While our December 1 article focused on elected officials, this one dives into the issues surrounding the local Madison County Republican Central Committee (MCRCC).
Many local Republicans have asked how the MCRCC has come to the point of multiple takeover attempts, social media attacks, and even apparent threats by a disgruntled former committee member against the Committee Chair. This article provides a history of how the Committee has shifted over the past few years. While this may appear to be an internal dispute, it reflects a deeper conflict in motivations and principles that has since spilled into the public square with implications beyond the Central Committee.
The Shift in the Past Few Years
For decades, the Madison County Republican Central Committee (MCRCC) quietly operated behind the scenes—running the County Fair food booth, serving walking tacos at lawn chair night, organizing parade floats and caucuses, and contributing to campaigns. Participation was waning until more conservatives began attending meetings around 2021, bringing welcome energy but also the growing pains that come with organizational change.
During this time, one member in particular, Frank Santana, had grander plans for the Committee than what it had previously undertaken.
Santana pushed for a multitude of Winterset Shopper ads to expose rising property taxes and other local issues. Santana organized a fundraising dinner in 2024 that was mostly attended by Committee members and spouses compelled to buy $50 per-plate tickets.
Santana also wanted to take over the Facebook page and post long diatribes to the public to “educate” them on Republican values. In one such proposed diatribe, Santana submitted a lengthy ad/post to the MCRCC Executive Committee during the November 2024 election cycle that included disparaging remarks against the Independent candidate for Auditor, Emily Hoffelmeyer-Reidburn. It read in part:
“ …the independent candidate appears to not have any core political beliefs, no political party loyalty or moral compass and is unstable in her thinking… She was an employee of the Auditor’s office and the previous Auditor who was rejected overwhelmingly by Madison County Republican primary voters, thus she lurked as the vulture within, holding a secret desire to pounce at the first opportunity to replace her boss, unable to bridle honorably her opportuntist [sic] desires and actions… she too is a slave to the nature of things.”
These were personal, inflammatory attacks that likely would have been hurtful to Ms. Hoffelmeyer-Reidburn and her family but also damaging to the Committee and the Kaczinski campaign. Kaczinski informed Santana that she did not want the ad/post to be published and it was ultimately dismissed by the Executive Committee. We only share an excerpt of the ad here to illustrate the situation, not to affirm or condone anything stated in the proposed ad..
Committee members differed in their perceptions of Santana—some viewed him as a catalyst for growth; others saw him as divisive. Over time, these divisions spilled into public view, creating a fracture some outside observers were eager to amplify.
Disagreements involving Santana continued within the Committee and in July 2025 Frank Santana resigned in reaction to former Chair Ken Luckinbill’s unwillingness to call a special meeting to remove members from the Central Committee for whom Santana had personal animosity.
Santana became more vocal in the months following his departure from the Committee. He submitted a letter to the editor to The Madisonian criticizing Chair Ken Luckinbill’s handling of the GOP County Convention to nominate an Auditor candidate for the upcoming Special Election. Luckinbill submitted a rebuttal letter, but it was not published. Instead, on August 21, 2025, his response appeared on the Madison County Iowa Republican Party Facebook page.
Santana’s claim centered on the allegation that Luckinbill had denied Auditor Candidate Michele Brant an “opportunity to address and earn the support” of the Central Committee. However, the Central Committee does not choose the GOP Auditor nominee—the GOP county delegation does. Some of those delegates were Brant supporters, yet none nominated her or advocated for her at the convention. Further detail is available in Luckinbill’s rebuttal letter.
A Meeting, an Alleged Threat, and a Breaking Point
On September 8, 2025, thirteen non-members appeared at a closed Central Committee meeting.
During the meeting, members Mark Hays and Mike Nevins pressed to have these guests voted on for membership immediately, despite the policy that members have time to meet prospective nominees and verify precinct openings. Luckinbill declined, citing established procedure.
The following day, according to Luckinbill, Santana came to his office and expressed that people wanted to do harm to him and his wife, then outlined specific actions he wanted Luckinbill to take. Luckinbill interpreted the conversation as a threat. Santana allegedly directed him to vote in a slate of preferred members and then Luckinbill was to resign. Santana gave him 24 hours to respond. The next day, Santana returned and the two made an agreement that would be carried out at the October 6 regular meeting.
Meanwhile, legitimate precinct openings existed, and members wished to nominate candidates. The Committee was informed via email of a September 25 deadline for submitting prospective members’ names. Several members complied. Santana submitted a list of 22 names four days past the deadline but did not provide the required contact information despite Luckinbill’s followup request to Santana.
At the October 6 meeting, nearly 30 guests attended seeking membership. The Committee used paper ballots for voting which contained the names of those who had submitted the required information. One individual from Santana’s list was on the ballot; however he was in a contested precinct and did not receive enough votes to gain membership. Seven new members were elected that night.
Santana was in attendance at the October 6 meeting but did not request membership. Instead, Santana interrupted the meeting and held up a piece of paper, stating that he had the proxy votes of 10 elected officials. This confused many in the room because proxy votes are not allowed and neither are ex-officio members, according to Republican party rules. “Ex officio” is a term meaning an individual becomes a member of a body due to holding a particular office, rather than being elected or appointed to the group itself.
Luckinbill responded to Santana that he was out of order in his attempt to insert the list of elected officials as Central Committee members, however Santana continued to interject, citing the GOP County Constitution. This tactic would be brought up at a later date by now former Central Committee member Mark Hays.
