If you’ve looked at a sample ballot in Chicago lately, you probably did a double-take. Tucked away near the end of the long list of candidates and standard referendums are two specific queries that have been sparking a lot of chatter in neighborhood coffee shops and community centers. We are talking about Chicago Questions 67 and 68.
Most people see a wall of text on a ballot and their eyes glaze over. It's natural. But these two questions aren't just bureaucratic filler. They represent a significant push by local advocacy groups to gauge public appetite for major shifts in how the city handles social safety nets and housing stability.
Let's be clear: these are advisory referendums. That means even if they pass with 99% of the vote, they don't automatically become law the next morning. They are essentially a massive, city-sanctioned opinion poll. But in a city like Chicago, where the political winds shift based on loud, organized voices, a "yes" vote on these questions provides a massive amount of leverage for organizers to pressure the City Council.
The Guts of Chicago Question 67: Universal Basic Income
The first of the duo, Chicago Question 67, asks voters if the city should establish a permanent, publicly funded Universal Basic Income (UBI) program. Specifically, it explores the idea of providing monthly cash payments to low-income residents without any "strings attached."
Chicago is no stranger to this concept. You might remember the Resilient Communities Pilot. That was a $31.5 million program that gave 5,000 low-income residents $500 a month for a year. It was one of the largest pilot programs in the country at the time. Supporters of Question 67 point to the data from that pilot, suggesting that recipients didn't just blow the money on luxuries. Instead, they paid for car repairs so they could get to work, bought better groceries, or finally caught up on back rent.
But here is where it gets sticky. The pilot was largely funded by federal COVID-relief money—the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). That well has run dry. Question 67 asks about a permanent program. Critics, including several fiscally conservative members of the City Council, are asking the obvious: Where does the money come from? When you're talking about a city already facing a massive budget deficit, the idea of adding a recurring multi-million dollar line item for cash transfers makes people nervous.
✨ Don't miss: Melissa Calhoun Satellite High Teacher Dismissal: What Really Happened
The logic behind the "Yes" vote is rooted in the "floor" theory. If you provide a basic income floor, you reduce the long-term costs of homelessness, ER visits, and policing. It’s an investment in human capital. Opponents, however, worry about the tax burden on a middle class that’s already feeling squeezed by property taxes. They argue that Chicago should focus on job creation rather than what they characterize as "handouts."
Breaking Down Chicago Question 68: The Right to Counsel
Then there’s Chicago Question 68. This one is arguably more targeted and, to some, more urgent. It asks whether the city should guarantee a "Right to Counsel" for all tenants facing eviction.
Think about it this way. If you are accused of a crime, you have a right to a lawyer. If you can't afford one, the state provides a public defender. But in housing court? It’s a different world. In Chicago, the vast majority of landlords show up to court with a lawyer. The vast majority of tenants show up alone. They are often terrified, confused by legal jargon, and unaware of their rights.
Question 68 seeks to level that playing field. The argument is that legal representation prevents "informal" or illegal evictions and keeps families in their homes. Keeping people housed is almost always cheaper for a city than providing shelter beds and emergency services after they’ve been displaced.
Research from the Lawyers’ Committee for Better Housing (LCBH) has shown that when tenants have a lawyer, their chances of staying in their homes—or at least having enough time to find a new place—skyrocket. It’s the difference between a controlled move and a family's belongings being dumped on a sidewalk in the middle of a Chicago winter.
🔗 Read more: Wisconsin Judicial Elections 2025: Why This Race Broke Every Record
Why These Questions are Appearing Now
You might wonder why these specific numbers, 67 and 68, are popping up on the ballot. It’s part of a strategic "bottom-up" approach. In Illinois, getting a binding referendum on the ballot is notoriously difficult. It requires an insane number of signatures and often faces legal challenges from political opponents.
Advisory referendums are easier to get on the ballot at the precinct or ward level. Community organizers use these to build a narrative. If they can show that 75% of voters in a specific area want a Right to Counsel, it becomes very hard for that area's Alderperson to vote against it in City Hall.
The timing isn't accidental either. Chicago is currently grappling with a dual crisis: a lack of affordable housing and a rising cost of living that is outpacing wage growth for the city's poorest residents. Questions 67 and 68 are the policy manifestations of that frustration.
The Counter-Arguments and Practical Hurdles
It isn't all sunshine and progressive victories, though. There are real, practical hurdles that Question 67 and 68 face, even with public support.
For the UBI proposal (Question 67), the scale is the enemy. A meaningful UBI program that reaches everyone in need would cost hundreds of millions. Even if the city diverted funds from other departments—a move that would trigger a political civil war—it might not be enough. Some economists suggest that UBI only works at a federal or state level, where the tax base is broader.
💡 You might also like: Casey Ramirez: The Small Town Benefactor Who Smuggled 400 Pounds of Cocaine
For the Right to Counsel (Question 68), the hurdle is the legal infrastructure. Chicago already has a small Right to Counsel pilot, but scaling it to every single eviction case would require a massive influx of housing attorneys. There’s already a shortage of legal aid lawyers. You can't just mandate a right if there aren't enough professionals to fulfill it.
What Happens After You Vote?
So, you go into the booth, you see Chicago Questions 67 and 68, and you make your choice. What happens the next day?
If "Yes" wins big, expect a flurry of press conferences. Advocacy groups like the Kenwood Oakland Community Organization (KOCO) or various chapters of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) will use these results to draft specific ordinances. They will point to the ballot box as proof of a mandate.
If "No" wins, or if the margin is razor-thin, these issues likely go to the back burner. Politicians who were on the fence will see it as a sign that the public isn't ready for such "radical" shifts in policy, or at least isn't willing to pay for them.
Actionable Steps for Chicago Voters
If you are looking at these questions and feeling undecided, don't just guess. Here is how to actually prepare:
- Check Your Specific Ballot: Not every precinct will have these questions. Use the Chicago Board of Elections website to look up your sample ballot before you head out.
- Review the Pilot Data: Look up the "Chicago Resilient Communities Pilot" final report. It’s public record and gives you a factual look at how the money was spent and who it helped.
- Listen to Both Sides: Groups like the Illinois Answers Project often provide non-partisan breakdowns of the fiscal impact of these types of proposals.
- Consider the Long-Term Cost: When looking at Question 68, ask yourself if the cost of a lawyer is higher or lower than the cost of a person entering the homeless shelter system. These are the trade-offs the city is weighing.
Ultimately, Chicago Questions 67 and 68 are about the soul of the city's budget. They ask whether we should prioritize direct intervention in the lives of the most vulnerable or stick to traditional, more conservative fiscal management. Whether you think these ideas are the future of urban policy or a fast track to bankruptcy, your vote on these "advisory" questions is the only way the City Council knows where you stand.