July 02, 2025
by Grant McClintock
Chicago is the only major city in the United States that operates without a constitution, which for cities is referred to as a charter. Chicago’s outlier status in how it governs itself is reflected in structural features—or lack thereof—that work to the detriment of effective, transparent, fully accountable, and accessible government. Checks and balances, the hallmark of effective government in the United States, are weak in Chicago, verging on being functionally non-existent. The result is excessive power vested with the chief executive—the Mayor—and an accompanying underweighting of power and resources for the legislature—the City Council. The structure of City Council—including its size, district mapping process, and election cycle—limits its effectiveness in what theoretically is supposed to be the governing branch, and results in hyper-local fiefdoms.
Weak transparency and accountability mechanisms in Chicago also contribute to impaired decision-making that is often narrowly focused on the near term, without consideration of long-term impacts. All of this has manifested over decades in poor fiscal practices, resulting in mounting structural deficits, periodic financial mishaps tied to under-evaluated and poorly negotiated deals, and a long history of corruption that has metastasized into a national reputational brand. The recent FY2025 budget cycle, which played out in fall 2024, suggests that the concentrated power long held by the Mayor is waning. However, in the absence of constitutional structures and standards (i.e., a charter), the City shows increasing signs of chaos at the very moment that rigorous governance is needed to steer it through huge challenges that are the legacy of poor, standardless governance.
These problems can only occur because there is a lack of a formal structure outlining how city government should operate. If Chicago intends to remain the economic anchor for Illinois and the region, it will need to align its governance structure and capacities needed for the demands of the 21st century.
This report—the first in a series—will explain what a city charter is, its purpose and scope, and offer insights into how adopting a charter could improve governance in Chicago.
What is a City Charter?
A charter is a binding document that outlines a governance and operational framework for a municipality. More specifically, a charter defines the role, authority, and structure of a local government, including elected and appointed officials and offices. It also establishes standards and processes for transparent decision-making and provides accountability structures, ranging from reporting requirements to mechanisms for citizen input and engagement. Contemporary charters increasingly include provisions for electoral district mapping, public campaign financing, and citizen empowerment.
The federal government and all 50 states have constitutions. Municipalities, like all local governments, are legal entities created by the state government. A state can specify the authority and form of a local unit of government or can grant localities the authority to determine their own governance structure and processes. Charter-based municipalities are permitted in 44 states and exist in 5,305 cities nationally (or 2.4% of the 23,641 cities in the U.S.). Illinois is not currently among these 44 states.
Modern charter-based municipal governance developed from reform initiatives at the end of the Gilded Age and the beginning of the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century. At the time, the combination of local government corruption and the rapid growth of urban population centers and industry necessitated a reevaluation of the types and functions of government needed to support and sustain residents and the economy. The Civic Federation, founded during this period with a mission reflective of that larger national governance moment, was a leading advocate for a city charter in Chicago in the first decade of the 20th century. However, Chicago charter initiatives of that era fell short. As a result, today Chicago is the only major city among the nation’s 25 largest (by population) that is wholly lacking a charter. By comparison, New York City and Los Angeles have been governed by charters since 1898 and 1925, respectively. Moreover, each of those peer cities has effected major restructuring of their governments in modern times through charter amendment initiatives.
Charter creation and revision enable the development of effective government structures and practices. By laying out the explicit authority of the city government, a charter can provide limits and guardrails for the many functions within city government.
What is Chicago’s Present Governing Framework?
In the absence of a city charter, Chicago government originates in a hodgepodge of sources. First, it operates under broad “home rule” authority conferred by the Illinois State Constitution, as revised in 1970. Home rule authority grants a locality all powers not specifically restricted or legislated by the State. State law still supersedes the City on key issues such as pensions, elections, certain forms of revenue generation, and public education. However, home rule authority grants the City of Chicago broad discretion on many governance and financial issues, including taxation.
The structure of Chicago’s government is dictated by the requirements of state statute, including the Illinois Municipal Code and the Illinois Cities and Villages Act of 1941. The Cities and Villages Act is a State law that outlines the fundamental features and powers of the City of Chicago, including its elected offices, the district mapping authority of its legislators, the powers of City Council, and the timing of elections.
All other governance provisions are supplied by the Chicago Municipal Code, a piecemeal collection of state and local rules, regulations, and informal customs and practices. Most of the code’s provisions are fluid, readily changeable, and unenforceable. A centralized, enforceable charter would clarify and strengthen the City’s government structures in a way that is beyond manipulation and evasion by government actors. A charter would also be enforceable, thereby fostering more transparent and accountable decision-making, mitigating poor policymaking, and preventing City officials from abusing their power and authority.
