The Chicago City Council passed an ordinance forbidding police officers with connections to extremist groups from working in the Chicago Police Department. By a vote of 28-21, this measure requires the department to terminate existing officers and refuse employment to applicants with ties to organizations like the Three Percenters or Proud Boys. New investigative measures will help vet police employees and candidates.
During the debate, critics argued the measure unfairly targets police and should apply to all city workers. However, Alderman Matt Martin, a staunch supporter of the measure, emphasized the importance of taking action against extremism in the police force, noting past discussions on the issue.
Refusing to act because one proposal is not a silver bullet, that’s a mistake…We should do what we can, where we can with the legal tools that are available to us and we should do it now.—Alderman Matt Martin
Alderman Nick Sposato voiced opposition, suggesting the measure should address all city employees, not just police officers. He expressed concern over singling out the police, saying:
Everything’s got to be about the police, the evil police. If it’s everybody, I have no problem with it.
John Catanzara, president of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police, announced the intention to challenge the ordinance legally, describing it as unnecessary and targeted.
Alderman Martin propelled the measure forward after previous voting delays. He presented it in response to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot and a 2024 report from Chicago Inspector General Deborah Witzburg, which highlighted deficiencies in addressing police extremism.
The ordinance focuses on “active participation” in extremist groups, including activities like recruiting and displaying symbols. Mayor Brandon Johnson, supporting the ordinance, created a task force to investigate extremism in response to Witzburg’s findings. He emphasized the need for high standards in the police force to maintain community trust.
The city Law Department defended the ordinance’s focus on police, stating that it was legally sound due to its narrow scope, addressing the unique responsibilities of law enforcement.
Alderman Martin noted the necessity of focusing on police to make the ordinance legally sound and emphasized their distinct role in law enforcement with significant state power.
Leave a Reply