Dani Lacio: Good afternoon. I'm Dani Laciowith the NAACP. One of the nonpartisan organizations that make up the Informed Voter Coalition. Today we are interviewing candidates for Missouri House District 130. They are incumbent Bishop Davidson and Leslie Jones. House District 130 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 Representative Bishop Davidson. Thank you very much for joining us. Let us begin by having you introduce yourself and tell us why you decided to run for this office. You have one minute.
Bishop Davidson
Bishop Davidson: Hi. Yeah, my name is Bishop Davidson and I'm a state representative currently proud and privileged to have served the people of the 130th for six years now. And I'm running for reelection, which would, if I'm elected, ultimately be my last term as we're term limited. And the reason why I've run all these years, and the reason I'm running now, aren't too terribly dissimilar, but what I'll say is I'm like everyone else and feel what everyone else is feeling. And so, I think the main priority this cycle and this term has to be affordability, and particularly important to me are homes and housing costs. And so, those are things that I'm going to prioritize and, and look forward to hopefully working on behalf of Missourians to, to accomplish.
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?
Davidson: Yeah. So, the roll for initiative petition, there's two ways in which the constitution can be changed, and people have two mechanisms. It's either by their duly elected legislature or through the initiative petition process. The initiative petition process, I think over the years has really been taken advantage of and manipulated. And so, I think that there are really important reforms that need to take place. We've worked on those reforms and frankly, they weren't good enough. I'm a big believer in consent of the governed. And so, we're going to have to really sit down and do some reconsideration, have conversations with our constituencies, and I'm looking forward to having those conversations. But frankly, we're kind of way back to the basics, if that makes sense. And so, it's not that I have a clear XYZ of what must happen as much as a general sense that there needs to be a conversation.
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?
Davidson: Yeah. So, eliminating state income tax, which was a constitutional amendment that I was very involved in and sponsored and worked towards. The purpose of that, again, is affordability. The purpose of that is creating an economic environment where middle class Missourians are able to see opportunities in a future for their financial lives. And right now, we are a decaying state, tragically. And so, we'd like to reverse that course. I think there are other policies and other things that you can do, but similar to your first question, you kind of have to go back to the drawing board after, after such a big, after such a big vote just a month ago. So, I can't say XYZ this is what must happen. I really just need to say, okay, maybe that's not the way we address affordability today. Maybe we have other policies and other tax and other, other pathways. Did I answer all of your question? I'm sorry. There was some, there was kind of a multi-part.
Lacio: Yes. What do you believe is the result of the August election? Indicate about the priorities or concerns of Missouri voters, and how would those results influence your approach if elected?
Davidson: Yeah. So about, the August election, I think what it says is that there is a communication party within the Republican Party, for starters, or communication problem. I think I said communication party, a communication problem within the Republican Party, for starters. And then, by and large, and I don't think Missouri is the only one that suffers from this, I think other state legislatures, I think Congress in D.C. suffer from this as well, which is just a real distrust in our institutions. And, and I don't completely blame folks. I think, I think I came into the legislature with a lot of distrust. I'll probably leave the legislature with some distrust as well,, but, but doing the work that it takes to build trust is going to be really hard. And from my experience, that usually comes from communication, just talking with folks. And again, August kind of strips some things back. August means that we can't just run in full throttle with this policy or that policy or the other policy. I think what it tells me is we need to take a pause and, and have some conversations, do some good listening, and, and talk about what can we do maybe from a different perspective. And so, like I said, income tax is about affordability. It's about increasing wages. It's about creating an economic environment of growth instead of an economic environment that discourages growth, but at the end of the day, it was about whether or not people can afford homes, whether or not they can afford a car, whether or not they can have a, an emergency expense fund. Right, and if we're not going to address it in that way, then I'd like to try and address it in another way, and I think that there's some really good housing policy that we can change here in Missouri to hopefully improve that affordability crisis.
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 medical care for minors. How will you vote on Amendment 3? And given that gender affirming care provisions largely duplicates existing law, what do you see as the actual practical effect if passed?
