ON THE ISSUES

• Provide communities the tools to fight back against the construction of unnessary warehouses & data centers
• Support economic development that safeguards our natural beauty, wildlife, and rural way of life
• Fund upgraded infrastructure and meaningful improvements across the 138th District in Northampton County
• Provide solutions to lower taxes for our families and small businesses
• Enact fair public education funding to prepare our students for the future
• Expand access to mental health care and services for children and adults
• Provide bipartisan, commonsense solutions to the issues facing our district and state

Affordability

Voters list affordability as a top concern, mentioning the cost of housing, gasoline, electricity and food. What measures can the state take to mitigate the pressure?

• Affordability is one of the biggest challenges facing Pennsylvania families. While our state government cannot control every factor that affects the cost of gasoline or groceries, it can take meaningful steps to reduce the financial pressure on working families, seniors, and small businesses. 
• Housing is one area where we can make a real difference. I support many of the proposals in Governor Shapiro's Housing Action Plan, including investing in the infrastructure needed to support new housing, modernizing local zoning and permitting processes to reduce unnecessary delays and costs, and cutting burdensome red tape that drives up the price of construction. I also support protections for residents of manufactured home communities, including reasonable limits on annual lot rent increases. These communities are home to many working families and seniors in the 138th District, and they deserve the stability of knowing they can afford to remain in their homes.
• We must also make Pennsylvania a more affordable place to live by investing in reliable infrastructure, supporting small businesses, and encouraging economic growth that creates good-paying jobs without placing additional burdens on taxpayers. Responsible fiscal management and efficient government can help reduce the pressure for future tax increases while ensuring that essential services remain strong.
• Finally, lowering costs requires bipartisan leadership. I will support practical, evidence-based legislation—regardless of which party introduces it—that helps families afford a home, pay their utility bills, put food on the table, and build a secure future here in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania’s minimum wage rate is $7.25, the same as the federal rate. Where do  you stand on raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2029?

• I support gradually raising Pennsylvania's minimum wage to $15 an hour. Pennsylvania has remained at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 since 2009, while the cost of housing, groceries, utilities, and other necessities has continued to rise. Working full-time should provide a path toward financial stability, not leave families struggling to make ends meet. 
• I support legislation that phases in a higher minimum wage over time, giving employers, especially small businesses, the opportunity to plan and adjust while ensuring workers receive fair compensation. I also support indexing the minimum wage to inflation after it reaches $15 so that future increases can occur gradually and predictably rather than requiring years of legislative inaction followed by large adjustments.
• I also believe we should pair a minimum wage increase with policies that help small businesses succeed, including reducing unnecessary regulations, streamlining permitting, investing in workforce development, and providing targeted tax relief where appropriate. Strong businesses and fairly compensated workers are not competing goals, they are both essential to a healthy economy. 
• The Pennsylvania House has repeatedly passed legislation to raise the minimum wage, but those efforts have not become law. If elected, I would support a responsible increase that benefits workers, respects small businesses, and keeps Pennsylvania competitive with neighboring states.

 Healthcare

In 2025, there were 497,000  Pennsylvanians enrolled in Pennie, the state’s health insurance marketplace for Obamacare. Since enhanced subsidies were ended by the Trump administration, the number has dropped by 160,000. To help low and middle income residents who can no longer afford health care, Gov. Josh Shapiro has proposed a $50 million State Affordability Program, which would independently subsidize insurance premiums, cutting average plan costs by 9% to 12%. Where do you stand on this proposal? 

• I support Governor Shapiro's proposed State Affordability Program because I believe access to affordable health care is essential to the financial security and well-being of Pennsylvania families. When people cannot afford health insurance, they often delay preventive care or treatment until health problems become more serious and more expensive for everyone. 
• As a public school teacher for more than 26 years, I have been fortunate to have quality health insurance negotiated through collective bargaining. My family and I have relied on that coverage during difficult times, such a when my late wife was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. I understand the peace of mind that comes from knowing you can receive medical care without facing financial hardship. Every Pennsylvanian deserves access to affordable, quality health care, regardless of where they work or how they obtain their insurance.I believe the Governor's proposal is a practical way to help working families, seniors who are not yet eligible for Medicare, and self-employed Pennsylvanians who purchase coverage through Pennie. By helping lower premiums, the state can make health insurance more accessible and reduce the number of uninsured residents, while promoting better health outcomes and greater financial stability for families across the Commonwealth.As a state representative, I would support fiscally responsible investments that expand access to affordable health care while working to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and transparently. Healthy communities are stronger communities, and making health insurance more affordable is an investment in Pennsylvania's future.

