Public Record and Ordered Liberty Alignment Review

Publisher identity: TheMoralAlgorithm.com
Coverage: Greene County and City of Springfield, Missouri; general election November 3, 2026
Research cutoff: October 14, 2026
Document type: Public, evidence-based comparison against stated principles. Not a candidate endorsement, voting instruction, or representation that any candidate subscribes to The Moral Algorithm.

The central test: Does a public action or proposal protect individual liberty, enable meaningful economic and civic participation, apply fair rules to everyone, constrain concentrated power, and keep public officials accountable to the people?

AT-A-GLANCE ALIGNMENT — START HERE

THE MORAL ALGORITHM | ORDERED LIBERTY | NOVEMBER 3, 2026

Reading the tables: YES = the measure's YES outcome aligns with the stated principles; NO = the measure's NO outcome is closer to those principles; MIXED = important benefits and risks in both directions; UNKNOWN = evidence insufficient. For candidates, ALIGNS means verified priorities or actions overlap with the framework; CONFLICTS means material tension; MIXED means both; UNKNOWN means no defensible conclusion. These are issue-based findings, not voting instructions or endorsements. Party labels identify candidates; they do not determine classifications.

1. Missouri ballot measures

Measure	ALIGNMENT	REASON — one line
Amendment 3 — reproductive rights and minor medical restrictions	NO	Repeals voter-approved reproductive rights and expands constitutional restrictions on individual medical decisions; child-protection claims remain a competing consideration.
Amendment 6 — citizen initiatives	YES	Shields voter-made laws from routine legislative reversal; an 80% legislative threshold can also complicate necessary corrections.
Amendment 7 — Show-Me Prosperity Fund	NO*	Public investment fits the framework, but a credible capitalization and public-service replacement plan has not been demonstrated.
Amendment 8 — sheriff removal	NO	Concentrates initiation of removal actions in the attorney general despite legitimate interests in protecting sheriffs from political removals.
Proposition A — congressional redistricting	NO	Rejects mid-decade replacement of congressional boundaries, consistent with stable and impartial representation.

For Amendment 7, NO is an evidence-based provisional assessment of this implementation, not opposition to a sovereign wealth fund in principle.

2. Springfield charter questions

Question	ALIGNMENT	REASON — one line
1 — Delegate city powers	NO	Expands delegated personnel and administrative authority without demonstrated corresponding independent checks.
2 — Personnel board	NO	Removes a layer of independent review from merit-rule and application procedures.
3 — Purchasing procedures	MIXED	Broadens competitive bidding but moves purchasing rules into more easily amended ordinances.
4 — Gender-neutral charter language	YES	Makes official wording more inclusive without materially expanding government authority.

3. U.S. House and Missouri State Auditor

Office	Candidate	ALIGNMENT	REASON — one line
U.S. House 7	Eric Burlison (R)	MIXED	Limited-government priorities overlap; broad deregulation and spending cuts pose participation-floor questions.
U.S. House 7	Missi Hesketh (D)	ALIGNS (stated)	Affordability, healthcare, education, and limiting concentrated political influence.
U.S. House 7	Kevin Craig (L)	CONFLICTS / MIXED	Civil-liberties overlap, but drastic reductions in public institutions threaten the guaranteed participation foundation.
State Auditor	Scott Fitzpatrick (R)	ALIGNS (documented)	Has issued substantive government audits, including scrutiny of officials from his own party.
State Auditor	Quentin Wilson (D)	ALIGNS (stated)	Public-finance experience and transparency priorities; independent performance still untested here.
State Auditor	Dustin Coffell (L)	UNKNOWN	Insufficient specific, verified audit platform or performance record.

4. Missouri Senate (only one district appears on an individual ballot)

District	Candidate	ALIGNMENT	REASON — one line
20	Lori Rook (R)	UNKNOWN	Elder-law experience is relevant but specific public-policy alignment was not established.
20	Sean Falconer (D)	ALIGNS (stated)	Rural infrastructure, healthcare, education, younger farmers, and opposition to extractive pharmacy intermediaries.
30	Melanie Stinnett (R)	MIXED	Concrete disability-employment work aligns; tax and healthcare approaches need distributional scrutiny.
30	Betsy Fogle (D)	ALIGNS (documented/stated)	Disability services, workers, healthcare, education, and respect for voter-adopted protections.
30	Cecil Ince (L)	MIXED	Opposes corporate privilege; proposed revenue alternatives may burden essential household consumption.

