David Mathis: 2026 candidate for Illinois Senate District 27

Bio

Office sought: Senate District 27

Party: Republican

City: Arlington Heights

Age: 48

Previous offices held: None

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?

Illinois faces three major challenges: affordability, fiscal responsibility, and public safety.

Families in District 27 pay too much for property taxes, housing, utilities, transportation and everyday expenses. Illinois must reduce waste, encourage growth and ensure new spending delivers value.

The state also cannot keep asking taxpayers for more. With more than $41 billion in bonded debt and growing pension and healthcare obligations, we need greater transparency, independent audits, stronger fiscal notes and a review of ineffective programs while protecting essential services.

Finally, people should feel safe in their neighborhoods, schools and businesses. That means supporting law enforcement while addressing mental health, addiction and repeat offending, and protecting healthcare as Medicaid changes begin in 2027.

My approach is simple: listen to residents, follow the numbers, work with anyone who has good ideas, and put Illinois taxpayers ahead of partisan politics.

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 grew up believing that when you’re entrusted with someone else’s money, you have an obligation to treat every dollar like it’s your own. That’s how I approach the Bears stadium issue.

I want the Bears in Arlington Heights, and I support the jobs and investment that could come with them. I would support a deal where the Bears pay for the stadium itself, make a substantial private investment, and contribute their fair share toward infrastructure. I could also support targeted public infrastructure improvements if they have a clear, measurable benefit to the surrounding community and are approved through a transparent process.

What I would not support is an open-ended taxpayer subsidy, shifting the Bears’ costs onto local property taxpayers, or giving the team a special deal without knowing the full cost and return to taxpayers.

I’m willing to help build the infrastructure that supports a major economic investment. I’m not willing to make taxpayers build the stadium.

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 believe we can protect constitutional rights without compromising public safety. The elimination of cash bail addressed a legitimate problem: someone’s ability to pay should not be the sole reason they sit in jail before being convicted.

But reform cannot mean automatic release without accountability. Three years in, I want to follow the data—not the politics. If someone is a genuine danger to the community, repeatedly violates release conditions, or presents a serious risk of not appearing in court, judges need the authority and resources to detain them.

I would support strengthening the system with better statewide data, adequate pretrial supervision, faster hearings for high-risk defendants, and meaningful consequences for violations of release conditions. I also want transparent reporting on re-arrests, failures to appear and violent offenses committed while on pretrial release.

The goal shouldn't be going back to cash bail or defending the law simply because it was passed. The goal should be a system that is fair to defendants, accountable to victims and prosecutors, and—above all—keeps our communities safe.

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?

I would focus on four things: First, strengthen property-tax caps. PTELL currently limits the growth of tax extensions for many taxing districts, but it does not cap an individual homeowner’s bill, and there are significant exceptions. I would look at closing those gaps while protecting voters’ ability to approve increases when they truly want them.

Second, consolidate government and services where it makes financial sense. Illinois has too many overlapping layers of local government. Shared services, joint purchasing and voluntary consolidation can reduce administrative costs without cutting essential services.

Third, require greater transparency before property-tax increases and local borrowing. Taxpayers should be able to clearly see what they're paying for, what alternatives were considered, and the long-term cost before government asks for more.

Finally, audit spending and eliminate waste before asking homeowners for more money. I want every level of government to live within its means.

My goal isn't to promise a property-tax cut that government can't afford. It's to make government more affordable so homeowners don't have to keep writing bigger checks.

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?

I’m not against data centers or the technology they support. Illinois should welcome investment and the jobs that come with it—but not by shifting the costs onto taxpayers, homeowners, or local communities.

Going forward, any data center receiving state incentives should have to prove that it pays its fair share of the electricity, water and infrastructure it requires. We should require transparent reporting of water and energy use, strong environmental standards, and meaningful local input before projects are approved.

I also want to see an honest accounting of the tax incentives we’ve already provided. From 2020 through 2024, 27 data centers received more than $983 million in incentives. We need to know what taxpayers received in return—jobs, investment and increased revenue—not just promises.

My position is simple: If a company wants to build in Illinois, I want the jobs and investment—but I don’t want Illinois families subsidizing the infrastructure that makes it possible. Growth should pay for itself, protect our water and environment, and benefit the communities that host it.

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 believe immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility, but Illinois also has a responsibility to protect public safety.

I support local police focusing on enforcing Illinois law rather than acting as federal immigration agents. But being undocumented should never mean being protected from accountability for committing a serious crime.

I would keep the basic principle of the TRUST Act, while strengthening cooperation with federal authorities when someone is arrested or convicted of a serious or violent crime and a valid criminal warrant is involved. I also want clearer reporting and transparency so taxpayers know exactly how these policies are being applied.

My position is simple: we can be compassionate without being careless, and tough on crime without turning local police into immigration agents. I want Illinois to enforce the law, protect victims, support law enforcement, and work with—not against—federal authorities when public safety is at stake.

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?

Yes. Recent events have shown that concerns about sexual harassment in Springfield are not simply political rhetoric. The Legislative Inspector General found that former Rep. Harry Benton engaged in a “pattern and practice” of inappropriate sexual conduct, and questions were also raised about whether complaints were acted on quickly enough.

As a husband, father, and veteran, I believe every person deserves to work in an environment where they are treated with dignity and respect. No one should have to choose between speaking up about harassment and protecting their career.

We need an independent, credible reporting and investigative process, real protection against retaliation, timely investigations, and consequences when misconduct is substantiated. The Legislative Inspector General also needs sufficient independence and resources to do the job effectively.

This shouldn't be a Republican or Democratic issue. It's a basic workplace and leadership issue. If someone abuses their position, party affiliation should never protect them. Springfield needs a culture where complaints are taken seriously the first time—not after more people are harmed.

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?

I believe Illinois has an ethics framework, but it must go further to earn taxpayers’ trust.

Ethics should protect the public—not politicians from consequences. I would strengthen three areas: independent oversight, transparency, and meaningful consequences.

The Legislative Inspector General should have the independence and resources to investigate complaints without political interference. Ethics findings should be made public when legally appropriate, and conflicts of interest should be clearly disclosed so voters can see who may benefit from legislative decisions.

I also support stronger revolving-door rules to prevent legislators from using public office to secure private-sector benefits immediately after leaving office.

When an elected official violates the public trust, the consequences should be serious—not merely another training course or a slap on the wrist.

As a veteran, I believe public service means putting the mission and the people ahead of yourself. I would bring that standard to Springfield: if you serve the public, you should be accountable to the public.

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

I bring more than 20 years of leadership experience, a military background, and a career dedicated to protecting and serving others. As a retired military veteran and security leader, I’ve learned how to listen, make difficult decisions, take responsibility, and work with people from different backgrounds.

I’ve spent time in the communities I’m asking to represent—Mount Prospect, Arlington Heights, Rolling Meadows, Buffalo Grove, Palatine, Prospect Heights, and Schaumburg—and I understand that residents want practical solutions, not more partisan politics. Whether it’s the burden of property taxes, public safety, infrastructure, or the future of the Bears and Arlington Park, these issues affect the families, workers, seniors, and businesses of District 27 directly.

I’m not a career politician. I’m a blue-collar veteran who believes leadership means showing up, listening, and doing the job. My military service taught me that you serve the people standing beside you.

District 27 doesn’t need another politician telling people what they want to hear. It needs someone willing to listen, stand up, and get to work. I’ve spent my life serving others. Now I’m ready to serve District 27.