Data Centers

Where do you stand on allowing municipalities to enact a one-year moratorium on a data center proposal to give them time to craft local planning and zoning laws.  

• I support allowing municipalities to enact a one-year moratorium on proposed data center developments so they have the time and resources to establish thoughtful planning and zoning standards before these projects are considered. 
• Many of the townships in the 138th District are governed by part-time elected officials who are deeply committed to serving their communities but have limited staff and technical resources. They should have a fair opportunity to evaluate the potential impacts of large-scale developments proposed by multinational corporations with extensive legal, engineering, and financial resources.A temporary moratorium would allow municipalities to adopt clear, locally appropriate standards addressing issues such as building size, setbacks, water consumption, energy demand, noise, traffic, environmental impacts, and emergency services. Establishing these standards before an application is submitted provides greater certainty for both communities and developers and helps ensure that growth occurs in a responsible and transparent manner.
• I believe decisions about land use should be driven by local communities. Responsible economic development is important, but it must be balanced with protecting our natural resources, preserving the rural character of the 138th District, and ensuring that infrastructure and public services can support new development. A one-year moratorium is a reasonable, commonsense measure that gives municipalities the opportunity to make informed decisions that serve the long-term interests of their residents.

Where do you stand on a bill that would require data center developers to protect energy affordability, engage local communities, create family-sustaining jobs, and meet strong environmental standards. 

• I support legislation that requires data center developers to protect energy affordability, engage with local communities, create family-sustaining jobs, and meet strong environmental standards.  
• When a large data center was proposed in Lower Mount Bethel Township, I stood alongside residents who raised legitimate concerns about the project's impact on farmland, water resources, energy demand, traffic, and the rural character of our community. That experience reinforced my belief that economic development should improve the quality of life for local residents, not place additional burdens on them.I believe developers of projects of this scale should be expected to demonstrate that they will not shift higher utility costs onto Pennsylvania families, overburden local infrastructure, or damage our natural resources. They should also engage with the communities they seek to join, provide meaningful economic benefits through family-sustaining jobs, and meet strong environmental standards that protect our air, water, farmland, and wildlife.Pennsylvania should welcome responsible investment, but it must be on terms that protect the people who already call these communities home. Economic development and environmental stewardship are not competing priorities. They are both essential to preserving the quality of life that makes the 138th District such a special place to live, work, and raise a family.

Immigration Detention

Where do you stand on proposed legislation to ban ICE agents from wearing masks, to ban detentions being made within 1,000 feet of a county court house or near schools and hospitals and prohibit local law enforcement from assisting ICE agents? 

• I believe immigration laws should be enforced in a way that protects public safety, respects due process, and maintains trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. 
• I believe decisions about whether and how local law enforcement cooperates with federal immigration authorities should be made by local elected officials and law enforcement leaders, not by Harrisburg. Every community has different needs, and local leaders are in the best position to determine how their police resources should be used.I also believe schools, hospitals, and courthouses should be places where people can seek an education, receive medical care, or participate in the justice system without fear that routine immigration enforcement will deter them from doing so. When people avoid these institutions because they are afraid, it can undermine public safety, public health, and access to justice. For that reason, I support legislation that limits immigration enforcement activities in these sensitive locations, while recognizing that law enforcement should always retain the ability to respond to immediate threats to public safety.Finally, I believe law enforcement officers exercising government authority should generally be identifiable to the public. Transparency and accountability are essential to maintaining public confidence, and I support requiring federal immigration agents to display identifying information and limiting the use of face coverings except where there is a legitimate, documented safety or operational need.

