Richard West

Republican (I)

David Rogers

Democrat

Dave Hinman

Republican (I)

Don Crozier

Democrat

Comments:

Data Centers: I would support any data center that would not adversely impact the local environment but I would not support any tax incentives

Terri Violet

Republican (I)

Tara Murray

Democrat

Comments:
No on 3: Abortion is healthcare and it is the decision between patient and doctor and like all other medical procedures it should be legal, safe and accessible. Minor transgender surgery is already illegal.

No on 4: I voted against this because it would have made it harder for the people to change the state constitution. Its loss was a win for majority rule! Missourians have had to use this direct democracy approach to pass important measures like Medical expansion, minimum wage increase, no right to work and regulating puppy mills because our Republican supermajority has refused to act based on the will of the people.

No on 5: As an educator, I strongly opposed the elimination of income tax. This amendment would have hurt funding for public schools as well as essential services. The proposal to replace income tax with a variety of new sales taxes would have risked severe cuts to public services and hurt Missourians with huge increases in everyday costs.

Data Centers: I am against the incentives to large data centers because those breaks outweigh the revenue that is generated and given to the community. The presence of a data center increases the strain on utilities and when they don’t reinvest, it costs Missourians more. I would not want a data center built and tax incentives given, unless they meet the 10 point requirements set up by Missouri Coalition of Environment and transparency that the data center will improve the lives of those around it.

Colin Wellenkamp

Republican (I)

Cat Clayton

Democrat

Comments: No response

Data Centers: No response

Travis Wilson

Republican (I)

Jewel Kelly

Democrat

Comments:

No on 3: I oppose the 2026 Amendment 3 because I support protecting the reproductive freedoms Missourians approved in 2024, definitely not repealing them. Deeply personal medical decisions should remain with patients and qualified medical professionals, with family involvement as appropriate, and not politicians. This is consistent with my commitment to defend reproductive freedom and keep government from substituting political judgment for individual medical judgment. I also oppose placing a blanket ban on gender-transition-related medical care for minors in our Constitution. I support careful, evidence-based evaluation, appropriate parental involvement, informed consent, and strong medical safeguards. Protecting young people requires thoughtful, individualized care—not treating every patient and circumstance as identical.

No on 4: Every Missouri voter’s ballot should count equally, regardless of where that person lives. Amendment 4 would allow a majority voting against a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment in just one congressional district to defeat it, even when a majority statewide supports it. Meanwhile, amendments placed on the ballot by the legislature would retain the statewide-majority approval standard. I oppose that unequal treatment of citizen proposals.
I support accurate ballot language, transparent campaign funding, and safeguards against petition fraud. But protecting the integrity of the process should not mean weakening the people’s ability to use it.
I support preserving statewide majority approval for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments. If this same requirement returns, my opposition will remain the same.

No on 5: I believe Amendment 5 is a bait and switch. It promises income-tax relief while opening the door to broader sales and use taxes. Eliminating one tax does not guarantee that a family’s total tax bill goes down, particularly when more purchases and services could become taxable.
My concern is that families and retirees could pay more through everyday expenses while the state faces uncertainty about funding essential services. I support genuine, targeted tax relief that helps people afford their lives and not simply moving the tax burden from one place to another.
Any tax proposal should clearly explain who pays less, who pays more, and how schools, health care, and public safety will remain adequately funded, including during an economic downturn. I would oppose bringing back the same tax shift under a different name.