The home rule provisions of the 1970 Illinois State Constitution—Article VII Section 6—neither expressly provide for nor prohibit localities from adopting or revising a charter. However, Section 6(f) does require that any change in the form of a home rule unit government be approved by voter referendum in the jurisdiction. Because the rudimentary elements of Chicago’s form of government are set forth by state statute, a change to either the Illinois Constitution or state law would be necessary to authorize the creation of a city charter in Chicago and the process for doing so.
Components and Benefits of a City Charter
While city charters vary in scope and particulars from city to city, they typically establish foundational structures for governance and policymaking. The following common features illustrate what a charter might include and what benefits a charter might bring to Chicago’s long-standing challenges:
1. Establish the structural components of government: A city charter can formally revise the structure of City government, specifying its main legislative and executive components and their relationships to each other. The core elements of Chicago’s existing governance structure, as outlined in the 1941 Cities and Villages Act, include three citywide elected officers (Mayor, Clerk, and Treasurer) and a legislative branch embodied in a City Council with 50 members. In peer charter-based cities, elected constitutional positions commonly include the Comptroller and City Attorney (or Corporation Counsel, as it is known in Chicago). However, in Chicago, both of these positions are appointed by and thus serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. Aldermanic vacancies are also filled by mayoral appointment (with the approval of the City Council) despite the fact that Council members are otherwise publicly elected. A city charter could recalibrate these kinds of structural components, redefining which officials are elected or appointed. It could also establish in law a mechanism for citizen input and involvement that cannot be changed or ignored by local officials and that would be enforceable by citizens.
2. Formalizing the constitutional authority of city officials: In addition to formalizing the structure and relationship of government offices, a city charter could formalize the authority of elected and appointed positions. Currently, most of the authority of these actors is defined by municipal ordinance, which is generally non-enforceable and susceptible to changes by those same actors. A charter could redefine the role and powers of the Mayor, City Council, and executive offices.
Current Chicago practice regarding the Mayor’s appointment powers deviates from national standards and can lead to conflicts of interest. For example, the Mayor appoints the Comptroller and the Corporation Counsel, which are both typically elected positions in other major cities. The appointment of the Corporation Counsel results in the city attorney representing the interests of the Mayor rather than the people of the city. As another example, the Mayor appoints the Comptroller, Chief Financial Officer, and Budget Director, which means there is no separation of power over financial functions; all three positions answer to the same person. In effect, the Mayor, through control and appointment of these finance positions, has near-unilateral authority over revenue sources and in directing how money is spent.
The City Council cedes much of its legislative functions to the control and influence of the Mayor. Although this is not mandated by law, it has long been a matter of tradition. The Mayor, notably, is permitted to designate the chairs of the Council’s legislative committees that are supposed to conduct oversight of the executive branch. In essence, this has given the Mayor—acting simultaneously as the equivalent of the President and the Speaker of the House—unchecked control over the City’s legislature and legislative oversight processes.
The Mayor also exercises varying degrees of appointment authority and/or influence over the boards and operational heads of the City’s sister agencies, such as the Chicago Public Schools, the Chicago Transit Authority, and the Chicago Park District. This produces a curious scenario in which one unit of government—the City of Chicago—exercises controlling influence over separate, and theoretically independent, units of government in a manner that lacks full accountability regarding how the power and influence are exercised.
Similarly, the Chicago City Council operates with customary practice known as “aldermanic prerogative”, resulting in an extension of its role beyond legislative functions to administrative decision-making, such as zoning and permitting (street signs, awnings, and sidewalk cafes are a few examples) within their individual wards. In cities with charters, these decisions are made by administrative agencies in conjunction with citywide regulations, development plans, and capital improvement plans. This customary legislative prerogative has led to hyper-local and compartmentalized development decisions and inequitable outcomes, which are often divorced from the larger Citywide policy and planning objectives. It also complicates regulatory processes and control in ways that have fostered political corruption. A charter could define clear standards for zoning and community investments, as well as mandate the completion of a comprehensive Citywide capital improvement plan.
Finally, a city charter can clearly define in a constitutional (and therefore non-manipulable and enforceable) manner the power and limits of each role. For the Mayor, this could include limiting the Mayor’s role in City Council decision-making, the appointment of committee chairs, and filling vacant aldermanic seats. It could also institute term limits.
For City Council, a charter could specify the number of Council members and committee structures, including the selection of committee chairs, the designation of standing versus permanent committees, committee assignments, and limits on committee appointments. It could also strengthen the Council’s administrative and professional functions, investigative powers, and oversight. One way to do this would be the establishment of an independent research branch to support City Council via state law rather than municipal ordinance. The Council’s existing research office, the Council Office of Financial Analysis (COFA), established by municipal ordinance, lacks a legally protected budget and the authority needed to be a true, independent, and effective research arm on the scale required for a city the size of Chicago.
