From the campaign
Where I Stand on Crime and Public Safety
Tough on violent crime, smart on the rest. South Dakota already chose the expensive option, roughly 737 million dollars of it, and got a revolving door for the money.
I get my read on crime in this district at school pickup, in the checkout line, and on my own block. Not out of a briefing book. A family court case brought my son to Rapid City in 2018, I followed him here, and eight years later I am raising him in the neighborhoods that make up District 32, downtown and North Rapid.
What I hear at the doors is that families here want two things at the same time. Streets where their kids are safe, and a state that does not waste their money or walk on their rights while promising them that safety. We keep getting told to pick one of those. I do not think we have to.
Tough on violent crime. Smart on the rest. I mean both halves and I will defend both halves.
Four commitments, with no hedging on any of them.
I stand with Attorney General Marty Jackley on violent crime, child exploitation, and human trafficking. The people who hurt children and traffic human beings get the full weight of this state. No deals and no daylight.
Sentencing reform for non-violent offenders. South Dakota is spending roughly 737 million dollars on two new prisons, and what that money buys us is high recidivism.
Expand drug courts, mental health diversion, and reentry programs. Put the addiction in front of a drug court, the crisis in front of treatment, and the man coming home in front of a job.
Defend the Fourth Amendment against warrantless surveillance. Back the blue and back the Bill of Rights, at the same time, without treating that as a contradiction. If government wants your data, your messages, or your movements, it can go get a warrant. I have written separately about what that means for the license plate camera networks going up around this metro right now, because that one is not a hypothetical anymore.
The 737 million dollar sentence
We already chose the expensive option. That is the entire point of that number.
South Dakota is not choosing between a cheap status quo and costly reform. We are paying the biggest bill in the building, which is prison, and then paying it a second time every time somebody cycles back through. High recidivism is repeat business, and in corrections the repeat customer gets billed to you.
Nearly everybody we send to prison comes home eventually, which means the only question actually worth arguing about is what shape he is in when he gets back to your street, your kid's school pickup line, and the house three doors down from yours. Defending a system that produces a revolving door, on the grounds that the system sounds tough, is not tough. It is expensive theater and your family's safety is the prop.
The fiscally conservative move is to fund the things that actually break the cycle. Fail less, spend less. In a conservative state that ought to be the boring position rather than the brave one.
What "smart on the rest" is not
It is not mercy purchased at safety's expense, and it is not a discount. A drug court is supervision, testing, accountability, and a judge who knows your name and your file. In some ways it asks harder things than a cell does, because a cell never once requires you to change.
I finished my Juris Doctor in 2022 and have spent the two legislative sessions since then advocating for South Dakota families at the Capitol. Those rooms taught me the difference between a system that processes people and a system that solves problems. Right now our prisons are processing.
District 32 elects two representatives and both seats are on the ballot November 3. If you want one of them voting tough on violent crime and smart on the rest, the full plan is at zac4sd.com. The five objections I hear most often about this plank, and my answers to them, are below.
Strong Families. Strong South Dakota.
Anticipated pushbacks · prepared responses
Common questions on this issue
These are the questions and concerns that come up most often. The responses below are my honest answers, not talking points.
- Q. Sentencing reform means you are soft on crime.
- A. Read the first commitment again. On violent crime, child exploitation, and human trafficking I stand with Attorney General Jackley, and there is nothing soft in that posture. Smart on the rest is not mercy at safety's expense, it is the reverse. Nearly everyone we send to prison comes home eventually, and the only question is what shape he is in. Right now we spend like a state that expects results, roughly 737 million dollars, and we get a revolving door. Defending a failed system because it sounds tough is expensive theater with your family's safety as the prop.
- Q. Drug courts and diversion just let addicts off easy.
- A. A drug court is not a free pass. It is supervision, testing, accountability, and a judge who knows your name and your file. In some ways it is harder than sitting in a cell, because it demands the one thing a cell never asks for, which is change. Mental health diversion follows the same logic: a person in crisis belongs in front of the system built for the actual problem. Reentry is the most kitchen-table idea on the list. The man who comes home to work and structure is safer for your neighborhood than the man who comes home to nothing.
- Q. We cannot afford new programs.
- A. We already chose the expensive option, which is what the 737 million dollar figure is telling us. South Dakota is not choosing between a cheap status quo and costly reform. We are paying the biggest bill in the building and then paying it again every time the cycle repeats. High recidivism means repeat business, and in corrections repeat business is the taxpayer's loss. Funding what breaks the cycle is the fiscally conservative move. Fail less, spend less.
- Q. You cannot back the blue and demand warrants.
- A. A warrant is not a handcuff on police, it is the Bill of Rights doing its job. Our officers do dangerous and necessary work and I will back them every day of the week. Backing the blue has never meant government gets to watch you without a judge's signature. Conservatives do not trust government with our money, so I cannot see why we would trust it with warrantless eyes on our lives. Good police work has cleared that bar since the founding and it can keep clearing it.
- Q. This district needs safety now, not reform talk.
- A. I agree about the urgency, and that is exactly why the split matters. Every dollar and every hour spent cycling non-violent offenders through a loop that does not work is a dollar and an hour not spent on the violent crime that actually frightens families downtown and in North Rapid. This is not reform instead of safety. It is reform so that safety gets the focus.