5. Missouri House (only one district appears on an individual ballot)

District	Candidate	ALIGNMENT	REASON — one line
130	Bishop Davidson (R)	MIXED / UNCLEAR	Limited-government orientation; economic and education effects need a verified bill-by-bill review.
130	Leslie Jones (D)	ALIGNS (limited/stated)	Community education and public-health service interests; detailed fiscal proposals unverified.
131	Bill Owen (R)	MIXED	Capital and economic-development experience; beneficiary distribution of incentives requires scrutiny.
131	Ashley Cossins (D)	UNKNOWN	Specific substantive positions not sufficiently verified.
132	Russ Gosselin (R)	ALIGNS (practical work)	Poverty-reduction and lower-housing-cost nonprofit experience connects to economic participation.
132	Jeremy Dean (D)	ALIGNS (documented/stated)	Work on poverty, urban development, and civil rights overlaps with participation goals.
133	Jerry Angelo (R)	MIXED	Healthcare and affordability overlap; differs on the extent of citizen-initiative safeguards.
133	Katelyn Zach (D)	ALIGNS (stated)	Supports voter sovereignty, healthcare, housing, labor protections, and workable public financing.
134	Alex Riley (R)	CONFLICTS / MIXED	Regulatory and healthcare priorities create tensions with universal access and rights protections.
134	K. Grant (D)	UNKNOWN	Reliable policy specifics not established.
135	Michael Hasty (R)	UNKNOWN / MIXED	Public oversight focus reported; details and evidence on policy outcomes insufficient.
135	Johnny Chiles (D)	ALIGNS (limited/practical)	Local manufacturing, education, and entrepreneurship overlap; legislative commitments unverified.
136	Jacey Buckles (R)	MIXED	Small business, infrastructure, and affordability overlap; financing and concentrated-power controls unclear.
136	Stephanie Hein (D)	ALIGNS (documented/stated)	Workforce, higher education, budgeting, and public-finance experience support participation aims.
137	Darin Chappell (R)	MIXED / UNCLEAR	Budget and health committee roles established; specific policy effects need closer analysis.
137	Bryce Lockwood (D)	ALIGNS (stated)	Healthcare, training, education, local control, and limits on preferential corporate benefits.

6. Greene County offices

Office	Candidate	ALIGNMENT	REASON — one line
Presiding Commissioner	Bob Dixon (R)	MIXED / UNCLEAR	Budgeting experience; recurring fiscal sustainability requires scrutiny.
Circuit Clerk	Bryan Feemster (R)	UNKNOWN	Insufficient independently evaluated access and performance evidence.
County Clerk	Shane Schoeller (R)	ALIGNS (documented)	Bipartisan election teams and election-verification procedures advance accountability.
Recorder of Deeds	Cheryl Dawson-Spaulding (R)	UNKNOWN	Public-service experience, but independent accuracy/access outcomes not assessed.
Prosecuting Attorney	Dan Patterson (R)	ALIGNS (program level)	Conviction integrity, treatment-court and restoration initiatives overlap with procedural fairness.
Collector	Allen Icet (R)	UNKNOWN	Collection practices and taxpayer protections not independently evaluated here.
County Auditor	Cindy Stein (R)	MIXED / UNCLEAR	Extensive audit tenure; independence and measurable results need comparison.
County Auditor	Angela Crawford (D)	ALIGNS (stated)	Explicit financial transparency, independent review, and waste-prevention priorities.
Sheriff	Jason Johnson (R)	UNKNOWN	Not enough verified data on jail conditions, force, complaints, and independent oversight.

7. Judicial retention (nonpartisan)

Judge	ALIGNMENT	REASON — one line
Paul C. Wilson	YES — qualified	Selected opinions support citizen initiatives and constitutional limits; not a claim of total policy agreement.
Matthew P. Hamner	YES — qualified	Selected opinions emphasize proof requirements and procedural safeguards.
Nathan Taylor	UNKNOWN	Positive professional review; representative substantive decisions not examined.
Philip M. Fuhrman	UNKNOWN	Positive professional review; representative substantive decisions not examined.
Margaret Palmietto	UNKNOWN	Positive professional review; representative substantive decisions not examined.

Source and certainty note: The statements above are condensed from the detailed case-by-case material below. ALIGNS (stated) describes promises or priorities, not proven legislative outcomes. UNKNOWN is neither approval nor disapproval. The full source register appears at the end.

---

Executive summary

This review applies the publicly articulated Ordered Liberty framework to every item on Greene County's official composite November 2026 ballot. The composite includes several state legislative districts; a person's actual ballot has only the races and city questions that apply to their residential address. Party identification is provided for reference, not used as a proxy for alignment. Judicial retention is a nonpartisan vote.

Alignment vocabulary:

• Converges: Verified proposal, practice, or stated priority overlaps substantially with a specified Ordered Liberty principle; this does not mean agreement on all issues.
• Diverges: Verified proposal, practice, or stated priority conflicts with a specified principle; this does not mean the person or measure has no merits.
• Mixed: Meaningful convergence and divergence, or an unresolved tradeoff, are present.
• Not established: Adequate public evidence was not verified to assign a substantive position. Never interpret this as either approval or disapproval.
• Professional performance positive: A judicial performance finding; not a finding of philosophical agreement.

Important distinction: The words YES and NO in the ballot-measure analyses explain the legal effect of those options. This document does not tell readers which option to select. For candidates, the analysis addresses policy alignment, not character or ability. Publicly reported claims are distinguished from administrative and voting records.

The Moral Algorithm standard

1. Common good / stakeholder test: Do benefits and burdens reflect the interests of all affected people, rather than primarily privileged intermediaries or concentrated interests?
2. Fairness / veil-of-ignorance test: Would the same rule appear legitimate without knowing which political, economic, or social position one occupies?
3. Human flourishing / participation test: Does the decision maintain practical access to education, productive work, healthcare, civil rights, and the economic means to participate?
4. Reciprocity / constitutional power test: Would we support the same authority if exercised by our political opponents? Are rights, due process, representation, and lawful limits protected?
5. Accountability / evidence test: Is there a transparent process, independent oversight, measurable outcomes, and a meaningful remedy when institutions fail?

