Taylor Moreland is running in the primary for Kansas House District 7, a rural southeast Kansas district including Parsons, Chanute, Altamont, and surrounding communities. In this follow-up conversation, Moreland discussed her campaign’s evolution since filing in September 2025, lessons learned meeting voters, and why she believes everyday people with real-life experience are essential in the Kansas Legislature.
Initially, Moreland had no primary opponent. Now, she is engaged in an active primary, a process she describes as fun, meaningful, and rich with new connections. She stated that even if she were to lose, this would not be her last campaign, as the work holds too much significance. For Moreland, this campaign is about leveraging her existing experiences to a higher level to help more people.
One of the first topics she addressed was her deeper understanding of the district’s rural and agricultural sectors. Moreland noted that she did not grow up in an agriculture-focused household but has come to appreciate that agriculture is the foundation of Kansas. She emphasized her commitment to learning about important issues, which has involved conversing with farmers and rural residents who offer a perspective different from her upbringing in Parsons.
This led to an early theme of the conversation: lawmakers must be willing to understand issues beyond their direct experience. A state representative makes decisions not only for people who live exactly as they do but also votes on laws that affect Kansans across diverse communities, industries, and circumstances they may never have personally encountered. Moreland highlighted that one of the most rewarding aspects of the campaign has been listening to these varied perspectives, even when people share the same goal but differ on the approach.
This point resurfaced when the discussion shifted to homelessness. Moreland acknowledged that Parsons experiences homelessness, though she wouldn’t describe it as a “huge problem” compared to larger cities. She serves as president of the local homeless shelter’s board, a role she takes pride in. Through this position, and her prior nonprofit work, she has witnessed the serious reality of the issue in her community.
Moreland suggested that many people might not fully recognize homelessness when they see it. If individuals repeatedly observe the same people around town, part of what they are witnessing is that those individuals lack a permanent residence. Parsons is fortunate to have a direct local resource, she noted, as the community doesn’t always have to send people elsewhere for help. However, she also stressed that the shelter and other nonprofits cannot bear the entire burden alone.
She compared Parsons to cities like Wichita, Kansas City, and Joplin, Missouri, where local governments play a much larger role in supporting homeless shelters. Moreland noted that in some communities, government support extends beyond occasional grants to year-round operational funding. In Parsons, while grants are helpful, a shelter quickly depletes them when caring for people and maintaining a facility.
Moreland advocates for direct city and county involvement in addressing homelessness and human-service needs. She argues that relying solely on nonprofits for essential services is insufficient, as these services should not depend on small organizations scrambling for funds.
The discussion shifted to the financial implications of criminalizing homelessness. Cities often spend substantial funds on policing, cleanups, and enforcement, which fail to solve the problem or house individuals. Moreland emphasized that communities already spend money on homelessness; the question is whether it’s on solutions or merely displacing the problem.
Moreland believes local government must be part of the solution. Shelters need baseline funding, so additional fundraising can support extra services. Sheltering people should not depend solely on volunteers and small nonprofits.
This led to a broader discussion about who should hold public office. Moreland observed that many lawmakers are not “everyday people” but come from political families, wealth, or professional political circles. She believes Kansas needs more individuals who have lived regular lives, engaged in hard work, and are willing to prove themselves directly to voters.
Moreland highlighted young candidates nationwide who campaign actively, doing their own outreach and marketing. She personally made almost all the thousands of texts and calls for her own campaign, emphasizing that candidates must earn votes, and voters owe candidates nothing.
For Moreland, a contested primary is crucial. Without opposition, voters might perceive a candidate as not having earned their position. A contested primary offers voters a choice and allows the candidate to demonstrate their ability to win support. Moreland’s motivation for running stems from her real-life experiences, which prompted her to question state laws and their authors’ understanding of the people they affect.
This concern is particularly true for foster care. Moreland was frustrated by foster care laws and contacted legislators and the governor. Governor Laura Kelly sent the deputy secretary of DCF to meet with Moreland. Moreland described this conversation as the moment she realized how often those in power placate passionate individuals rather than genuinely listening and taking action.
Moreland’s efforts extended beyond filing to run. She observed committee meetings, contacted the child welfare committee chair, and discussed the issue extensively. She believes advocacy doesn’t require being a lawmaker, but running for office elevates the work.
The conversation also highlighted the importance of accessible communication. Moreland wants constituents to feel comfortable being authentic with her, not obligated to use formal language. She appreciates bluntness, even anger, as it signifies honesty. Elected officials, she believes, should interact with people as individuals.
This theme extended to small farms and ranches. Moreland admitted she hadn’t fully grasped their struggles. Despite Kansas being agricultural, residents don’t necessarily consume local produce. She highlighted the significant impact of local schools being supplied by local farms. While cautioning against unfunded mandates, she believes Kansas could better support local food systems.
The conversation connected grants, incentives, and tax breaks to community gardens, smaller food projects, and direct support for local producers. Moreland noted Kansas offers numerous incentives to large corporations but less to small farmers, ranchers, and rural residents. She emphasized that small farmers and ranchers are Kansas’s backbone and expressed concern about agricultural consolidation.