3. Establishing rules for the legislative process: A municipal charter could establish rules that ensure adequate time for notice, evaluation, and review of legislation. This would help prevent rushed, underinformed decisions that can have negative ramifications for future generations. In current Chicago practice, agenda items are often introduced to committees and the full City Council without sufficiently advanced public posting and without adequate time for aldermanic and public review. The Open Meetings Act and Chicago Municipal Ordinance mandate that agendas be posted 48 hours in advance of meetings; however, this is often circumvented by direct introduction or substitutions, whereby language is only made available after the ordinance has passed. This process makes it impossible for Council members and the general public to provide meaningful input on legislation prior to voting.
A charter could establish review requirements for ordinances and set standards for public hearings and information related to more consequential issues, such as large contracts, debt issuances, or revenue proposals exceeding a specified dollar amount. This would help avoid situations where legislation is pushed through without sufficient time for vetting. Some of Chicago’s most infamous deals stem from the leasing of assets to fill short-term budget deficits, such as the 75-year lease on the City’s parking meters, selling the Skyway, and leasing of downtown parking garages. Each of these long-term leases was advanced through the City Council with minimal debate and transparency. Under a city charter, transactions of this size and magnitude, as well as major revenue or debt decisions, could require approval by public referendum. These kinds of reviews and standards requirements could reduce the likelihood of future financial mishaps.
4. Establishing a formal budget process: A charter can establish standards for the timing of the City’s budget release and approval, as well as requirements for public hearings and compulsory review processes. Chicago’s current budget process is an outlier in several ways compared to those of other major cities, such as New York and Los Angeles. It has a compressed timeline, a lack of City Council empowerment, and insufficient year-round budget monitoring to determine how the findings of revenue and expenditure reports are utilized in the budget process. These outliers manifested last year in a chaotic FY2025 budget approval process in which City Council unanimously rejected the Mayor’s proposed $300 million property tax increase. A city charter could establish parameters for when the budget is introduced and adopted, as well as the roles of each government branch in crafting, amending, and approving the budget. Additionally, it could facilitate transparent short- and long-term monitoring of revenues and expenditures throughout the year.
5. Formalizing rules regarding municipal elections: A charter can establish parameters for municipal elections, including the timing of elections, the existence of a public finance option for candidates, the method of voting, and provisions for referenda. Notably, Chicago’s election cycle operates on a schedule separate from surrounding municipalities and other units of government, which tends to suppress turnout and thus favor incumbents. A charter could establish the schedule for elections and set guidelines for city redistricting, including the selection of the redistricting committee, requirements for public hearings, and a mandatory review process. It could also determine the manner of selection for filling mid-term vacancies, which is often done by special election in charter-based cities, rather than by mayoral appointment in Chicago.
6. Codifying accountability mechanisms: A city charter can create an accountability structure that better assures, or even mandates, that City Council conduct independent studies and formalize a process for additional independent audits throughout the year. This could be done either through the Office of the Inspector General or another independent office, such as the Council Office of Financial Analysis. Because Chicago lacks a formalized structure for accountability, almost all financial information comes directly from the executive branch via the Mayor’s budget office, with limited means for alternative analyses.
Establishing a Charter for Chicago: Who and How
The process for creating a municipal charter in Illinois can take various paths, involving multiple levels of government. All paths require the ultimate approval of the voters by referendum. Certain minimal steps are common to all of the legal avenues through which a charter could be established:
- The charter creation or revision initiative must receive official governmental sanction. For Chicago, this would best be effected through State legislation.
- A charter commission must be established, and members selected and appointed. The State could do this, or alternatively, be delegated by State law to local officials, the voters, or a combination of both.
- A charter commission’s budget must be appropriated either by the City of Chicago itself or pursuant to state mandate.
- The scope of the topics to be considered or addressed must be specified. This can also be specified by state statute or delegated to the City or to the commission itself.
- The commission must do its work, provide periodic interim public reports, and issue a final public report setting forth its recommendations with explanations for its proposals.
- Voters must approve the proposed charter provision by referendum.
In terms of who should guide the creation of a city charter, this would be best accomplished through a citizen-led effort, led by community leaders with no conflicting interests in the day-to-day functioning of government. A charter effort guided by members of the public and the community—the true stakeholders in effective, transparent, and accountable government—makes it possible to build good government structures and practices aligned with community values and democratic principles. In the next installment of our multi-part series on city charters, the Civic Federation will provide further details and analysis on the establishment and operation of a charter commission.
At this moment in Chicago’s history, a charter could mitigate the legacy effects of the City’s past practices by establishing explicit authority and standards-based limits for the city government, thereby ensuring a better future. A charter represents the path forward to calibrate Chicago’s government to sustainably meet both short-term needs and long-term objectives.