Richardson: Good afternoon. I'm Carrie Richardson with Leadership Springfield and Rosie, nonpartisan organizations that make up the Informed Voter Coalition. Today we are interviewing candidates for Missouri House District 134. They are incumbent Alex Riley and Kelsey Grant. House District 134 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.
Alex Riley
Richardson: Our first candidate is Alex Riley. Thank you so much for joining us.
Riley: Thank you for having me.
Richardson: Let's begin by having you introduce yourself and tell us why you decided to run for this office. You have one minute.
Riley: Thank you. Yeah, so my name is Alex Riley. I was born and raised here in Springfield and love this place. It's my home. It's where I raise my family. I'm married to a wonderful woman named Ellen, and I've got four little kids ranging from 7 to 1, two boys, two girls. And what I, the reason, really, that I ran in the first place is I wanted to do everything I could to make Springfield in particular, and Missouri as a whole the best place to live and work and play and raise a family. And that's what I've tried to do in the six years that I've now served in the legislature, is do things that are tailored to do exactly that. So in addition to my work in the legislature, I also have a law practice here in Springfield where I do a lot of work with small business owners and individuals who are trying to navigate the legal process.
Richardson: 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?
Riley: Yeah, I appreciate that question. So at the end of the day, what we in the legislature did with Amendment 3 is we have placed a question on the ballot for voters to consider. So in the legislature, I voted yes to allow that question to go forward for the voters, and I will personally be voting yes on Amendment 3 at the ballot box as well. And here's, here's the reason why. So right now, with the current state of abortion laws in the country, we have what, in my opinion, are some of the most radical abortion laws of any state in the union, where we can literally have abortions being performed up until birth. There's no restrictions, no regulations that the legislature is allowed to place on abortion clinics, completely contrary to the way that we are able to regulate other medical facilities. At the same time, I recognize that the prior abortion laws that were in place in, in Missouri were not where the public is. So what we wanted to do was place something in front of the voters that is more balanced. It's not the complete, unfettered access to abortion. It's not the complete ban on abortion that was in place. It's doing something that's designed to be more closely matched to where Missouri voters are. What we've heard over and over again, both when the old Amendment 3 was passed in '24 and up through now, is the public wants exceptions for abortions. They don't want a complete ban. They want exceptions for rape and incest and the life of the mother and those tough situations. And that's what we designed this amendment to do was to account for those exceptions that the public wants while also not allowing complete, unfettered access to abortion, late term abortion, abortion up to the point of birth, which we don't think is where Missouri's public are. But at the end of the day, Missourians get to vote.
Richardson: Voters rejected Amendment 4 by nearly 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?
Riley: Yeah, I appreciate that question, too. So what we hear all the time from both sides of the aisle is an appetite to doing something that raises the threshold for the initiative petition process. Clearly, Amendment 4 went way too far. And I understand that and have no problem with that. Certainly, if I got to wave my magic wand and design what I think is the perfect initiative petition process, it would certainly look very different from Amendment 4. But at the end of the day, again, with Amendment 4, what the legislature wanted to do is place a question in front of the ballot or in front of the voters on the ballot for them to consider. And they said no. And again, completely understand that. Have no problem with that. Am, at the end of the day, I think a lot of people recognize it should not be so easy to change our state's constitution. It shouldn't just be a, a 50% plus one of whoever shows up on any given election when you're talking about changing our state's governing document. That's a big deal. That shouldn't just be able to be changed with, with relatively low,, with, with a relatively low showing. So when we, when we're talking about changing the state's constitution, I think a lot of people think that it should have a degree of bipartisan support. You shouldn't just be able to have all the Republicans doing one thing and change the constitution. You shouldn't just be able to have all the Democrats doing one thing and changing the constitution or everybody in rural areas doing one thing or everyone in urban areas doing one thing. You should have broad consensus when you're talking about changing the state's constitution. So I'm certainly interested in reviewing additional proposals that would make sure that constitutional changes have broad bipartisan across the board support. But certainly it would need to look very different than Amendment 4.
Richardson: 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?
