Crime Mattered in Chicago’s Mayoral Race—Just Not How Pundits Implied It Would

Brandon Johnson showed that progressives can have a persuasive response to gun violence that neither denies it exists nor claims “law and order” as the only solution.

Mother Jones; Jim Vondruska/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In the weeks leading up to Chicago’s mayoral election, polls showed that voters were especially concerned about crime. This led plenty of journalists and political pundits to suggest that the candidate with a tougher, police-centric approach to public safety would have an advantage. They were wrong.

On Tuesday, Brandon Johnson, one of the most progressive mayoral candidates in Chicago’s history, won in a stunning upset over his opponent Paul Vallas, who had backing from Chicago’s police union and raised more than double in campaign cash after vowing to hire more cops. Johnson, a former teacher and organizer with the Chicago Teachers Union, took a more holistic approach to public safety, pledging to address the root causes of violence by funding schools, housing, jobs, and mental health care. (He suggested increasing taxes on Chicago employers and raising levies on hotels and real estate sales over $1 million as a way to fund more community investments.) 

Johnson won 51 percent of the vote, with nearly 99 precincts reporting. “Tonight is the beginning of a Chicago that truly invests in all of its people,” he said at his election night party on Tuesday, according to WBEZ, Chicago’s NPR station. “The heart of this movement,” Johnson said, “has always been about investing in people.”

Every election is unique, and Chicago’s mayoral race won’t tell us how voters might lean in other places. But Johnson’s victory does show that progressives can have a persuasive response to gun violence—one that neither denies it exists nor claims “law and order” as the only solution.

Johnson, who is Black, did not shy away from the problem of crime. He lives in a neighborhood on Chicago’s West Side that is no stranger to shootings, and said in his victory speech that he’s had to protect his kids “from bullets that fly right outside our front door.” Johnson argued during his campaign that the city needed to take a new approach to violence by focusing on community development and hiring more social workers, while also being smarter about police resources. He wants to promote cops internally and to increase the number of detectives by about 200, so the department can focus on closing cases.

Vallas, on the other hand, who is white and a former Chicago Public Schools CEO, pledged to greatly expand the overall police force by filling more than 1,700 department vacancies. He said Chicago was suffering from an “utter breakdown of law and order” and accused Johnson of wanting to defund the police—an allegation Johnson denied. In a 2020 radio interview, Johnson said defunding was an “actual, real political goal.” Recently, he walked back those comments, clarifying that it was not his goal. “I wouldn’t reduce the [Chicago Police Department] budget by one penny,” he said in March.

Still, Johnson does want to rethink how the department spends its money. He has argued that about $150 million of the police budget was allocated wastefully. One likely reform: Johnson opposes the police’s use of ShotSpotter, a gunfire detection technology that has been criticized for poor accuracy and for fueling police discrimination against communities of color.

If polling is to be believed, Johnson didn’t win despite crime. In fact, he may have won at least partly because of it. Like many cities, Chicago experienced a drastic increase in gun violence during the early pandemic. Though the number of shootings began to ebb last year, Chicago still recorded 697 murders in 2022. One election survey conducted for the conservative Manhattan Institute found that 57 percent of Chicagoans (and 61 percent of Black Chicagoans) believe the city is unsafe.

This fear likely contributed to Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s defeat in the February primary, as she became the first incumbent to lose reelection in Chicago since 1983. “Progressives have struggled to develop a persuasive response” to crime, the New York Times‘ David Leonhardt wrote in the popular Morning newsletter a day after her ouster. “The Chicago runoff” between Johnson and Vallas, he added, would be “the next test of whether a progressive message on crime can win in an overwhelmingly Democratic city.”

If Chicago’s election was a test, Johnson’s message of community investment passed. “In a survey of Chicago run-off voters on the eve of the election, we find a city deeply concerned about crime, especially violent crime, but also embracing a nuanced view of the causes of crime and potential solutions,” the advocacy group Vera Action and the national polling firm GQR wrote in a report on Wednesday, noting that a majority of the 750-plus likely voters surveyed said they favored a crime prevention approach focused on funding schools, jobs, housing, and health care, and fighting illegal gun sales.

Still, that does not mean reforms will be easy. Chicago’s police union president, John Catanzara, recently warned that hundreds of cops might leave their jobs if Johnson became mayor. “If this guy gets in we’re going to see an exodus like we’ve never seen before,” he told the New York Times, adding there would be “blood in the streets” as a result.

It’s unclear if the police union will follow through or try to impede Johnson’s reforms in other ways, but it wouldn’t be unheard of. In San Francisco, after progressive District Attorney Chesa Boudin came to office in 2020, cops resisted working with him, leading to massive frustration among voters that contributed to the DA’s recall last year.

Obstruction like this from the police can make it hard for local politicians like Johnson to fight crime outside traditional “law and order” frameworks, even if voters want them to. We don’t usually think of police unions as an issue of democracy. But maybe we should start.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate