Chicago is the largest city in America without a city charter. No governing document, no foundational rules that define how power is distributed, how decisions are made and what rights the people have in relation to their government. That’s like buying a complex piece of Ikea furniture and tossing the instructions, only to realize years later that you screwed everything in backward and now it barely holds together.
Instead of a charter, we rely on a patchwork of century-old state laws, home rule authority and political traditions so entrenched you’d think they were carved into stone tablets. This system works, until it doesn’t.
Chicago calls itself the city that works, but those of us who study and love this city know that even when it seemed to work, it didn’t work for everyone. We are a city built on resilience and reinvention, a place where impossible problems have been solved with sheer willpower and structural steel. But we are also a city where bad deals get rammed through in the dead of night, where power has too often been concentrated instead of shared and where residents have often been left wondering who is actually in charge.
Chicago’s lack of a charter has allowed for some of the worst deals in municipal history. The parking meter deal, where 75 years of revenue was handed over for a fraction of its worth, wouldn’t have survived if a charter had required a transparent, deliberative process. The Skyway lease and the destruction of Meigs Field under the cover of darkness — these were possible because there were no firm, guiding rules that ensured a responsible, democratic process.
Chicago’s government structure is also a relic of an era when power was concentrated rather than shared. The system we operate under gives the mayor the role of presiding officer over the City Council, an arrangement that undermines the separation of powers. This structure dates to the 1837 state law that created Chicago, modeled on New York City’s system. New York had simply copied a colonial model of governance, in which executive authority dominated.
New York moved away from this outdated approach in 1901, updating its charter following the consolidation of its five boroughs into a single city. That reform established a clearer separation of powers, allowing the executive and legislative branches to function independently. In contrast, Chicago maintains a system in which the mayor holds significant influence over the legislative branch — a structure that raises important questions about the balance of power and the principles of coequal governance that strengthen democratic institutions.
A city charter would change this by formally defining the powers and responsibilities of each branch of government, ensuring a clear separation between the executive and legislative functions. By establishing an independent City Council, a charter would foster greater transparency and accountability. It would create a more balanced governance structure that empowers the representatives of Chicago’s residents to legislate without undue influence. This structural reform would bring Chicago in line with best practices in municipal governance and make the city’s government more democratic and responsive to its people.
Historically, the Chicago City Council controlled the budget until Mayor Richard J. Daley changed that, consolidating budget power within the executive office. The shift was a power play.
Every few years, there’s a push for Springfield to pass a recall law for Chicago’s mayor. While I understand the frustration behind it, I have to be clear: I’m against it.
Recalls are costly, disruptive and often misused as political weapons. California is a prime example, where governors govern under the constant threat of recall. This creates instability, undermines election results and turns what should be a safeguard into a partisan tool.
More importantly, recalls weaken voter responsibility. Elections are the moment when voters must demand a clear vision, a real plan and a commitment to govern. Making recall an option lessens that urgency, sending the message that decisions at the ballot box are reversible. But democracy doesn’t work that way.
For those of us in elected office, the real recall mechanism is re-election. If we don’t do the job well, voters hold us accountable when our term is up. We can’t foster a system in which voting feels like a low-stakes decision with an automatic do-over.
The irony is that many concerns driving the recall debate could be addressed through a city charter.
If people are frustrated with a lack of accountability, a lack of oversight, and opaque concentration of power, then a city charter is the real solution. A charter would lay out the structure of government clearly, distribute power responsibly and ensure that city leaders operate within a framework that protects the public interest. Instead of fighting over recall laws, we should be building a modern system of governance that prevents the need for recalls in the first place.
The turbulence in Washington — the flurry of executive orders, legally questionable decisions and instability of congressional leadership — has made one thing clear: City government, the level of government closest to the people, should at least have a clear and reliable playbook. A city charter provides that stability, not only ensuring consistency for residents but also giving mayors a strong foundation to govern effectively, free from the uncertainty of shifting political winds.
Building on this, we have taken major steps to expand democracy with an elected school board and elected police district councils and by introducing more direct input from residents through referendums. Chicago has embraced greater representation, more public accountability and a stronger commitment to public involvement, something we should be proud of. But to turn these aspirations into lasting, effective governance, we need a charter that ensures our government is fully operational.
We’ve expanded democracy in function, but not in foundation. Without a charter to modernize our governance, we risk these reforms being clunky, inefficient or even ineffective.
That’s why I recently filed HB3656 to formally begin the process of creating a Chicago city charter. This is a pivotal first step toward establishing a stronger, more transparent and more accountable framework for how our city is governed. While the bill is not perfect and there are technical and logistical details that need refinement, it represents meaningful progress.
And here’s the fascinating part. This effort will create an unlikely coalition, bringing together people who may not share the same political ideology but share the political idealism that we can choose to govern better. A charter would not be about limiting the mayor, or empowering the council, or any other short-term political gain. It would be about future-proofing Chicago’s government so that this city, not just in this moment, but for generations to come, actually works for everyone.
State Rep. Kam Buckner is the speaker pro tempore of the Illinois House of Representatives and a Democrat representing the 26th District.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.