Republican

Austin Peterson

Minnesota State Senate District 4 2026 · 2026

↗ Official Website

Policy Positions

55%

Avg Confidence

Issue Areas

Find Your Alignment →

Policy Positions

▲

Criminal Justice

1 position

Do you believe that repeat violent offenders should face longer mandatory minimum prison sentences than current law requires?

Support

Party InferenceCampaign platform emphasizes support for law enforcement and public safety values consistent with tough-on-crime positions, but no explicit statement on mandatory minimums for repeat violent offenders; inference based on stated priorities and Republican party baseline on criminal justice. Fact-check this →

◊

Drug Policy

1 position

Do you believe local governments should have the authority to prohibit cannabis retail businesses from operating within their jurisdictions?

Support

Campaign PlatformCampaign platform emphasizes local control, limited government, and defending personal freedoms with decisions 'made locally whenever possible,' suggesting support for local authority over cannabis retail; no direct statement on cannabis policy found. Fact-check this →

■

Education

1 position

Would you support creating education savings accounts that give families the option to apply their share of state school funding toward tuition at a private school?

Support

Campaign PlatformCampaign platform emphasizes 'local control,' 'parental rights,' 'limited government,' and opposition to centralized decision-making, which align with education savings account philosophy, though no explicit statement on this specific policy appears on the candidate's website. Fact-check this →

◆

Environment

1 position

Do you believe Minnesota should keep its current law requiring all electricity delivered by utilities to come from carbon-free sources by 2040?

Oppose

Party InferenceNo direct statements on Minnesota's 2040 carbon-free electricity mandate found on campaign website; position inferred from Republican party baseline skepticism of aggressive climate mandates combined with candidate's emphasis on 'limited government' and 'living within means,' with modest confidence reflecting absence of explicit evidence on this specific policy. Fact-check this →

□

Gun Policy

1 position

Do you believe courts should have the authority to temporarily remove firearms from people determined by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others?

Oppose

Party InferenceNo direct statement on extreme risk protection orders or firearm removal policies found in campaign materials; position inferred from candidate's stated commitment to 'defending personal freedoms' and general conservative Republican platform on gun rights, which typically opposes such measures. Fact-check this →

♥

Healthcare

1 position

Do you believe residents should have the option to purchase health coverage directly through a state-run insurance program if they choose?

Oppose

Party InferenceCampaign platform emphasizes limited government, fiscal responsibility, and opposition to government overreach; no direct statement on state-run health insurance, but ideological alignment with Republican opposition to public option programs. Fact-check this →

▪

Housing

1 position

Would you support requiring cities to allow more than one housing unit on lots where only single-family homes are currently permitted by zoning rules?

Oppose

Party InferenceNo direct statement on zoning or housing density policy found on campaign website; position inferred from candidate's stated commitments to 'local control,' 'limited government,' and 'protecting rural way of life,' which typically correlate with opposition to state-mandated zoning changes among rural Republican candidates. Fact-check this →

▶

Immigration

1 position

Would you support a policy that allows residents to obtain a driver's license regardless of their immigration status?

Oppose

Party InferenceNo direct statements on immigration or driver's licenses found on candidate's campaign website; position inferred from Republican party baseline on immigration policy and candidate's stated emphasis on 'limited government' and 'local control' without specific endorsement of this policy. Fact-check this →

△

Infrastructure

1 position

Would you support a policy that dedicates metro-area sales tax revenue specifically to funding public transit expansion and operations?

Oppose

Party InferenceNo direct statement on metro transit funding; inferred from campaign platform emphasis on local control, limited government, rural priorities, and skepticism of metro-area spending—typical Republican infrastructure position favoring local/county over regional transit initiatives. Fact-check this →

⚐

Labor

1 position

Would you support continuing a state-run paid leave program that allows workers to receive benefits funded by employer and employee payroll taxes?

Oppose

Party InferenceNo direct statement on paid leave programs found in campaign website; position inferred from Republican party baseline opposition to employer/employee payroll tax mandates and stated commitment to 'limited government' and businesses 'living within their means.' Fact-check this →

◈

Social Security

1 position

Would you support a policy that fully exempts all Social Security benefits from Minnesota state income tax, regardless of how much income a recipient earns?

Support

Party InferenceCampaign platform emphasizes tax relief, limited government, and helping families/seniors live within means, consistent with Social Security tax exemption support, but no explicit statement on this specific policy exists. Fact-check this →

⚑

Taxes

1 position

Do you believe the state should establish an additional income tax bracket with a higher rate for income earned above one million dollars per year?

Oppose

Party InferenceCampaign platform emphasizes limited government, living within means, and conservative values; no direct statement on progressive taxation or millionaire tax brackets; position inferred from stated opposition to government overreach and emphasis on fiscal responsibility aligned with typical Republican tax policy. Fact-check this →