Later in that same meeting, Santana brought up that he had an agreement with Luckinbill.
It was at this point that Luckinbill stated that their agreement came with a threat – which Santana did not deny. The threat issue was publicly addressed in a subsequent Facebook post on the Madison County Iowa Republican Party page. The statement can also be viewed here.
Luckinbill resigned at the end of the October. 6 Central Committee meeting.
Elected Official Power Play Continues
Santana’s assertion regarding elected officials was later repeated by several Central Committee members. Later in October, Mark Hays, Scott Mineart, and Kevin Charter met with Executive Committee members Lisa Bourne and Jeff Newman.
At that meeting, the three members expressed their view—based on their interpretation of the Madison County Republican Central Committee Constitution—that certain Republican elected officials were voting members of the Central Committee by virtue of holding office. Bourne and Newman noted that this interpretation conflicted with the Republican Party of Iowa (RPI) Constitution, which does not provide for ex officio members, and with the Madison County Constitution, which cannot conflict with state party rules. A subsequent review by RPI legal counsel also confirmed that the ex officio claim conflicted with Iowa Code.
During the discussion surrounding this issue, Hays disclosed that he had already communicated his interpretation to a group of elected officials and met with them in person. However, once RPI staff became aware of the situation, they referred the matter to legal counsel, which ultimately confirmed the conclusion reached by Bourne and Newman: the interpretation of elected officials as voting members was flawed and held no standing under Iowa Code, the RPI Constitution, or the Madison County Constitution.
While we can’t assume motivations for these actions by Hays, Charter, and Mineart, the end result would have been similar to that of Santana’s: to get additional voting members of their choosing onto Central Committee. This had the appearance of another attempted takeover of the Committee which would compromise the will of the voters who voted specific members on to the Committee at Caucus.
A New PAC
In early November, Frank Santana announced that he was president of a new Republican PAC in the county. Another former Central Committee member Mike Nevins was listed as the VP. A Facebook page appeared for about a week and then disappeared. A full page Winterset Shopper ad by the PAC on November 18, 2025 echoed the Facebook post stating that the PAC was “a direct result of our County Republican Central Committee’s inaction, and lack of will to respond to the tumultuous past 11 months of political chaos…”
The PAC’s ad went on to blame the chaos on the candidates the Central Committee had supported and on Central Committee members. Specifics are not given.
Santana listed several dozen elected and former elected officials as being part of his PAC group. Social media comments by several individuals who were listed revealed widespread confusion surrounding the PAC.
For example, Kirk Macumber was listed as a Madison County Supervisor, even though he has not served as a supervisor for over 10 years. Macumber posted on Facebook stating he “never had a chance to review the Winterset Shopper] ad prior to being published and it lists some core values and beliefs that I don’t agree with. I’ve asked my name to be withdrawn and while it’s too late this time, it shouldn’t be listed on anything in the future.” Macumber would not specify which statements he took issue with. Macumber is also listed as an Independent, not a Republican, on a recent voter list reviewed by The Madison Report.
As another example of the confusion, Auditor Michele Brant publicly denounced the PAC despite also being listed in the ad. As with Macumber, she stated that she did not read the ad before it was published, even though her name was included.
When comparing the rhetoric of the PAC to the names attached to it, a clear disparity emerges. Many of the individuals listed are the very same people who have opposed the conservative principles that Santana is known for promoting. Of those who have had the ability to affect property taxes, most have voted to raise them.
Santana’s positions differ significantly from those of the elected officials he is now aligning with. After breaking ties with the Madison County Republican Central Committee to work against it alongside officials who do not reflect traditional conservative values, the PAC’s use of the Republican name is likely to create confusion among Madison County voters.
On December 3, The Madison Report reached out to the new Republican PAC using the email address listed in their ad. Our goal in reaching out was to learn more about the PAC and their objectives to provide their perspective in this article. As of the time of publication of this article, no response had been received.
To further add to the confusion, the group had been publicly using the name “Madison County Republican PAC” since late October, despite the Iowa Ethics Board’s requirement that a DR-1 Statement of Organization be filed before a PAC name may be used; the group filed its DR-1 on December 5. The PAC dropped the word “PAC” from its name and filed using the name “Madison County Republicans.”
According to members of the Madison County Republican Central Committee, “Madison County Republicans” is the name used on the Committee’s signage and logo at the food booth, in parades, at their GOP Headquarters during elections and on any written communication containing their logo. That branding has been used for several decades.
To put it simply, the new PAC is using the same name as the long-standing branding the Central Committee has had: “Madison County Republicans.”
Given the negative rhetoric by those supporting the PAC, the duplicate name could likely cause confusion for local Republican voters and donors who do not realize Madison County now has two organizations with essentially the same name.
Where does this leave the Madison County Republican Central Committee?
Despite the past chaos and disruption to the Committee, a number of people we have spoken with have said that the Committee is now in a good place, ready to move forward. On October 27, the Committee called a Special Meeting and elected a new Chair, Isaac Tessmer, and Co-Chair, Kevin Corwin.
In the past month, three public statements have been issued on the Madison County Iowa Republican Facebook page. Those are linked here:
1. Announcement of the election of the new Chair and Co-Chair
2. Statement denouncing threats, violence
3. Statement clearing up falsehoods
Republicans need to find ways to work together and not let chaos reign because of those who seek to disrupt for their own personal agenda.
