Racial evolution of the Chicago City Council
After decades of so-called "plantation wards" occupied by non-white residents but led by white alders, today's Chicago City Council nearly matches the racial makeup of the city's population, thanks to a transformational 2023 election.
Why it matters: Equitable racial representation in government can help drive equitable policies and outcomes.
But diversity efforts are facing federal pushback, including an investigation launched this week into Mayor Brandon Johnson for allegedly favoring Black hires on his staff.
The big picture: For decades, white alders held disproportionate power on the council, but today they hold 28% of council seats, lagging behind their 32% of the 2024 population.
Black representation has flipped from 30% of council seats in the 1980s (when Black residents were 40% of the city) to 40% today, while the Black population is 28% of the city.
"Well, finally," says Black freshman Ald. William Hall (6th).
"How many years did it take to get here and to get the first Black female finance [committee] chair and general counsel? I think that what we're doing is catching up. It's inspirational when you see people who look like you leading and serving and working."
Latino representation grew from a single alder in 1983 to 14 today, or 28% of the council, nearly matching the city's 29% Latino population.
Many Latino alders, including Latino Caucus chair Ald. Andre Vasquez (40th), represent racially mixed wards, creating a need to balance a variety of priorities.
"I think [ethnic] representation is very important," Vasquez tells Axios. "But what's more important is that we're in touch with the constituents in our communities and we really listen."
Asian representation hit its highest point (4%) in 2023 after Nicole Lee (11th) and Leni Manaa-Hoppenworth (48th) won seats representing Chinatown and Edgewater/Uptown. Still, it remains behind the city's 7% Asian population.
"I just think it's important to bring our perspectives to the table," Filipino American Manaa-Hoppenworth tells Axios. "We bring the perspective of immigrants seeking better lives, and we know that to build strong communities, you need to bring empathy and collaboration, so I'm proud to be here in the city council doing that."
Between the lines: Some of the biggest power struggles on the council have shifted from Black and white issues to skirmishes between the Black and Latino caucuses.
Ald. Maria Hadden (49th) called the intense 2022 ward remap battle for representation"probably the most racialized thing I've ever been a part of."
Yes, but: Some alders say race is playing a shrinking role in voter choice as Black alders lead at least four plurality white wards.
"I think people are now voting based on the quality of the service that you give them, not your ethnicity," Black Ald. Walter Burnett (27th), who represents the plurality white 27th Ward, tells Axios.
"Maybe we're starting to get into Dr. Martin Luther King's dream when people are judged not based on their race."
Reality check: Council power hasn't yet translated to economic power. A new Urban League analysis suggests the median net worth of a Black Chicago family is $0 compared to $210,000 for white families.
This is one of the reasons Hadden believes the Black caucus, for all its diverse views, remains important.
"A lot of our efforts are really based on equity and parity, whether it's in contracting or the distribution of grants or economic development," she said. "And so that's still very important to me as a black Chicagoan, and it's important to my community."
What's next: Former council member Dick Simpson says he's not surprised to see council representation lag behind population changes as alders use "gerrymandering to protect political bases."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump order aims to make it easier to remove the homeless off the streets
President Trump on Thursday signed an executive order making it easier for cities and states to remove homeless people from the streets and get them treatment elsewhere. The order also calls on Attorney General Pam Bondi to 'reverse judicial precedents and end consent decrees that limit state and local governments' ability to commit individuals on the streets who are a risk to themselves or others,' according to a White House fact sheet. On the surface, it's framed as a solution — but underneath, it represents a troubling expansion of forced institutionalization, with few real answers about long-term care or housing. Trump's recent executive order on homelessness, which prioritizes forced relocation of unhoused people to treatment centers and penalizes open-air encampments, reads more like a campaign tactic than a compassionate or effective public policy. While public frustration around homelessness is understandable, this order channels that frustration in the wrong direction — targeting symptoms instead of causes, and people instead of systems. Framing homelessness as a threat to public safety rather than a humanitarian crisis is not only dangerous — it's inaccurate. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, 'By removing vagrant criminals from our streets the Trump Administration will ensure that Americans feel safe …' This kind of language paints unhoused people as violent offenders, despite studies — like one from the University of Central Florida — showing that unhoused individuals are typically arrested for nonviolent infractions like public intoxication or shoplifting, not for violent crime. In fact, research shows they are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Trump's approach to homelessness relies on institutionalization, encampment sweeps, and prioritizing states that crack down on outdoor sleeping. But it offers no real investment in building or preserving affordable housing — which experts across the political spectrum agree is the core issue. Jesse Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center said it best: 'Trump's expected actions are reckless, expensive, and make homelessness worse. … Real leaders focus on solutions, not on kicking people when they are down.' Supporters of the order argue that it gets people into treatment, but forced treatment rarely leads to long-term recovery — especially when it's divorced from stable housing. Research has consistently shown that Housing First, which prioritizes placing people in permanent housing before mandating treatment or sobriety, reduces homelessness by up to 88 percent and lowers costly emergency care visits. The problem isn't that Housing First failed — it's that we've underfunded and inconsistently applied it across the country. This order also disproportionately affects Black and brown communities, LGBTQ people, and people with disabilities — groups who are already overrepresented in the unhoused population. And in cities like D.C., where Trump is directing federal agencies to evict people from public parks, the move will simply push people out of sight, further away from services and case managers. A few high-profile, tragic incidents involving homeless individuals should not dictate national policy. Fear should not be driving our response to poverty. If we want real results, we need real solutions: housing, mental health access, wraparound services — and most importantly, humanity. Homelessness isn't a crime. And treating it like one won't solve it.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's EPA repeal of climate change rule will result in ‘slow suffocation' of Black communities
