AJ Johnson: 2026 candidate for Illinois House District 64

Bio

Office sought: State Representative District 64

Party: Democrat

City: Lake Villa

Age: 62

Previous offices held: Precinct Committeeman

Q&A

What do you consider the three most pressing issues facing the state in the next four years, and how should they be addressed?

Data Centers and Energy Costs: Illinois should welcome investment, but not write a blank check to data centers. They should disclose projected energy and water use, pay their fair share of infrastructure costs, and meet clear standards before receiving taxpayer-funded incentives.

Affordability and Property Taxes: Families and seniors are being squeezed by property taxes, utilities, housing, health care and everyday expenses. We need meaningful property-tax relief, disciplined state spending, more housing options and fewer unnecessary costs passed on to working families.

Health Care, Education and Workforce: Illinois must protect access to affordable health care, strengthen public education and career training, and address shortages of teachers and health care professionals. We should better connect schools, community colleges, workforce programs and employers to prepare people for good-paying careers.

My approach is straightforward: common sense, accountability and practical solutions that make Illinois more affordable while keeping our communities strong.

How would you assess the General Assembly's handling, to date, of the various proposals surrounding a Chicago Bears stadium in Arlington Heights? What proposals would you have been willing to support and in what ways, if any, might you have approached it differently?

I am a Bears fan and would like to see the team remain in Illinois. But as a legislator, personal preference must come second to protecting taxpayers. I believe the General Assembly was right to carefully review the stadium proposals rather than rush into a long-term agreement. Any public involvement should be based on a clear, measurable benefit to Illinois taxpayers. I would consider reasonable infrastructure improvements and other investments that benefit the surrounding community and produce a demonstrated economic return, particularly if the Bears finance the stadium itself. I would not support asking taxpayers to shoulder the cost of building a privately controlled stadium or shifting an unfair property-tax burden onto homeowners, schools or local businesses. Any agreement should include transparency, protections for local taxing districts, a clear accounting of taxpayer exposure and measurable economic benefits. My approach is simple: I want the Bears to stay in Illinois, but any deal must protect taxpayers and serve the state's long-term interests.

Now roughly three years into the elimination of cash bail in Illinois as part of the SAFE-T Act, how would you assess the success or failure of the criminal justice reform measure? What changes, if any, would you support?

I support the SAFE-T Act and believe eliminating cash bail was an important reform. A person who has not been convicted should not remain in jail simply because they cannot afford bail while someone with greater financial resources can secure release. Pretrial decisions should be based on public safety, the facts of the case and individual risk, not the size of someone’s bank account. However, public safety must remain the priority, and judges must retain the ability to detain individuals who meet the legal standard for detention.

We should continue reviewing data on court appearances, repeat offenses, detention decisions and impacts on the courts, and make adjustments where necessary. The SAFE-T Act also includes statewide body-camera requirements, which can strengthen accountability, provide important evidence and protect both officers and the public.

My approach is common sense: if a reform is working, preserve it; if parts need improvement, fix them. We should make changes based on evidence and experience rather than repeal the entire law. Public safety, fairness and accountability should guide any future revisions.

Illinois homeowners face one of the highest relative property tax burdens in the country. What specific proposals could you offer to ease the burden on state residents?

Illinois homeowners face one of the highest property-tax burdens in the country, and relief requires a practical, multi-part approach. I would support increasing the General Homestead Exemption and indexing it to inflation so homeowners receive meaningful, lasting relief. I also support limiting sharp assessment increases that can cause sudden spikes in tax bills.

Illinois should continue increasing its share of education funding so local school districts are less dependent on property taxes. Real relief means addressing the underlying costs that drive local levies, not simply shifting expenses from one taxpayer to another.

I would also strengthen protections for seniors and longtime homeowners, improve transparency in the assessment and appeals process, and look for ways to reduce unnecessary costs and duplication across local government.

My approach is common sense: property-tax relief should be meaningful, responsible and sustainable. We must protect essential services such as schools and public safety while making sure seniors and working families are not priced out of the communities they helped build.

