Aldermen block plan to put sanctuary city question to Chicago voters

CHICAGO — Aldermen blocked a measure Thursday to place a symbolic question on the March primary ballot asking voters whether to end Chicago’s status as a sanctuary city, the likely end to a monthslong saga driven by opponents of Mayor Brandon Johnson seeking to take a stand against his response to the migrant crisis.

In a 31-16 vote, the City Council sided with Johnson in rejecting a motion to debate whether to include a nonbinding referendum on the ballot asking “Should the City of Chicago limit its designation as a Sanctuary City by placing spending limits on its public funding?”

The vote came at a special City Council meeting called by resolution sponsor Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th, and Alds. Raymond Lopez, 15th, and David Moore, 17th. Their prior attempt in November to get the sanctuary city question to voters devolved into chaos.

“Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I think you all had something up your sleeve,” Beale said after his motion failed. “What are you scared of, to let the people have a voice? What are you scared of, the truth? … That’s all this question is asking, is to let the people have a say.”

Besides the three who forced the special meeting, aldermen in support of considering the resolution were: Brian Hopkins, 2nd, Gregory Mitchell, 7th, Nicole Lee, 11th, Marty Quinn, Derrick Curtis, 18th, Ronnie Mosley, 21st, Silvana Tabares, 23rd, Monique Scott, 24th, Chris Taliaferro, 29th, Nicholas Sposato, 38th, Anthony Napolitano, 41st, Brendan Reilly, 42nd, and James Gardiner, 45th.

Johnson did not opine on the resolution during Thursday’s meeting, but he has long brushed off Beale’s efforts as a political stunt.

“This is a crisis. As I’ve said, it’s not going to go away because people are upset,” Johnson told reporters the previous day, referencing unspecified critics of his migrant response. “Now unfortunately, you have individuals that have used this as a way to execute its meanness ... that type of meanness has caused the type of strife that we’re experiencing now.”

Thursday’s meeting almost certainly spells the end of Beale’s effort to advance the sanctuary city question to voters. His proposal heads back to the council Rules Committee, and Johnson’s hand-picked chair of that body told reporters afterward that she has no intention of holding a hearing on it before the Jan. 2 deadline to make the March ballot.

Beale, Lopez and Moore have been plotting the mini-rebellion for several weeks now, with Johnson’s allies outmaneuvering them by using to their advantage the fact Chicago only allows three referendum questions per election. One spot is already reserved for the “Bring Chicago Home” referendum that would increase the real estate transfer tax for some to fund homelessness services, a major plank of Johnson’s progressive agenda.

Other mayoral allies in City Council have introduced a flurry of questions on various topics such as flood relief that are nonbinding, which Beale and others have said was a tactic to crowd out the ballot.

Even if Beale’s question did appear on the ballot, a yes vote on the nonbinding referendum would not change the existing sanctuary ordinance — which also has no bearing on whether migrants can continue coming to Chicago. In fact, Chicago’s sanctuary city status concerns a ban on official cooperation with federal deportation authorities and ensures immigrants living without legal permission can use city services.

But the result of such an up-or-down vote could have symbolic weight on the humanitarian crisis that has Chicagoans torn on how to respond. Beale and supporters of the question charge the Johnson administration would stifle democracy by not giving voters a say on a major issue in the city, but those against the referendum say it’s a waste of time that goes against Chicago’s values of welcoming all.

Ald. Jessie Fuentes, 26th, sought to dismiss Beale’s arguments in a post-Council presser where Johnson allies and immigration advocates celebrated their victory.

“Look, we can have critical conversations. We’re not saying that we cannot,” Fuentes said. “We don’t need a question on the ballot that is going to be weaponized and manipulated to sow divisions in our community. That was the statement that our vote made today.”

The last time the City Council was set to consider this resolution, mayoral allies succeeded in blocking the meeting via lack of quorum. But they did so at the cost of Johnson’s floor leader Ald. Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, 35th, being accused of “bullying” following his attempts to stop multiple colleagues from attending. He resigned from that leadership post and from his coveted Zoning committee chair role after apologizing.

Thursday’s meeting won’t be the end of the debate aldermen have on the divisive issue of asylum-seekers. The 25,700-plus migrants who have arrived in Chicago since August 2022 have come to define the first chapter of Johnson’s mayorship as his administration must scramble to respond to a never-ending stream of buses from southern border states, led by Republican governors who hope to test the limits of liberal, pro-immigration cities.

Recent questions about the scale of funding needed to respond to the crisis have highlighted racial divides in the city, with some aldermen and residents arguing the multimillion-dollar outlays for migrant needs should instead go to fighting homelessness and historic neighborhood disinvestment. But Thursday’s vote showed the mayor still has a reliable firewall of support against City Council’s more reactionary aldermen when it comes to the migrant issue.

Through the end of November, the city has spent $129.5 million on the migrant response since it began, with $86.6 million of that toward a single vendor that hires workers for the shelters, Favorite Healthcare Staffing, per a public records request. But invoices are often delayed, and budget officials previously predicted that projection could top $360 million.

The topic has been so heated that there have been regular disruptions in City Council and violence against elected officials in the last several months.

Two aldermen — Gregory Mitchell, 7th, and Julia Ramirez, 12th — have allegedly been physically attacked or put in harm’s way by constituents upset over the city’s asylum response. And the Johnson administration briefly implemented a controversial policy curtailing public access in the City Council chambers, following several meetings where boisterous audience members in opposition to migrant spending had to be kicked out.

____