Davidson: Yeah, you know, the people of Missouri, I think, do want to protect minors. I think that's actually very important to them. And I have a voting record on this already. I've already voted for it. I intend to vote for it come November as well. And in terms of it being a duplicative surface, I think that we've seen people put things into the Missouri Constitution, either through their duly elected legislature or through the initiative petition process that they consider to be an utmost priority, something that's especially important, something that they want to see not only in their statutes and their law books, but constitutionally codified as well, and so I think it makes sense to have it in the Constitution. I think it makes sense to have this conversation. I think it makes sense for Missourians to kind of dialog altogether regarding the other provisions of Amendment 3. It doesn't repeal. It actually just changes what was passed. And those changes are really important because as you talk with Missourians, even in the wake of of old Amendment 3, have passing, they said, wait, that was in there. Oh, man, that was in there, and then you pull it out and you go, yeah, look, it was this provision or that provision, and they go, oh, well, that's a problem. I wish we would have addressed that. I wish we would've addressed this. And that's because the initiative petition process, like I said earlier, is a process that's been taken advantage of largely, and it's really hastily thrown together, and it's not a good lawmaking process because it's not very deliberative process. And so, I think a lot of things were overlooked even by the authors of that initiative petition. And so, I know that voters are going to have a big dialog on it over the next five, six weeks or whatever it is right now, and I'm happy to answer questions and talk with folks about it as we get closer to Election Day.
Lacio: A 2025 state law allows utility companies to charge customers for power plants that are under construction. Do you support keeping, repealing or amending that law? And what specific changes would you make if it if you could rewrite it?
Davidson: I voted no on that bill. And so, in terms of specific changes, I would have to go back to it. I think it's almost two years old now, a year and a half old, something like that. And so, there's so many pieces of legislation that come through. But you're talking about SB 4, and that is a bill that I had voted no on. I'd have to dig into some of the details on what needs to be changed. But utilities are obviously I mean, I live out in Republic. Our water has increased pretty significantly. Liberty is looking for a 12% increase after already getting an increase last year. Utilities is a big part of the affordability conversation, right? And so, I think that there are things that we need to be doing better and can be doing better, and what those particulars are, I'd be open to some ideas, but, but to be politically shrewd, the likelihood of SB 4 being repealed or changed seems pretty low. It was a pretty discouraging day, and I think it would be a really hard path in terms of being able to repeal that piece of legislation.
Lacio: And to conclude, please tell us what your top priorities will be if you are reelected. You have two minutes.
Davidson: Okay. Yeah. The top priorities, I think for me again, are affordability. Now, what does that mean? I've got a kind of a vision that I have for kind of the everyday Missourian. What I'd like to see them be able to accomplish. And that's owning a home. That's being able to do two car payments. That's being able to afford a used car for their 16-year-old. That's them being able to save some away for college, and that's being able to save some away for emergency expenses. But on top of all of that, it's being able to afford Netflix and Hulu subscriptions. That's the ability to, you know, take your family out to vacation or out to dinner or whatever it might be. And I think that we are increasingly getting squeezed, right. Housing is four and a half times as expensive, proportionate to income that it was 40 years ago. Healthcare has increased, education has increased. Wages have been pretty stagnant. And so, what can we do about that? Well, I think there's some things we can do about the universal economic environment.
I've tried that. I've worked on that. I think what I'd like to focus on now is maybe more specific tasks. How can we make sure that affording a home is actually within reach? How can we make sure that affording a car is within reach? And I think that has to do with a lot of the red tape that exists around home building. I think that has to do a lot with what you're allowed to do on your property. I think that has a lot to do with real estate taxes and personal property taxes as well, when it comes to vehicles and things of that nature. And so, my priorities are going to remain focused on that affordability crisis. Sort of the perennial issue for me also is education, right? Education is the greatest equalizer that we have, I think. And if we can improve our education systems, we improve our future for our young people. And right now, I think we've done a lot of dumping money. And I think we need to start looking at more systematic changes.
Lacio: Representative Davidson, that concludes our interview. Thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us.
Davidson: Thank you.
Lacio: Again. I've been speaking with Representative Bishop Davison, who is a candidate for Missouri House district 130.
