Ahead of a special election in November and midterm elections in 2026, Chandler council members are taking steps to police political campaign signs that will inevitably dot intersections throughout the city.
It’s against state law to tamper with, or remove political signs during a set period throughout primary and general elections.
But last week, the Chandler council gave preliminary approval to an ordinance that will allow city officials to remove signs that don’t follow a state law that requires the person or organization responsible for a sign to disclose their identity on those signs.
Election Attorney Jim Barton says there may be an issue with a discrepancy between state law and the ordinance about what kind of information must be disclosed.
State law requires signs to include a name and phone number or website, but the ordinance requires specifically a name and phone number — without mentioning websites.
“This is a law about what the cities can do and so Chandler is mostly in compliance with the city law,” Barton said.
"We do not believe there is a conflict with state law and Ordinance No. 5133 addresses all temporary signs," Chandler spokesperson Matthew Burdick said in an email.
Under the ordinance, the city zoning administrator, or a designee, would give notice to the owner of the sign or the owner of the property where the sign is located.
Councilmember OD Harris questioned why the content of the signs isn’t regulated by the ordinance, and urged the council to include a provision banning false statements on signs. Staff explained that the ordinance is only about ensuring sign owners can be contacted, not restricting what they can say.
Last year, Harris and his wife were charged with property damage and tampering with political signs for allegedly damaging a sign opposing Harris’s reelection campaign. Those charges were dismissed.
The council tentatively adopted the ordinance by a unanimous vote last week. It will be considered again on Aug. 11 when the council reconvenes. The city charter requires ordinances to be introduced and fully adopted at different meetings.
If approved, the new rules would apply to a special election the city is holding in November.
-
On Tuesday, Fortify AZ said it was dropping its own proposal that was an alternative to the much stricter limits being pushed by the Arizona Education Association and Save Our Schools Arizona. -
A day after attorneys for Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap and the Board of Supervisors sparred in court, a judge ordered both sides to meet with a mediator in an attempt to settle their ongoing dispute over control of the county’s elections. -
The Maricopa County recorder and Board of Supervisors were back in court on Monday in a fight over control of the county’s elections that has dragged on for more than a year, resulting in confusion and instability ahead of Arizona’s upcoming primary election. -
Arizona lawmakers wrapped up their 2026 session early Saturday morning; adjournment came about a day after they approved a budget for the new fiscal year, but not before a lot of back-and-forth over Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, or school vouchers. -
Supporters of dueling ballot measures to either drastically scale back Arizona’s ballooning school voucher program or tweak it are intensifying efforts ahead of a July 3 petition deadline.