Riley: Yeah. Thank you. So for me, in the six years I've now served in the legislature, the thing I hear about the most from my constituents living in south Springfield and in Battlefield is a general frustration and dislike for our property tax system. What we've done in the legislature, especially on the House side over the past number of years, is pass a number of bills that are designed to provide true property tax relief, whether we're talking about personal property like our cars or real property like our homes. We've been diligent in trying to pursue those efforts. Unfortunately, most of those efforts have stalled out on the Senate side, and we haven't been able to find a true path for meaningful property tax reform. But that is something that I, that I want to find a path for. That is something that has continued to crush a lot of our folks here in Missouri and in Springfield. And I truly want to find a path to provide meaningful property tax reform. That's going to be a big priority for us as Republicans going forward. At the same time, we also recognize a lot of those property taxes are what funds a lot of our local government entities. So we want to do this in a way that is responsible and, and takes those considerations into account as well. Going to the income tax side. So for me, I would like to continue to find opportunities to lower our income tax burden on our working families when we are dealing with affordability concerns, cost of living that are, are rising all the time. Providing meaningful tax relief to our working people, who are the ones that are footing the bill for a lot of our government programs is certainly going to be a priority as well.
Richardson: 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?
Riley: Yeah, I appreciate that too. So at the end of the day, what, and the bill is called Senate Bill 4, we passed, it passed through the legislature a couple of sessions ago. So what it was designed to do is to get more power generation up and going. So right now, one of the things that keeps me at night up at night, to be frank, as a legislator, is concern about having enough power in this state. We have a lot of power — a lot of the old coal power plants are on their way out. They're being retired, and we don't right now have sufficient generation coming online to replace those coal power plants being retired, which is which is concerning to me. That means we're going to have struggles with keeping, keeping the lights on. That's not something I want to see. It means rates are going to go up. That's not something I want to see. So what we did was Senate Bill 4 was to try and create a mechanism to encourage more generation being built and developed here in Missouri. And we're starting to see some of the fruits of that. There are new natural gas plants that are being constructed right now that are set to supply more megawatts into our grid. And at the end of the day, that's incredibly important. We want to make sure that when someone flips the light switch, that the lights come on and we're not in a situation like what we've seen in other countries and even in other states, in the not too distant past, where you have brownouts because of not having enough generation in the state. So that's what we wanted to do with that particular bill, is create a mechanism for more power generation to be built, to make sure that we have the supply and that the rates stay as low as possible.
Richardson: 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?
Riley: Appreciate that. So one of the things that I'm particularly passionate about is reforming our state laws to allow more of our medical providers that receive a high level of training to do more things than state law currently allows them to do. So I'll give you one example and why I think this will play out play a big role in rural health care. So right now we know you're not going to get a whole bunch of physicians that are moving into rural places. They're going to congregate in the more populated areas like Springfield, like Kansas City, like Saint Louis, like Columbia, those types of places. But you might see folks that aren't physicians that would be willing to go and practice in those smaller communities. So a perfect example is optometrists. We have a lot of optometrists in Missouri. They're trained to do certain procedures here in the state, in school. Then once they graduate, our current laws forbid them from performing those types of procedures that they have been trained how to do. I would like to open up Missouri's laws, modernize it, to be in accordance with the training that these people are receiving, and that will allow them to go practice to the full extent of their training. It allows them to provide more services to patients across the state at a at a lower cost. And optometrists is just one example. There's just, I mean, there's dozens of laws that are on the books that keep people from performing to the full extent of their training. And I want to open up those laws. The nice thing about that is that's not something that costs the taxpayers anything, which is certainly a, always an area of concern. But all we have to do is roll off these old, outdated regulations, get them off the books, allow people to practice to the full extent of their ability, and that allows them to treat more patients at a lower cost.
Richardson: And to conclude, please tell us what your top priorities will be if you are reelected. You have two minutes.
Riley: Thank you. I appreciate that, too. So for me, there's going to be a lot of things, but one of the most exciting things I think for, for, for me but I think for Springfield as a whole is my colleagues have elected me to serve as the next speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives. I will be the speaker for the next two years in our state's entire 205-year history. Springfield, even though we're the third largest city, has only had one speaker of the House. What this means, the way that our legislative structure works, is there's no way to pass a bill through the legislature without the speaker allowing that to happen. So for us in particular here in Springfield, it means that we, as Springfield, as southwest Missouri, as our Springfield Metro, get to control the legislative agenda and the legislature for the next two years. We have a seat at every single table. There won't be a decision that gets made in Jefferson City over these next two years without Springfield's fingerprints all over it. So that's certainly an exciting thing for, for me and I think for our area as a whole. But there's a lot we need to,to work on and continue to work on. Crime rates are going down, but they're not where they, where they need to be. So we're going to continue to focus on that. Our education system is not where it needs to be as far as student outcomes. There's a lot of modernization that needs to happen there, while at the same time making sure that they receive the funding that they need and that our teachers are paid. And I'd like to see them paid more, doing things like that, continuing to work to build our economy and make Missouri a more favorable place to do business. I would like to continue to work on those things, too. So those are just a handful, but we have so many opportunities. Missouri is a wonderful place to live. Springfield is a great place to live, but there's more work to be done, and I'm committed to doing everything I can over these last two years that I have in the House to doing just that.