If you're just joining us, we're talking to candidates running for Missouri House District 130. Joining us now is Leslie Jones. 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.
Leslie Jones
Leslie Jones: All right. Thank you for having me today. My name is Leslie Jones and I am a lifelong Springfieldian. I was born and raised here. I've been in Missouri my entire life. I love this state. I got my education right here in Springfield. I have a master's and a bachelor's in music therapy from Drury University, which I also have worked part-time at as an adjunct faculty member for the past, oh Lord, 13, 14 years. And in addition to that, I'm a board-certified music therapist with my career, and I have my own private practice Musical Bridges Music Therapy. I've been providing music therapy services to the greater Springfield area for a long time. So, I'm a helper. That's what I do. I want to help people. That's what I've spent my entire career doing, and that's why I'm running for office, is because I look around and I see things in Missouri that aren't getting taken care of, and I want to be one of the people to go and help take care of things.
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?
Jones: I believe that the way that our process is now is absolutely fine. It's been in that, it's been this process for over 100 years. I'm very, very big proponent of the people having the ability to petition their government. You know, it's direct democracy. If the people in the state are actually putting their votes toward something, I think that that's a better way to represent than just a handful of elected people that are up in Jefferson City. But obviously, we can't, you know, do that for every little thing that we vote on, which is why we have our representative government. But I believe that that process is very, very important. You know, half of, half of the states even have a process like that. So, Missourians are so fortunate to be able to collect signatures and put things on the ballot that we care about. And it's not an easy process in the current moment. So, I think that, you know, it's tough enough to show that Missourians really care about these issues when we gather the signatures to put them on the ballot. And I think that we should be able to vote on them, and what we vote on is the law of the land.
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?
Jones: That is an area that I am very concerned with. The voters did turn it down in August with quite a big majority. 83% of Missourians said, no, we don't like this idea. And the problem is they want to eliminate the income tax, but they want to replace it with sales taxes. That's what's been proposed at this point, and I do not see a way, from what I have read and been educated on, that we can get rid of an income tax and increase and expand sales taxes, and that not increase costs on majority of Missourians. You know, 80% of us do not make tons and tons of money that, you know, changing things where we're going to get a little back in our income and then having to pay, we don't even know how much in sales taxes. That's very risky to me. It seems like a big gamble. We were never presented with any actual plan on how it would work. So, it's honestly an idea that I don't think is worth even looking at further. If I was to go up there, I think that our income tax is our only tax that is progressive. You know, the income tax currently, the people who make more money are paying a larger percentage towards the income tax than people who make less money. And that's the only tax in Missouri that's set up like that. Every other tax, sales taxes, lower income people are paying bigger percentage of their income towards their taxes than those that make the most. It's the same with property taxes. And when we look at all of our taxes combined, the lowest earners are paying a larger percentage of their income towards taxes than the wealthiest, and I think that that is wrong and that that needs to be addressed. I think that is the issue that we should be looking at, not replacing the income tax with more sales taxes on Missourians who obviously don't like that idea.
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 elected?
Jones: I honestly think that the results of that election, you know, I've been knocking doors since March, and I ran the previous cycle, so I was knocking doors back then too. But a lot of concern that I've heard from the voters is that they're not being listened to when, you know, the lawmakers, we, we vote on things and they put it right back. If it's a constitutional amendment, they're doing that with abortion rights. You know, they've done that with Clean Mo in the past and, you know, the paid sick leave, take it away. They didn't like how we voted. And when voters put time into collecting signatures, putting things on the ballot, just to have it turned down, they don't like that. We want our voices heard. This is the Show Me State. We showed you what we want, and then you're telling me, no, you can't have that. And I really think that with Amendment 4 and 5, they were blatant power grabs by the legislature that the people saw through, you know, Amendment 4, wanting to change the rules for the voters to pass in all majority districts for us to change constitutional amendments, but that not being a requirement for anything put forth by the lawmakers, that's a power grab. That's not equal between the two of us. Why does it have to be different? Right. And Amendment 5, it's another thing. It's, it was designed to benefit the people on the very, very top. People were not asking for it. No matter what they say. People were wanting us to get rid of the income tax. They've been coming to us, asking to get rid of the income tax. I didn't talk to one person on the doors leading up from March to that primary. That was in favor of that, not one person. So, I think that there's a big disconnect where people want things to be affordable. We want, you know, to be focusing on our schools. We want to be focusing on healthcare and better roads. These are our concerns, and we're not getting those concerns given back to us from Jefferson City.
