Occupation: District manager

Age: 32

Municipality of residence: Elizabeth Township

Question: Last year’s state budget was delayed in part over the question of whether the state should increase aid to transit agencies, including Pittsburgh Regional Transit. Would you change state funding for transit? If so, how?

Answer: Yes. I support increasing state funding for transit, including Pittsburgh Regional Transit, because transit is not a luxury — it is basic infrastructure that workers, seniors, students and families rely on to get to jobs, school, medical appointments and everyday needs. Pennsylvania’s transit systems have been facing a structural funding problem as federal pandemic relief expired, and PRT has warned that without added recurring support, it could face major service cuts, fare increases and layoffs. PRT has sought roughly $117 million more annually, and the broader statewide debate has centered on finding a stable long-term solution rather than forcing agencies to patch deficits with reserves or capital dollars.

My approach would be to increase recurring operating support for transit, not just one-time patches. I would support a statewide funding formula that is predictable, transparent and tied to service needs, ridership recovery, workforce demands and regional economic impact. I would also pair new funding with accountability for reliability, safety, frequency and coordination with local economic development so taxpayers can see results. The 2025-26 budget fight showed that relying on temporary fixes leaves riders and workers in limbo, and even after the late-passed budget, long-term transit funding remained unresolved.

For Western Pennsylvania, that means protecting service, avoiding fare hikes and ensuring PRT has the resources to maintain and improve the system people depend on every day. A strong transit system supports our economy, connects people to opportunity and helps the entire region grow.

Q: With the federal government aggressively pursuing arrests and deportations of some immigrants, how should state police and other state employees interact with federal immigration authorities operating in the commonwealth?

A: Pennsylvania State Police and state employees should focus on enforcing state law and protecting public safety, not on acting as federal immigration agents. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and state resources should not be diverted from their core mission of serving Pennsylvania communities.

I believe state and local officials should cooperate with federal authorities when serious criminal activity is involved and when required by law. Still, they should not be required to participate in routine civil immigration enforcement actions. Turning state and local officers into immigration agents undermines trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities, which can make people less likely to report crimes, serve as witnesses or seek help when they need it.

At the same time, Pennsylvania should ensure that its policies are clear, lawful and consistent statewide so that state employees understand when cooperation with federal authorities is appropriate. Our goal should be to protect public safety, respect the rule of law and ensure that law enforcement resources remain focused on violent crime, human trafficking and threats to our communities.

In short, state employees should cooperate with federal authorities where the law requires it and where public safety is at stake — but Pennsylvania should not divert state resources to carry out routine federal immigration enforcement.

Q: Do you support changing Pennsylvania’s minimum wage? If so, how high should it be, and why?

A: Yes. I support raising Pennsylvania’s minimum wage. The current state minimum wage of $7.25 an hour has not increased since 2009, while the cost of housing, groceries, utilities and transportation has continued to rise. No one working full-time should be living in poverty, and raising the minimum wage is a basic step toward ensuring that work pays.

I support increasing the minimum wage to at least $15 per hour, with a predictable schedule of increases so businesses can plan. I would also support indexing the wage to inflation after it reaches $15, so workers do not fall behind again as costs rise over time.

Raising the minimum wage would benefit hundreds of thousands of workers across Pennsylvania, particularly in service, retail and hospitality jobs. It would also strengthen local economies because workers who earn more are more likely to spend those dollars in their communities.

At the same time, any increase should be implemented responsibly, with clear timelines that give small businesses time to adjust. But the reality is that Pennsylvania has fallen far behind neighboring states that have already raised their wages, putting both workers and our economy at a disadvantage.

Hard work should provide a path to stability and dignity. Raising the minimum wage is about fairness, economic growth and ensuring that Pennsylvania’s workers share in the prosperity they help create.

Q: What, if any, changes would you like to see in Pennsylvania’s voting laws? Are there proposed changes that you oppose? Why?

A: Yes. I believe Pennsylvania should focus on modernizing and clarifying our election laws to ensure voting is both accessible and secure. The goal should be to make it easier for eligible voters to participate while maintaining public confidence in the system.

First, I support creating true in-person early voting in Pennsylvania. Currently, the state has a complicated process where voters can request and submit a mail ballot in person at a county office, which often leads to long lines and confusion. Several reform proposals would establish dedicated early-voting sites open for about 11 days before Election Day so voters can cast a ballot just like they would on Election Day.

Early voting would give working families, shift workers and caregivers more flexibility to participate.

Second, I support improving the administration of mail voting, which Pennsylvania adopted in 2019 with no-excuse mail ballots. Counties should be allowed to pre-process mail ballots several days before Election Day so results can be reported more quickly, and election workers are not overwhelmed. Election officials across the state have said the current rules unnecessarily slow down vote counting.

