A meeting Wednesday to determine what advisory referendums get on the November and February ballots turned into a legislative spitball fight that showcased mounting tension between Mayor Brandon Johnson and an emboldened City Council.
The same renegade bloc of conservative Democrats that rejected Johnson’s corporate head tax in favor of an alternative budget rammed through their own carefully crafted ballot questions. But not before a contentious back-and-forth between the warring factions that saw the mayor appear to lose his cool.
It happened during debate about a February ballot question that seeks to ask Chicago voters whether the City Council should have its own legal counsel.
After a friendly question from mayoral ally Ald. Lamont Robinson (4th), Johnson stressed that “for an independent legal counsel to exist, the state of Illinois would have to provide the authority.”
That’s when Ald. Andre Vasquez (40th), who chairs the Hispanic Caucus and co-chairs the Progressive Caucus, appeared to get under the mayor’s skin.
“I’m having a problem with the framing of, `This can’t be a question because the state would need to make changes,’“ Vasquez said.
Johnson replied, “The body cannot establish its own independent legal counsel without the authority being granted by the state of Illinois. That is the law. It’s not about whether or not the question should be asked.”
Vasquez countered, “So for clarity, that would be the same criteria for a millionaire’s tax or anything else we’re talking about?”
Johnson said, “Yes. Okay? Thank you for checking. Does anyone else want to check on what is the authority of the state of Illinois?”
With his microphone turned off, Vasquez shouted from the floor that the City Council can create its own legal counsel. “You all are not gonna shout me down,” the mayor replied.
Johnson went on to note that the failed millionaire’s tax question “explicitly called for the state to do it. No one is disputing whether or not the state has the authority.”
Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) was surprised by the mayor’s tone. He noted that the City Council has been pushing for its own legal counsel for two administrations now.
“I don’t know why you’re taking this personally. But this is something we think the voters should weigh in on because it’s something this body has been endeavoring to get for some time,” Reilly said.
Johnson countered, “There’s nothing personal about it. I don’t know why you’re suggesting I’m taking it personal.”
When Reilly noted that Johnson “seemed very agitated,” the mayor said, “If you want to debate my tone, we can do that. But, don’t intend for my emotions to be brought into this conversation. The point of clarification was offered up by one of your colleagues. I offered up that clarification. Now that we’re all clear, and no one is taking it personal.”
Chicago mayors and their City Council allies have a long history of using the limit of three referendums per election to their advantage.
They routinely put innocuous advisory referendums on the ballot to crowd out other, more controversial questions that would have risked bolstering turnout among already frustrated voters who might vent their anger against incumbents.
Verbal squabbling aside, anti-administration alders sacrificed their own advisory referendum on whether the city should make an advance pension payment in the first quarter of the year to make room for a November question that the mayor wanted.
It asks voters whether Chicago should “pursue all lawful means” to recover financial compensation from the federal government for the costs and economic harm caused by federal immigration raids linked to Operation Midway Blitz.
That joins two previously approved questions. One would ask whether Chicago should “restart the use of gunshot detection technology that informs first responders when gunshots are detected.” Another asks whether Chicago should develop a “permanent festival and outdoor event space” for large-scale gatherings.
Mayoral opponents then put the independent counsel question on the February ballot, along with a question about whether the city should withhold funding for sister agencies that don’t enforce debt repayment plans for debt owed to the city, and whether Chicago should create a permanent monument to the city’s “global contributions to music and arts.”
Ald. Byron Sigho-Lopez (25th), the progressive firebrand who is one of Johnson’s most outspoken Council allies, tried to get a millionaire tax question on the February ballot to help boost turnout in the mayor’s progressive base. But Johnson acknowledged that Sigcho-Lopez had filed the question too late.
After the meeting, Johnson denied that Wednesday’s political theater was proof that he had “lost control” over the City Council.
“What it does say is the City Council is out of touch with the people… They have lost control of the narrative,” he said. “I have not lost control and I won’t.”