Candidates for Missouri House District 135 are John Chiles and Michael Hasty.
John Chiles
Lacio: Good afternoon. I'm Dani Lacio with the NAACP, one of the nonpartisan organizations that make up the Informed Voter Coalition. Today, we are interviewing candidates for the Missouri House District 135. They are Michael Hasty and John Chiles. House District 135 candidates will be interviewed individually and asked the same questions. They will have one minute to introduce themselves and two minutes to respond to each question. Our first candidate is John Chiles. Thank you very much for joining us. Let's begin by having you introduce yourself and tell us why you decided to run for this office. You have one minute.
Chiles: Well, my name is John Chiles. I'm running for the Missouri House of Representatives District 135. For those of you who are not familiar, that's the area that's north of Sunshine, east of National and also encompasses Missouri State Campus and parts of Phelps Grove Park. Betsy Fogle is the current rep, and she's running for state senate and asked me to run. So the reason I ran was a lot of it had to do with Betsy Fogle. I worked on her campaign back in 2020 and saw firsthand how important democracy is and how direct grassroots stuff is. And it really inspired me to think about running in my own way. And I door knocked for her and for Stephanie Hein, Representative Hein. And whenever Betsy reached out to me and was looking for someone to fill her seat, you know, I thought about it and felt what a great way to serve, so here I am.
Lacio: What role should citizen led initiative petitions play in Missouri's policy making process? And what, if any, reforms would you support regarding how voter approved measures can be changed or overturned by the legislature?
Chiles: I think that, you know, our government is a system of checks and balances, and one of them is the ability of citizens to make direct laws through the initiative petition process, constitutional amendments but also citizen veto. It's very important. And our government requires checks and balances so that whenever people in Jeff City pass laws, that people have a right to be heard and make laws or overturn what they see as bad laws. So I fully support the citizens' ability to do that, and I am opposed to things like Amendment 4 that would have raised the threshold to make it more difficult to pass citizen constitutional amendments. I think the other part of it, too, is that one of the common complaints I hear from people knocking doors, when I talk to people knocking doors is that, you know, they get off on work, and they go vote in November. And by January, the politicians have all overturned, you know, paid sick leave or minimum wage or the right to an abortion or Medicare expansion. If anything, I would raise the threshold for politicians that makes it harder for them to overturn the will of the people.
Lacio: What is your position on proposals to reduce or eliminate Missouri's state income tax, and how would you address the potential impact on state revenue, services and other sources of taxation?
Chiles: The effort to repeal the income tax continues. We first saw it with Amendment 5, which was an effort to repeal it by a direct voter that failed miserably. Eighty-three percent of Missourians in every single county opposed it. The reason for that is clear. It's a terrible, terrible idea. We get about $8.5 billion of our general revenue from income tax. By removing that, that money has to come from somewhere. And a good rule of thumb is that for every billion dollars we cut from general revenue, we have to raise sales tax by about 1% to replace it. So here in Missouri, we pay about eight — Springfield 8.1%. You would look at 15, 16, 17% sales tax to make up for that budget shortfall and not only on, you know, groceries, which we're already hurting on, but also haircuts, which I don't have to worry about. But a lot of you do. Haircuts, construction, real estate, dental services, doctor's office, so I'm opposed to repealing that, especially without a smart fiscal plan to replace it that doesn't hurt families.
Lacio: What do you believe the results of the August election indicate about the priorities or concerns of the Missouri voters? And how would those results influence your approach if you're elected?
Chiles: I think it was a resounding, unified voice from people across the political aisle the voters — Republicans, Democrats. People joked Amendment 4and 5 gave us something to come together on that we could actually agree on across the aisle. And if anything, it says that people want to be heard and the supermajority in the House of Representatives and the senate and the governor's executive branch, I just feel like are out of touch with the needs of Missourians. When I talk to people on the doors, I never met anybody, and I've talked to hundreds and thousands of people, I never met anyone that wanted their income tax cut at the expense of raising their sales tax. So if anything, it speaks to a need for politicians to recognize who do they work for? They don't work for the president. They don't work for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. They work for the voters. And if they forget that, in my opinion, we need to remind them and elect someone new.
