New campaign signs appearing in the Chandler area are claiming a ballot amendment would keep term limits — but it actually rolls them back.
The signs advocate for the passage of Proposition 410 this November with phrasing that includes “Keep Term Limits.” In reality, the passage of Proposition 410 would amend the city of Chandler’s charter to expand term limits.
Under the proposition, individuals may serve 16 consecutive years — eight years as a council member, eight years as the mayor — before triggering a four-year waiting period.
The proposition seeks to clear away confusion resulting from myriad interpretations of current term limits within the city charter, namely one interpretation which declares that the present charter’s provision for two consecutive term limits on the council applies to the council members and the mayor together.
Additionally, the proposition clarifies that individuals elected to be mayor or elected to the council would be limited to two consecutive terms with a waiting period of four years after those terms. Again, nonconsecutive terms wouldn’t trigger the four-year waiting period.
The four-year waiting period can be waived, however, by the council to fill any vacancies on the council including for the office of the mayor.
The city charter amendment on the November ballot stands to benefit at least one council member: Councilman Matt Orlando, who filed a statement of interest to run for mayor in next year’s election. Orlando is serving his second consecutive term on the council. Under the one interpretation of the current charter, Orlando would not be eligible to run for mayor in 2026.
The council introduced the proposition following challenges to the interpretation of term limits within the current language of the charter, which puts limits on a “consecutive combination” of terms served as mayor and on the council.
“No person shall be eligible to be elected to the office of councilmember for more than two consecutive terms, or to the office of mayor for more than two consecutive terms or to more than a consecutive combination of the same,” states the current charter. “A person elected to two consecutive terms as a councilmember or two consecutive terms as mayor or a combination of the same as above set forth shall not be eligible to hold either office again until four years have elapsed.”
A lawsuit over the current charter language prompted Mayor Kevin Hartke to cease his 2026 campaign for a council seat.
“The City Council desires to propose amendments to the City Charter to clarify certain ambiguities in the Charter regarding the term limits for councilmembers and mayor,” stated the resolution passed earlier this year.
Hartke faced a lawsuit from a former opponent, Ruth Jones, who ran against him in 2022. Jones contended in her lawsuit, filed in May, that the city charter’s term limits invalidated Hartke’s election in 2022. Hartke served on the city council for nine years, twice as vice mayor. Under the one interpretation mentioned above, Hartke would not have qualified to serve as mayor.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Chandler City Council has placed an amendment to the city charter on the November ballot, which, if enacted, would directly benefit at least one member of the Council: Councilmember Matt Orlando. The proposed amendment would roll back term limits, allowing Orlando to run for Mayor in 2026 and opening the door to future campaigns from Councilmembers OD Harris and Christine Ellis as well.
The proposal, Prop. 410, would amend the current term limit provision in the Chandler city charter, affecting the offices of council members and mayor.
Under the existing provision, current Mayor Kevin Hartke opted to abandon his plans to run for city council in 2026 after an examination of the provision led to a lawsuit that could have unseated him. The term limits could also bar Councilmembers Matt Orlando, OD Harris, and Christine Ellis from running for Mayor in 2026.
As reported by the Arizona Republic, the push to amend the city’s term limits comes from the uncertainty of the existing city charter language, which presently limits the mayor and council to one term in each role or a total of two consecutive terms. Mayor Hartke has served in office for a total of 16 years, leading to a legal challenge to his 2022 election. Before Hartke’s term, two prior mayors, Boyd Dunn and Jay Tibshraeny, also served 16 years consecutively as councilmembers and mayor.
Dunn told the outlet, “This has been the language essentially that, or at least a concept, that the city has worked with for over 40 years. There’s been no controversy, no questions, and really, a clear operation over decades.”
The existing provision of the city charter states:
“Limitation of terms. No person shall be eligible to be elected to the office of councilmember for more than two (2) consecutive terms, or to the office of mayor for more than two (2) consecutive terms or to more than a consecutive combination of same. A person elected to two (2) consecutive terms as a councilmember or two (2) consecutive terms as mayor or a combination of same as above set forth shall not be eligible to hold either office again until four (4) years have elapsed.”
According to the City of Chandler’s website, the proposed amendment to the charter in Prop. 410 would update Article II, Section 2.01 in the following ways:
“No person shall be eligible to be elected to the office of councilmember for more than two (2) consecutive terms. A person who is elected to two (2) consecutive terms as a councilmember shall not be eligible to hold the office of councilmember again until four (4) years have elapsed since the end of the last term served as a councilmember, except as provided in subsection 2.06(c).