The framework also distinguishes makers (people creating productive value through work, skill, innovation, or risk) from takers (actors deriving advantage mainly from coercive privilege, monopoly, or economic extraction). These are descriptions of economic conduct, not labels assigned to candidates. Ordered Liberty's proposed public-capital mechanisms and broad income floor are policy ideas, not constitutional duties binding judges.

---

Part I — Statewide ballot measures

Primary source: Missouri Secretary of State, 2026 Ballot Measures: https://www.sos.mo.gov/petitions/2026BallotMeasures

Constitutional Amendment 3 — Reproductive rights and restrictions on gender-transition procedures for minors

What YES does: Repeals the reproductive-healthcare-rights provision voters adopted in 2024; permits new abortion restrictions subject to specified exceptions; calls for parental or judicial consent where applicable for minors; and constitutionally prohibits certain gender-transition procedures for minors with stated exceptions. What NO does: Keeps the existing 2024 reproductive-rights provision and does not enact the new constitutional restrictions. The language bundles two medical-policy subjects into one question.

Convergence with Ordered Liberty: Proponents can invoke safeguarding minors, parental involvement, and a state's responsibility to regulate medical practice. A serious rights analysis also considers the interests of children and the medical evidence underlying restrictions.

Divergence / tension: Repealing a recently voter-approved individual-rights provision raises direct questions about personal autonomy, unequal treatment, and whether elected officials should narrow constitutional protections over a popular vote. Combining unlike policy issues constrains voters' ability to express independent consent on each. The measure also changes who can decide difficult private medical questions.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Substantial divergence from individual-autonomy and citizen-sovereignty components; competing claimed child-protection interests require separate examination. No claim is made that all voters share one ethical view of abortion or care for minors.

Evidence: Official ballot title and fair-ballot explanation [S2]; 2024 amendment history [S3].

Constitutional Amendment 6 — Citizen initiative and referendum powers

YES: Constitutionally strengthens the initiative/referendum process; maintains existing petition signature and statewide-majority thresholds; gives courts a way to revise ballot summaries; and generally requires at least 80% approval in each chamber before legislators can submit certain modifications of voter-enacted laws or restore laws rejected by referendum. NO: Leaves current initiative and referendum constitutional arrangements in place.

Convergence: Protecting voters against easy legislative circumvention closely matches popular sovereignty, reciprocity, and limits on concentrated political power. Preserving ordinary majority thresholds sustains access to direct democracy.

Tradeoff: An 80% hurdle can make legitimate technical fixes slower, even when a voter-enacted law contains defects. Judicial review of ballot language also warrants clearly defined legal standards so courts do not become substitute political decision-makers.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Strong convergence on popular sovereignty; narrower institutional-flexibility and judicial-discretion concerns.

Evidence: Official full ballot and fair-ballot explanation [S2].

Constitutional Amendment 7 — Show-Me Prosperity Fund

YES: Creates a permanent public investment endowment with a long-term objective of replacing state-imposed taxes once net investment earnings become sufficient; limits annual appropriations to 3% of the average market value over the preceding five fiscal years and contains a contingency for insolvency, revenue shortfall, or program failure. NO: Does not constitutionalize this fund or conditional tax phaseout. Passage does not immediately eliminate taxes.

Convergence: Shared public capital, compounding investment returns, preserving the principal, and benefiting residents collectively resemble parts of the Ordered Liberty public-capital/sovereign-wealth framework.

Divergence / unanswered feasibility: The ballot mechanism does not itself establish a credible initial capitalization amount, contribution stream, time to maturity, distribution rule for residents, or complete plan to cover revenue needs through downturns. Eliminating broad tax instruments without defining replacement financing risks shifting services and fiscal risks onto households. Constitutional constraints may also impede adjustments to rapidly changing automation and labor markets.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Conceptual convergence on public wealth; material divergence or unresolved feasibility on funding, access, and resilient public-service finance. Calling it simply for or against public banking would be misleading.

Evidence: Official measure [S2]. The fiscal concerns above are analytic questions, not findings that the fund would certainly fail.

Constitutional Amendment 8 — Sheriff's selection and removal

YES: Constitutionalizes four-year elections for sheriffs and related provisions already largely found in statute, and limits removal to a quo warranto proceeding initiated by the state Attorney General. NO: Retains the present statutory rules and their amendability.

Convergence: Electing sheriffs can preserve local democratic accountability; lawful removal procedures protect against politically motivated removals.

Divergence: Vesting the initiation of removal in a single statewide office can narrow independent checks where that office is unwilling to act. The reciprocity test asks whether the same concentrated gatekeeping power is acceptable when an opposed administration holds it.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed on electoral legitimacy and due process; substantial concern over concentrated removal authority.

Evidence: Official measure [S2].

Proposition A — Congressional map referendum

YES: Approves HB 1 (2025 Second Extraordinary Session), redrawing Missouri congressional districts. NO: Rejects that law, leaving the 2022 boundaries in place under the official ballot explanation.

Convergence: Supporters of the new map emphasize legislative mapmaking authority and county-boundary preservation. The referendum itself gives voters an opportunity to approve or reject the law.

