Chandler vs. Vice Mayor Harris’ Opponents: Retaliation or Law?
- Valley Telegraph
- 1 day ago
- 6 min read
Updated: 52 minutes ago
As former Vice Mayor of Chandler OD Harris heads for criminal trial on December 3 at 1 pm, questions mount over possible retaliation, witness intimidation, and conflicting valuations.
In Chandler, a political drama that began with a low-turnout 2024 council race has escalated into dueling investigations — one criminal, one campaign-finance — and growing concerns that the latter may function as a retaliatory action targeting political opponents and potential witnesses in a case against then–Vice Mayor OD Harris.
The broad outlines are stark:
The No-OD campaign criticized Harris’s support for DEI and BLM policies, rapid spending and taxation, and raised separate stolen-valor allegations regarding Harris unlikely claim that he once worked for military intelligence, despite seemingly not having received an honorary discharged and possibly not having finished out his contract with the National Guard.
Harris nonetheless won re-election in a low-turnout race.
When No-OD signs were repeatedly removed or damaged, the group filed police reports.
A criminal investigation followed, and Harris is now facing trial over allegedly removing or defacing those signs.
Then, after the No-OD members became witnesses in that case, a campaign-finance complaint was filed by Harris against those same residents — a move critics say looks like political retaliation and witness intimidation masquerading as regulatory enforcement.
The far left Chandler Arizonan, duly published a piece that could be seen as appearing to target alleged members of the No-OD group.
Harris had called the signs the group had placed illegal.
A $1 Sign — Until It Became Politically Useful
One of the most troubling aspects of the complaint is the valuation of the signs at the center of both the criminal and campaign-finance cases.
Publicly, Harris has previously dismissed the No-OD signs as being “worth only a dollar,” minimizing both the monetary value and the significance of the allegations against him. He also called the signs illegal.
But when he filed a campaign-finance complaint against the No-OD group — after they reported him to police and became witnesses — the City of Chandler, where Harris remains a voting councilmember, used a vastly different number. The city estimated the signs at roughly $35 each, a calculation that dramatically increases the supposed spending total and may push the No-OD group above the threshold that triggers PAC registration and finance reporting.
For critics, the timing and the sudden 35-fold increase in valuation may not be not coincidences. They look like the city adjusting numbers to fit a narrative — one that conveniently supports a complaint targeting residents who had already accused Harris of wrongdoing.
Since the No OD group seems to deny that they breached the spending limit, it appears that they say the signs were acquired at a price in between $1 and $35. Quick research done by the Valley Telegraph using search and AI reveals that large custom-printed political signs can be significantly cheaper than $30, though if printed professionally they certainly cost more than $1.
The Core Issue: Retaliation and Witness Pressure
The underlying concern isn’t subtle. Some of the No-OD group members named in Harris’s complaint are direct witnesses in his criminal trial.
That means:
They accuse Harris of removing or damaging political signs.
Police investigated and forwarded charges.
Prosecutors moved toward trial.
Then Harris filed a campaign-finance complaint against them — using his official city email.
The city takes it up and refers it to the city attorney.
A Harris friendly news paper, the far-left Chandler Arizonan, writes a hit piece on the witnesses
To outside observers, it resembles a public official leveraging city processes and city resources against people who reported him to police and who may testify against him. Even if no statute is definitively broken, the optics alone raise red flags. That the witnesses are also political opponents may make the issue even more troubling.
Legal and ethics experts often warn that any official action targeting a witness in an active criminal case — even under the guise of regulatory enforcement — can create the appearance of retaliation, intimidation, or an attempt to influence the witness’s posture.
The City’s Role: Compliance or Complicity?
Rather than recognizing the conflict of interest inherent in an elected official filing a complaint against witnesses in his own criminal case, the city clerk’s office:
accepted the complaint,
opened a formal investigation,
relied heavily on estimates rather than documented expenditures, and
forwarded potential violations to the city attorney.
This raises a difficult question:
Should the city have insulated its enforcement mechanisms from a complaint so entangled with an ongoing criminal case involving one of its own elected officials?
At minimum, most municipalities would consider whether a recusal, referral to an outside jurisdiction, or temporary pause was warranted to avoid even the appearance of bias, selective enforcement, or misuse of process.
Why the Spending Threshold Matters
Arizona’s campaign-finance rules require political action committee (PAC) registration when groups exceed a spending or contribution limit.
But:
The No-OD group seemingly maintains they did NOT exceed the limit.
By Harris’s earlier valuation (about $1 for each sign), they presumably clearly did not.
By the city’s new valuation (about $30 for each sign), they might.
The entire complaint hinges on which number is used.
And because the city relied on estimates — a method critics say is susceptible to manipulation. If the valuation was inflated, even unintentionally, it could transform protected political speech into alleged campaign-finance violations simply because the targets were critical of an elected official.
Relevant Laws and Standards (General Overview)
The following laws and principles could conceivably come into play if a public official were found to be using government authority or resources to target political opponents or individuals connected to their own criminal case. This list is general and does not assert that any violation has occurred.
1. Witness Tampering / Retaliation (Arizona Law)
A.R.S. § 13-2802 / § 13-2804 Arizona law prohibits knowingly intimidating, threatening, or retaliating against witnesses. Merely filing a complaint is not automatically retaliation, but timing, intent, and context can matter.
2. Abuse of Office / Misuse of Public Position
A.R.S. § 38-504(C) (Conflict of Interest laws) Officials may not use their position to secure “valuable benefits” or impose burdens in a manner inconsistent with public duties.
A.R.S. § 13-2407 (Tampering with a public record or process) Allegations that an official used city processes for personal political benefit could conceivably fall under this provision if intent were proven.
3. Use of Public Resources for Political Purposes
A.R.S. § 11-410 (Misuse of public resources) Prohibits using public equipment, email systems, or staff time to influence an election. Whether city email usage constitutes "influencing an election" is a fact-specific analysis.
4. Ethical Rules for Municipal Officials
Most Arizona municipalities adopt codes requiring:
avoiding the “appearance of impropriety,”
avoiding actions that could be perceived as politically retaliatory, and
preserving public trust in the neutrality of city processes.
If an official engages in actions tied to active litigation in which they are a defendant, those ethical questions may be intensified.
Why This Matters Beyond Chandler
Political disagreements are expected and a crucial part of a Republic of citizens who democratically elect their political representatives. Criminal prosecutions are sometimes unavoidable. But when:
a public official faces criminal charges,
the alleged victims and witnesses are private residents,
those residents speak out against him politically, and
the official then initiates a government investigation into those same residents, using city tools and city authority…
…it creates a scenario many municipalities consider inherently improper.
Whether any laws were violated is for investigators and the courts.
But the appearance of retaliation, the timing, the conflicting valuations, and the city’s willingness to proceed despite obvious entanglements raise serious questions about the integrity of local governance and the use of public authority for political ends.
For now, as Harris’s criminal trial proceeds on December 3, 2025 in the Arcadia-Biltmore Justice Court, the spotlight remains on Chandler city government to explain why a campaign-finance complaint with such profound conflicts of interest was allowed to advance at all — and whether the city’s handling of the situation serves justice, or shields power.