This led to a broader discussion about corporations, wealthy interests, and the erosion of power in rural communities. When family farms and local businesses vanish, capital and connection to the land often disappear. Corporations, by contrast, may lack deep community roots or commitment to its well-being, potentially not prioritizing local schools, downtowns, grocery stores, or the community itself. Moreland agreed that declining local ownership significantly harms rural Kansas.
The discussion then shifted to local leadership and community service. Moreland stated that, should she lose the primary, she would find solace in knowing she is already engaged in her passionate work. She is already active in civic service and community initiatives. For her, running for office is not a sudden foray into public service but an expansion of her existing work to a statewide level.
Moreland outlined her campaign approach, committing to avoid personal attacks and engage in policy debates. She believes this is crucial because collaboration, even with opponents, is necessary to prevent legislative gridlock. She acknowledged disagreements with her Republican opponent but emphasized their ongoing dialogue and the need for coexistence.
Moreland also stressed accountability. She believes individuals should evaluate candidates and officials by examining voting records, campaign finance, actions outside legislative sessions, willingness to hold town halls, constituent engagement, and openness to feedback. Leaders should involve people in decisions affecting their lives.
This discussion stemmed from government decisions made without public consultation, such as a state department relocation that ignored employee input. Moreland noted that such decisions, often made by those unaware of the consequences, significantly impact people’s lives, highlighting a frustration that those in power frequently make decisions about others without truly listening.
The conversation then shifted to the rural crisis, addressing farmer suicides, farm loss, and the burden of losing generational land. Moreland connected lawmakers’ decisions to these dire conditions, emphasizing how individuals often internalize blame for systemic problems. The loss of a family farm, for instance, represents more than a job; it signifies the dissolution of generations of labor, identity, and connection to the land.
The discussion also covered unincorporated towns and small communities struggling to survive. Moreland admitted her prior misunderstanding of unincorporated towns, now recognizing how easily they lose resources and representation. These communities often lack essential amenities, direct services, or significant political attention, and their distant state representatives further dilute their representation, making their needs easy to overlook.
This led back to corporate ownership. Historically, wealthy local landowners or business owners, often with family names tied to a town, had a degree of community connection, sometimes funding local improvements. However, when corporations with no community attachment acquire assets, money exits the community, leaving the town to struggle.
Money in politics was a dominant theme. Participants emphasized voters must scrutinize campaign funding sources, as these often indicate a candidate’s priorities. Moreland agreed, stating a candidate’s willingness to accept money from specific sources is highly significant.
Moreland expressed satisfaction that individuals have made her donations. She stated she couldn’t imagine soliciting funds from a PAC and has no desire to be beholden to corporations. For her, earning people’s votes is intrinsically linked to earning their support. A donation driven by belief in the campaign, she argued, holds a different meaning than accepting money from corporate interests or powerful developers who may later expect privileged access or influence.
The conversation also covered how PAC money, corporate money, developer money, and donations from individuals with multiple LLCs can distort politics. A wealthy person might make donations through each entity, creating the appearance of scattered interests when the money is from a single source. This issue impacts city politics, particularly when developers have business before local government.
Participants discussed Moreland’s primary opponent, a sitting city commissioner, in this context. The conversation focused on public service, time commitment, and accountability. Moreland expressed uncertainty about the legalities of someone serving in both roles but noted her opponent had stated he would resign his commission if elected. She emphasized that public service demands dedication, requiring officeholders to attend meetings and represent constituents.
The discussion concluded by returning to themes of curiosity, openness, and the value of a vote. Participants portrayed Moreland as someone willing to maintain an open mind, educate herself, and make decisions independently, rather than simply following party lines. She agreed that before voting on an issue, she would seek to understand it thoroughly and ensure she genuinely supported it.
Moreland’s final message to voters centered on participation. She acknowledged the sentiment that some people feel their vote doesn’t count, leading them not to register. However, she stressed that local elections are different. These races can be decided by small margins, making every vote far more impactful than people often realize.
Moreland urged voters to understand the value of their vote, educate themselves, and choose candidates based on more than just party label, name recognition, or superficial impressions. When voters select someone, they empower that individual to make decisions on their behalf, a responsibility Moreland believes people should take seriously.
Moreland’s candidacy is shaped by community work, foster care advocacy, homelessness initiatives, and rural discussions. She believes public office should be accessible to everyday people, positioning herself as a dedicated civic servant rather than a career politician.
Her campaign is rooted in the idea that those closest to problems should participate in decision-making. This involves consulting people experiencing homelessness before allocating funds, learning from farmers and ranchers before crafting agricultural policy, supporting small communities, and scrutinizing campaign finance. She believes candidates must earn votes, as voters owe them nothing.
For Moreland, Kansas House District 7deserves a representative who listens, learns, works collaboratively, and remains grounded in real-life experiences. The primary will determine if voters believe Moreland’s blend of lived experience, community service, and dedication to understanding the district’s diverse needs represents the leadership they want for rural southeast Kansas.
Get full access to Kansas Helen at kansashelen.substack.com/subscribe
