Chicago witnessed a significant moment on Wednesday afternoon as youth organizers from black and brown communities expressed relief over the defeat of the contentious ‘snap curfew’ ordinance. The proposed measure, which would have empowered the Chicago Police superintendent to impose a curfew on short notice, faced a decisive blow during the City Council meeting, failing to overturn Mayor Brandon Johnson’s veto with a 27-22 vote, falling short of the necessary 34 votes.
Nur Islem Hassan Khan, a 15-year-old youth organizer representing Communities United, spoke passionately about the decision. ‘I’d say it’s a win for us,’ he stated, emphasizing the oppressive nature of the curfew for young people like himself. His concerns particularly resonated with his identity as a Muslim, highlighting that the ordinance would have interfered with evening prayers, known as Maghrib.
The veto marked a historic instance, as it was the first time a Chicago mayor used such a power since 2006, when former Mayor Richard M. Daley vetoed a labor ordinance aimed at ensuring a livable wage for employees at large retail chains.
Hassan Khan’s apprehensions about the ordinance included fears of racial profiling by police, where even with exemptions for certain activities, he worried that his religious observances would not be respected under the law. ‘If I’m not allowed to go out after 7:00 p.m., that stops me from performing my religious duties,’ he articulated, questioning how he would be perceived based on his attire.
Twenty-year-old Reynia Jackson, another advocate from GoodKids MadCity (GKMC), expressed gratitude towards Mayor Johnson and the city alderpersons who stood against the curfew. ‘He stood by us. He heard us. He saw how many young people were coming to the City Council,’ she remarked, acknowledging the collective pressure from youth who advocated against the ordinance.
Despite this victory, Jackson was cautious in her optimism. GKMC continues to lobby for the full enactment of the Peace Book Ordinance, which aims to establish youth-led Neighborhood Peace Commissions and a peacekeepers program to address violence in impacted communities. ‘It’s a step closer to a win,’ she noted, reiterating the ongoing advocacy for the Peace Book since its proposal in 2020.
In his budget for 2024 and 2025, Mayor Johnson allocated funding to support the peacekeepers program, allowing GKMC to employ 200 young individuals this year—double from the previous year—though they had to turn away a thousand applicants.
‘It took so much organizing to finally be heard,’ reflected Jackson, emphasizing that criminalization is not a viable solution for youth-related issues.
Following the vote, Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd Ward), who led the ordinance proposal as chair of the Public Safety Committee, reiterated his commitment to the legislation. He argued that the curfew was a necessary measure to prevent large gatherings of teenagers that can lead to violence and described the failed override as a missed opportunity. ‘We fell short, but it was the right thing to do,’ he stated to reporters, affirming his belief in the ordinance’s potential.
The proposal emerged as a response to two separate shootings in March that occurred during what were described as ‘teen trends.’ Initially, Hopkins suggested lowering the existing curfew from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. before shifting to the snap curfew concept, which saw multiple revisions before Wednesday’s vote.
Confusion also surrounded the stance of Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling regarding the ordinance. While Hopkins claimed the curfew powers were requested by Snelling, reports indicated that Snelling had expressed reservations about utilizing such powers during a court hearing.
Following the failed vote, Hopkins lamented the loss of a ‘valuable tool’ for police to manage potentially violent gatherings, arguing that without the snap curfew, the alternative action remains arrests. Current fines under the existing curfew can reach $500, with new provisions under the snap curfew suggesting fines of $250 and possible community service, along with the controversial capacity for police to detain youths whose guardians cannot be contacted.
Opponents of the ordinance, including Johnson and various community advocates, contend that such measures could infringe upon the rights of young people and expose the city to legal challenges. Prior to the City Council meeting, Johnson firmly positioned himself against the ordinance during a press conference, emphasizing the need to avoid ‘political theater of safety’ that threatens families with punitive measures.
Johnson stated, ‘We know from years of doing the same old, tired forms of policy that it doesn’t get the results that people have longed for. It doesn’t keep us safe, and it doesn’t make our city stronger.’
Emphasizing investment in people instead, he cited the need for youth employment and strategic police deployment as mechanisms to effectively combat violence. Johnson noted that this year’s July 4th and Memorial Day weekends were notably less violent compared to the previous six years, attributing this trend partly to proactive community initiatives.
‘I would do it all over again,’ Johnson concluded, reiterating his commitment to protecting young people in Chicago. ‘I would do anything and everything necessary to protect the city’s young people.’
This pivotal moment in Chicago’s governance showcases not only the power of organized youth advocacy but also the continuing debate surrounding public safety and community justice mechanisms in urban environments.
image source from：thetriibe
