Aurora, Illinois’ second largest city, got a new mayor last year when John Laesch ousted pro-business incumbent Richard Irvin.
A year into his tenure, Laesch has become the focus of a heated political controversy involving immigration enforcement, accusations of “doxxing” and a growing push for mayoral recall powers.
Earlier this month, Laesch posted a video of himself following around a vehicle he said was driven by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. The conservative social media account Libs of TikTok picked up the video and accused Laesch of doxxing ICE, which spread across the internet. Not long after, Republican Illinois state Rep. Adam Niemerg called for Laesch to resign.
“ICE in Aurora today. Currently following them on I-88 Eastbound. Patrollers are canvassing the neighborhoods near Laurel Dr. and Lilac on the west side,” Laesch captioned the video. Later, Laesch added that he’d “followed the agent back to Broadview and lost him,” and asked Aurorans to “stay vigilant as there might be others in the area.”
Supporters viewed the posts as an effort to alert vulnerable immigrant communities about federal enforcement activity, but some commenters who identified themselves as Aurora residents questioned whether tailing ICE agents was really the best use of the mayor’s time.
“Here to serve and protect the public,” Laesch responded. “While it’s not my intent to get in an altercation, I wouldn’t turn down a national news opportunity to talk about how the Gestapo have violated human rights in Aurora.”
That loaded language clearly did not resonate with residents who would prefer to see their mayor focused primarily on local governance rather than national political fights.
Still, this doesn’t look like doxxing to us, and it seems unlikely that Laesch’s video violated the law. “Doxxing” means posting someone’s private personal information, like their address, phone number, or workplace, online without their permission. It’s a method of intimidation and harassment with which we’re unfortunately familiar.
Critics have used the video as a political accelerant for Aurora’s broader recall debate. Perhaps folks view Laesch’s behavior as obnoxious or counterproductive or simply not in his lane. And while there’s certainly a general case to be made for mayoral recall in limited situations, this is not it.
Recall mechanisms exist for situations in which elected leaders fundamentally betray the public trust, such as corruption scandals, criminal conduct, severe abuses of power or catastrophic failures of governance. They are not meant to function as instant buyer’s remorse after a controversial social media post or a political disagreement over immigration enforcement.
We’ve long held that Illinois should give voters the power to recall mayors and other local officials, but only with high barriers that prevent recalls from becoming tools of partisan retribution.
A group called Aurora for Change is circulating petitions to place referenda on the November ballot that would ask voters whether Aurora should adopt a process allowing the mayor and at-large aldermen to be recalled before the end of a term.
Organizers say they are focused on establishing a recall mechanism regardless of who currently holds the seat. Some who support the initiative, however, clearly intend to use such a mechanism to remove Laesch.
In a May 11 Facebook post, Irvin argued that Laesch would rather chase ICE than opportunities for Aurora, building a broader case for recall by arguing that Laesch has been an incompetent leader who is damaging Aurora.
We endorsed Irvin in 2025 and still believe he would’ve been a better choice than Laesch. Still, what’s playing out now makes us uneasy.
Illinois has a constitutional recall process only for governors, added after the Rod Blagojevich scandal. State law provides no standard recall mechanism for mayors, aldermen or most other elected officials, though some municipalities have attempted to create their own through referendum or home-rule powers. Dolton voters approved a recall system and began a recall effort against Mayor Tiffany Henyard, but courts later struck parts of it down because of how the referendum was structured. And Chicago in 2024 saw a very high-profile effort to establish mayoral recall powers, motivated by dislike for a new progressive mayor, much like Aurora.
Recall provisions should have high thresholds. Very high thresholds. Better to have no recall powers than overly lenient ones. An environment where officials face a constant threat of removal from office, which can distract them from the hard work of governing, leads to a perpetual campaign mode that isn’t healthy for democracy.
We can understand why some residents might be frustrated with the irritating mayor. Since Laesch assumed office, Aurora has implemented a series of tax hikes including doubling the hotel tax, an increased property tax levy, higher parking fees and the addition of a local grocery tax. He’s not exactly been a friend to the high-quality cultural offerings in downtown Aurora that draw people to restaurants. And his use of the word “Gestapo” in that context is, to say the least, regrettable and unfortunate.
But Laesch got over 50% of the vote in 2025, and elections matter. Illinois should trust voters with recall powers, but voters also must resist turning recalls into weapons of perpetual partisan warfare.
Democracy requires accountability. It also requires restraint.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
