Chandler council debates proposed rule requiring contact information on temporary signs ahead of November election

Chandler City Council members on July 14 discussed a proposed ordinance that would require contact information on all temporary signs and debated whether the city can regulate sign content without running afoul of the First Amendment.

The issue came up during a study session as council prepared to consider introducing the ordinance at a regular meeting later in the week; staff said final approval could come in August so enforcement could begin before Nov. 4 campaign signs are posted.

Why it matters: Council members said they want a tool to remove anonymous or noncompliant signs quickly before the November election, while the city attorney cautioned that any attempt to regulate sign content or truthfulness raises constitutional and Supreme Court issues that could expose the city to legal challenge.

At the session, Council member Harris said, "Mayor, I would like to go into an executive session to to discuss the legal, concerns of this ordinance." Kelly, the city attorney, told council, "this ordinance does not regulate content of the signs. So it does not address false statements or anything like that in a a sign." Kelly added that "there are a number of legal issues surrounding anytime, you choose to regulate content of signs. I would be happy to go into a a more detailed discussion and provide legal advice. I would recommend that we do that in an executive session rather than the open meeting." The city attorney also explained that "it is not common for cities to govern sign codes regarding the content or the truthfulness of the signs."

City Manager Josh said a practical change in the draft ordinance is a requirement that temporary signs include contact information for the person responsible. He told council, "If the council were to approve the introduction of this ordinance on Thursday, it would come back for final approval in August at the August meetings. Signs for the upcoming election of November 4 regarding the bonds and the charter changes, signs can be posted 71 days before the election, and that is late August. So there will be a little bit of time where signs can be posted before this ordinance actually goes into effect. But if it were to be approved, that could be a time for education and then, basically, starting right the September, then the ordinance could be enforced." When asked about enforcement, Kelly said, "If I may, mayor, vice mayor Ellis, once this ordinance goes into effect, yes, that it will be the case."

Several council members asked for more legal detail before a final vote. Council member Harris pressed for additional review, saying, "So, again, I ask that my question be answered before the meeting on Thursday." Vice Mayor Ellis and Council member Orlando asked whether the city can address deliberate falsehoods on signs; Kelly repeated that regulating content, including truthfulness, triggers heightened constitutional scrutiny and possible legal challenge. Council member Poston asked staff to clarify the ordinance timeline; City Manager Josh provided the 71-day election posting window and noted the ordinance requires two readings under the city charter.

Council members discussed options: proceed with the introduction on Thursday to allow an ordinance to be in effect before the election signs go up, or postpone to permit an executive-session legal review. The mayor said he was "reticent to do anything that would, deter or slow down this process so that we're able to get this ordinance in effect before the November election." Several council members asked staff and the city attorney to provide a written summary of the legal issues in advance of Thursday's meeting and to consider an executive session at a later date.

Votes at a glance: The council approved the consent agenda for the July 14 regular meeting (items 1–3) earlier the same evening. Council member Orlando moved to approve the consent agenda; Vice Mayor Ellis seconded. The motion carried unanimously (yes:7).

The study session ended with no formal vote on the ordinance; council directed staff to provide additional legal analysis and timeline information ahead of Thursday's meeting and to consider executive-session review if council requests it.

The council will consider formally introducing the ordinance at the regular meeting scheduled later this week; if introduced, final approval would return to council in August so enforcement could begin in September, staff said.