Where I Stand on Crime and Public Safety

A family court case brought my son to Rapid City in 2018. I followed him here, and eight years later this city is home. I am raising my son in the neighborhoods that make up District 32, downtown and North Rapid. So when the talk turns to crime and public safety, I am not getting it from a briefing book. I am getting it at school pickup, in the checkout line, on my own block.

Here is what I hear at the doors. Families in this district want two things at the same time. They want streets where their kids are safe. And they want a state that does not waste their money or trample their rights while promising that safety. Politicians keep telling us to pick one. We do not have to.

So let me state my position plainly. Tough on violent crime. Smart on the rest. I mean both halves, and I will defend both halves.

Where I stand

If District 32 sends me to Pierre, here is what I will fight for. Four commitments. No hedging.

1. 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 the state. No deals. No daylight.
2. Sentencing reform for non-violent offenders. South Dakota has spent roughly 737 million dollars on prisons, and the return on that money is high recidivism. We are paying premium prices for a system that too often sends people home worse than they went in.
3. Expand drug courts, mental-health diversion, and reentry programs. Put the addiction in front of a drug court. Put the crisis in front of treatment. Put the man coming home in front of a job. That is how a cycle breaks.
4. Defend the Fourth Amendment against warrantless surveillance. Back the blue and back the Bill of Rights. If the government wants your data, your messages, or your movements, it can get a warrant.

Those four commitments draw more pushback than almost anything else on my platform. Good. The objections deserve straight answers, not talking points. Here are the five I hear most.

"Sentencing reform means you're soft on crime"

Read the first commitment again. On violent crime, child exploitation, and human trafficking, I stand with AG Jackley. There is nothing soft in that posture, and there never will be.

Smart on the rest is not mercy at safety's expense. It is the opposite. Nearly everyone we send to prison comes home eventually. The only question is what shape they come home in. Right now we spend like a state that expects results, roughly 737 million dollars, and we get a revolving door instead. Defending a failed system because it sounds tough is not tough. It is expensive theater, and your family's safety is the prop.

"Drug courts and diversion just let addicts off easy"

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: change.

Mental-health diversion follows the same logic. A person in crisis belongs in front of the system built for the actual problem. And reentry is the most kitchen-table idea on this page. The man who comes home to work and structure is safer for your neighborhood than the man who comes home to nothing.

"We can't afford new programs"

We already bought the expensive option. That is the point of the 737 million dollar number. South Dakota is not choosing between a cheap status quo and costly reform. We are paying the biggest bill in the building, prison, 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.

The fiscally conservative move is to fund what breaks the cycle: drug courts, mental-health diversion, reentry. Fail less, spend less. That should not be a controversial idea in a conservative state.

"You can't back the blue and demand warrants"

A warrant is not a handcuff on police. It is the Bill of Rights doing its job. Our officers do dangerous, necessary work, and I will back them every day of the week. Backing the blue has never meant the government gets to watch you without a judge's signature.

Conservatives do not trust government with our money. Why would we trust it with warrantless eyes on our lives? If the state wants to surveil a citizen, it can convince a judge first. Good police work has cleared that bar since the founding. It can keep clearing it.

"This district needs safety now, not reform talk"

I agree about the urgency. 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 safety gets the focus.

The ask

I came to Rapid City through a family court case, and I stayed to raise my son here. I finished my Juris Doctor in 2022 along the way, and I have spent the last two legislative sessions advocating for South Dakota families at the Capitol. Those courtrooms and hearing rooms taught me the difference between a system that processes people and a system that solves problems. South Dakota's prisons are processing. I want Pierre to start solving.

District 32 elects two representatives, and both seats are on the ballot November 3, 2026. If you want one of those seats voting tough on violent crime and smart on the rest, read the full plan at zac4sd.com.