There have been proposals floated to ban the construction of privately owned immigration centers in Pennsylvania and forbid municipalities from entering into agreements with private companies to house, detain or imprison immigrants. Where do you stand on this? 

• I believe any proposal to house or detain immigrants must be evaluated with the safety, capacity, and interests of the local community in mind. Communities deserve transparency, meaningful public input, and a thorough assessment of the impact on local infrastructure, emergency services, water resources, and other public services before any facility is approved. 
• I am generally reluctant to support one-size-fits-all mandates from Harrisburg that remove decision-making authority from local communities. Municipal officials are in the best position to determine whether a proposal is compatible with local zoning, available infrastructure, and the needs of their residents.The recent proposals considered in Berks and Schuylkill Counties demonstrated why these issues require careful planning. Projects that would significantly increase a community's population can place substantial demands on emergency services, utilities, and other local resources. Those impacts must be fully understood and addressed before any agreement is approved.My priority is ensuring that local communities have a meaningful voice in these decisions and that any proposal protects public safety, respects the rule of law, and does not place unreasonable burdens on taxpayers or local governments.

 Education

Where do you stand on the proposed resolution to eliminate school property taxes through a Constitutional Amendment? If you support it, explain how you think schools should be funded? 

• I do not support the proposed constitutional amendments (Senate Bill 962 and House Bill 1649) to eliminate school property taxes. While I recognize that property taxes place a significant burden on many homeowners, particularly seniors and families on fixed incomes, eliminating them without a reliable, sustainable replacement would jeopardize the stable funding our public schools depend on.
• As a former teacher, I know that school districts need predictable funding to provide a high-quality education, attract and retain excellent educators, and maintain safe learning environments. Rather than eliminating school property taxes outright, I support increasing the state's share of education funding, improving the fairness of Pennsylvania's funding formula, and providing targeted property tax relief to the homeowners who need it most.Our priority should be responsible tax reform that eases the burden on taxpayers while preserving local control and ensuring every student has access to a well-funded, high-quality public education and ensure our schools have the resources they need to succeed.

Where do you stand on bell-to-bell school cell phone bans? 

• As a former technology and engineering educator in Pennsylvania, I support bell-to-bell school cell phone restrictions. This is not about being anti-technology, technology is an important tool for modern learning when it is used intentionally and appropriately. The goal is to create an environment where students can focus, engage with their teachers and classmates, and be fully present throughout the school day. 
• During my career in education, I saw firsthand how difficult it can be for students to compete with constant notifications, social media, and the pressure to always remain connected. A consistent cell phone policy helps reduce distractions, improve academic engagement, encourage face-to-face communication, and address challenges such as cyberbullying and social conflicts that can follow students into the classroom.Schools should continue teaching digital citizenship and responsible technology use, but students also deserve dedicated time to learn without the constant distraction of a device. This policy is not about punishment, it is about creating a learning environment where every student has the opportunity to focus, build relationships, and succeed.

Senate Bill 1014 requires Pennsylvania public schools to implement "bell-to-bell" policies that prohibit students from using cellphones and other personal internet-connected devices during the school day. Passed by both chambers, the bill aims to improve academic performance, curb classroom distractions, and support youth mental health.Parents in Pennsylvania have been pushing school boards to limit the use of technology in the classroom, especially for younger students. Where do you stand on the issue? Should the state get involved?

• I support reasonable limitations on the use of technology in schools while recognizing that technology is an essential part of the modern classroom. As a former technology and engineering education teacher, I relied on technology as an important learning tool, but I also understood the value of hands-on, minds-on activities that challenged students to think critically, collaborate, and solve problems without relying on the internet for every answer. 
• I believe these policies are especially important for younger students, who are still developing focus, communication skills, and learning habits. A consistent statewide standard can help ensure that every student has the same opportunity to learn in an environment with fewer distractions and greater engagement.I support the state establishing clear expectations for public schools because education is a statewide responsibility. The Pennsylvania Constitution, Article III, Section 14, directs the General Assembly to provide for a “thorough and efficient system of public education.” Establishing a common framework for policies helps provide consistency across school districts while still allowing educators and administrators the flexibility to implement policies that meet the needs of their students and communities.