Divergence / principle at stake: Mid-decade redistricting without a new census can permit electoral line-drawing driven by expected partisan advantage. Stable district rules, fair representation, and limits on self-interested changes to election procedure are central to Ordered Liberty. A finding about partisan intent would require a separate evidentiary and legal record, not merely a disagreement with the map.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Serious tension between legislative discretion and stable, impartial representation; the citizen referendum mechanism itself converges with public sovereignty.

Evidence: Official measure [S2].

---

Part II — Springfield charter questions

Applies only to voters within the relevant City of Springfield election jurisdiction. The city charter questions appear on pages 8–9 of the Greene County composite [S1]. The measure text references General Ordinance No. 28331; readers considering implementation details should examine that ordinance and the complete amended charter provisions.

Question 1 — Delegation of administrative and personnel authority

YES: Expressly authorizes the city manager to delegate specified charter duties to assistant city managers, appointment/removal authority to assistant managers and department directors, and directors' charter duties to departmental subordinates. NO: Preserves existing charter language.

Convergence: Delegation can shorten delays, establish clear operational responsibility, and let officials with relevant expertise act promptly.

Divergence: Broader delegation without specified, transparent reviews, written standards, and appeal rights can dilute direct accountability and make employment decisions harder to audit.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed, with an accountability concern until safeguards are confirmed. Delegation alone is not proof of abuse.

Question 2 — Personnel board and merit rules

YES: Moves from a three-step to two-step merit-rule adoption process, removing the personnel board from that approval role; shifts application-form approval to the human-resources director. NO: Keeps the existing process.

Convergence: A shorter process may improve administration and make one office clearly responsible.

Divergence: Removing an additional review body can weaken independent protections against favoritism or arbitrary personnel rules. The actual effect depends on other civil-service and legal safeguards that remain.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed, with a concrete reduction in one internal check.

Question 3 — Municipal purchasing rules

YES: Lets the city council establish detailed purchasing structure, thresholds, and types by ordinance, sets the city manager as default purchasing signatory, and extends competitive-bidding requirements to additional procurement methods. NO: Maintains the existing charter structure.

Convergence: Additional competitive bidding can constrain favoritism and improve public value. Ordinances may permit transparent adaptation as procurement methods change.

Divergence: Moving thresholds and other core purchasing rules from a charter to ordinary ordinances makes them easier to change. The city should publish contracts, exemptions, bid comparisons, conflict disclosures, and performance outcomes.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed; competitive safeguards converge, easier changes to procurement authority create a monitoring need.

Question 4 — Gender-neutral charter language

YES: Substitutes gender-neutral pronouns and references in charter language. NO: Retains existing wording.

Convergence: Clear inclusive institutional wording is consistent with treating all individuals equally under public rules.

Limit: This is primarily a language change, not evidence of improved substantive services or rights enforcement.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Convergence on neutral treatment, with limited direct policy impact.

Evidence for all four questions: [S1].

---

Part III — Federal and statewide candidates

Interpretation: A candidate's party designation comes from the certified ballot. Incumbent conduct and specified proposals are stronger evidence than generalized campaign promises. Named sources below establish candidate identity and, where available, the listed priorities. None of these assessments implies a candidate has endorsed Ordered Liberty.

U.S. House — Missouri District 7

Eric W. Burlison (R), incumbent

Publicly reported policy orientation: Smaller federal government, reduced taxation and regulation, tighter border policy, and conservative positions on healthcare and other national issues [S7].

Convergence: Distrust of excessive government authority and some opposition to privileged government arrangements can fit institutional restraint and fair-market access. Divergence: Broad deregulatory or spending-reduction policies conflict with Ordered Liberty where they strip practical access to healthcare, education, or protection against private monopolies without credible replacements. Evidence limitation: This document does not claim to have audited every roll-call vote, donor, or bill.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed; important economic-foundation questions remain.

Missi Hesketh (D), challenger

Publicly reported priorities: Affordability, accessible healthcare and Medicaid, education, and concern about the influence of wealthy interests in politics [S7].

Convergence: These priorities overlap with the participation floor, public accountability, and stakeholder rather than shareholder-only outcomes. Unresolved: The costs, funding methods, anti-monopoly mechanisms, and limits on state authority require more detail. Campaign commitments are not governing results.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Stated convergence on participation and accountability; implementation unproven.

Kevin Craig (L), challenger

Publicly reported priorities: Strong reductions in federal agencies, spending, and taxation, with an expansive conception of individual freedom [S8].

Convergence: Civil-liberties and anti-coercion arguments can overlap with Ordered Liberty's emphasis on limits to power. Divergence: Removing major public capacities without alternative guarantees would leave the model's economic and cognitive foundation uncertain. Unresolved: Practical replacement institutions and funding.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed, with structural tension over the state's necessary protective and enabling functions.

Missouri State Auditor

Scott Fitzpatrick (R), incumbent

Public record: Has led state audit operations and issued findings scrutinizing government practices, including activity associated with an administration of his own party [S9]. Convergence: Independent financial review, records controls, waste detection, and lawful expenditure checks directly fit accountability. Open questions: Breadth, timeliness, and consistency of audits; measures taken after findings; cross-party application. Do not infer independence from a single case alone.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Demonstrated convergence on financial oversight; full performance assessment incomplete.

Quentin Wilson (D), challenger

Publicly reported background: Former Missouri Department of Revenue director; presents accountability and transparency as priorities [S10]. Convergence: Relevant experience in public financial administration and attention to oversight. Open questions: A sufficiently specific independent audit plan, independence protections, and prior results have not been established here.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Potential stated convergence; practical independence not yet established.

