Valerie Chapman with Missouri State University, one of the nonpartisan organizations that make up the Informed Voter Coalition, interviewed candidates for Missouri House District 136, Jacey Buckles and Incumbent Representative Stephanie Hein.
Jacey Buckles
Chapman: House District 136 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 Jacey Buckles. 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.
Buckles: Great. So I am 32 years old. I'm a local small business owner. My business has grown to employ 25 people here locally. A father of two little girls, have a big investment in this community. My wife and I have lived here in the city limits since graduating from university, for the past eight years. We have investment in this community. We're here for the long haul. Just taking a look at some of the things that are happening around our city that could be improved, things that need to be worked on. I just thought, hey, why not step in, get engaged? Why not see what we can do to build a better future for the people that work for me, the people that live here, and for my children? So that's really what it's about for me. I just want to see if it's, if it's possible. And it's just something that I feel is an obligation and a duty and a way that I can become civically engaged.
Chapman: Thank you. 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 medical care for minors. How will you vote on Amendment 3? And given that the gender affirming care provision largely duplicates existing law. What do you see as its actual practical effect if passed?
Buckles: Sure. So I'm voting yes on Amendment 3. I think that it's a reasonable adjustment to what we have. I think that what we have is actually more extreme than most of what is found in western Europe and even some other states that would be considered more liberal, quote unquote, than Missouri. I think that the practical effect in terms of the transgender thing is that, in my view, the way that the — and I know it's confusing because it's Amendment 3, Amendment 3 — the Amendment 3 that is in effect now has very broad language that could be interpreted by a court at any time to be something different. So I think that it is worth, and I know it's kind of a, you know, a nitpicky, pedantic thing when we're talking about legal language, but I think that it is worth tightening the language up so that at some point in the future, a court cannot simply rule, well because of the language in the Constitution, this is actually allowed because I do oppose transgender operations and stuff for minors. So I believe that that's reasonable. And then the final thing is, you know, I understand that there are arguments on both sides in regards to personal freedom and, and choice, but I also believe that the state does have a legitimate interest in preserving and protecting innocent life. So when you look at the current law, it allows abortion up to, I believe, 23 weeks, which is what they define as the point of fetal viability. And, you know, for me as a father, I was, I was in the delivery room for both of my children. I was with my wife through that whole process. I know what a baby looks like at, at 23 weeks, and I, you know, in the womb, and I think that it's, it's really not reasonable to allow it to that point. And I think that the exceptions that are in the current or the new Amendment 3 get us to a place that is 1), more moral, more reasonable, and that I think that we all should be able to agree on that. We can live with. So yeah, that's just where I'm at with it. I think that it's, it's human life. I think that we have an interest in protecting and preserving it. And that's where I'm at with it.
Chapman: Voters rejected Amendment 4 by over 80% in August, which would have made it far harder to pass citizen initiated constitutional amendments. Given that the legislature referred that measure to the ballot and may bring back similar proposals to restrict the initiative petition process, would you oppose or support further attempts to raise the threshold for citizen initiatives?
Buckles: Strongly depends on what the proposal is. My — I kind of have a philosophical issue with the way that it is set up now, because what we have now is, and as you all probably are aware, every two years, we all have to go vote on amendments. I do not believe that that was the purpose and intent of our constitution. A constitution is a statement of principles. It is not intended to be a, let's detail out every single thing about how we're going to operate and how every single issue is going to be decided. That's why you have a state legislature. So I think that it would be reasonable to take a look at that, because if you look at the way that other states operate, Missouri is actually in a very small minority of states that have a essentially a 50% plus one vote where you can modify the constitution every two years with a simple majority vote. I don't think that that is a good way to operate. I don't think that that was the intention of the constitution or the intention of the people who wrote it. And I believe that people do have a say in another way, which is through electing state and local officials to modify laws. And I believe for most issues that that is the preferred way that we should go about it. So yeah, I would be in favor of something. But again, people get to vote on it and they're going to vote on it. And whatever the people in Missouri have to say about it is what will be. So I but I would favor looking at it, you know, that's a, that's my, my thought on it.