 Skill Games

Following a state Supreme Court ruling, lawmakers have 120 days to enact regulations and taxes on skill games. Proposals include Gov. Shapiro’s plan to levy a 52% tax, a Senate Republican backed plan to levy a 35% to 36% tax; a 16% tax on gross revenue, mirroring the lower state tax rates applied to casino table games, and flat monthly $500 fee per machine. What plan do you support? 

• I support establishing a clear regulatory framework and a reasonable tax structure for skill games in Pennsylvania. These games are already operating throughout the Commonwealth, and bringing them into a regulated system can provide additional revenue to support important priorities such as education, housing, infrastructure, and other essential services. 
• I believe the goal should be finding a responsible balance, one that generates needed revenue for Pennsylvania while creating fair and predictable rules for businesses. I am disappointed that Harrisburg has not yet reached a bipartisan agreement on this issue, and I believe lawmakers should work together to develop a solution that addresses the concerns of both taxpayers and business owners. As legislators consider skill game regulations, we must also be careful to avoid unintended consequences for businesses that offer different types of entertainment games, such as family entertainment centers and establishments like Dave & Buster's or Chuck E. Cheese. These businesses provide recreational activities that are distinct from the skill games targeted by this legislation, and any regulatory framework should clearly distinguish between them.Ultimately, I support a balanced approach that recognizes the need for oversight and revenue while protecting legitimate businesses, encouraging economic activity, and ensuring Pennsylvania's gaming laws are clear, fair, and enforceable.

 Voting

Where do you stand on legislation that would allow counties to pre-canvass mail-in ballots beginning seven days prior to election day?

• I support allowing counties to begin pre-canvassing mail-in ballots up to seven days before Election Day. This is a commonsense election administration reform that county election officials from both Republican and Democratic counties have requested for years because it would help them manage the growing number of mail-in ballots more efficiently. Under current law, counties cannot begin pre-canvassing until 7:00 a.m. on Election Day, which contributes to delays in reporting results.
• Importantly, pre-canvassing does not mean votes are counted or election results are released before Election Day. It simply allows election workers to verify ballot envelopes, prepare ballots for scanning, and complete other administrative tasks so that ballots can be counted more efficiently once the polls close. The law would continue to prohibit the release of any vote totals before Election Day.Pennsylvania's voters deserve elections that are secure, accurate, and efficiently administered. Giving counties additional time to prepare mail-in ballots will help reduce unnecessary delays, lessen the burden on election workers, and increase public confidence in the election process without compromising election security.

Where do you stand on requiring a voter ID? 

• I do not support voter ID requirements that create unnecessary barriers for eligible voters. I believe election security is important, but any identification requirement should be simple, accessible, and designed to ensure that every eligible citizen can exercise their right to vote. 
• In Pennsylvania, a standard state identification card costs less than $50 for a four-year period, and programs already exist to provide identification at no cost to certain individuals, including those experiencing homelessness. I would support expanding free or reduced-cost identification options for seniors, low-income residents, and anyone who may face financial barriers to obtaining an ID.While a standard driver's license or other commonly used government-issued identification may be reasonable, I oppose requirements, such as those found in the SAVE Act that make voting more difficult or create unnecessary obstacles for eligible voters, especially married women. Our focus should be on protecting the integrity of our elections while ensuring that every qualified Pennsylvanian has a fair and accessible opportunity to participate in our democracy.

Where do you stand on legislation that would eliminate satellite voting offices such as those in Lehigh and Northampton counties?

• I do not support eliminating satellite voting offices or other options that make voting more accessible for residents. Election administration should focus on making it easier for eligible voters to participate while maintaining secure and accurate elections. 
• In 2024, Northampton County sought to open a satellite voting office in Washington Township, and the county also provided pop-up voting opportunities in Upper Mount Bethel Township. These services are especially valuable in large, rural communities where residents may face challenges traveling to the county seat or other centralized voting locations, particularly seniors and individuals with limited transportation options.Local election officials should have the flexibility to determine what resources and services best meet the needs of their communities. Rather than eliminating options that improve access, we should support secure and efficient methods that encourage participation and ensure every eligible voter has a reasonable opportunity to cast their ballot.

