NEWS
While statewide campaigns and several high-profile legislative contests dominate Wyoming’s 2026 Republican primary, one of the most consequential races may be unfolding quietly in House District 40. The district, covering Johnson County and part of Sheridan County, features a rematch between incumbent Republican Rep. Marilyn Connolly and conservative challenger Mark Jones.
At first glance, House District 40 might look like a routine contest between a first-term incumbent and a familiar challenger. A closer examination of Connolly’s voting record, however, reveals a much more important question: What does “fiscal conservatism” actually mean once a candidate arrives in Cheyenne?
A Debate Between Two Different Kinds of Experience
The contrast was evident during the Sheridan County Republican Party’s July 14 legislative debates. Connolly leaned heavily on her experience in local government and her first term in the Legislature. Before taking office in January 2025, she served as a Johnson County commissioner and participated in numerous local boards and organizations. Her campaign describes her as a “true Wyoming conservative” who understands fiscal responsibility and the need to distinguish between government needs and wants.
Jones offered a different kind of résumé. A certified wildlife biologist and former government employee, he is also a national director with Gun Owners of America and has spent multiple legislative sessions advocating for gun-rights legislation. His work has given him considerable firsthand experience with the legislative process even though he has never held elected office.
The debate allowed voters to hear two candidates who can both speak the language of conservatism. The more revealing comparison comes from examining what happened after Connolly was given the opportunity to vote.
The $1.241 Billion Question
The 2026 HB0001 budget debate provides the clearest measurement of Connolly’s fiscal record. An analysis by The Open Range Record of House amendments to HB1 calculated the spending supported by individual representatives. It examined recorded votes on budget amendments, identified amendments that increased appropriations, and attributed the spending to representatives who voted in favor of those increases.
Under that methodology, Connolly voted for approximately $1.241 billion in additional spending during the House’s consideration of HB 1. That figure does not mean Connolly personally introduced $1.241 billion in amendments; but that when House members were presented with opportunities to add, restore or expand spending, she repeatedly voted for amendments the combined fiscal impact of which reached $1.241 billion. Connolly, a Republican, voted to spend more money than four of the Democrats in the House.
Budget debates are where legislators reveal their actual priorities. Nearly every appropriation comes with a sympathetic constituency, an urgent-sounding justification or a government agency claiming it cannot possibly operate without more money. Fiscal discipline requires legislators to say no even when spending proposals are politically attractive.
Voting for more than $1.2 billion in added appropriations raises serious questions about Connolly’s campaign promise to protect taxpayers and prioritize needs over wants. In the Sheridan County GOP Debate, Connolly said, “I’m fiscally responsible. I don’t like any more government than we absolutely have to have,” and that is what her campaign rhetoric has been throughout the months of the Primary campaign. It’s hard to reconcile her public statements with her voting record.
Evidence Based Wyoming Reaches a Similar Conclusion
The HB1 analysis is not an isolated measurement. Evidence Based Wyoming evaluates legislators across a much broader collection of roll-call votes. Its fiscal scorecard does not merely examine final passage of the budget. It reviews individual spending decisions and measures how frequently lawmakers supported what the organization identifies as the fiscally conservative position.
In its analysis of 183 fiscal roll calls, Evidence Based Wyoming gave Connolly a fiscal-conservatism score of just 17.6%. The organization placed her among a group of legislators who supported spending on approximately nine out of every ten votes.
By comparison, members of what Evidence Based Wyoming calls the “Conservative Core” scored between roughly 73% and 75%. Those lawmakers did not oppose every expenditure. They supported such items as wildfire recovery, emergency medical services reimbursement and certain capital-construction projects while rejecting spending they considered unnecessary. Fiscal conservatism does not require voting against every dollar. It requires legislators to be deliberate in their spending choices.
Evidence Based Wyoming’s consistency analysis is useful because it looks beyond a handful of carefully selected votes. A politician can cite two or three conservative votes in a campaign advertisement. It is much more difficult to explain away a pattern developed over hundreds of recorded decisions.
The broader pattern reinforces the conclusion produced by the HB1 amendment analysis: When the question involved spending more taxpayer money, Connolly usually voted yes.
Campaign Language Versus Legislative Conduct
Connolly’s campaign website says her experience taught her “the value of fiscal responsibility.” It says she understands the importance of “prioritizing needs over wants in budgeting.” Those are appealing promises, but voters now have something more useful than promises: a voting record.
Connolly can argue that the spending she supported was justified. She can explain that government programs, local services, or particular projects deserved funding. Those are legitimate arguments for an incumbent to make. But it’s profoundly more difficult to explain how voting for $1.241 billion in added HB1 spending fits her description of herself as a fiscal conservative. That is the advantage of an incumbent’s record: Voters no longer have to guess.
Jones, meanwhile, does not yet have a legislative voting record. That creates its own uncertainty. Challengers can promise restraint without having faced the pressure of agencies, lobbyists, legislative leaders and organized interest groups demanding money.
Nevertheless, Jones’s years of legislative involvement mean he is not unfamiliar with how Cheyenne operates. He has testified on legislation, tracked lawmakers’ votes, and advocated for constitutional protections. His campaign is built largely around the argument that Republican voters should demand consistency between Republican promises and Republican performance.
House District 40 voters must decide whether Connolly’s first-term record represents the kind of Republican government they want—or whether Jones deserves the opportunity to take a different approach.
Why This Race Matters Beyond District 40
The House District 40 race is under-watched because it lacks the spectacle surrounding statewide offices and legislative leadership contests. But races like this determine what the Wyoming House will do.
Party control is not in doubt. The real contest concerns what kind of Republicans will make up that majority. Will the House contain more legislators like Connolly who describe nearly every appropriation as necessary? Or will it contain more lawmakers willing to force government agencies to justify spending and live within limits?
Connolly and Jones provide voters with that choice in unusually clear terms. Connolly offers local government experience and a completed legislative term. Jones offers constitutional advocacy and a promise to challenge the spending culture in Cheyenne.
House District 40 may not receive much statewide attention before August 18, but it deserves it. This race is not merely about two Republicans from Buffalo. It is a test of whether Wyoming voters will accept the label “fiscal conservative” at face value—or insist that the numbers must support it. In Connolly’s case, the numbers don’t match the rhetoric.