Chapman: Missouri voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed income tax overhaul Amendment 5 this year. What is your specific position on state tax policy going forward, including whether you'd support any changes to the income tax, sales tax or property tax structure?
Buckles: Yeah. So, Amendment 5 was not very well explained and not very well understood because it was very broad, you know, and it gave the legislature a pretty free hand to do whatever they wanted, you know, once it was passed, I think that it was rejected, and I personally was opposed to it because of that particular issue, especially as I got out and talked to people about it, what they thought about it. But to answer the question, I would be in favor of adjusting the income tax. I would be in favor of something more simple, such as providing tax relief to lower income families by doing something like increasing the standard deduction from where it's at to $50,000 or $75,000 or even $100,000 to provide income tax relief to people who make less money. I think that's reasonable. As far as sales tax goes, I don't have a specific opinion on that at the moment. I would be willing to listen to people who know more than I do and see where we can make adjustments at the margin. I do think one thing I would like to see is a reduction or elimination of the grocery tax. I think that's reasonable. I think we can find a way to, again, that would be providing relief to something that everyone needs at all income levels. I think that it would be beneficial. And then finally, on property taxes, that's also a tough issue because property taxes are the way that most of our local services are funded. I think that we can find ways to adjust it. But at the end of the day, I also understand that if we want a good police force, if we want a good fire, you know, protection, if we want good schools and roads and infrastructures, we're going to have to pay taxes. So it is a balancing act. But I do believe that we can rebalance it a little bit to provide income tax, property tax and sales tax relief to people that are in lower income tax brackets. So yeah, I would be in favor of adjusting it in that way.
Chapman: 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?
Buckles: Yeah, so I have a lot of thoughts on that. I'll try to condense them. The bottom line is that Missouri has to build more power generation capacity. It must. We currently import electricity from other states, so Missouri doesn't produce enough electricity within the bounds of the state to satisfy our need. Well, there is no world in which we're going to use less electricity in the future than we do now. So we do have to find out, find a way to construct more power generation capacity. I — that's a tough question. It would depend on the specific project. In general, I think that the cost of construction should be borne by just, just as it is in any other area or any other business or anything you can think of, should be borne by the company or organization constructing it. So I would be in favor of taking a look at it and amending it. I'll be completely honest, I do not know the particulars of of that piece of legislation in its entirety. But I do know there's two things I mentioned. One, we need more power generation capacity. Absolutely. It has to happen. And two, it's got to we got to fund it some way. And three, I would be in favor of the majority, bulk of majority or all of that cost being borne by the company organization that's constructing it. So.
Chapman: Rural hospitals and healthcare access remain an ongoing concern across much of Missouri. What is one specific state level action you would support to address rural healthcare access or hospital closures?
Buckles: Yeah. So one, we have to make sure that the funding is there. So I'm in favor of keeping the funding. I am in favor of increasing it, in fact, from where it's at to where it needs to be to make sure that people who are in the rural areas of the state are taken care of. I would want to take a look at that. I'd want to understand all of the various factors and facets of it because I'm not a healthcare professional, not an area of expertise for me, but that's an area where in my whole campaign and me as a person, I'm willing to listen to what people have to say and implement the best solution. So, hey, let's get the people in the room who know what they're talking about. Health care professionals, hospital administrators and other people at state agencies to figure out what we can do. So yeah, in terms of specific proposal, let's make sure we have the funding that we need. That would be where I'm at with it.
Chapman: To conclude, please tell us what your top priorities would be. You have two minutes.
