In August, more than 80% of Missouri voters rejected Amendment 4, which would have made citizen-initiated constitutional amendments much harder to pass. Before the election, Dave Robertson testified in support of the proposal and later described initiative-petition reform as his “number one issue.”I take the opposite view. Missouri's initiative-petition process gives citizens a way to act when their elected representatives won't. If outside money is corrupting the process, as Robertson alleges, let's address the money and require greater transparency. Don't solve the problem by punishing all Missouri voters.

Dave Robertson's campaign promises to “Return Control of Education to Parents & Support School Choice.” But he doesn't explain what “school choice” means. Does he support expanding MOScholars? Vouchers? Charter schools? Open enrollment? Should public money pay private-school tuition? Those questions matter because different “school choice” policies have very different consequences for public schools.My position is clear: Missouri needs excellent public schools available to every child. Our future depends on it. Public schools were created nearly 200 years ago as a means of unifying education to make sure that every child learns from a common base of knowledge. And, over the past two centuries, public schools have not only delivered on this promise, but they have created the most innovative and industrious nation on earth. Public schools are a resource that we cannot afford to throw away. They are at the core of our strength. Public education dollars should only fund the public schools that serve our communities, not private schools.

Dave Robertson’s campaign platform promises to “End DEI, CRT & Woke Culture,” remove certain books from schools, and address several other national culture-war issues.I believe that Missouri certainly faces legitimate disagreements over social policy, but our state also faces practical problems involving cost of living, education, healthcare, infrastructure, housing, gas prices, the cost of day care, and the responsible use of taxpayer money. Representatives should concentrate on solving the everyday problems that affect Missouri families. When everybody is fighting culture wars, nobody is steering the ship.

Dave Robertson has stated that “the sole purpose of government should be to protect the inalienable rights of the people.”I agree that protecting individual rights is one of our government's most important responsibilities, but our Constitution describes a larger purpose: establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare. To that end, our government maintains roads, operates courts, supports public schools, provides public safety, runs the most powerful military on earth, and performs countless other functions that individuals cannot reasonably accomplish alone. Good government protects individual liberty, but it also does the hard work that allows our communities, businesses, and families to prosper.

During the effort to redraw Missouri's congressional districts between censuses, Dave Robertson publicly wrote, “Give Missouri another Republican Congressional Seat. Do it now, Governor Kehoe and MOLeg.”I disagree. Redistricting should be about providing fair representation to Missouri citizens, not guaranteeing additional seats to one political party. Republicans shouldn't draw districts simply to elect more Republicans, and Democrats shouldn't draw them simply to elect more Democrats. Voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.

Dave Robertson has repeatedly used extremely harsh language to describe political opponents and institutions he disagrees with. His public statements have invoked communism, totalitarianism, Satanism, and similar descriptions of political conflict.I believe we can passionately disagree about taxes, education, and the proper role of government without calling our neighbors evil or enemies of America. Missouri has serious problems that will never be solved if half the population regards the other half as an enemy. I believe representatives should fight hard for their principles while still respecting the people who disagree with them. To that end, as a Democrat, I have attended many local Republican events, where I am well received. If elected, I intend to represent everyone, not just those who agree with me.

Dave Robertson's campaign platform says: “Remove Soros-Backed DAs.” The phrase "Soros-Backed DA" is a populist slogan that refers to any DA who appears to be soft on crime, whether or not billionaire George Soros had anything to do with electing them to office.The problem is that District Attorneys (or Prosecuting Attorneys) are elected by the people, and removing them is an act of overturning the will of the people. For that reason, I believe it is wrong to remove elected officials based on ideological or political differences. There are already established methods to remove a DA who breaks the law or acts in a malicious manner. In all cases, careful consideration must be taken to ensure that the removal is not politically or ideologically motivated. Removing them for purely political reasons is unacceptable.

Dave Robertson's campaign explicitly says he supports “Constitutional Sheriffs.” The Constitutional Sheriffs movement says that sheriffs have authority to decide for themselves whether laws are constitutional and, in some cases, refuse to enforce laws they believe violate the Constitution. That raises an important question: Who decides what is Constitutional and what isn't?I believe sheriffs have an obligation to defend our constitutional rights, but they must also operate within the rule of law. Constitutional questions ultimately belong in our courts, not in the personal judgment of a single elected official.

Dave Robertson's campaign supports the “Doctrine of Lesser Magistrates.” It sounds like a lot of fancy words, but it basically says that lower level government officials may refuse to obey—and sometimes actively resist—higher authorities when they believe those authorities are acting unlawfully or unconstitutionally. The doctrine has deep roots in Christian political theology, and some folks argue that government officials have a duty to resist laws they believe violate God's law.Similar to the concept of "Constitutional Sheriffs," which Robertson also supports, I believe it is dangerous when an officeholder becomes the final judge of which laws are legitimate. Our Constitution protects everyone's religious freedom, regardless of faith. While I agree that religion can inform our individual moral beliefs, government officials should not substitute their personal religious beliefs for the Constitution or the law.Further, elected officials absolutely should challenge laws they believe are unconstitutional. But our Constitution provides a way to resolve those disputes: the courts. No governor, sheriff, county official, or state representative, should have the sole power to declare a law invalid based upon his or her personal interpretation of either the Constitution or what they believe to be God's will.

Dave Robertson says Missouri has a “bloated budget.” He points out that the state budget has roughly doubled over the past decade. While the increase is real, calling it “bloat” reduces this issue to a cheap slogan. He cites DOGE as his approach to cutting the bloat.Simply calling it "bloat" without identifying specifics is highly misleading. It creates the impression that there is a big pile of money just waiting to be returned to taxpayers.This is simply not true. If Robertson believes Missouri's budget should be dramatically smaller, voters deserve specifics: What does he mean by "bloat?" How would he use DOGE to cut our budget? How much would it save? What would we give up in return?As a fiscal conservative, I agree that there is probably waste, fraud, and abuse taking place, and it should be eliminated. As your representative, I would work with the state auditor and the Attorney General to find the money. I would also work with various departments, including the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) to help find ways to make our departments to work more efficiently. In short, I would roll up my sleeves and dig in. It's hard work, but it will pay off.Bottom line: Slogans are easy. Responsible governing is hard.