Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson will veto the controversial curfew ordinance passed Wednesday by the City Council that would empower Chicago Police Supt. Larry Snelling to issue curfews anytime, anywhere in the city, with 30 minutes’ notice.
“It is counterproductive to the progress we have made in reducing crime and violence in our city,” Johnson said at a news conference where he announced the veto less than two hours after the proposal passed.
“It would create tensions between residents and law enforcement at a time when we have worked so hard to rebuild that trust,” he said.
Johnson’s veto, which he said he would issue this week, would be the first by a Chicago mayor since 2006.
The Council voted 27-22 to pass the measure. Council members would need a supermajority, or 34 votes, to override the mayor’s veto.
The policy approved by the Council requires Snelling to predict, based on social media chatter, flyers or other evidence, when a group of 20 or more people plan to gather “in a manner that is likely to result in, substantial harm to the safety of the community or others, or substantial damage to property, or substantial injuries to a person” or that is “likely to present or cause, substantial harm to public health, safety, or welfare.”
The ordinance is meant to prevent so-called “teen takeovers,” or large gatherings of teens that have turned chaotic and at times violent.
“We’ve seen the videos of the events that inspired this ordinance and no one here is OK with that,” said the plan’s lead sponsor, 2nd Ward Ald. Brian Hopkin. Hopkins added it’s not OK for kids as young as 12 “to take guns out of their backpacks and to engage in violent behavior, and mayhem, and chaos. The primary goal is to prevent those events from happening.”
Under the ordinance, the curfew can remain in place for three hours, or as soon as the city’s regular curfew hits. For teenagers, that’s at 10 p.m.
West Side Ald. Monique Scott (24th) said it’s a much-needed tool for the persistent issue of teen takeovers.
“I am a Black woman raising a Black child in the city of Chicago, and I refuse to allow my 17-year-old daughter … to go downtown because I want her to come home to me safely and alive,” Scott said. “The streets are not safe for her.
“We’re not saying get your billy clubs and beat the kids upside the head,” she added. “This is a tool before the crowd starts so we can shut it down.”
The proposal has been a point of controversy in the Council as the mayor and its progressive members have derided it as an ineffective way to address teen takeovers at best and unconstitutional at worst.
The Cook County public defender’s office commended Johnson’s plan to veto the ordinance: “Granting CPD this new power would lead to unnecessary and dangerous police interactions with youth, particularly young people of color,” a statement reads. “We agree that instead of increased criminalization that is ultimately ineffective, the City should continue investing in supporting young people with resources and evidence-based opportunities. “
Repeated changes to the proposal — made in response to concerns — led one of the three lead sponsors, 28th War Ald. Jason Ervin, to drop his support.
During his floor speech, Ervin, who is Black, spoke about a time he traveled to Anna, Illinois, a place with a notorious history of being a sundown town, where he was told he couldn’t be.
“When this ordinance first hit, it was eerily familiar to saying that Black kids could not go to downtown. … That’s why I got involved. … Unfortunately, what we have now is worse than what we started with. Now, not only can it happen downtown, but it can happen all over the city,” Ervin said.
“This power is bestowed in one department,” he added. “And again, giving authority to a department that historically has not had the best interest of Black kids in its place is not something I want to sign up for.”
Ald. Angela Clay (46th) said the proposal failed to reflect feedback from young Chicagoans, many from social justice organizations, who have spoken out against it.
“It bothers me that we have a room full of young people, and no one has asked them their opinion on this issue,” Clay said. “People who are mostly impacted by what we are discussing should be at this table. … We can’t just talk about ‘Let’s have a curfew,’ but then what are you going to do after the curfew?”
The day before the vote, Johnson gave his most fiery criticism yet of the plan, which he characterized as a shortcut instead of holistic solutions to address crime’s root causes.
“Why not just work with my administration to continue to do the things that work, versus these make-believe, lazy, sloppily put together ordinances that work to just, like, absolve people of actually having to do the real hard work?” he asked.
During the debate Wednesday, 3rd Ward Ald. Pat Dowell, who endorsed Johnson for mayor and remains a Council ally, clapped back at his remarks.
“I’m not down here doing lazy governance,” said Dowell, a co-sponsor of the plan.
She said investing in solutions to the root causes of crime, such as expanding youth jobs, isn’t an “either/or” to giving police the curfew tool.
“Working with you, Mr. Mayor, we have prioritized and increased funding for youth jobs. We have increased summer employment … and we’ve given teens the opportunities to find fun.”
The push for a curfew has changed in the last few months to address concerns about its effectiveness. The ordinance originally started as an idea to create a stricter curfew for just the downtown area before it morphed into the roving curfew that could apply anywhere in the city.
Hopkins had been working with Johnson’s team and Snelling to come to a compromise. The most recent version before the final iteration would have required the mayor’s office to sign off on issuing a curfew at Snelling’s request.
In response to concerns from some of the Council’s more conservative members that that would hamstring Snelling, Hopkins tweaked the plan to give police the sole power to issue a curfew, after a nonbinding conversation with the mayor’s office.
Hopkins said he is proud of the “good faith that went into this even in the time when we disagreed.”
The Council voted on the proposal, even as it remained unclear which city agency or official requested what has been deemed the “snap” provision of the ordinance — the piece that allows the police department to issue a curfew with just a 30-minute warning to kids to disperse.
The question was brought to the forefront after comments by Snelling came to light last week in which he criticized the 30-minute time frame included in the proposal.
Snelling said he would “never use” that snap power, that it is “not something that I asked for or that I need” and that it would be “unfair to the youth who are already in that location” to issue a curfew with just a 30-minute warning.
Garien Gatewood, deputy mayor for community safety, confirmed Tuesday, too, that he “didn’t ask for” the 30-minute provision.
Hopkins, told WBEZ he is also unsure who pitched the 30-minute time frame.
“We were in a room, and the superintendent was there, the deputy mayor was there, a number of attorneys were there, drafters from [the Legislative Reference Bureau] were there. The mayor himself was there, and we all made suggestions. And I can’t remember where the 30-minute time period came from. It wasn’t the superintendent — fair enough — but it did come about as part of that discussion,” Hopkins said.
At the court hearing where Snelling spoke about the curfew ordinance, he said police could benefit from the general ordinance and the power to implement curfews beyond the city’s current 10 p.m. cutoff for kids, just not the 30-minute provision. He said he would only declare curfews when teen takeovers were brewing days in advance.
Hopkins argued it is not a “snap curfew” because in order to declare a curfew and give a 30-minute warning, police would have to collect evidence that a group of 20 or more kids are intending to commit crimes, and then would have to consult with Gatewood, as the ordinance spells out.
Some people have raised red flags that even though the police department may vow not to use the bare minimum of 30 minutes, the ordinance would still empower it to do so. They’ve raised concerns police will not be able to adequately inform youth that a curfew is being implemented within just 30 minutes, and that will lead to kids being unfairly cited for curfew violation, or to constitutional rights being violated.