Buckles: Great. So I'm really focused on what's happening in the city of Springfield. There's three things that my campaign is about. Number one is education. Number two — or education in schools. Number two is public safety. And number three is investing for future generations, which is kind of a broad term, but I'll define it. So number one for public schools and schools, schools in general. We need to make sure they're funded appropriately. And we need to make sure that they have the tools that they need. I'm very much in favor of supporting what I call the line staff, the people who do the hard work every day, which are the teachers who, who interact with the kids, who have the teaching responsibilities. I think that we need to take a look at how they're paid. I'd be in favor of paying them more as opposed to paying administration more. I'd be in favor of giving them more tools. I'd be in favor of some kind of accountability to, you know, what's going on with how the kids are being educated. You know, I personally know people that were, that are currently working in the schools and people that have left for various reasons. Second thing is public safety. Our local police department is chronically understaffed. You know, you look at the, the open positions anywhere from 40 to 60 officers. Having the officers on the street is very important to deterring crime. You got to have the officers out there patrolling, you know, the beat cops. That's very important. We need to make sure that we're fully staffed at the police department and that they have the tools that they need to catch criminals and solve crimes. So, you know, looking at crime clearance rates. Final thing is investing for future generations. Like I said, I have two little girls — we're going to, my family and I, are going to live here for probably the rest of our lives. I mentioned power generation. We need to look at building more power generation. We need to look at improving the local public utilities and infrastructure, roads and bridges. You know, there's things here in the city. For example, City utilities just got a $3 million grant. And we need to be looking at doing more of that. So.
Chapman: Jacey Buckles, that concludes our interview. Thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us again. I've been speaking with Jacey Buckles who is a candidate for Missouri House District 136.
Buckles: Well, thank you so much for having me, I appreciate it.
Stephanie Hein
Chapman: We're talking to candidates running for Missouri House District 136. Our next candidate is Stephanie Hein. 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.
Hein: Thank you. I currently serve as the state representative in the 136th District, and I'm running for my third term. I originally ran for office because I was not necessarily satisfied with the direction that our government was going. I had developed a broad set of skills at my time at Missouri State University, and I was ready for another way that I could help my community and better serve those around me. So I took the leap in 2022 and ran for office and was fortunate enough to win my race that time and have continued on in that pathway. Springfield is home. Springfield is a place that I love to be in, and my role is just to help where I can help and hopefully grow the state of Missouri into just becoming the place we all want to live.
Chapman: 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 medical care for minors. How will you vote on Amendment 3? And given that the gender affirming care provision largely duplicates existing law, what do you see as its actual practical effect if passed?
Hein: Yeah, so this is no secret. You can see how I voted on the House floor. I voted no to put that resolution back on the ballot for a couple of reasons. One, we had just voted on it, and within my district, they had voted to restore reproductive rights, and I think there is a responsibility to uphold the will of the people. And that's what the will of my district wanted, and so I feel like it is important to go ahead and carry carry on in that vein. I will continue to support reproductive rights. I will vote no on this measure as I did on the House floor. The transgender piece is what we refer to as ballot candy. It's the piece in there that we feel is not necessary. To your point, it is already in state statute. There's no reason to put it into the constitution as well. It's existing law. It's just there to entice some people who might be triggered by that particular piece of legislation and might encourage them to vote one way or the other. And I do think when you have it in your constitution, it changes, you know, the different pieces and applications that you might see in that, you know, in that space.
Chapman: Voters rejected Amendment 4 by over 80% in August, which would have made it far harder to pass citizen initiated constitutional amendments. Given that the legislature referred that measure to the ballot and may bring back similar proposals to restrict the initiative petition process. Would you oppose or support further attempts to raise the threshold for citizen initiatives?
Hein: Yeah. Again, my voting record speaks to, to this perfectly. I voted no to put that on the ballot. We I had a good, you know, feeling within my district that I knew that that was going to fail, and it failed miserably. That's not what people wanted to spend their time or energy on. I think the citizens of Missouri like the initiative petition process. They've used it for some really important pieces of, changes within our state. And I think that's their right to be able to continue in that space. It is the one person, one vote mechanism that they have, and when you start kind of adjusting those guidelines, you start to just disenfranchise some and reward others, and that's not what makes our democracy work. And so if we see additional measures come up, I will continue to oppose those measures. Now, I have had people say, well, do you — our constitution is going to get so big, our constitution is going to get so big. Well, we could put things in state statute, but what we have seen, whenever you put things in state statute versus the constitution, if lawmakers in Jefferson City don't like those statutes, what do they do? They go in and they reverse that. And we saw that with Proposition A when we had the paid sick leave removed as soon as voters put it in. And again, it is that need and that desire to respect the will of the voters that I feel is so very important.
