A Famous Name Is Back on the Ballot in Hotest 2026 Race. Max Engling Wants Hoosiers to Look Deeper than the Surface.

Should good looks or a big name matter over election integrity? Will Indiana voters give control to a political dynasty, or look beyond the Bayh name in the race for Secretary of State?

INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana Republicans have a potentially serious problem in the race for Secretary of State, and it can be summed up in two words: Max who?

Max Engling is the Republican nominee. Beau Bayh is the Democratic nominee. Yet one candidate carries a surname that has appeared on Indiana ballots for generations, while the other went from a relatively obscure political staffer to statewide nominee in barely a month.

That disparity matters in an election for an office most voters don't follow closely.

Engling, 39, defeated incumbent Secretary of State Diego Morales and other challengers at the Republican state convention in June, winning the nomination on the second ballot with 867 delegate votes. His victory represented a striking rejection of Morales, whose controversies had increasingly worried Republicans about holding an office the party would ordinarily expect to win.

Now Engling has to introduce himself to millions of Hoosiers.

His biography gives him material to work with. Engling grew up around Cicero in Hamilton County, attended Ivy Tech and IUPUI and has described working construction while attending college. He later spent roughly a dozen years working in Washington Republican politics, including service with the House Administration Committee — significant experience for someone seeking an office responsible for Indiana election administration — and later worked for House Republican leadership.

Engling eventually returned to Indiana, worked for Beck's Hybrids and became a regional director and adviser to U.S. Sen. Jim Banks. He and his wife are raising four children in Hamilton County.

That isn't the biography of someone who simply materialized at the Republican convention. But it is the biography of someone most Indiana voters probably didn't know until recently.

Everybody Knows the Other Name

Beau Bayh has the opposite problem. People know the name before they know the candidate.

Bayh, 30, is the son of former Indiana governor and U.S. senator Evan Bayh and grandson of the late Sen. Birch Bayh. His mother, the late Susan Bayh, was herself a prominent attorney and corporate director who was deeply involved in the family's political life.

Beau Bayh grew up partly in the Washington area while his father represented Indiana in the U.S. Senate. He attended Harvard, served as a Marine infantry officer and later graduated from Harvard Law School before becoming an attorney. HE wants to see his transcripts was he an A student, or like Rush a B student, or worse? Who goes to the service and law school only a person seeking a career in Politics, maybe?

Those are substantial credentials. They also raise the obvious question that accompanies any political dynasty: What has Beau Bayh himself done that demonstrates he should become Indiana's chief election official?

That isn't an attack on his father, mother or grandfather. It is precisely the distinction voters should make.

Birch Bayh's accomplishments belonged to Birch Bayh. Evan Bayh's electoral successes belonged to Evan Bayh. Susan Bayh's professional accomplishments belonged to Susan Bayh.

Beau Bayh must run on Beau Bayh.

And voters should examine his proposals with the same skepticism they should apply to Engling, Greg Ballard and Libertarian Lauri Shillings.

Promises Are Easy. The Office Isn't.

Bayh has promised to fight corruption and insider dealing, protect taxpayers and voters, and restore confidence in the Secretary of State's office. He has also said he wants to govern for Republicans and independents as well as Democrats.

Those are politically attractive promises. They are not yet accomplishments.

Indiana has just been through an administration in which controversies surrounding Republican Secretary of State Diego Morales became sufficiently troublesome that members of Morales' own party removed him from their statewide ticket.

Republicans therefore cannot credibly argue that questions about ethics, spending and management should be directed only at Democrats. They weren't. Republican delegates themselves imposed accountability on their incumbent.

That makes 2026 an opportunity for voters to demand something more from all four candidates: specifics.

What expenditures would Bayh eliminate? What precisely constitutes the “insider dealing” he says he will end? Which election procedures would he change? How would those changes affect ballot security? Which of his promises can the Secretary of State actually accomplish without legislation?

Engling deserves the same examination.

Wednesday Night Revealed a Real Difference

The Aug. 26 Indy Chamber debate provided one of the clearest contrasts yet.

Bayh, Ballard and Shillings supported an audit or review of the Secretary of State's office. Engling did not join them, arguing instead that Republicans had already addressed the leadership problem by replacing Morales as their nominee.

Engling also stood alone on another important question.

The candidates discussed the Indiana Recount Commission's controversial handling of ballots in the Spencer Deery-Paula Copenhaver recount. Eight ballots for Deery were rejected because election officials had failed to place required signatures or initials on them.

Bayh argued that where voter intent was clear and there was no evidence of fraud or tampering, the votes should count.

Engling defended the commission's application of Indiana law.

“We have the code for a reason,” Engling said during the debate, challenging the idea that election officials should disregard statutory requirements.

That is a substantive disagreement worthy of far more attention than famous surnames.

Should election administrators rigidly enforce the requirements enacted by the General Assembly? Or should discernible voter intent sometimes overcome mistakes made by election workers?

Hoosiers should hear much more from both men about that question before November.

Then There Is Greg Ballard, NOT likely to get Trump's Endorsement

Republicans face another complication: former Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard.

Ballard spent most of his political career as a Republican but is running this year under the Lincoln Party banner. His presence creates an unusual four-way election with Engling, Bayh and Shillings.

Nobody can simply assume Ballard's votes will otherwise have gone to Engling. But Republicans would be foolish to ignore the possibility that a respected former Republican mayor could attract some traditionally Republican voters.

That makes Engling's name-recognition problem more urgent.

Bayh doesn't have to teach Indiana how to pronounce or remember his surname. Engling does.

Make 2026 About Records, Not Names

The Republican nominee has an unusual opportunity.

His party already demonstrated that incumbency isn't enough when it rejected Morales.

Engling can argue that Republicans corrected their own problem rather than asking voters to tolerate it for another four years.

But Engling still has to convince voters that his years of experience qualify him to administer Indiana's elections and business services. And he has to explain why voters should choose him instead of three competitors who weren't raised locally and seem to be too perfect.

Bayh, meanwhile, faces a very different burden. A famous Indiana political name may get a candidate through the door. HIs good looks may help, too, but it shouldn't constitute his qualification for office.

His Harvard education, Marine service and legal career sure are spun as if they are legitimate credentials. His promises deserve to be heard, but likely won't be trusted. And they also deserve aggressive scrutiny. There is a reason Democrats want to control Indiana's elections in the future. Just look how a democrat secretary of state influenced the Pennsyvania election in 2020, with largely unilateral and likely illegal actions, which cost Trump the victory and gave us Biden and Nancy Pelosi second run as speacker of the House controlled by democrats. Inflations and excess government spending, waste and fraud followed.

Indiana voters should ask Bayh 1) what he has personally accomplished independent of being the son of Evan, 2) which policies distinguish him from national Democrats, 3) exactly what he would change as Secretary of State and 4) how he intends to deliver the reforms he is promising? Lastly, is true that he supports transwomen in women's sports as recently reported?

And they should ask Engling equally difficult questions about his Washington political support career, election experience and plans for an office emerging from four controversial years.

The Indiana's Secretary of State isn't supposed to be a family inheritance, a partisan consolation prize or a political steppingstone. It matters too much who runs our future elections.

It is the office entrusted with helping administer the elections through which Hoosiers decide who governs them.

That makes Max Engling and Beau Bayh worth knowing by more than their party labels — and certainly by more than their last names or good looks....