Data Centers:

I welcome investment, but a tax break should be a good deal for the community—not just the company. I would support a limited incentive only when an independent review shows it is needed to bring the investment here, the public benefits outweigh the costs, and residents are protected from the risks.
We should review existing tax breaks before expanding them. Every deal should have clear limits, an expiration date, promises we can measure, and repayment requirements when companies do not deliver.
Protect utility customers. Data centers should pay for the extra power, power lines, water and sewer capacity they need—not pass those costs to households and small businesses. Companies should put money up front and guarantee payments if they delay, cancel, leave or use less than planned. We should enforce existing protections, make the results public and fix gaps.
Protect property taxpayers and essential services. Before approving a deal, show residents what it means over time for their taxes, schools, fire protection and other services. Account for every tax break, any payments replacing property taxes, and the rules that adjust local tax rates. I would not promise lower homeowner tax bills without reliable numbers to back that up.
Protect water, infrastructure and public health. An independent review should look at what all these developments need together—not just one project at a time. Can we keep power reliable, protect drinking water during droughts, handle wastewater and respond to emergencies? Set firm limits on water use, noise and pollution, and make developers pay for needed improvements and protections.
Protect local decision-making and accountability. Residents deserve to see the costs, risks and promises before a decision, with a real chance to be heard. Local communities should keep control over where projects can be built. Count temporary construction jobs separately from permanent jobs, and tie tax breaks to investment, wages and verifiable results. Report publicly whether companies keep their promises.
No blanket ban. No blank check. Investment is welcome when the benefits are real, the promises are enforceable and the deal is fair to the people who already live here.

Mark Matthiesen

Republican (I)

Gary Wester

Democrat

Comments:

No on 3: The only issue in this campaign when it comes to abortion is that my opponent, Mark Matthiesen, will go to Jefferson City to vote to make abortion illegal, even in cases of rape and incest, putting the health and lives of Missouri women at risk. I find this profoundly disturbing. I will closely review every bill that comes before me, but I will never vote for any legislation that puts the health and lives of Missouri women at risk.

No on 4: Amendment 4 is the latest attack in a decades-long effort by Jefferson City politicians to weaken Missouri’s citizen initiative petition process and make it harder for voters to have the final say. Under Amendment 4, a citizen-led initiative petition would need to win a majority in each of Missouri’s eight congressional districts to pass while the amendments proposed by the legislature will only require a simple majority. Amendment 4 will allow a minority of Missouri’s voters to have the ability to veto any citizen-led initiative petition undermining the majority rule.

No on 5: Amendment 5 would give Jefferson City politicians permission to ignore constitutional taxpayer protections and hand them a blank check to raise taxes without a vote of the people. This amendment allows the expansion of sales tax to all services for the first time in Missouri history and allows lawmakers to potentially triple the average combined sales tax rate to 16% or higher on everything you buy. This is a regressive tax that will disproportionately affect lower wage earners.

Data Centers:

Tax incentives for data centers should be limited, performance-based, and conditional rather than automatic, with enforceable provisions.
Any incentive shall require:

· Binding performance targets, claw backs, and sunset provisions

· Protection for residential taxpayers from higher taxes, utility bills or reduced services

· Developer funded project specific roads, and other infrastructure improvements

· Enforceable water conservation and drought protections

· Contributions toward reliable new energy, grid capacity, storage, and resilience

Public disclosure, resident participation, and regional review

Mike Costlow

Republican (I)

Stephen Scott

Democrat

Comments:

No on 3: Missouri voters already made their position clear on reproductive freedom in 2024, and I do not support overturning that decision. Government should respect the will of the voters rather than repeatedly asking the same question until politicians get the answer they want. I also have concerns about combining separate and complicated healthcare issues into one constitutional amendment. Medical decisions should be based on evidence, appropriate standards of care, and discussions between patients, families, and qualified healthcare professionals—not broad political mandates written into the constitution.

No on 4: I strongly oppose changing Missouri’s citizen initiative process in a way that makes it weaker for the voters. The initiative petition process exists as a check on the government and gives citizens a direct voice when elected officials fail to act. I believe we should protect that right rather than make it harder for Missouri voters to use it.

No on 5: I oppose eliminating a major source of state revenue without a responsible and clearly defined replacement.