Chapman: Missouri voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed income tax overhaul Amendment 5 this year. What is your specific position on state tax policy going forward, including whether you'd support any changes to the income tax, sales tax or property tax structure?
Hein: Yeah, another, another area where I feel like Jefferson City is not necessarily listening to what voters want or need to realize relief at their in their pocketbooks. Right? That's, that's the thing. We all want some type of relief. I did not support Amendment 5. I was very clear on that in my voting record and on the House floor and everything that we could do to help educate voters. Do I think there is room for modifying the tax policies that we have in place? Absolutely. But you have to do it reasonably so that you're not impacting your local communities, your local entities that rely on some of those, those revenues. For example, we all want to have our fire districts funded. We all want to have our libraries funded. We want to have our schools funded. Those all come from different pots of money. So when we make changes, it has to be smart. It has to be reasonable so that we're not just impacting the state, we're being cognizant of what happens to those entities that rely on those taxing revenues. I will say what I hear from the door, the doors, the number one area that people want relief right now is from their property taxes, either real estate or personal property. That's kind of where people get frustrated with what's happening in the taxing structure in our state.
Chapman: 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?
Hein: Yeah. So Senate Bill 4, I'm sure that's the one that you're referring to. It is my belief that consumers have to be protected any time that we make changes to utility structures or utility rates. I was a no vote on that particular piece of legislation because of that, what was called the quip policy. So if we make changes, we have to make sure that the consumer is protected in that space. I know there's a lot of need and infrastructure within our state, particularly, you know, when it pertains to utilities. So when we make those changes, we have to be smart so that we're not placing the, the financial burden on the consumer and maybe looking at how we restructure those financial, financial packages.
Chapman: Rural hospitals and healthcare access remain an ongoing concern across much of Missouri. What is one specific state level action you would support to address rural healthcare access or hospital closures?
Hein: Yeah, that's a huge concern all across the state. And why, while Springfield has great hospitals, what I see in Jeff City are my colleagues who represent smaller communities really being impacted by some of the changes and workforce issues that we face in that healthcare space. So a few things that we can do within the state and looking primarily from a financial perspective, you know, making investments in workforce development, specifically in health care, in those rural areas, I think we have some room to expand residency slots within even the Springfield area that would then help serve some of those rural areas once they complete their residency. I think we're going to have to, you know, think outside the box a little bit and realize just because it may not impact me directly, it's impacting my neighbors across the state. And that worries me. And we can certainly do, do better. We do have the financial resources through the rural transformation resources that are coming through. And so I think as we start to invest those monies, which will happen within this next budget year, we have to be really strategic in making sure that we're picking initiatives that will have a return on our investment and help really just kind of stop the crisis that we're seeing in, in rural healthcare right now.
Chapman: To conclude, please tell us what your top priorities would be. You have two minutes.
Hein: Yeah. So I always categorize my, my top three priorities like in buckets. So the first one is public education. I'm a product of public education. I taught at a public institution, so making sure that our public schools are adequately funded, our teachers are paid appropriately, our schools have the resources that they need. Springfield Public Schools is the largest school district, district in the state. And so that is always one of those issues top of mind for me. Next would be into that health care space. I have two of the largest, you know, health care providers in my district. And so making sure that we are doing everything that we can do to make sure that health care is accessible, health care is affordable. That's always on my radar. And then probably what is most important right now and impacting everyone is affordability. What can we do at the state level to make life easier for our working families, for our senior citizens, for our young families, so that they can actually survive and thrive in our state and for our seniors? I want them to be able to retire with dignity. They've worked hard, and they deserve to be able to retire comfortably, comfortably. And our families deserve the the capability to, you know, raise their kids, send them to school if they want to send them to school, whatever they choose to do. We have to be able to provide support for those, for those individuals. But right now, we at the state have to focus on how we can bring down the cost of living just for everyday items.
Chapman: Stephanie Hein, that concludes our interview. Thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us.
Nico Burasco was the videographer for the candidate interviews.