Lacio: Amendment 3 would repeal the reproductive rights amendment voters approved in 2024 and replace it with a ban that includes exceptions for medical emergencies, fetal anomaly, rape and incest under 12 weeks. It would also add a constitutional ban on gender affirming care for minors. How will you vote on Amendment 3? And given that gender affirming care provisions largely duplicates the existing laws, what do you see as the actual practical effect if it's passed?
Chiles: I'm voting no on Amendment 3 because people have a right to make their own health care decisions, regardless of what the government's oversight is. I think with respect to abortion, I think it's a pretty common sense thing. I talked to a lot of people that don't want the government to mandate vaccinations, Covid vaccinations for them. I don't understand how we could then allow the government to tell a woman whether or not to have a baby. No one wants to ask a politician for permission to do that. I think the Amendment 3 is frankly a deceptive amendment by putting in things like banning gender affirming care, which is already illegal in Missouri for minors. And so I think it's an example of what's called ballot candy, where something that they know will drive out voters but is frankly disingenuous. I would prefer that they not have it on the ballot. We already voted on it. The voters already approved the right to an abortion. It's another sign of disrespect to the will of the people when they say they didn't know what they voted for. People knew exactly what they voted for. So I'm voting no.
Lacio: A 2025 state law allows utility companies to charge customers for power plants that are still under construction. Do you support keeping, repealing or amending the law, and what specific change would you make if you could rewrite it?
Chiles: This is an area where I'm not as familiar with, but I think it refers to the idea that ratepayers will carry the costs of projects that are under construction in the midst of construction permitting, which often can take several years or a decade. I, I, I need to do more research on it, but I think, generally speaking, ratepayers should not be expected to carry the construction costs of something until they receive the benefit of it. And so I think it creates a negative disincentive for some of these utilities to expedite the projects. If they know that they don't really have to get them done. But again, I would, I would have to learn more about that subject to give you a better answer than that.
Lacio: And to conclude, please tell us what your top priorities will be if you are elected. You have two minutes.
Chiles: Well, there are a lot of things. And frankly, as a Democrat, you know, I don't have the same kind of legislative mandate as a member of a minority party, so a lot of the stuff that we would work on are areas of common interest. I think my main priority is ensuring that our public schools are fully funded. We saw just this week where the state board refused to ask for the $300 million necessary to fully fund our public schools. I think that's a tragedy. I talked to a lot of people — Democrats, Republicans, everywhere in between. Everybody wants better schools for their kids and for their grandkids and their nieces and nephews. And if we're not funding that as a society, I don't know what we're doing. So ensuring fully funded public schools is a, is an important priority. Affordable health care is an issue here in the Ozarks. There are people that are paying $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 a month for health care. One of the leading costs, the leading cause of bankruptcy in America is medical debt. The fact that people can get a cancer diagnosis and ask, am I going to die? And then they also ask, am I going to go bankrupt? is a tragedy. And I don't know — Like I like to say, there's a mountain to climb. There's a lot of ways up the mountain. One of those is, I believe it's called transition to practice that allows our ends to practice the full extent of their medical license. That will reduce costs, that has now there's energy to transition that. Insulin is unaffordable for people. I'm making that affordable. With respect to data centers hot button issue. I worked on data center projects using waste heat from a data center to warm a greenhouse. I would support a community bill of rights so that people who live in communities have the right to certain things. Data centers need to bring their own power. They need to use unions or local contractors to build them. They don't deplete the water supply. And any tax credits that we provide are only, are contingent on providing long term, permanent local job jobs. Yeah, people, people don't want tax credits for, for data centers at the expense of tax credits for kids. And I think that's what it, what it comes down to.
Lacio: John, that concludes our interview. Thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us again. I've been speaking with John Chiles, who is a candidate for Missouri House District 135.
Chiles: Thank you very much.
Michael Hasty
Lacio: We're talking to candidates running for Missouri House District 135. Joining us now is Michael Hasty. Thank you very much for joining us. Would you please introduce yourself and tell us why you decided to run for this position? You have one minute.