No person shall be eligible to be elected to the office of mayor for more than two (2) consecutive terms. A person who is elected to two (2) consecutive terms as mayor shall not be eligible to hold the office of mayor again until four (4) years have elapsed since the end of the last term served as mayor, except as provided in subsection 2.06(c).
No person shall be eligible to be elected to the office of councilmember or mayor after serving sixteen (16) consecutive years of combined service in those offices until four (4) years have elapsed since the end of the last term served, except as provided in subsection 2.06(c).
No person who has served two (2) four-year terms as councilmember followed by a break in service of two years or less and two (2) four-year terms as mayor shall be eligible to hold the office of mayor or councilmember until at least four (4) years have elapsed since the end of the last term served, except as provided in subsection 2.06(c).
Councilmembers who resign for any reason other than to run for mayor as required under State Law and this Charter and mayors who resign shall not be eligible for re-election or appointment until the second succeeding city election following the date of tender of their written resignation except as provided in subsection 2.06 (c).
Elected or appointed terms of less than four (4) years as councilmember or mayor shall not be counted in the above time limitations.”
As reported by Axios Phoenix, Orlando’s campaign appears to hinge on the outcome of the special election. If the new language is approved, a potential challenge to his candidacy would be eliminated. Under the existing Charter provision, he will undoubtedly be exposed to legal action.
A recent report has identified the five safest cities in Arizona and also noted a significant drop in violent crime experiences as well as a slight decrease in property crime experiences.
The report from Safewise found the ten safest cities in Arizona are (ranked order): Oro Valley, Queen Creek, Gilbert, Sahuarita, Surprise, Buckeye, Maricopa, Marana, Chandler, and Prescott Valley. Twenty-five cities in total were ranked.
The five lowest ranked were Apache Junction, Avondale, Casa Grande, Glendale, and Tempe. For comparison: the violent crime reported per 1,000 people in Oro Valley was 0.55 and property crimes per 1,000 people were 11.51. Tempe with over quadruple the population has 5.2 violent crimes per 1,000 people and 36.13 property crimes per 1,000 people.
Zeroing in on the reports findings, SafeWise found that the five safest cities collective violent crime rate is 1.0 incidents per 1,000 people while property crime was 10.4 incidents per 1,000 people. The report also found that the number of Arizonans surveyed who said they feel safe jumped up 5% from 36% to 41%.
SafeWise Managing Editor and Safety Expert, Rebecca Edwards said in a statement, “Violent crime experiences are trending down across Arizona, and mass shootings dropped by more than 60% year over year—from eight in 2023 to just three in 2024. Cities like Queen Creek and Surprise saw decreases in both violent and property crime, showing that safety is improving for many Arizona communities.”
According to the report, although 63% of Arizonans surveyed were concerned about property crime on a daily basis, personal experiences with property crime dropped year over year with just 26% of respondents reporting a personal experience with property crime in the past year.
Arizonans are also ranked third for adopting the use of security cameras for their homes, following Delaware and Louisiana. As a matter of preference most Arizonans surveyed, 59%, preferred security cameras or guard dogs, 44%.
Overall, Arizona respondents were most concerned over violent crime, although violent crime experiences fell from 19% to 11% year over year.
Approximately 14% of Arizonans polled reported carrying a firearm for personal protection and 33% reportedly own one for property protection. Incongruently, the number concerned about gun violence increased from 58% to 67% despite a decrease in mass-shootings.
According to SafeWise, the report was generated from “voluntary, self-reported information that cities and jurisdictions across the country report through the FBI Summary Reporting System (SRS) and National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). For our 2025 reporting year, the most recent FBI data was released in October 2024 for crimes reported in 2023.” The company’s full report and methodology is available here.
A Chandler High School alum and co-captain of Utah State University women’s volleyball team, Kaylie Ray, has reportedly joined a lawsuit with others players from the University of Wyoming, San Jose State University (SJSU), the University of Nevada, and Boise State University.
The group is suing the Mountain West Conference (MWC) and its commissioner, claiming that the conference compelled them to compete with a biological male ‘transgender’ athlete, “stealth-edited its rules to stifle their free speech,” and violated the federal Title IX law.
According to Cowboy State Daily, the lawsuit comes after a San Jose University student, Blaire Fleming, was added to the team as an outside hitter. Fleming, a biological male, is now ranked as the top hitter on the team.
The outlet reported that four schools, in addition to the University of Wyoming, have canceled matches against the SJSU team after outcry from players and university community members expressing concerns over fairness and safety of the female players.