Dustin Coffell (L), challenger

Record available for this review: Certified candidate [S1]; public party affiliation is not enough to infer professional audit philosophy or conduct. Convergence/divergence: No sufficiently specific verified proposal or record assessed.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Not established.

---

Part IV — Missouri Senate candidates

Only one Senate district on the composite will appear for any given address.

District 20

Lori Rook (R)

Background reported: Attorney whose professional work includes elder-law matters [S11]. Potential convergence: Experience protecting legal interests of older or vulnerable residents could inform due process and access. Unresolved: Concrete proposed legislation on healthcare, education, business concentration, public capital, and voter sovereignty has not been sufficiently verified in this review. Professional biography is not a vote record.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Not established beyond possible domain overlap.

Sean Falconer (D)

Reported positions: Emphasizes healthcare, education, rural infrastructure, support for young farmers, and concern about pharmacy-benefit-manager practices [S11]. Convergence: Public access and reform of rent-seeking intermediaries connect to participation and competitive producer-centered markets. Unresolved: Specific statutory design, funding, and enforcement proposals.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Stated convergence on participation and anti-extraction; results untested.

District 30

Melanie Stinnett (R)

Public record: Legislator and healthcare provider; worked on the Ticket to Work Health Assurance framework for people with disabilities [S12]. Also emphasizes school choice, tax relief, and public safety. Convergence: Removing obstacles to work for people with disabilities speaks directly to meaningful economic participation. Divergence/tension: Depending on financing and program design, tax cuts or market-first healthcare approaches can undermine universal access. Unresolved: Full fiscal and roll-call analysis.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed; concrete convergence on disability employment.

Betsy Fogle (D)

Public record and reported priorities: Legislative and budget experience, healthcare and disability services, labor protections, public education, and respect for voter-enacted protections [S12]. Convergence: Worker participation, healthcare access, and citizen sovereignty closely overlap with Ordered Liberty. Unresolved: Funding, budget tradeoffs, independent evaluation of policy outcomes, and broader record.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Substantial documented/stated convergence; implementation questions remain.

Cecil Ince (L)

Reported positions: Fiscal scrutiny and opposition to special advantages for corporations; has discussed alternative tax methods [S12]. Convergence: Anti-privilege and accountability principles. Divergence/tension: Taxing essential utility use can place proportionally larger burdens on households unless corrected by credits, protections, or other design choices. Unresolved: Specific rates, exemptions, and distributional modeling.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed; anti-privilege convergence, distributional questions outstanding.

---

Part V — Missouri House candidates

Only the House district associated with an address appears on an individual ballot. These eight districts appear on Greene County's composite, not simultaneously on a typical ballot.

District 130

Bishop Davidson (R), incumbent

Verified scope: Certified candidate and incumbent [S1, S4]. His public conservative orientation is not by itself evidence on each Ordered Liberty test. Questions for a full record audit: Actual votes affecting school access, taxation, employer power, healthcare, and citizen initiatives; whether his legislative actions match stated positions.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Not established by specific primary evidence in this review.

Leslie Jones (D)

Reported background: Community-facing work involving education and therapeutic services [S13]. Possible convergence: Experience with learning, access, and community health touches the participation principle. Unresolved: Specific legislative, fiscal, and constitutional positions; no officeholding results assessed.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Possible domain overlap; substantive policy alignment not established.

District 131

Bill Owen (R), incumbent

Public background: Legislative service and finance/banking experience [S13]. Potential convergence: Understanding credit access and small-business capital. Potential divergence: Any financial-industry incentive or tax preference would need scrutiny for capture or concentration. Neither a banking career nor party membership proves capture. Unresolved: Verified bill-by-bill effects and donor review.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Not established; finance-related issues merit specific examination.

Ashley Cossins (D)

Verified scope: Certified candidate [S1, S4]. No adequate, attributable issue-by-issue public platform was independently established for this report. Convergence/divergence: Cannot responsibly infer either from ballot label.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Not established.

District 132

Russ Gosselin (R)

Reported background: Nonprofit work focused on helping low-income families build stability, including housing-related supports [S13]. Convergence: Direct work on economic participation and upward mobility fits an opportunity floor. Unresolved: Whether proposed government policy can reproduce those outcomes fairly, sustainably, and at scale.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Practical-experience convergence; legislative alignment unproven.

Jeremy Dean (D), incumbent

Reported record: Legislative experience and stated interests in poverty, community development, and civil rights [S13]. Convergence: These topics overlap with participation and equal civic standing. Unresolved: The report does not audit his full votes, enacted outcomes, or the distribution of public-development benefits.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Stated and issue-area convergence; complete performance evaluation pending.

District 133

Jerry Angelo (R)

Direct public interview: Emphasized supporting families, reducing domestic and intimate-partner violence, improving schools, and studying these issues through a proposed family commission [S5]. Convergence: Safety, human flourishing, and family stability. Questions: How a commission's powers, independence, measurable outcomes, and budget would work; other direct-democracy issues require verification beyond this interview.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Stated convergence on safety and family participation; institutional specifics outstanding.

