance.  So it is possible he could peel off some support from the Republican party in “socially liberal” areas, but keeping in mind that the most successful third party candidate in Indiana in the last 10 years ran to the right of the Republican candidate, it’s unlikely he will do more than that.  His connection to Indianapolis might be concerning since incumbent Diego Morales did struggle in the suburbs of Indy four years ago, but it’s not a guarantee at this time.

There’s also a libertarian candidate running in this race.  They don’t win.

So with the backdrop of the likely opposition to the Republican candidates, the next discussion will be my own biases.  I did publicly come out in favor of Diego due to my regular meetings with him at Republican events and friendship with members of his office.  However, a series of campaign missteps after my letter was originally submitted, such as getting into a public feud with State Treasurer Daniel Elliott, sending out a mailer claiming Banks had endorsed him after said endorsement was rescinded, and possible ties to a consulting firm that took money from China at a time when Indiana Republicans are trying to distance themselves from China, made me take a step back and say that I’ll wait until the final pitch at the convention before endorsing a candidate.  Nevertheless, I want to remain as objective and fair to all candidates as I believe that all four of them would do a good job in the position and would be happy to vote for any of them in November.

So, here is the overview for all four candidates to help the delegates make a decision:

• Diego Morales - Incumbent Secretary of State

• Strengths 

• He has already served in the position, thus he has incumbent advantage

• Is generally very popular in any room he’s in

• Purged the voter rolls of non-citizens

• Pushed to protect Hoosiers investment from ESG supporting firms

• Added new services to the office

• Already has plans to modernize his office if elected

• Weaknesses

• There are questions about his hiring practices such as hiring family members

• Somehow hiring a non-citizen that was on the voter rolls

• Questions over how he spends money for his office

• Overselling some of his accomplishments

• Various foreign trips he’s taken that have drawn scrutiny.  

• In Fairness - Some of the backlash has veered into overhate and borderline slander.  

• One journalist claimed that the FBI was going to arrest him over Guatemalan drug cartels, which turned out to be false.  

• The same publication also tried to scrutinize his wife after she was declared “Honorary Consul of Hungary,” asking questions like if she should register as a foreign agent when it seems to have limited notary function as opposed to having any real lobbying power

• There are similar nonexistent controversies that also just seem like mudslinging 

• This can make it hard to respect legitimate criticism towards him knowing how far some of his critics are willing to stoop to attack him.  In other words, it creates a “Boy Who Cried Wolf” problem.

• However, being a lightning rod for controversy isn’t a good look for a politician

• David Shelton - Knox County Clerk and Republican Party County Chairman

• Strengths

• Having served in the role for seven years now, he has plenty of experience in electoral affairs

• He even received clerk of the year three times during his tenure

• Runs companies that handle election infrastructure

• Has experience in fraud investigation

• Overseen the transition to vote centers multiple times

• Weaknesses

• There was controversy over donations his campaign received from former Senate candidate John Rust

• Rust ran for senate and was disqualified for voting in Democratic primaries 

• Rust also ran against Jim Banks who was Indiana’s most conservative congressmen and now one of America’s most conservative senators

• He reportedly has a history of voting in Democratic primaries himself

• Max Engling - Congressional Aide

• Strengths

• He has a strong platform

• Experience working in government offices

• Boasts of having private sector experience as well

• Excellent endorsements

• US Senator Jim Banks, whom he works for

• US Rep. Rudy Yakym

• US Rep. Jim Baird

• US Rep. Victoria Spartz

• US Rep. Erin Houchin

• State Treasurer Daniel Elliott

• Former Indiana Deputy Attorney General Andrew Ireland, who is serving as his campaign chairman

• Weaknesses

• He’s never been elected to office before 

• His most prominent campaign, a US House Race, had him coming in third, making him a bit of a novice on the campaign field as well as to the job

• Jamie Reitenour - Former Candidate for Governor

• Strengths - Very conservative platform and a dedication to the constitution

• Weaknesses - Ran for Governor two years ago and didn’t have much of an impact as she came in fifth, so it’s worth asking how serious a candidate she is

• Sidenote - She did beat former Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill in the primary which is an accomplishment since Hill won his first race with the most votes in state history

All these candidates have something to offer and definitely do the job as required.  It’s up to the delegates to pick the right candidate that will represent Hoosiers in Indy as well as keep our state's elections running smoothly (as no one wants to be California right now).  We’ll see what happens on June 20th, but all I can ask is: make sure you pick the right candidate

Addendum: I did reach out to the top three candidates about issues facing their campaign and some of my concerns.  Here is the response I got

• Diego Morales - I asked him about the Banks mailer he sent out and a clarification.  He has assured me that the mailer was approved before the endorsement was rescinded and it was too late to cancel.  He also said that his office has done nothing illegal and followed the law in all instances

• David Shelton - I asked him about John Rust and Indiana’s two primary vote candidate law.  He says that he has no personal affiliation with the man and that he took his donation like he would any other donor.  He also has no intention of supporting making it easier for Democrats to run in Republican primaries

• Max Engling - I asked him about perceived lack of experience.  He sent me the following (posted as received):

• I've listed out some of my experience, and I included a doc as well.