Richardson: Alex Riley, that concludes our interview. Thank you very much for taking time to talk to us.
Riley: Thanks for having me. Appreciate it as always.
Kelsey Grant
Richardson: Thanks so much for joining us today. Hi. Would you please begin by telling us why you decided to run for this office? You have one minute in 2024.
Grant: We didn't have a candidate who decided to run for Missouri House District 134. When we have candidates who are not filling the roles or in those positions, like this year, we have 163 seats for Missouri House Democrats, right? Or 163 seats for House of Representatives, of which we are about 97.4% have a candidate running in all those seats. And we really want to see Democrats running in every seat against every Republican. So we don't lose any seats to Republicans that are unopposed. And I strongly feel that when we don't have candidates running in races, we do not give the voters an opportunity for democracy to happen. And so we really need to give voters an opportunity for a choice more importantly than anything else.
Richardson: 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?
Grant: Well, I'm glad you asked about Amendment 3, because there is some confusion with the public in the way that it is presented to the general populace. For gender affirming care or for care that is transitioning for individuals,, they are already at this time not able to do that. And I feel like we are in a current supermajority of Republicans, right? And for the past 14 years, our statehouse in Missouri has been controlled by the Republican supermajority. Well, in 2024, the voters voted to give women access to health care, abortion. And there are several reasons for abortion. As a registered nurse, I know very well that some women experience problems in their pregnancy that could lead to them dying. And if they do not receive an abortion, that could equal a death sentence for them. I'm also aware of rape, incest, child molestation and things like this that can really put young children or, or young women at high risk for having those types of pregnancies. Women who have experienced rape should be given a choice, and it should be a health care decision. And it needs to be a decision that's discussed between patients and physicians. And those physicians with their patients need to come to medical decisions. The state legislature lawmakers have no business being in anyone's bedroom or anyone's personal business in those issues. More importantly, I feel like we as, we as politicians, we need to respect Missouri voters. And the Missouri voters already spoke on this issue and told us what they wanted. For us not to listen shows that we are not fully engaged with our voters, our base and the people of Missouri, and we don't respect their values and their vote.
Richardson: Voters rejected Amendment 4 by nearly 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?
Grant: Absolutely not. Citizens petition is basically simply giving the citizens of Missouri the opportunity to, to vote on the issues that they care about and the issues that they want to see happen in the state. The threshold to get something on the ballot is already very high. There are not items going on the ballot because out of state interests are paying for them. These are Missouri-based voters. These are Missourians who are going out, getting the signatures and putting these things on the ballot. I was absolutely against the past Amendments 4 and 5, the everything sales tax and taking away citizen's petition. If you have legislatures that do not and politicians that do not respect the voice of the voter and the voice of the people, that process is there to protect all Missourians, not just Democrats, not just Republicans. It's to protect us all from politicians and lawmakers going against the will of the people. To weaken that would be to weaken democracy in the state of Missouri, and we just absolutely cannot have that for our state.
Richardson: 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?
Grant: Oh, you know, this is really where, where my opponent, Alex Riley and myself greatly differ. He came out in the newspaper, and he wrote publicly about his support of Amendment 5 and the everything sales tax while I was strictly opposed to that and I was knocking on doors, going around Springfield, talking to people about it. So the everything sales tax — Missouri voters already voted to not have sales tax on services for things such as auto repair, hairdressers, having, going to the barber shop and having a haircut. And that puts a burden not only on the individuals such as the barbers and cosmetologists and maybe the medical and doctor's offices that might have to charge a sales tax, but also on the people having to pay that sales tax. And we already said, again, that Missouri didn't want it, and we voted that down. And so to go against Missouri voters again on another issue, just shows why we really need this citizens petition process in place to protect Missouri voters. Two, for seniors who might have a fixed income, doubling our sales tax rate at that time would have been devastating to them. And so I really protect seniors, and I did not want to see seniors have to pay exorbitant sales taxes. And the real threshold for breaking even on that sales tax would have put a family's income north of $150,000 a year to even see any benefit at all on that sales tax. But the real secret behind the sales tax is most Missouri voters do not know that if you are a retail establishment, you get to keep the top 2% of the sales taxes that you, you can keep. So if we can double., i they doubled the sales tax, retailers would have been able to keep double the amount of money that they were able to keep already. That's kind of like a windfall for big corporations that have a lot of stores, maybe like a Walmart or a Target that could really benefit from doubling our, our sales tax because they get to keep those dollars.