Hasty: Hey, thanks for having me today. Name's Michael Hasty. As was mentioned, I am a candidate for House District 135. I decided to run because I'm a father, and I'm very vested in the community, and I want to build a community that's got a good future for the, the younger generation. As a father of four public school students here and a part-time substitute teacher in the district, I get to see the successes and the places that we could improve for the, the next generation. And as a father, we always want — I do anyway — for the success of my kids. And there's a lot of families that call Springfield home all over the city, not just here in the 135th. And that's kind of why I'm running, is I want to be able to influence and have a better, better impact on my kids' future and families like my own, the blue-collar, working-class people that call Springfield home.
Lacio: What role should citizen led initiative petitions play in Missouri's policy making process? And what, if any, reforms would you support regarding how voter approved measures can be changed or overturned by the legislature?
Hasty: So I believe that the people have the right and should have the power to hold the government in check. I believe in checks and balances, not just at the federal level, but at the state level as well. And I think it's important that we remember that we can't weigh the validity of our vote based on if our person won or lost. But if we do vote for somebody and here, we're, you know, a constitutional republic ,and we vote for representatives to represent us. Sometimes our person wins, sometimes they don't. But if the representative or the overwhelming number of those representatives aren't representing us, we should be able to hold them in check. So Amendment 4 was on the ballot recently and I broke party ranks, if you will, and I voted against it because I didn't think that was an attainable threshold or a realistic expectation. It takes two thirds vote in the United States to change our Constitution that wouldn't require 50 states, so why should we have all eight congressional districts? I personally believe a 60% threshold would be an attainable percentage for voters. We saw that overwhelmingly with Amendment 4, 83% of people truly bipartisan, that wasn't for us. We've seen medical marijuana recently, and there's been other instances in Missouri where it was well over that 60% threshold, which I believe would be a fair measure to say it's not just 50 plus one, that it's a true majority. So that's how I feel on that.
Lacio: What is your position on proposals to reduce or eliminate Missouri state income tax. And how would you address the potential impact on state revenue, services and other sources of taxation?
Hasty: I, again, broke with party ranks on that one. I voted against it. I'm a realtor, so I saw the impacts that could potentially come from that of services, as was mentioned in the question. There's a lot of services that are tax free currently, and Republicans have a great, great way and job of reducing taxes, but they don't have a great way or marketing to tell you where that revenue is going to come from, how they're going to make up for it or if they're even going to be able to reduce the budget because we do have constraints, if you will, or obligations that we have to meet. And if you're going to reduce the government's income, which is what the government operates on, you need to tell me, how are we going to make up that difference? Or how are we going to cut the budget to fit within the constraints of the new projected revenue? So I am all for people having more money in their pocket. But with Amendment 5, I'll go on the record again as saying that I did not support it because there wasn't a clear path or plan in place. They just said, hey, give us a chance. And to me, it's not, you know, neither party is subject to good or bad ideas. But at the end of the day, if you're not going to give me a plan to show me the path forward, then I'm not going to give you my vote.
Lacio: What do you believe the results of the August election indicate about the priorities or concerns of Missouri voters, and how would those results influence your approach if you're elected?
Hasty: Well, again, Amendment 4 and 5 both passed with overwhelming majority of, you know, bipartisanship. I believe it was 82(%) and 83% that the people voted to reject those. And that shows me there probably is a disconnect with some of the state legislators that are up representing different districts across the state right now, and they need to listen to the people again. I'm going to hearken back to my point of you, you can't weigh the validity of your vote based on if your candidate won or lost. I've been represented by someone who is not in the party that I am for six years. And so I don't feel that my vote didn't count. But at the end of the day, they need to listen. We need to listen to the people. It's not our job to decide for people as a legislator, we need to listen to them. So I think that it's pretty obvious that that was well off the pulse of what the average voter was really wanting here. And we need to get back to listening to the people and not trying to really push our feelings or our beliefs on anyone. And I think that starts with sitting down and being able to have conversations with people, even those that you may, you may vehemently disagree with, you may partially disagree with. But at the end of the day, if you can't have a conversation, you're not going to make any progress. One example I'll bring up real quick is I was at an interaction with Congressman (Eric) Burlison. And there was the NFIB, the small business organization, said they were against something or they were for something that he was against. And he sat down and he talked to them. And through learning where these small businesses were coming from, he actually changed his mind and listened to the people that he's supposed to represent. And that's what a legislator is supposed to. You're supposed to represent the people, even if others say they disagree, you know, their thoughts are different than yours.