Data Centers: I support responsible data center development when there is a clear benefit to the local community. We have seen areas where data centers have generated significant new tax revenue that can support schools, infrastructure, public safety, and other local services. That potential should be part of the discussion.
At the same time, incentives should not become a blank check or shift costs onto residential taxpayers and utility customers. Large projects should be expected to help cover the infrastructure and energy demands they create. We should also encourage data centers to generate or offset more of their own energy needs through investments such as on-site or dedicated solar and wind generation.
Tax incentives should be transparent, performance-based, and tied to measurable community benefits, with safeguards such as infrastructure agreements and clawback provisions when promised investment is not delivered.
The future need of data centers and their computing power is undeniable. Healthcare, medicine, coding, application, and communications will all need more infrastructure and computing as we advance. Our society is moving to a more technologically advanced society. We need to balance both progress and safeguarding our communities.

Steve Ehlmann

Republican (I)

Data Center: No response

Residential Expansion: No response

Public Engagement: No response

David Veneziano

Democrat

Data Center:

Before we even start talking about tax policy for data centers, we need to talk about environmental impact. No data center should be considered if it will have a negative impact on water, hurt the power grid, create sound and light pollution, lack a clean recycling program, or destroy sensitive habitat. If a data center can show it doesn’t have adverse impacts to the environment, it still needs to show it will be a benefit to the local community through enduring and well paying employment, training programs, airtight employment loss protections, and complete transparency with no NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements). If a data center can show they would provide for all those human needs, only then should we start talking about tax policy and that policy would need to show the data center is paying enough to offset its existence to provide a financial benefit to the entire community.
Everything I listed above is required of a Clean Data Center, as defined by the Missouri Coalition for the Environment. The number of data centers built in the United States that meet those expectations – ZERO.
A full ban on dirty data centers is the only option until the companies building them want to show us they can be trusted.

Residential Expansion:

The review period for the County Master Plan is far too infrequent. The plan is meant to be reviewed and revised every five years, but the last master plan took seven. That duration is far too long. The master plan must be revised every two-three years with heavy municipality involvement. Because the master plan is revised so infrequently, county planners are reacting to changes instead of planning for them. Highway N is a perfect example of reactive planning that should have been addressed a decade ago through proactive planning.
Zoning within the county must protect natural spaces and avoid development in flood plains. Additionally, the zoning of residential areas must be constricted to ensure any housing reflects the needs of the population. Luxury apartments or massive estates do not help with affordable housing or the needs of the county. We need to focus on projects that provide for emerging families or our elderly population looking to downsize while staying near their children.
Lastly, developers wishing to build in St Charles County must pay into the community. They don’t get to just build and collect profit. They need to pay into our schools, our roads, our utilities, and show that their project can provide something for everyone. The community needs to have a say and developers need to cater first to the people already living here.

Public Engagement:

There are two major initiatives for input, transparency, and accessibility I’d like to pursue as St Charles County Executive.
The first initiative is monthly townhalls. This is a big time commitment, but it is important to put myself before the community for feedback. It also gives me the opportunity to gain valuable ideas from the community. The plan is to continuously change the location of the townhalls to ensure all areas of the county are seen and heard from.
The second initiative is governance modernization. If you speak with county employees, many will tell you that systems are still heavily paper-based, rely on antiquated and inflexible workflows, and that ideas for improvement are not pursued. In the same way that many residents of the county do not feel heard, employees are in the same boat. It is time to use the experience of our county government staff to drive real improvements so they can better serve the community they live in.

Matt Swanson

Republican (I)

Data Center: No response

Residential Expansion: No response

Public Engagement: No response

Mike Elam

Republican (I)

Data Center: No response

Residential Expansion: No response

Public Engagement: No response

Terry Hollander

Republican (I)

Data Center: No response

Residential Expansion: No response

Public Engagement: No response

Tim Baker

Republican (I)

Data Center: No response

Residential Expansion: No response

Public Engagement: No response

Monica Balesteri

Democrat

Data Center: No response

Residential Expansion: No response

Public Engagement: No response