Richardson: 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?
Grant: Oh, we, we, you know, we should not have the, the pay for play with the utility services companies, right? Right now, I think we're going to experience a data bubble, a data center bubble, just like I'm old enough that I remember 1999 and 2000. And I'll never forget the crash and I'll never forget 2001, everybody being scared of Y2K when we, if we prepay as taxpayers and we incentivize data centers and that we cover their cost of doing business by us paying for the utility services that they are going to drastically use, and then we have a data crash or a data bubble where these companies go broke. We will never recoup that money. It is just like the bailouts that we did for the big three. You know, we allow them to overextend themselves. We allow them to take more loans. We allow them to take risky positions just like our banks did. And then we have to turn around, and we have we as taxpayers are the ones who are doing the bailouts, just like with the banks, just like with the big three. So on data centers, the way we prevent us as taxpayers being taken advantage of is they need to pay their own freight for making their data centers and covering their costs for utilities and not Missouri voters.
Richardson: Rural hospitals and health care 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?
Grant: This is an excellent question for me as a registered nurse. Where you live in the state of Missouri should not determine if you live or die in a trauma or an accident or a car accident. Our rural critical care hospitals; Cassville, Missouri; Aurora, Missouri; Monett, Missouri; Bolivar Citizens Memorial Hospital; even in Clinton, Missouri. We have, we have rural critical access hospitals. If you get in an accident on highway 13, which is often referred to by paramedics as killer. 13, and I went to paramedic school at CMH so I was on those ambulances. And if you get in a car accident on killer 13 is what we call it, Highway 13, going from Springfield to Bolivar on your way maybe to go to Kansas City, the ambulance is going to take its time to get to you, and then we are most likely going to have to call a helicopter if it's a severe trauma. But helicopters only carry one patient, so that means that the less critical patients involved in those accidents are going to be transported usually through ground transport. And those critical access hospitals are a critical infrastructure to ensuring that those patients do not die. So how do we guarantee that we don't lose rural hospitals and rural access to those hospitals? Well, having robust funding for public health in this state is, is absolutely a requirement. And we currently right now are 50th out of all the states in the nation. The next, we spend $7 per person in public health. The next state from us spends $14, so there are, the next state $49 is spending double what we pay. So we need to go after public health dollars. And we also need to fully fund, fund expanded Medicaid just like the voters wanted. We should not be telling kids who have cancer when they're in the middle of their cancer therapy, sorry, you no longer get services because you're no longer covered. Parents who are already going through those difficult situations with their children with cancer should never have to face a dire decision of, is my child going to have access to the health care that they need to live? And that is something I care very deeply about.
Grant: And to conclude, please tell us what your top priorities will be if you are elected. You have two minutes.
Richardson: Okay. So, you know, I fully understand that when we are in a Republican supermajority that we have been in the last 14 years, that every Democratic vote, especially if it's just a no vote, can be the difference between something that's more disastrous for our state. Such as public schools have, were already shorted $190 million this year. Over the summer, when they went back, it got shorted a little bit over another $40 million on top of that. Missouri ranks 49th in public school funding. We rank number ninth as, as the most expensive state for students to buy their back to school supplies. And as I already mentioned, we, we rack, we ranked dead last in public health funding and, and funding for public health services such as our health departments and protections for our people. So as a candidate, things that I care strongly about is fully funding public schools. Our teachers shouldn't have to work two and sometimes three jobs to pay their bills. Being a school teacher is enough, and no one who is one of our schoolteachers in Missouri should have to work a job all night long just to keep a roof over their head. Two, EMS workers, an example of Springfield, Missouri, such as Mercy or Cox, do not benefit for being on Missouri LAGERS. If a police officer is on the side of the road and they are injured in an accident, that police officer is covered and they have they have the benefit of state dollars and protections to help them and their families in their time of need after they become injured. But for our EMS workers who work in like Mercy or Cox, they rely on workers compensation insurance to help them. And our workers compensation in the state of Missouri, while when it first started was very skewed to be even between employer and employee on how it protected both, but because we have allowed Missouri insurance companies for worker's compensation to lobby the legislature over and over and over, over the years, we've lost those beneficial protections to workers. And so we need to go after workers compensation insurance companies and make sure that they are paying to get our workers back to work after they become injured.
Richardson: Kelsey Grant, that concludes our interview. Thank you very much for taking time to talk to us.
Grant: Thank you so much for having me.