'They're playing in our faces, rewriting the rules to protect corporate profits while our neighborhoods pay the price with our public health and pocketbooks,' said Dorien Blythers, former EPA official during the Biden-Harris administration. The Trump administration has taken steps to undo a key federal scientific finding that has been used to combat the climate change crisis in the United States for more than 15 years. The move stands to exacerbate the vulnerabilities of a warming planet and pollution, most especially Black and Brown communities, which are disproportionately exposed to environmental harms. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reportedly drafted a proposal to rescind a 2009 rule that has been used to regulate air pollution. The rule, known as the 'endangerment finding,' scientifically established that greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, endanger human lives, reports The New York Times. The finding has been the federal government's only tool to limit exposure to climate pollution derived from vehicles, power plants, and other industries contributing to global warming. The Times reports that the EPA's proposal also calls for repealing limits on tailpipe emissions intended to encourage automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles—a key effort to reduce emissions from combustion vehicles. According to the report, the Trump administration will argue in its proposal that, rather than greenhouse gases, the real harm to human health is the years-long regulations resulting from endangerment findings. The administration argues that climate regulations increase prices and reduce consumer choice. They also argue that over the years, the EPA has overstepped its legal authority under the Clean Air Act by making a broad finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health. Dorien Blythers, former EPA Chief of Staff for Operations during the Biden-Harris administration, condemned the Trump administration's proposal as a 'shameless attempt to gut hard-won science' in endangerment findings. He told theGrio that the EPA is choosing to 'twist the law to serve polluters, not the American people.' Worst of all, Blythers said Black Americans will acutely suffer the health consequences of this decision. 'Let's call it what it is: a slow suffocation of Black communities already choking on toxic air, blistering heat, and environmental neglect,' he told theGrio. When Blythers served in the Biden administration, former EPA Administrator Michael Regan announced an endangerment finding that emissions of lead from aircrafts that operate on leaded fuel cause or contribute to air pollution. The latest move from the Trump administration is among several that steadily distanced itself from Biden-era policies aimed at fighting climate change and protecting human health from environmental harms like air pollution. Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement and signed an executive order to resume federal coal leasing. His 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act,' which he signed into law on July 4, rescinded tax credits intended to encourage the purchase of electric vehicles and manufacturing clean energy technologies like solar and wind. The proposed rescinding of the endangerment finding rule is sure to face legal challenges. Blythers said the Trump plan is 'misguided' and is 'just another page' in the administration's 'big beautiful betrayal.' 'They're playing in our faces, rewriting the rules to protect corporate profits while our neighborhoods pay the price with our public health and pocketbooks,' he said. A 2024 study from Stanford Medicine found that Black Americans are significantly more likely to die from causes related to air pollution, compared to other racial and ethnic groups. According to the study, '[Black Americans] face a double jeopardy: more exposure to polluted air along with more susceptibility to its adverse health effects because of societal disadvantages.' The researchers say reducing air pollution could be a 'powerful and achievable way' to address the inequities facing Black communities. More must-reads: Congressional Black Caucus comes out swinging to defend Obama, demands Trump ODNI director Gabbard resign Trump signs executive order targeting his latest DEI victim: 'Woke AI' Candace Owens slapped with lawsuit for claiming French president's wife was 'born a man'
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Mesa City Council recall heats up as challenger jumps in against Spilsbury
The recall campaign against Mesa City Councilmember Julie Spilsbury is heating up. The big picture: Spilsbury now faces a challenger, Dorean Taylor, who filed to run in the Nov. 4 election and must collect 246 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot in District 2. Why it matters: The race could test the power of far-right grassroots campaigns — and whether moderate Republicans can still hold ground in conservative suburbs. Catch up quick: Critics on the right launched their recall effort against Spilsbury in January, citing her votes to raise councilmember salaries, increase utility rates and approve homeless housing in a Mesa hotel. The salary and utility votes were unanimous, while the housing vote was 4-3. Recall organizer JoAnne Robbins also said she opposed Spilsbury, a Republican, because she endorsed Kamala Harris over now-President Trump last year. The campaign, backed by the conservative organization Turning Point Action, collected more than 5,200 signatures to put Spilsbury on a recall ballot. What she's saying: Spilsbury defended her record, saying she's always voted her conscience. "I did what I did with my eyes wide open. I knew it wasn't going to be popular," she told Axios of her Harris endorsement. She said she expects Turning Point to support Taylor. The other side: Taylor said in an email to Axios that she decided to run because Mesa needs "principled, honest, common sense leadership on the City Council," while Spilsbury voted for "woke, big government policies that violate our deeply held community principles." She volunteered for the recall effort, collecting about 30 signatures, per the Mesa Tribune. The intrigue: Turning Point hasn't made any decisions yet about supporting candidates, but "it's safe to say we'll educate people on Julie," Turning Point Action COO Tyler Bowyer told Axios. Turning Point supported volunteer efforts during the recall process and has "lots of hands available" in the lead-up to the election, he said, adding he expects the number to increase because the group is hiring for the Salt River Project board elections in April 2026. Between the lines: Spilsbury said the race could have a similar political dynamic as another election in Mesa, the 2011 ouster of then-Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce. Challenger Jerry Lewis, whose campaign Spilsbury volunteered for, won with a coalition of support that included moderate Republicans, independents and Democrats. However, she said her district may the city's most conservative. Spilsbury told Axios that elected Democrats like U.S. Rep. Greg Stanton, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and U.S. Sen. Ruben Gallego, whom she endorsed, have reached out to offer their support.
