Missing Chandler Campaign Signs — Legal Maneuvers and “Fuzzy Math” Raise Concerns
- Valley Telegraph
- 7 hours ago
- 3 min read
On Tuesday, January 20, 2026, at 8 a.m., Chandler City Councilmember Odainke Asa “OD” Harris will stand trial in criminal court on charges stemming from the alleged destruction of political signs opposing his 2024 re-election campaign.
The case, referred to prosecutors following a Chandler Police investigation, has become increasingly controversial as Harris and the City of Chandler pursue parallel legal and administrative actions against the very witnesses who helped bring the case forward. Critics argue that a combination of trial delays, witness pressure, and disputed campaign-finance calculations appears designed to exhaust or intimidate opponents rather than resolve the underlying allegations.
Allegations and Investigation
During the 2024 election cycle, residents operating under the name No OD placed signs throughout Chandler opposing Harris’s candidacy. According to witnesses, the signs disappeared systematically and in clusters. Several individuals who placed the signs reported the losses to police.
The Chandler Police Department investigated, interviewed witnesses, and assembled evidence that was forwarded to prosecutors, resulting in criminal charges against Harris. Harris has denied involvement.
The case was initially dismissed in San Marcos Justice Court by elected Judge Jennifer Jermaine, a Democrat, but prosecutors successfully revived it by transferring venue to another justice court, citing procedural grounds. Trial is now set in the Arcadia Biltmore Justice Court in Phoenix.
Delays and Witness Concerns
Harris is represented by attorney Kenneth Countryman, who has obtained multiple continuances since charges were filed. While continuances are a lawful defense strategy, critics say repeated delays risk wearing down civilian witnesses in a politically sensitive case.
Multiple witnesses report that Countryman approached them and advised they obtain their own legal counsel. Under Arizona law, defense attorneys may recommend that witnesses consult attorneys without committing witness tampering. However, legal observers note that repeated, unsolicited recommendations can exert pressure, even if they fall short of criminal conduct.
The Campaign Finance Complaint and the Math Problem
While the criminal case was pending, Harris filed a campaign-finance complaint with the City of Chandler, alleging the No OD group exceeded the spending limit that would require it to register as a Political Action Committee (PAC).
Arizona law requires PAC registration only when political spending exceeds approximately $1,400 to $1,500 during an election cycle. The threshold increases by $100 every 2 years.
According to records reviewed by Valley Telegraph, the No OD group’s expenditures alleged/estimated by the Chandler City Clerk total approximately $895 — hundreds of dollars below the statutory threshold.
To find “reasonable cause,” the City Clerk appears to have assigned speculative values to the destroyed signs, assuming higher per-unit costs than witnesses say they paid.
Even under the city’s inflated assumptions, critics say the calculations still fail to reach the PAC registration threshold and ask how reasonable cause could have been found.
In plain terms:
Alleged spending: ~$895
PAC threshold: ~$1,400–$1,500
Shortfall: ~$500–$600
We double checked the statute and legal interpretation and our sources confirm that if either the expenditures or the income of a campaign exceed the threshold, the PAC requirement triggers. According to our sources this often leads to confusion in Arizona. Our sources say that income and expenditure are not added, as this would double count. The intent of the statute is to require campaigns that may raise more than the threshold, but spend less than the threshold, or vice versa, to register as a PAC. According to our sources the statute does not intend that contributions and expenditure are simply added, their sum compared to the threshold, as this would improperly double count dollars that flow through the campaign.
City Attorney Escalation
Despite the disputed and apparently insufficiently high figures, the City of Chandler Attorney’s Office escalated the complaint and transferred aspects of the matter to Tempe. There, the city attorney issued a notice demanding the No OD group produce evidence explaining why a violation should not be found.
Legal experts note that city attorneys do not independently adjudicate campaign-finance violations; enforcement generally requires formal proceedings and judicial review. Critics characterize the notice as coercive rather than enforceable, particularly given the unresolved discrepancy between the group’s actual spending and the legal threshold.
A Case With Broader Implications
Supporters of Harris argue he is entitled to pursue every lawful defense and complaint available. Opponents counter that the cumulative effect of:
repeated trial continuances,
witness-focused legal pressure,
administrative complaints built on disputed math, and
city involvement against political critics
creates the appearance of retaliatory use of legal and quasi-legal tools to discourage participation and testimony.
Testimony begins Tuesday morning.
Comments