• worked for the chief elections committee in the US House of Representatives for 8 years

• successfully defeated Nancy Pelosi's federalization of elections

• senior staffer in the speaker's office

• filed a small business with the Secretary of State re agriculture education

• traveled the state for the last three years talking with Hoosiers about their needs and how to formulate effective policy solutions

• worked in several small businesses that registered with the SOS - HVAC Co office manager, summit construction building the community north hospital expansion, Becks Hybrids, and several others

• worked my way through an undergraduate at IUPUI and earned my masters from the Naval War College as a civilian in strategic planning

• I also ran for the 5th congressional district - unsuccessful, but placed 3 of 9 behind the incumbent and a state rep

Is Marco Rubio Running the White House?

The headline is extremely clickbaity, but it’s a question that might be worth asking.  Since being confirmed as Secretary of State, Marco Rubio has been heavily involved in some of the most important international political events of the still developing 21st century, and his influence only seems to be expanding with each passing day as more situations globally keep developing.  It might be worth investigating how much influence he has, then, and how his role continues to develop.

So to start off with, a little background on Marco Rubio.  Elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010, Rubio would go on to serve on the Senate Committee on Intelligence (where he was the acting chair and then ranking member) and the Committee on Foreign Relations.  He also served on the Committee on Appropriations, which, while not directly dealing with foreign affairs, does have full jurisdiction over all discretionary spending and military spending constitutes 56% of the federal discretionary budget.  So he was very heavily influential in government legislative committees that focused on foreign and military affairs.

Of note, he had a particularly prominent history of supporting military intervention in foreign affairs.  In the senate, he supported the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, supported giving ammunition to Syrian rebels during the civil war under Bashar al-Assad, pushed against establishing diplomatic ties with Cuba during the Obama administration, called for revolution in Venezuela and met with an opposition leader that was accused of attempting a coup by the Maduro government, supported increased military ties with China’s neighbors (and enemies), etc.  Of note, during the 2016 presidential primaries, he was the candidate who called for use of military force third most out of all of them according to the CATO institute (Trump was dead in the center between most calls and least calls).  So he has a history of wanting to use military force to accomplish America’s foreign policy objectives.

This is noticeable because since he’s become Secretary of State and National Security Advisor (the first to hold both positions at the same time since Henry Kissinger back in the 70s), the Trump administration has taken a noticeably more hawkish tone since its first term.  Similarly, many of Rubio’s policy agendas when he was in the senate have been coming to fruition.  During his tenure as Secretary of State, the US has captured now former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, placed an oil embargo on Cuba while talking about regime change, and placed steeper tariffs on China while pushing stronger military relations with Japan.  In addition, the US has pushed to take Greenland and has created the largest military buildup in the middle east around since the Iraq War due to a growing possibility of war with Iran (a country which Senator Rubio supported sanctions on).  So it seems like much of Rubio’s agenda in the senate is being reflected by the Trump administration.

Now, one could argue that Trump possibly changed his mind during his four years out of the office.  Besides, many of these countries are ones he clashed with during his first term as President.  After all, he did take out the leader of Iran’s Quds force, struck Syria, and recognized Venezuela’s opposition leader as the real head of the country’s government during his first term.  He’s also been a long term critic of China so being strong against them isn’t all that surprising.  Therefore, Trump’s actions are not definitive proof that Rubio is in complete control of the US’s foreign policy.

However, the fact that Rubio is getting most of his foreign policy agenda as a senator made a priority by the current administration does show the impact and influence he is having.  Likewise, he has publicly disagreed with his boss, noticeably when he downplayed military options to take Greenland when Trump refused to rule that out and took a more collaborative tone towards working with Europe than did JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference.  The fact that he is able to push back on those with higher authority than himself when disagreement has led to firing of officials in the past shows that Rubio may be in a safe position.

Similarly, there have been reports about Trump’s dependence on those closest to him.  There was a saying that during Trump’s first term, the last person he spoke with was usually the one he agreed with at the time.  Keeping in mind that Trump had never been elected before, it’s not surprising that he wanted to take advice from people with more experience than himself in the governmental field.  However, Rubio was not a direct member of Trump’s administration during his first term so that means he has a lot more opportunity to influence the President.

The final point to consider is the weakness of Trump’s ability to accomplish his domestic agenda.  Noticeably, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has struggled to get legislation passed, making an inactivity record, which makes it hard to pass domestic policy since most of that is in the hands of the legislature.  Similarly, a lot of the early policies of the Trump administration was supported by investigations from the Department of Government Efficiency, an initiative championed by Elon Musk.  However, Musk is no longer part of the administration so that initiative seems no longer to be front and center in Trump’s administration.  Increasingly, Trump’s agenda is moving away from what requires congress’s help and is becoming more focused on how he can assert himself internationally.  That means that much of the Trump administration’s second term will be defined by Marco Rubio.

In fairness, there’s a saying that leadership is about getting the right people in the right positions.  If Rubio is directing the White House’s current agendas, then that isn’t a statement of weakness on the President since his goal is to lead the executive branch and make sure the right people are doing the job he requires of them.  However, this blog post should show how much influence Secretary of State Marco Rubio has and how much he can shape the direction of the president.  So it is likely he might be the one actually determining US policy, at least internationally, going forward.  Regardless, whatever his influence, a biography on him will likely be a fascinating read, and a must for anyone who wants to understand US foreign policy in the 21st century.