The final vote on a controversial proposal to allow Chicago police to impose temporary curfews anywhere in the city in an effort to curb teen takeovers was delayed on Wednesday, amid concern from opponents that the measure is unconstitutional.

A day after the City Council Public Safety Committee advanced the so-called "snap curfew" ordinance by a 10-7 vote, Ald. Jason Ervin (28th) and Ald. Andre Vasquez (40th) used a parliamentary maneuver on Wednesday to delay a full City Council vote on the proposal until the next meeting in June. Ervin said 15 other City Council members also signed on to block a vote on Wednesday.

That means, as of Wednesday, at least 17 alders are likely to vote against the ordinance, leaving no more than 33 yes votes. Should Mayor Brandon Johnson, who has raised constitutional concerns about the ordinance, choose to veto the ordinance, 34 votes would be needed to override him.

The ordinance would allow Chicago Police Supt. Larry Snelling to activate three-hour "snap curfews" anywhere in the city with at least 30 minutes' notice in order to curb teen takeovers in specific areas when mass gatherings are expected or underway, and there is reason to believe they could result in criminal activity or otherwise pose a risk to public safety.

Proponents said it would allow police to break up the big crowds that have led to violence and property destruction at some teen takeovers.

Detractors said police already have the tools to do that, and that the ordinance would subject Black and Brown teens to over-policing, and open the city up to lawsuits and police misconduct payouts.

Ervin, who originally was a co-sponsor of the proposed ordinance, said Tuesday he could no longer support it after a provision was removed that would have required both Snelling and the city's deputy mayor of community safety to sign off on any snap curfews. Instead, Snelling would only have to consult the deputy mayor before imposing snap curfews, but the final decision would be solely up to the superintendent.

"This goes above and beyond the original proposal," Ervin said at Tuesday's Public Safety Committee meeting. "This gives the Police Department total discretion as to when and how this will be administered. Unfortunately, in that set of circumstances, I cannot support this ordinance as it stands today."

Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd), the chief sponsor of the measure, defended the decision to leave the final say on snap curfews in Snelling's hands.

"The significant decision of imposing a temporary curfew should have multiple voices involved in it, and clearly the deputy mayor for public safety, who is on the front lines of this, is in a position to be able to provide sound advice and consultation to the superintendent as he makes his decision. But ultimately it is his [the superintendent's] decision. He has the job, the job that has been given to him, and he has full discretionary authority as to how to execute that job," Hopkins said.

Critics of the proposal have said curfews are ineffective, and that the city needs to do more to offer youth safe options for youths so that they're not tempted to organize largely aimless gatherings that sometimes turn violent.

Opponents also have said the language of the ordinance is too vague, and would allow police to arrest teens without any evidence they've violated the law, since police would be allowed to impose a new curfew before any gathering has turned violent or otherwise posed a public safety threat.

Ald. Raymond Lopez (15th) said, while the city could do more to provide jobs and other programming for youths in an effort to curb teen takeovers, he argued "that's a long-term issue."

"This is the short-term triage version of what we need to address," he said.

Lopez also argued that, regardless of how many jobs or other programs the city might be able to offer to teens, some will continue to cause trouble.

"No matter what we offer, there's about 15 to 20 percent of our youth and young adults who don't give a crap what you're trying to offer, because they are committed to becoming TikTok famous; because they want to be seen doing a donut in the middle of an intersection while lighting it on fire, and having their friend holding onto the hood," he said.

But opponents have said police already have the authority to issue dispersal orders in cases when large gatherings pose a risk of turning violent or threatening public safety.

Ald. Andre Vasquez (40th) also said that too many members of City Council only pay lip service to long-term solutions like youth employment and other programming for teens.

"What we typically hear is, 'Well, I don't know if we've got the money to do it,'" he said. "So those things that are viewed and admittedly long-term bigger solutions that everyone says, 'Hey, those are great for the long-term,' when it actually comes to moving those forward, they don't move."

Mayor Brandon Johnson, who has also questioned the effectiveness of curfews, repeatedly has said he's concerned Hopkins' proposal might not be constitutional.

"If the City Council moves forward with an ordinance that gives my administration and the Police Department the ability to implement a curfew, look, I'm not going to sit here and say that I'm not concerned about the constitutionality around it," Johnson said Tuesday.

The council's next meeting is tentatively scheduled for June 18, and Hopkins has said he believes he has the votes to pass the measure. It's unclear if Johnson might veto the ordinance should it pass.