In the text of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that the conference drafted a new rule “hastily,” to mark the cancellations as forfeited losses.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote, “The burgeoning controversy, which Commissioner Nevarez apparently believed could lead women’s volleyball players and teams to exercise their constitutional rights to protest and boycott, caused the commissioner and her staff to hastily draft and post on the MWC website a policy designed to penalize First Amendment protests supporting the rights of women’s volleyball players in the MWC.”
They add, “This new MWC policy was clearly intended to chill and suppress the free speech rights of women athletes in the MWC.”
The players are represented by Attorney Bill Bock and the Independent Council on Women’s Sports (ICONS), who filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for Colorado. Bock told reporters in a statement, “The NCAA, Mountain West Conference, university presidents and college athletic directors around the country are failing women. Because the administrators don’t have the courage to do their jobs, we must ask the federal courts to do their jobs for them.”
Teammates of the ‘transgender’ player are also claiming SJSU defrauded them because they joined the school and the team without prior knowledge that they would be playing with, boarding at times, and competing for scholarships against a biological male. The plaintiffs also argue that their rights under the First 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were violated, the right to bodily privacy, discrimination, retaliation, and viewpoint discrimination among others.
Fleming became the subject of national attention in October when he spiked the ball during a match, striking SDSU junior Keira Herron in the face with brutal force and knocking the player to the floor. “Keira Herron has some pink in her hair and her face is starting to look like she’s matching that as obviously she took the contact,” a broadcast announcer said in the now viral video.
In the complaint, a player named Brooke Slusser “estimates that Fleming’s spikes were traveling upward of 80 mph, which was faster than she had ever seen a woman hit a volleyball.” The complaint goes on to explain that, “The girls were doing everything they could to dodge Fleming’s spikes but still could not fully protect themselves.”
Male player from San Jose State @SanJoseStateVB, Blaire Fleming, leads his team to victory against Iowa @IowaVolleyball.
Look how high he jumps. Look at the speed of the ball.
Women’s sports activist and college swimmer Riley Gaines shared video of Fleming’s spike in a post to X, writing, “Male player from San Jose State @SanJoseStateVB, Blaire Fleming, leads his team to victory against Iowa @IowaVolleyball. Look how high he jumps. Look at the speed of the ball. Not only is this unfair, it’s dangerous.”
Over Veteran’s Day weekend, personal-finance website WalletHub released a ranking of the Best and Worst Places for Veterans to live. And the state of Arizona was represented by seven of our cities.
According to WalletHub, the rankings were based on a series of “19 key indicators of livability, affordability and veteran-friendliness,” including the availability of jobs related to military skill-sets, records of veteran income growth over time, and the availability of VA Healthcare.
WalletHub Analyst Chip Lupo explained, “When veterans return home from serving our nation, it’s important for them to live in a place that provides good education and employment opportunities, along with access to quality care for their physical and mental health. The best cities for veterans have all these characteristics, plus added bonuses like large veteran populations for community support, plus many restaurants and entertainment venues that offer veteran discounts.”
All told, the seven Arizona cities ranked were, in order: Scottsdale, leading at #7; Gilbert at #15; Chandler at #16; Mesa at #29; Glendale at #44; Tucson at #62; and finally, Phoenix came in at #75.
Gilbert and Chandler ranked 2nd and 5th, respectively, for the lowest percentage of veterans in poverty. Otherwise the state failed to rank in the top 5 of the study’s focus areas.
Essentially, this places Arizona firmly in the middling range of neither the worst nor the best.
While cities like the top five: Austin, TX; Orlando, FL; Raleigh, NC; Tampa, FL; and Virginia Beach, VA, have cause to celebrate the ranking, the release could leave Arizonans asking questions.
As of late 2023, the U.S. Census Bureau, cited by ABC15, recorded that there were 454,620 veterans of the Armed Forces living in the state or approximately 62 of every 1,000 adults, ranking us at 13th in the nation statistically.
By concentration, most resided in Sun City and Sun City West, Sun Lakes, Carefree, Apache Junction, and Union Hills.
Over a third served during the Vietnam War, 43% served in either the Cold War period or Gulf War, with just 17% of the veterans in the youngest cohort: those who served in the Global War on Terror. The number who served in Korea and the Second World War are dwindling fast at just 3% and 1%, respectively.
Arizona plays home to defense contractors as Honeywell, Raytheon, General Dynamics, BAE Systems, and Northrup Grumman. However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics examined the unemployment figures as of March 20th, specifically targeting veterans, and found that only 47% of those surveyed were employed, while 2.9% were collecting unemployment and a staggering 51% were “not in labor force.” That means they were either on disability, retired, on other benefits, or simply stopped trying to find work. This gives a potential glimpse into why more young veterans aren’t making Arizona their home, and instead serves as a retirement destination.
