Chandler Sign Ruling Raises First Amendment Concerns
- Valley Telegraph
- 3 hours ago
- 4 min read
The criminal case against Chandler City Councilmember OD Harris ended with a not-guilty verdict last week, but the reasoning behind the decision — particularly its treatment of political speech — has sparked renewed concern among legal observers about the erosion of First Amendment protections in local elections.
On Jan. 20, Judge Leonore Driggs (Democrat) of the Arcadia Biltmore Justice Court ruled that prosecutors failed to present substantial evidence that Harris (Democrat-aligned, Chandler City Council elections are nominally non-partisan but that doesn't mean candidates are) acted as an accomplice in the destruction of a political sign opposing his reelection. More controversially, Driggs concluded that the “Vote Out OD Harris” sign was not protected under Arizona Revised Statutes § 16-1019.
That interpretation, critics argue, conflicts not only with constitutional principles but with the plain language of Arizona law itself.
Arizona Law Explicitly Protects Opposition Signs
Arizona’s political sign statute does not distinguish between speech for or against a candidate.
A.R.S. § 16-1019 makes it unlawful to knowingly remove, deface, damage, or cover “any political sign of any candidate for public office” during the protected election period. The statute further extends protection to signs “in support of or opposition to any ballot measure, question or issue.”
The law’s phrasing is intentionally broad. It protects any political sign of a candidate — not merely signs placed by a candidate or signs expressing support. Opposition signs are political signs by definition, and nothing in the statute limits protection based on viewpoint, tone, or sponsorship.
By concluding that the “Vote Out OD Harris” signs were not protected under § 16-1019, Driggs adopted a narrow interpretation that critics say finds no support in the statutory text. Critics argue that the practical effect of Driggs’ ruling is to leave opposition signs unprotected — effectively permitting their destruction so long as they criticize a candidate.
Beyond State Law: A First Amendment Issue
Even apart from Arizona statute, the case raises fundamental First Amendment concerns.
Political speech — especially speech criticizing public officials — sits at the very core of constitutional protection. Yard signs opposing an incumbent are among the most traditional and accessible forms of political expression, particularly in local elections where citizens lack access to larger platforms.
When a public official or someone acting on that official’s behalf destroys signs opposing that official, the issue extends beyond vandalism or election law technicalities. It raises the possibility of state-sanctioned suppression of dissent.
Courts have long held that government may not engage in viewpoint discrimination — protecting favorable speech while burdening critical speech. A system that shields campaign signs supporting incumbents while excluding opposition signs from protection is constitutionally untenable.
In addition, the City of Chandler has escalated a campaign finance complaint that Harris made against the No-OD group, whose members were witnesses in his trial. Despite alleged spending of the campaign being below statutory thresholds by the City Clerk's own estimations, the City Clerk found reasonable cause and referred the case to the City Attorney. To avoid the perception of a conflict of interest, Chandler's City Attorney referred the case to the City Attorney of Tempe, a heavily Democratic city.
A Pattern of Skepticism by Democrat Judges
This was not the first time the case failed to persuade a judge.
In October 2024, the charges against Harris were dismissed by Judge Jennifer Jermaine of the San Marcos Justice Court, who found prosecutors lacked probable cause. The case was later refiled and ultimately tried in Arcadia Biltmore Justice Court, with the Scottsdale City Prosecutor’s Office handling the matter to avoid conflicts of interest.
While no impropriety has been alleged, the political context is notable. Harris is Democrat-aligned and has supported policies commonly associated with progressive politics, including DEI initiatives, race-based policy frameworks, high-density housing, and expanded public spending. Judge Jermaine is a Democrat. Judge Driggs is a Democrat. And the speech deemed unprotected consisted of signs opposing a Democratic incumbent.
Legal analysts note that even the appearance that opposition speech receives less protection than incumbent messaging can undermine public confidence in the neutrality of the courts.
An Unusual Outcome in an Unusual Case
The not-guilty verdict itself is statistically rare.
Roughly 90–95 percent of criminal cases in the United States are resolved through plea agreements. Of the small fraction that proceed to trial, prosecutors prevail in the vast majority — often exceeding 80 percent in state courts.
By the time a case reaches trial, it has typically survived multiple layers of review. That this prosecution ended in acquittal underscores how unusual the outcome was.
Why the Reasoning Matters
Judge Driggs stated during the ruling that she hoped candidates could “run peacefully” and exercise free speech. Critics argue that her narrow reading of 16-1019, excluding opposition signs from statutory protection, accomplishes the opposite — chilling dissent while insulating incumbents from criticism.
The First Amendment does not exist to protect only popular or supportive speech. It exists to protect speech that challenges those in power.
Arizona law reflects that principle. Narrowing its protections to exclude opposition signs does not merely reinterpret a statute — it risks eroding a foundational safeguard of democratic elections.
The verdict may have closed the case. The constitutional and statutory questions raised by the ruling remain unresolved — and increasingly difficult to dismiss.