Third, I support consistent, fair rules so voters are not disenfranchised over technical mistakes. Courts have ruled that rejecting mail ballots simply because of a missing or incorrect handwritten date on the envelope places an unnecessary burden on voters and does little to prevent fraud.

Pennsylvania’s laws should be clear and uniform statewide so voters know their ballots will be counted if they follow the basic requirements.

At the same time, I believe election reforms should be balanced and bipartisan. I would oppose proposals that make it harder for eligible voters to participate — such as eliminating mail voting or creating unnecessary barriers that could disenfranchise legally registered voters.

Dedicated local officials from both parties administer Pennsylvania’s elections and have repeatedly been shown to be secure. Our focus should be on improving efficiency, expanding access and maintaining confidence in the system, not making it harder for people to exercise their right to vote.

Q: Do you support the legalization of recreational marijuana? Why or why not?

A: Yes. I support the legalization of recreational marijuana for adults in Pennsylvania through a responsible, regulated system.

First, legalization is a matter of fairness and common sense. Thousands of Pennsylvanians have been arrested over the years for low-level marijuana offenses that have lasting consequences for employment, housing and education. Legalization should include expungement of past nonviolent cannabis offenses so people are not permanently punished for conduct that the state no longer considers illegal.

Second, legalization would create significant economic opportunity. A regulated cannabis market would generate new tax revenue for the commonwealth while creating jobs in cultivation, processing, distribution and retail. If done correctly, Pennsylvania could prioritize union labor, strong workplace standards and small-business participation so the benefits are broadly shared rather than concentrated in a few large corporations.

Third, legalization should include strong public health and safety protections. That means clear rules on product testing, labeling and responsible use, along with resources for education and treatment programs.

Pennsylvania already has a successful medical marijuana program, and many of our neighboring states have legalized recreational cannabis. Continuing prohibition has not eliminated use — it has only pushed the market underground, allowing illegal operators to profit while the state receives no benefit.

A responsible legalization framework would replace that system with regulation, safety standards and economic opportunity, while freeing law enforcement to focus on serious crime rather than minor possession cases.

Q: Would you advocate any changes in the way K-12 education is funded in Pennsylvania? If so, what would you change?

A: Yes. I support changes to how Pennsylvania funds K–12 education so that every student — regardless of their ZIP code — has access to a high-quality public education.

Pennsylvania relies too heavily on local property taxes to fund schools, which creates major disparities between districts. Communities with a strong property tax base can raise more revenue, while others struggle to fund basic services. I support continuing to shift a greater share of education funding to the state level to reduce the burden on local taxpayers and make school funding more equitable.

I also support fully implementing and expanding Pennsylvania’s fair funding formula so that state dollars are distributed based on student need. That includes factors such as poverty levels, English language learners and student enrollment. The Commonwealth Court has already ruled that Pennsylvania’s current system is unconstitutional because it produces significant disparities between wealthy and underfunded districts. The state must follow through on meaningful reforms to correct those inequities.

At the same time, any funding reforms should ensure resources reach the classroom — supporting teachers, smaller class sizes, modern facilities and student support services. Investing in education also helps communities by strengthening the workforce and supporting economic development.

In short, Pennsylvania should reduce overreliance on property taxes, increase the state’s share of education funding and distribute resources more fairly so every student has a real opportunity to succeed while protecting local taxpayers.

Q: Would you advocate any changes in the way Pennsylvanians are taxed? If so, what would you change?

Yes. I believe Pennsylvania’s tax system should be fairer for working families while protecting the commonwealth’s ability to invest in schools, infrastructure and public safety.

One of the biggest issues in Pennsylvania is our heavy reliance on local property taxes, particularly to fund public schools. I support shifting a greater share of education funding to the state level to reduce pressure on local property taxpayers, especially seniors and working families who are struggling with rising costs.

I also believe we should look at ways to make the overall tax structure more balanced and equitable. Pennsylvania’s flat income tax means lower- and middle-income families often pay a larger share of their income in taxes than wealthier households when all state and local taxes are considered. Any reforms should focus on providing relief for working families while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

At the same time, we should continue efforts to modernize our tax system, so it reflects today’s economy, closing loopholes (such as the Delaware Loophole) that allow some large corporations to avoid paying their fair share and ensuring that everyone contributes to the services and infrastructure that make our economy work.

Ultimately, my priority is a tax system that protects middle-class families, supports economic growth and ensures the commonwealth has the resources needed to invest in education, public safety and strong communities.