Gov. JB Pritzker recently paused a state initiative granting incentives to data center developers, and residents statewide have concerns about how such developments are affecting their access to water, utility rates, and the environment. How should the state approach data centers going forward?

Data centers can bring investment, construction jobs and technology infrastructure to Illinois, but that growth should not come at the expense of residents’ utility bills, water supplies or the environment.

Illinois needs a responsible-growth framework. Large data centers should disclose and responsibly manage water and energy use, meet strong efficiency and environmental standards, and pay their fair share of the grid and infrastructure costs their facilities create rather than shifting those costs to residential customers.

Local governments and residents should have a meaningful voice early in the approval process. Any future tax incentives should be tied to measurable economic benefits, good-paying jobs, community benefits and compliance with environmental and infrastructure standards.

My approach is common sense: Illinois should welcome innovation and economic development, but taxpayers and ratepayers should not subsidize private growth without a clear public benefit. We can attract investment, create jobs and remain competitive while protecting families, communities and our natural resources.

Illinois’ “sanctuary” policies concerning immigration have made it a target for the Trump administration and critics who say they encourage criminal behavior. How do you feel about those policies, and how, if at all, would you change them?

I support Illinois’ current framework, but I also believe immigration policy must be continually evaluated with public safety in mind. Local police should focus on preventing crime, apprehending dangerous offenders and building trust with the communities they serve, rather than taking on the primary responsibility for federal civil immigration enforcement.

At the same time, Illinois should cooperate appropriately when there are legitimate public-safety concerns and ensure that state law clearly defines the responsibilities of federal, state and local authorities. Victims and witnesses should be able to contact police without fear that simply asking for help will expose them to immigration enforcement.

Many women in the legislature complain about a culture of sexual harassment in Springfield. Do you see evidence of this and, if so, what should be done about it?

Sexual harassment must be taken seriously, regardless of who is involved. No employee, staff member, lobbyist or legislator should have to tolerate harassment, intimidation or retaliation in the workplace.

The General Assembly already requires harassment prevention training, provides confidential reporting options and allows the Legislative Inspector General to investigate allegations. Those protections are important, but training alone is not enough. I would support independent investigations, strong protections against retaliation, timely resolution of complaints and appropriate consequences when misconduct is substantiated. Everyone should be able to report harassment without fear that their career or reputation will suffer because of who the accused person is.

As a father of three daughters and brother to ten sisters, I take this issue personally. Every person deserves a workplace where they are treated with dignity and respect.

Are you satisfied with the state's existing ethics policies for senators and representatives? If so, what about the policies should reassure Illinoisans that elected leaders abide by high standards? If not, what changes need to be made?

Illinois has strengthened its ethics laws, but we should never be satisfied with the status quo when public trust is at stake. Elected officials must be held to standards that make clear their decisions are being made for the public, not for personal financial gain or future employment. I support stronger restrictions on compensated lobbying by legislators, tougher revolving-door rules, greater disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, and meaningful enforcement when violations occur.

The Legislative Inspector General and ethics commissions should also have the independence, resources and authority needed to investigate credible complaints thoroughly and promptly.

My standard is simple: transparency, accountability and public trust. Illinoisans should never have to wonder whether an elected official’s vote was influenced by a private financial interest, lobbying relationship or future job opportunity.

Ethics laws should be strong enough to prevent misconduct, not simply punish it after the damage has been done.

What personal qualifications do you bring that would make you an effective legislator?

I bring more than four decades of public service, leadership and community involvement. I served 26 years in the U.S. Army and retired as a Master Sergeant, where I learned how to lead diverse teams, solve problems under pressure and work toward a common mission. For the past 17 years, I have served as a high school Army JROTC instructor, mentoring young people and working closely with families, educators and the community. I also serve on the Lake County Sheriff’s Merit Commission and have been active in veterans’ advocacy and community service. I would bring discipline, accountability, practical problem-solving and a willingness to work with people across political differences to Springfield.