Katelyn Zach (D)

Direct public interview: Identified affordable housing, Medicaid access, fully funded public schools, worker protections, and reproductive freedom as priorities [S5]. Convergence: Direct overlap with the material and civic participation tests, particularly housing and access to care. Questions: Tax and spending design, constraints against capture, and implementation evidence.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Strong stated convergence; no governing record yet established.

District 134

Alex Riley (R), incumbent

Reported orientation: Leadership position in the House and policy emphasis on tax reduction, regulatory restraint, and market-oriented approaches [S14]. Convergence: Lowering arbitrary entry barriers can support entrepreneurship and economic freedom. Divergence/tension: Where policy reduces labor or healthcare protections or burdens lower-income households, it could conflict with equal economic participation. Unresolved: Specific bill votes and measurable effects, not just ideological labels.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed; potential conflicts depend on verified policy effects.

K. Grant (D)

Verified scope: Officially listed candidate [S1, S4]. A secondary election guide identifies the candidate as Kelsey Grant [S15], but the official ballot prints K. Grant. Unresolved: Detailed platform and verifiable record not established.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Not established.

District 135

Michael Hasty (R)

Reported background: Veteran and commentator on local school governance and civic accountability [S13]. Possible convergence: Transparent public-school oversight is a legitimate accountability objective. Questions: Specific proposed measures, their practical effect on educational access, due process, and fair treatment; claims need primary sourcing.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Not established beyond possible accountability overlap.

John Michael (Johnny) Chiles (D)

Reported background: Educator and small-business entrepreneur using regionally sourced materials [S13]. Possible convergence: Productive, locally rooted entrepreneurship and education relate directly to the makers/participation framework. Unresolved: Verified policy platform, taxes, healthcare, and constitutional process.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Relevant lived/occupational experience; policy alignment not established.

District 136

Jacey Buckles (R)

Reported background and campaign themes: Business and financial management, affordability, local economic development, and education choice [S13]. Convergence: Small-producer growth, entrepreneurship, and economic opportunity can fit Ordered Liberty. Questions: How public services are financed and whether all residents retain practical access; labor and anti-monopoly safeguards.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Stated partial convergence; broader tradeoffs unresolved.

Stephanie Hein (D), incumbent

Public background: Legislative service and higher-education/workforce experience [S14]. Convergence: Education and workforce opportunity support cognitive and economic participation. Unresolved: Complete audit of voting record, public finance positions, and measurable results; biography is only partial evidence.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Issue-area convergence with some experience; full substantive rating not established.

District 137

Darin Chappell (R), incumbent

Public background: Legislative committee and budget-related responsibilities [S14]. Potential convergence: Attention to fiscal scrutiny and responsible public expenditure. Unresolved: A complete review of votes, budget amendments, funding beneficiaries, and civil liberties is required to determine whether public resources serve stakeholders broadly.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Not established on substantive legislation.

Bryce F. Lockwood (D)

Reported campaign priorities: Public education, workforce development, Medicaid access, local control, and concern about preferences for large firms [S13]. Convergence: These stated aims speak to economic participation and preventing extraction through concentrated influence. Unresolved: Enforceable policy design, financing, and results.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Strong stated convergence; not a verified governing record.

---

Part VI — Greene County candidates

The county ballot has eight offices and nine named candidates. Seven races are unopposed on the printed ballot. An uncontested candidacy is not evidence of superior or inferior performance. The county offices are judged on transparency, procedural fairness, access, and measurable performance rather than legislative ideology.

Presiding Commissioner — Bob Dixon (R), incumbent, unopposed

Role: County commission leadership, budgeting, and public administration. Relevant public issue: Greene County's budget requires close scrutiny of recurring revenue versus planned expenditure and the use of balances [S16]. Convergence: Public accountability is possible through clear budgets, hearings, and measurable services. Unresolved: This report does not attribute countywide budgeting outcomes solely to Dixon or verify a causal record of procurement and planning decisions.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Not established; fiscal transparency and citizen participation are key tests.

Circuit Clerk — Bryan Feemster (R), incumbent, unopposed

Role: Court administration, records, and access. Tests: Reasonable filing access, accessibility, prompt and accurate processing, publication of fees, and equitable treatment of self-represented litigants. Evidence: Certified officeholder/candidate [S1, S17]. No representative independently verified service-performance record is assessed here.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Not established.

County Clerk — Shane Schoeller (R), incumbent, unopposed

Role: Election and county records administration. Public practice to verify: Bipartisan election procedures, testing and reconciliation, transparent public reporting, and accessible voting [S18]. Convergence: Reproducible election integrity and meaningful voting access implement citizen sovereignty. Caution: Reporting that such procedures exist does not replace an independent process audit; pollbooks and tabulators serve different technical roles.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Institutional practices show potential procedural convergence; independently measured outcomes not established.

Recorder of Deeds — Cheryl Dawson-Spaulding (R), incumbent, unopposed

Role: Reliable public land and property records. Tests: Accurate indexing, access costs, timely recording, privacy protection, and effective correction processes. Evidence: Certified candidate [S1]. This report has not verified a representative set of performance measures.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Not established.

Prosecuting Attorney — Dan Patterson (R), incumbent, unopposed

Role: Criminal charging, prosecutorial ethics, disclosure duties, victims' rights, and lawful diversion. Relevant program questions: Availability of treatment and alternatives for eligible people, conviction integrity, equitable charging, and remediation of wrongful outcomes [S19]. Convergence: Fair process and proportionate intervention can protect both victims and accused people. Unresolved: Numbers and outcomes, not program existence alone, must establish performance.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Some program-level convergence; overall implementation unverified.