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 medical care for minors. How will you vote on Amendment 3? And given that gender affirming care provisions largely duplicates existing laws, what do you see as its actual practical effect, if passed?
Jones: I believe that if Amendment 3 passes we are going to see worser outcomes for women, women's health. I think, you know, Texas is a good example. There's been reports that their maternal death rate or I don't know if it's death, but issues happening in pregnancies up 56% since those abortion bans, their abortion ban was put in place, and that's very similar to the one that Missouri had in place. And the, you know, it's a little different this round, but it's not much different. And the, the thing at the very, you know, the core of this is that it's another example of them not listening to the will of the voters. Yes, it was a close margin that we enshrined Constitution, the, the reproductive rights into the Constitution. It was a very small margin, but still, majority of people in this state chose that. That is what happened. And so, I firmly believe that it should not even be put back in front of the voters. I think that it's, I don't know, you know, they didn't like the response they got. And so, they're trying to trick us into undoing what we voted on. They've done it before. Clean Mo 2018. We said, no, we don't want that. Then they flipped it around with new language. 2020, we accidentally undid what we had just voted on. And I think that's the exact same playbook that they're doing right now. And that's what concerns me. The bigger picture with it. Missouri voters have already spoken on abortion and, you know, pulling in transgender care into it when it's already illegal. That's just one more example of them using ballot candy to trick the voters and not be forthright with what is actually happening.
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?
Jones: I don't know a whole lot about this, to be honest, but I do know that I don't believe that the people should be fronting the money for these types of projects. We don't know what's going to happen. We don't know the long-term effects. We don't even know what they're going to charge us. It's just another one of those, you know, we'll see what happens, ideas. And I think that, like I said, we're the Show Me State, show me how it's going to happen. How is it going to benefit me, and what I've heard from it, I don't view it as something that's going to benefit the people. I view it as something that's going to benefit the companies and those who are getting the benefits from it. I don't know if I have, if I could say any, you know, particular idea that I have to make it better, but I'm always a person that listens to the experts and the people and what they feel, and I think that would be the driving thing for me and my decisions at the end of the day, no matter what.
Lacio: And to conclude, please tell us what your top priorities will be if you are elected. You have two minutes.
Jones: Two minutes. Okay. My top priorities, to be honest, it's our children. I think if I had to pick like the main thing, and that's not just them in there, as children, it's growing through childhood into adulthood. I think that we need to be focusing on our economy, and that starts with our families. It starts with working families. It starts with helping with childcare costs. It helps with funding our public schools. That helps with, you know, healthcare access and affordability. All of these things will lead to better, stronger communities. If we invest in our children and our communities, we will be able to compete. We will have happy, you know, communities and strong schools that people want to come to. Missouri is not bringing in people right now and things. You know, we're not focused. I feel like Jefferson City isn't focusing on the things that will help us actually grow. And that's by focusing specifically on people and less on business, where I feel like the people have been left behind, and I am one of the people. That's why I'm running, is because I'm one of them who's struggled to pay childcare. Who's, you know, the cost of mortgage, the cost of groceries, gas costs, you know, not being able to get, you know, treatment for healthcare. You know, it's, these are important things that the people care about. And that's what I really want to focus on. I want to focus on everything that's going to help build our communities safer and stronger. And I think at the core of that for me is healthcare, public education, public safety and making our tax system fairer so that there's less of a discrepancy on our money, you know, so that everybody is doing well and has enough money to do and succeed.
Lacio: Leslie, that concludes our interview. Thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us. I've been speaking with Leslie Jones, who is a candidate for Missouri District 130. This concludes our interviews with candidates for Missouri House district 130. I am Dani Lacio with NAACP. Thank you for joining us.
Jones: Thank you.
Nico Burasco was the videographer for the candidate interviews.