Lacio: Amendment 3 would repeal the reproductive rights amendment voters approved in 2024 and replace it with a ban that includes exceptions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape and incest under 12 weeks. It would also add a constitutional ban on gender affirming medical care for minors. How will you vote on Amendment 3? And given that gender affirming care provisions largely duplicate existing laws, what do you see as its actual practical effect if it does pass?
Hasty: So Amendment 3, again, I think it's, you know, too soon to try to bring that back. The people spoke last time. I voted against it last time. I was not in favor this time as I'm the product of a rape. My mother was a product of a rape, so I have a little bit different view on, on, on life. So I am a pro-life person that would support it because, as a private citizen, if I'm giving that opportunity, I'm going to vote for something that I believe in. If I was a legislator, I would not have proposed bringing this back to the vote of the people yet. I don't think the notion that we need to never bring something back to the voters. I think there should be a time frame for that, because if we look through our history, prohibition was voted on multiple times, women's rights, slavery, then we had the Jim Crow era of the 1950s and 60s, and thank God we brought those issues back to people so we could get another vote. To me, this is too soon, but I do support even as a product of a rape, those exemptions because for a very long time, both sides of the argument has been, you know, you have your abolitionists, which I am not, but you have the people that say there's no exemptions. And there are, as you stated in your question, there are medical anomalies that happen, you know, tubals and all those other things that happen that are out of, out of the, the mother's hands. And I think it's a compromise. So I think that for as a private citizen, I would support that. For the gender affirming care stuff, there is a law on the ballot with this, but there is a law the book that is set to sunset, so it's to put it in place. And I think again, we should protect children. And if you're an adult, it's not my business what you're doing, but we should have some protections for children.
Lacio: A 2025 state law allows utility companies to charge customers for power plants that are still under construction. Do you support keeping, repealing or amending that law, and what specific change would you make if you could rewrite it?
Hasty: To be honest, I wasn't aware of that one, but I, I pay my utility bill just like everybody else. And as a household of six, I see those increases, and I don't like those rate, rate hikes any more than anyone else. And I don't think it's fair to be paying for something that's not built and giving services to the people yet. So if there was a way to meet in the middle, because, you know, we got to meet in the middle on things, we can't always be one side or the other, we can't be rigid. As a realtor. I deal with that every day. My job is to literally get the best deal for my client while the other person is trying to get the best deal for theirs. So if we could come to a middle ground that would save people money and not benefit one side heavier than the other, then I would absolutely be supportive of changing that.
Lacio: And to conclude, please tell us what your top priorities will be if you are elected. You have two minutes.
Hasty: For me, again, as a father of four and a substitute teacher in the school district, education is paramount to me because today's graduates are tomorrow's workforce, military entrepreneurs, business owners, and it's our duty to prepare them for success. And we need to hand them over to something better than what we got it. So education, it's been a big, big topic at the doors as well. And it's a big topic across the state, education and funding. And, you know, I'm not sure why DESE didn't ask for their maximum amount of the funding formula, which I think they absolutely should. But I think another issue we need to address, and I can speak to it at the Springfield level, is administration costs getting bloated and out of control, hemming up dollars not going down to the classrooms. We've seen here recently in our district over the last six years, administration has grown by, I believe, 52% and teachers' jobs have been cut. I think there was over 300 jobs that had been cut in the last six years. So education. We need to make sure those dollars are going to the front lines of education, the classroom where the people are, the people in the community that are, are teaching. And I'm not one that could really do that at the lower levels, but they're the front line. They're the first responders of our education system, and we need to make sure that they are the ones getting the dollars, because they also have the most direct impact on our children in the future. So that's one of the priorities for me is how do we hold our districts across the state of Missouri to the standard that DESE has set forth as academic success while making sure our tax dollars are going to the classrooms, to the teachers, and making the biggest impact on the students directly.
Lacio: Michael, that concludes our interview. Thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us. I've been speaking with Michael Hasty who is a candidate for Missouri House District 135. This concludes our interviews with candidates for Missouri House District 135. I'm Danny Lazio with the NAACP. Thank you for joining us.
Hasty: Thank you.
Nico Burasco served as videographer for the candidate interviews.