Collector of Revenue — Allen Icet (R), incumbent, unopposed

Role: Fair, accurate tax collection. Tests: Error corrections, appeal and payment procedures, accessible services, transparency, and low burden on households. Evidence: Certified candidate [S1]. Broader legislative background does not establish performance in this administrative role.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Not established.

County Auditor — Cindy S. Stein (R), incumbent

Public office: CPA and incumbent; statutory responsibilities include reviewing accounts, claims, appropriations, and county expenditures [S6]. Convergence: The professional office supplies a necessary internal control. Unresolved: Its independence, publication practice, findings, and documented corrective action must be examined. Tenure neither proves impartiality nor misconduct.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Structural alignment of office function; personal performance alignment not established by a comprehensive audit here.

County Auditor — Angela Crawford (D), challenger

Reported campaign emphasis: Independent financial oversight, disclosure, waste prevention, and financial-management experience [S20]. Convergence: These stated commitments match transparency and anti-capture principles. Unresolved: Specific audit methodology, funding for independent review, and actual delivery are not verified.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Stated convergence; independent implementation untested.

Sheriff — Jason B. Johnson (R), unopposed

Role: Law enforcement, detention operations, public safety, and protection of constitutional rights. Tests: Use-of-force transparency, jail health and safety, complaint investigation, body-camera policies, public reporting, and independent review. Evidence: Certified candidate [S1]. The necessary longitudinal performance analysis was not completed.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Not established.

---

Part VII — Judicial retention (nonpartisan)

Meaning of YES: Retain the named judge for another term. Meaning of NO: Do not retain. A retention vote is not a partisan contest and cannot fairly be reduced to whether a judge reaches preferred policy outcomes.

Judicial Ordered Liberty test: Faithful application of law, protection of procedural rights, equal access, independent fact-finding, defensible written explanations, independence from political pressure, and professional conduct. Judges have an obligation to apply controlling law even when it disagrees with a policy platform. The official Missouri judicial performance review recommended retaining these judges; that recommendation is not a declaration of agreement with The Moral Algorithm [S21].

Paul C. Wilson — Missouri Supreme Court

Verified: Official committee recommends retention [S21]. Publicly discussed opinions: His opinions concerning the citizen-initiative process and constitutional limits on redistricting raise issues closely associated with constitutional procedure and voter sovereignty. These opinions should be read in full, including the majority/dissent distinction, before treating any summary as dispositive [S22]. Convergence: Respect for procedural constraints and legal access to citizen initiatives. Limits: A judge's position in selected cases does not establish agreement with an economic program or prove overall judicial merit.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Evidence of convergence on constitutional procedure; broader philosophical alignment not established.

Matthew P. Hamner — Southern District Court of Appeals

Verified: Official committee retention recommendation [S21]. Reported appellate record: Decisions involving evidence, criminal proof, and procedural limits have been the subject of publicly accessible case reviews [S23]. Convergence: Correct legal burdens and meaningful due process are fundamental regardless of which side benefits. Limits: Particular case outcomes may appear to favor government or individuals because of controlling statutes; isolated reversals cannot supply a complete performance rating.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Procedural-law convergence suggested; broader philosophical alignment not established.

Nathan Taylor — 31st Judicial Circuit, Division 7

Verified: Listed on official ballot; official professional retention recommendation [S1, S21]. Unresolved: A sufficiently representative sample of rulings, treatment of self-represented litigants, timeliness, and procedural access was not reviewed here.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Professional evaluation positive; substantive Ordered Liberty alignment not established.

Philip M. Fuhrman — 31st Judicial Circuit, Division 21

Verified: Listed on official ballot; official professional retention recommendation [S1, S21]. Unresolved: Evidence on access to hearings, impartial administration, evidentiary treatment, and published work is insufficient for philosophical attribution.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Professional evaluation positive; substantive alignment not established.

Margaret Palmietto — 31st Judicial Circuit, Division 22

Verified: Listed on official ballot; official professional retention recommendation [S1, S21]. Relevant background: Experience in administrative adjudication is worth examining in relation to procedural fairness. Unresolved: That background is not proof of outcomes, and no representative judicial record was evaluated here.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Professional evaluation positive; substantive alignment not established.

---

Part VIII — Cross-ballot findings, tensions, and research standard

The strongest recurring points of convergence

• Citizen authority: Constitutional protections against procedural exclusion and legislative circumvention, and voting administration that can be independently checked.
• Equal participation: Healthcare, education, disability employment, housing, and feasible routes into productive economic activity.
• Fair economic competition: Constraints on monopoly, politically protected extraction, and privileges that favor incumbents over productive entrants.
• Institutional accountability: Independent auditing, fair courts, transparent procurement, and mechanisms for correcting public errors.

Recurring questions left unresolved

1. Funding: A promise to expand access or cut taxes is incomplete without a resilient, public cash-flow model and analysis of winners and losers.
2. Power: A promise to streamline government is incomplete without identifying oversight, review, remedies, and the limits of delegation.
3. Evidence: Experience in business, government, public service, or nonprofits does not alone prove a candidate's likely legislative decisions.
4. Tradeoffs: A law may support one principle (e.g., freedom from state intervention) while impairing another (e.g., real access to economic opportunity). Describe both.
5. Judicial independence: Do not grade judges on whether they deliver desired policy results; grade their fairness, reasoning, process, and lawful independence.
6. Unknown is unknown: Absence of a demonstrated position must never be relabeled opposition, misconduct, or lack of competence.

