Shandowlyon Reaves

I support innovation in artificial intelligence and recognize its potential to improve education, health care, business, government efficiency, and economic development. However, innovation should not come at an unreasonable cost to Wisconsin families and communities.

Large data centers should pay the costs associated with the electricity, water, transmission, and other infrastructure necessary to serve them rather than shifting those costs to residential and small-business ratepayers. Communities also deserve transparency regarding projected water and energy use, infrastructure needs, tax incentives, environmental impacts, permanent jobs created, and long-term economic benefits.

My position is informed by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and national energy research. DOE reports that data centers consumed approximately 4.4% of U.S. electricity in 2023 and projects they could consume approximately 6.7% to 12% by 2028. The Wisconsin PSC has also recognized that some proposed data centers could become among the state’s largest energy users and has addressed protections against shifting their costs to existing utility customers.

Wisconsin can welcome AI innovation while requiring accountability, transparency, consumer protection, and measurable community benefit.

Wisconsin should invest in workforce development where there is demonstrated employer demand and a clear path to good-paying jobs. I support expanding youth and registered apprenticeships, dual-enrollment, industry-recognized credentials, and employer-led training in agriculture, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, and energy.

I would prioritize existing programs that can document job placement, wage growth, and employer participation rather than create new programs simply because a field is considered “emerging.” Wisconsin already has a strong foundation. More than 43,900 Wisconsin students took an agriculture course in 2024–25, and the state had 1,302 youth apprenticeships in Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources. Wisconsin’s federally designated Biohealth Tech Hub also received approximately $49 million, in part to create talent pipelines matched to employer needs.

These investments should connect high schools, technical colleges, universities, and employers so students and workers can move directly from training into available jobs.

My rationale is simple: workforce policy should respond to real labor-market demand and produce measurable results for workers and taxpayers.

After more than 30 years in education—as a special education teacher, principal, district administrator, and state education leader—I have seen schools struggle with declining enrollment, teacher shortages, inadequate resources, and limited access to specialized courses. These challenges affect urban, rural, and other Wisconsin communities, although their causes and severity may differ.

My experience informed my proposed Bill of Rights for Students, establishing what every Wisconsin student should be able to expect from their educational experience: qualified teachers, rigorous instruction, appropriate special education services, safe and adequately resourced schools, access to STEM and career education, and preparation for college, employment, or other postsecondary opportunities.

I support strengthening teacher recruitment and retention, expanding dual enrollment and career pathways, improving access to specialized coursework, and directing resources toward demonstrated student needs while requiring transparency and measurable outcomes.

These positions are informed by my three decades of professional experience and Wisconsin DPI and district data documenting declining enrollment, staffing challenges, and differences in educational access.

Where students live should influence how we meet their needs—not whether those needs are met.

As someone who earned a doctorate and conducted both quantitative and qualitative research for my three-part dissertation, I understand the importance of examining evidence, methodology, limitations, and context before drawing conclusions.

If elected, I would consult scientists and other subject-matter experts to establish a sound factual foundation for policy decisions. Depending on the issue, I would review peer-reviewed research, hear testimony from researchers and technical experts, consult Wisconsin universities and state agencies, and examine credible governmental and independent data.

I would ask not only what the research says, but how the research was conducted, whether findings have been replicated, what limitations exist, where experts agree or disagree, and what questions remain unanswered.

Scientific evidence should inform policy; it should not substitute for legislative judgment. My responsibility as a legislator would also require consideration of constitutional and legal requirements, fiscal impact, feasibility, unintended consequences, and the experiences of constituents affected by a policy.

My research background taught me that responsible decision-making requires asking good questions, examining multiple forms of evidence, and being willing to reconsider conclusions when credible new evidence warrants it.

Wisconsin must be prepared to identify infectious disease early and respond before an outbreak becomes a public health crisis. I support strong disease surveillance, laboratory and testing capacity, timely communication among state and local health departments and health-care providers, and ensuring that residents receive accurate information about prevention, testing, treatment, and available vaccines.

I believe public health policy should be informed by the best available scientific evidence while respecting individual decision-making. Government has an obligation to communicate honestly about risks, benefits, uncertainties, and available options. Individuals should have reliable information necessary to make informed decisions about their health.

Responses should also be proportionate to the specific disease and demonstrated risk rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all approach. My position is informed by Wisconsin DHS and CDC infectious-disease surveillance and outbreak guidance, including Wisconsin’s recent measles experience.

I also bring a research perspective to evaluating public-health evidence. My doctoral work included quantitative and qualitative research, which reinforced for me the importance of examining methodology, data, limitations, and competing evidence before reaching conclusions.

Effective public health requires preparedness, credible science, public trust, transparency, and respect for informed individual decision-making.