Chicago’s Mayor, Brandon Johnson, has declared his intent to reject the recently passed curfew legislation, a move that would give the Superintendent of Chicago Police, Larry Snelling, the authority to impose curfews throughout the city on short notice. He criticized the ordinance in a news conference, arguing it’s a step backward in the city-wide push against crime and violence. The potential for heightening friction between the public and law enforcement is a significant concern, in light of continuing efforts to rebuild public trust. This veto sets a significant precedent, marking the first mayoral veto in Chicago since 2006.
The City Council approved the curfew policy with a 27-22 majority vote. However, to supersede the mayor’s veto, a ‘supermajority’, or 34 votes, will be required. The newly-approved legislation would require Supt. Snelling to foresee, based on indicators like social media trends, leaflets, and other corroborative evidence, when 20 or more individuals are set to assemble potentially causing considerable damage to property, individuals, or community safety.
The curfew law targets, in particular, the phenomenon known as ‘teen takeovers’, gatherings of teenagers that have, on occasion, descended into chaos and outbreaks of violence. Brian Hopkins, the lead advocate of the plan from 2nd Ward, underlined the unacceptable tendencies of such assemblies. Hopkins mentioned instances where children as young as 12 engaged in violent conduct, emphasizing the intent of the legislation is to avert such instances altogether.
According to the provisions of the new law, curfews imposed can persist for a maximum of three hours or until the city’s standard curfew time applies, which is 10 p.m. for teenagers. Alderwoman Monique Scott from the West Side (24th Ward) says the law provides much-needed support in tackling the ongoing issue of teen takeovers. Her remarks, ‘This is a tool before the crowd starts so we can shut it down,’ highlights how this ordinance may be used.
In spite of some support, the proposed law has stirred significant debate within the Council. Progressive council members alongside the mayor have denounced it, labeling it at best an ineffective solution to curb teen takeovers and at worst a breach of constitutional rights. Mayor Johnson’s intended veto of this hotly contested legislation has earned commendation from the public defender’s office of Cook County.
They warned that granting such expansive control to CPD could potentially lead to unwarranted and perilous encounters between the police and the youth, particularly targeting young people of color. They suggested that the solution should instead be focused on further investments in supporting youth through resources and evidence-based opportunities rather than increased criminalization.
Erving, himself African American, shared his past experiences in a notorious sundown town, Anna, Illinois. The comparison he drew between the curfew ordinance and historic restrictions on black youth resonates strongly. He raised grave concerns against conferring power to a department reputed to disregard the best interests of black youth.
Alderwoman Angela Clay (46th Ward) voiced her disappointment that the ordinance seems to overlook feedback from young citizens, particularly those involved in social justice organizations, who have vociferously opposed the law. She criticized the Council’s disregard for including the perspectives directly affected by their discussions and legislation decisions. Clay raised a poignant question about the after-action plan post-curfew.
Johnson delivered his most biting critique yet of the proposal, dismissing it as a rather unbalanced approach to crime. He viewed it as an attempt to take shortcuts, bypassing the more challenging but necessary holistic strategies for crime prevention. Johnson questioned the Council’s reluctance to collaborate with his administration in advancing effective strategies instead of leaning on ‘rocky and hastily assembled ordinances.’
Doubts started to surface regarding the ordinance’s effectiveness, causing the curfew proposal to adapt over the last few months. Initially conceived as a stricter curfew limited to the downtown area, transformed into a ‘roving’ curfew applicable citywide. The curfew discussion attained renewed momentum after the public disclosure of Supt. Snelling’s criticisms around the 30-minute notice provision.
Snelling expressed his reluctance over the snap-power granted to him, clarifying it was neither desired nor required by him. Concerns were voiced that such a sudden curfew would be unjust to young people already present at the designated site. Snelling did, however, express potential benefits from the general ordinance, pointing out that it would be useful if a curfew could be declared a few days in advance if indications of teen takeovers surfaced.
However, renewed vigilance arose around the dangers of the ordinance as critics noted that despite Supt. Snelling vowing to forego the minimum 30-minute snap power, the ordinance would permit him to exercise that power. Critics worry that the swift implementation of a curfew leaves inadequate time to notify youth, resulting in possible unwarranted curfew violation citations or constitutional rights infringements.
Overall, although the purpose of this curfew ordinance may have been to enhance community safety and decrease youth-involved violence, it has become the center of heated debate. Its critics argue that it may inflict further damage by straining police-community relationships, potentially violating constitutional rights, and disproportionately affecting young people of colour. The coming days will determine whether Mayor Johnson’s veto will stand or if the City Council will manage to override it, altering the dynamics of curfew enforcement in Chicago.
The post Chicago Mayor Rejects Recent Curfew Legislation appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