What would make a later edition more conclusive?

For each incumbent legislator: list specific bill numbers, vote dates, amendments, committee actions, sponsor roles, fiscal notes, and ultimate effects. For challengers: link verbatim policy proposals and public interviews, clarify exact funding and enforcement plans, and distinguish aspirations from evidence. For all candidates: review Missouri Ethics Commission filings and distinguish small-donor, industry, PAC, and self-funding categories without assuming a donation establishes an illegal quid pro quo. For county officials: use published audits, service statistics, and records requests. For judges: apply official reviews and representative opinions, including differing legal interpretations.

This edition does not represent that such comprehensive individual audits have been completed.

Publication and correction policy

TheMoralAlgorithm.com is the requested editorial masthead and analytical framework. Publication under that name should be authorized and reviewed by the site owner before posting. This report is neither a government voter guide nor a statement from any candidate. Readers are encouraged to examine original records and draw their own conclusions. Correction requests should identify the statement, the primary document or recording, and the date; revisions should preserve the original edition date and a short change log.

Source register

Primary ballot and institutional sources are listed first. Some secondary sources provide reported backgrounds or issue summaries rather than independent validation of candidates' results. Where a person-specific claim cannot be supported by a clear primary record, the document uses cautious terms such as reported, stated, or not established.

• [S1] Greene County Clerk, November 3, 2026 Candidates and Ballot Issues, composite sample ballot (10 pp.): https://vote.greenecountymo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidates_and_Ballot_Issues_Composite_November_2026.pdf
• [S2] Missouri Secretary of State, November 2026 ballot titles and fair ballot language: https://www.sos.mo.gov/petitions/2026BallotMeasures
• [S3] Missouri Secretary of State, 2024 measures (reproductive-health rights amendment): https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/petitions/2024BallotMeasures
• [S4] Missouri Secretary of State, 2026 candidate filings (filing list is not a substitute for general-election ballot certification): https://s1.sos.mo.gov/CandidatesOnWeb/DisplayCandidatesPlacement.aspx?ElectionCode=750006905&OfficeCode=
• [S5] KSMU / Informed Voter Coalition, October 14, 2026, House District 133 candidate interviews: https://www.ksmu.org/show/informed-voter-coalition/2026-10-14/missouri-house-district-133-candidates-answer-questions-share-their-priorities
• [S6] Greene County Auditor's Office, duties and officeholder: https://greenecountymo.gov/auditor/
• [S7] Greene County candidate background and issue summaries (secondary source): https://theballotbrief.com/state/missouri/greene-county
• [S8] Congressional candidate issue summaries (secondary; compare against candidate's original platform): https://theballotbrief.com/state/missouri/greene-county
• [S9] Missouri State Auditor, official office and audit reports (primary): https://auditor.mo.gov/
• [S10] Missouri State Auditor contest profiles (secondary): https://theballotbrief.com/state/missouri/greene-county
• [S11] Missouri Senate District 20 profiles (secondary): https://theballotbrief.com/state/missouri/greene-county
• [S12] Missouri Senate District 30 profiles (secondary): https://theballotbrief.com/state/missouri/greene-county
• [S13] Greene County House candidate overview (secondary): https://theballotbrief.com/state/missouri/greene-county
• [S14] Missouri House, legislator biographies, bills, votes, and committees (primary): https://house.mo.gov/
• [S15] Greater Springfield Indivisible, election listing (advocacy source; candidate identification only): https://cinnamon-olive-gbf5.squarespace.com/voting
• [S16] Greene County government budget source for independent follow-up: https://greenecountymo.gov/
• [S17] Missouri official roster of county officeholders: https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/Publications/MORoster/2025-2026_MO_Roster.pdf
• [S18] Greene County Election Office, election and voting procedures: https://vote.greenecountymo.gov/voting-information/
• [S19] Greene County Prosecuting Attorney, public office source: https://greenecountymo.gov/
• [S20] County auditor race candidate information, secondary overview: https://theballotbrief.com/state/missouri/greene-county
• [S21] Missouri Judicial Performance Review Committee, judicial evaluations and recommendations: https://yourmissourijudges.org/judges/
• [S22] Missouri Judiciary, published appellate opinions and dockets: https://www.courts.mo.gov/
• [S23] Act for Missouri, independent judicial case-review project (advocacy-oriented interpretation; not a court finding): https://new-site.act4mo.org/elections/2026/judicial-retention-guide-2026.html
• [S24] Missouri Ethics Commission, campaign finances and disclosure: https://mec.mo.gov/

Source integrity notice

A URL to an institution establishes where records can be checked, not that every assertion in this report was independently corroborated there. Some candidate descriptions are carried over from the working research summaries and should be checked against original interviews, roll calls, or campaign publications before high-stakes quotation or republication as verified fact. The report deliberately avoids fabricated numerical scores, endorsements, and unsourced allegations.

Edition: 1.0 | October 14, 2026
Scope note: This is a composite-ballot public analysis; always confirm an individual ballot with the election authority.