 Reproductive rights

Where do you stand on a proposed amendment to enshrine reproductive autonomy—including abortion, contraception, and miscarriage care—into the Pennsylvania Constitution.

• I support legislation such as HB 1957 to protect reproductive autonomy, including access to abortion, contraception, and miscarriage care. I believe these are deeply personal healthcare decisions that should be made by individuals in consultation with their healthcare providers, based on their own circumstances and medical needs, not determined by politicians or government mandates.
• This issue is also personal for me. My late wife and I experienced the loss of our first child through miscarriage. While I cannot fully understand what she went through physically and emotionally, I saw firsthand the importance of compassionate, timely medical care and the need for families to be able to make private healthcare decisions with the guidance of trusted medical professionals.Enshrining these protections in the Pennsylvania Constitution would provide a clear and lasting safeguard for reproductive healthcare decisions and help ensure that access does not depend on changes in political leadership or shifting legislative priorities. Patients and their doctors should have the ability to make informed medical decisions without unnecessary government interference.At the same time, protecting reproductive autonomy must go hand in hand with supporting policies that strengthen maternal healthcare, expand access to prenatal and postpartum care, improve healthcare access in underserved communities, and provide families with the resources they need during some of the most difficult moments of their lives.I believe Pennsylvania should respect personal freedom, support healthy families, and ensure that every person has access to the healthcare they need throughout all stages of life.

 Gun rights

Where do you stand on requiring universal background checks, banning firearms to persons who violated protection from abuse orders, allowing concealed weapons to be carried without a license and banning municipalities from passing legislation that is stricter than state law? 

• I support universal background checks for all firearm purchases. I feel they are a common-sense measure that can help keep guns out of the hands of people who should not own them while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners. 
• I support prohibiting individuals who have violated Protection From Abuse orders from possessing firearms. As the son of a former police officer, I believe protecting victims of domestic violence and reducing the risk of further harm should be a public safety priority.I do not support allowing concealed firearms to be carried without a license. It is my belief that Pennsylvania's licensing process provides an important level of accountability and helps ensure that individuals carrying concealed firearms meet the legal requirements to do so.
• Finally, I support maintaining a consistent statewide framework for firearm laws and prohibiting municipalities from passing firearm regulations that are stricter than state law. A uniform statewide standard helps ensure that firearm laws are clear, consistent, and applied equally across Pennsylvania, reducing confusion for lawful gun owners while preserving the state's authority to regulate firearms. 

 Blight/Landlords

A bill to combat blight and hold out-of-state landlords accountable is heading to the Governor’s desk. House Bill 858 would require property owners who are not owner-occupants to provide contact information to the county chief assessor. Where do you stand on the bill to hold out-of-state landlords accountable?

• I support House Bill 858 because local governments need better tools to address blighted properties and hold absentee property owners accountable. Blight does not just affect one property, it impacts surrounding businesses, homeowners, reduces property values, creates safety concerns, and places an unnecessary burden on local governments and taxpayers. 
• I live just a few miles from a long-standing blighted property in Plainfield Township near Route 33. The township has struggled to hold the owner accountable despite the property becoming a persistent nuisance that consumes local resources and negatively impacts the surrounding community. This situation demonstrates why counties and municipalities need better information and stronger tools to address properties that are neglected by owners who do not live in the community.Blighted properties can also create serious public safety concerns. Even when structures are boarded up, those barriers can deteriorate or be removed, creating opportunities for unauthorized entry and putting residents, especially children and local youth, at risk.Requiring non-owner-occupied property owners to provide current contact information is a reasonable step toward accountability. Property ownership comes with responsibilities, and owners who allow properties to become hazards should not be able to avoid responsibility simply because they live outside the community. I support policies that empower local officials to protect neighborhoods, preserve property values, and ensure communities remain safe and well-maintained.         

Jared is very open to listening to individuals and families in the 138th and looks  forward to meeting you!