NEWS
On March 14, 2026, members of the Sweetwater County Republican Party gathered for their county convention. Though Chairman Tony Niemiec was present it was Elizabeth Bingham who led the meeting.
During the convention bylaws were briefly discussed, and no changes were made. The party added two planks to their platform. One about family values, stating that God created order: that in his perfect design he created two sexes, male and female. There was debate about the difference between the definition of gender and sexes.
The second new plank was about free speech. This plank affirmed that freedom of speech is a fundamental right secured by the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Wyoming. This was approved. Though the second half of the proposed plank, aligned with the state GOP platform, would have added: “expressing his or her beliefs, ideas and opinions without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction by the government.” The second half failed.
Changes to the Wyoming Republican Party Platform are often met with stiff opposition. The Sweetwater County GOP rejecting a plank about the expression free speech would be a harbinger of what would come for the rest of the meeting.
Eight resolutions were brought in total. Three passed unanimously, and three resolutions were debated briefly. However, most of the afternoon was spent debating a resolution to censure Representatives Marlene Brady and Darin McCann over the incident that Wyoming media outlets have referred to as “Checkgate.”
During the discussion, several individuals who have publicly criticized Brady and McCann since their election expressed their belief that the representatives should be held accountable. Much of the conversation focused less on the wording of the resolution itself than on differing interpretations of the events and whether disciplinary action was appropriate. At times, the debate included speculation about how participants interpreted the moment, what it may have looked like to observers, and what motivations may have been involved.
Without a Sponsor
During the debate Representative Marlene Brady asked twice, for the sake of transparency, who had brought the resolution. She and McCann were not given the right to know who their accusers were. No one stepped forward to answer.
The resolution was to formally censure the representatives for conduct unbecoming members of the Wyoming House of Representatives. It continued, stating that this censure was issued to affirm the party's commitment to ethical governance, transparency, and public trust. Also, to make clear that the actions which create ambiguity, allow misrepresentation, or give rise to the appearance of improper influence are unacceptable.
Brady attempted to address statements circulating publicly about the incident, explaining that she had been misquoted by the media and that the narrative surrounding the event did not accurately reflect what had happened. Those clarifications were largely brushed aside as the discussion continued. Laura Mckee asked for a roll call vote for the resolution, but it was voted down by the body.
Much of the discussion was about the controversy centered on a brief moment at the Wyoming Capitol when a supporter handed Brady a campaign contribution on behalf of a donor. Critics at the convention focused on how the exchange appeared on video and in the picture that was captured.
But Brady and others emphasized an important detail that often went unmentioned during public debate. The House had already been adjourned for the day. Legislative business had ended. At that point, Brady and others argued, lawmakers were no longer acting in their official legislative capacity.
According to those who made comments defending Brady and McCann, the exchange was not planned. There was no campaigning, no speech, and no discussion of legislation. Discussion continued with precinct members arguing the incident was a mistake, but many did not see the need for a resolution of this magnitude.
Despite that context, criticism intensified. Senator John Kolb described the act of accepting a check on the House floor as “degrading to the body.” He reiterated that what he was after was an apology from Brady. Brady did not offer one, maintaining that she had done nothing improper, a position reinforced when the legislative investigation determined that no bribery occurred and no rules were violated.
An Irrelevant Reference
Another line of criticism came from Representative J.T. Larson, who repeatedly cited Wyoming Statute 9-13-105(b). The statute prohibits public officials from using public resources, funds, time, personnel, facilities, or equipment for campaign or political activity. But those defending Brady and McCann argued that the statute did not apply in this situation.
They pointed out that the House had already adjourned, and no government equipment, personnel, or funds were used. There was no campaigning or political advocacy. The incident simply involved Brady and McCann accepting what was handed to them. Under those circumstances, supporters argued, the legal standard Larson referenced did not apply.
The debate also included statements from Sweetwater County Senator Stacy Jones, who asserted that a mitigation bill had failed in the House and Senate because of the controversy. However, the legislative record shows something different. The mitigation bill passed the Wyoming House on third reading with a vote of 35–17–10, even with the investigation still in progress.
The bill’s defeat occurred later in the Senate, where lawmakers suspended the rules and referred it directly to Committee of the Whole, where it ultimately failed 7–24. Jones, in fact, voted for this. By leaving out the Senate’s role, the explanation given during the meeting painted an inaccurate picture of what happened.
Brady and McCann had voted in favor of this bill the year prior. There was no connection with the campaign donation. Defenders of Brady and McCann tried to point this out, but the ones who had been in opposition to McCann and Brady stood firm in their conviction of the censure.
The Debate was driven by interpretation as the discussion stretched on. It became increasingly clear that many of the arguments being made were not based on the resolution itself or on established facts. Instead, much of the debate centered on personal interpretations of the event, how it looked, how people felt about it, and what motives they believed might have been behind it.
Steven Allen raised the point that donations being made by people outside of Sweetwater County was a concern for Sweetwater County Campaigns. For example, “money that comes from Teton County.” A person seated in the audience asked if he meant that no campaign donations should come from or be accepted if the funds are not from within Sweetwater County?
2 Votes on the Same Resolution
The resolution eventually went to a vote. The initial vote showed only 32 votes in favor, suggesting that the censure did not pass. But tension in the room continued to rise, and Chairman Bingham giggled and conveniently announced she had miscounted and had forgotten to count certain people. There vote was taken again (after the initial vote failed), and this time the resolution passed 37–21, formally censuring Representatives Marlene Brady and Darin McCann.
Audio from the event clearly shows the chair declared the first vote had failed. Without a motion, Bingham took another vote.
A fact remains significant. The censure was adopted after the legislative investigation into the incident had concluded. That investigation determined that no bribery occurred, no laws were broken, and no legislative rules were violated.