Tensions Rise in Chandler and Tempe City Councils
Chandler Mayor Serving in Violation of City Charter—Council Scrambles to Amend Rules to Protect His Term and League of Cities Presidency; Tempe Faces Backlash Over New Permit and Business Fees
The City of Chandler is embroiled in a political showdown over its city charter—centered on Mayor Kevin Hartke, a divided City Council, and a former city manager who may have resigned under pressure. With accusations of term-limit violations, emergency council meetings, and proposed charter amendments on the November ballot, residents are now questioning the leadership and legal clarity in one of Arizona’s largest and fastest-growing cities.
Is the mayor serving in violation of the city charter?
According to the clear terms of the charter, it appears that he is. Yet his influence extends far beyond Chandler. Hartke previously served as Chair of the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) and is the current President of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns.
However, both of those roles legally depend on his status as a sitting elected official. If a court—or the Chandler City Council—rules Hartke ineligible due to alleged charter term-limit violations, he would lose eligibility for both positions.
MAG’s bylaws require the chair to be a current elected representative from a member municipality.
The League’s bylaws specify that its officers must hold municipal office.
State 48 News was among the first to bring you this story. We reported the following…
The mayor was elected Chair of MAG’s Regional Council in 2024. MAG, a powerful planning body for transportation, housing, and economic development, requires its chair to be a sitting elected official from a member city. Hartke’s term ended June 25—but a lingering question remains: Did MAG know there was an issue with his eligibility and allow him to serve anyway?
Hartke also holds the top post in the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, which advocates for the interests of all 91 incorporated Arizona cities and towns. He was elected League president in September 2024.
League bylaws similarly require that officers be current elected officials. If Hartke is removed or steps down as Chandler’s mayor, he would forfeit the presidency, prompting the League’s executive committee to appoint a new leader.
At the heart of the issue is Chandler’s charter, which limits officials to two consecutive four-year terms in either council or mayoral roles, followed by a mandatory four-year break before running again.
Hartke, who has served in city government continuously since 2008, won re-election in 2022—raising questions about whether his current term violates that rule.
A formal legal challenge could come in the form of a quo warranto action, which would ask a court to decide whether Hartke is legally occupying the office of mayor.
If Hartke is ruled ineligible, the fallout could reverberate across Arizona. His removal would not only reshape the power structure in Chandler but also compel the high-profile MAG to acknowledge that its chair was serving illegitimately. The League of Arizona Cities and Towns would likewise be forced to appoint a replacement.
Rather than addressing the issue directly, the Chandler City Council appears to be sidestepping accountability by proposing a special election to change the eligibility requirements—effectively rewriting the rules to fit the current officeholder.
Here is a timeline of events
🗓️ November 2022
Mayor Kevin Hartke is re-elected to a second four-year term. He previously served on the council from 2008 to 2018 and as mayor since 2019.
🗓️Early 2023–2024
A formal complaint is filed challenging Hartke’s eligibility under Chandler’s city charter, which states:
“No person shall be eligible to serve more than two consecutive four-year terms as either mayor or councilmember, and no person shall be eligible to serve as mayor or councilmember for four years thereafter.”
Critics argue Hartke’s current term violates this rule due to his uninterrupted service.
🗓️ May 22, 2025
Council defers a vote to put a charter clarification on the November ballot after debate grows heated over Hartke’s status.
🗓️ June 2, 2025
Council reconvenes to address possible charter amendments. Tensions rise behind the scenes as legal experts suggest the mayor may be serving illegally, but some say protected under the “de facto officer” doctrine, which preserves the validity of actions taken by an official later found ineligible.
🗓️ June 6, 2025
City Manager Josh Wright resigns, citing dysfunction within city leadership. Multiple sources say friction between Wright and the council—including disputes over staff authority and Hartke’s influence—played a role.
🗓️ June 13, 2025
Council votes to create a Charter Amendment Resident Advisory Committee, composed of nine Chandler residents. The committee is tasked with reviewing the charter and offering updates to resolve ambiguity moving forward.
Two amendments are officially placed on the November 4, 2025 ballot:
Proposition 410: Clarifies term limits for councilmembers and the mayor.
Proposition 411: Modifies the power of the mayor and council regarding the appointment and removal of the city manager.
🗓️ June 27, 2025
Council appoints an interim city manager and fast-tracks plans for public input on the charter amendments. Only council member Jennifer Hawkins objects citing lack of transparency.
What’s Next? Chandler voters will now decide key elements of their city’s future this fall. Meanwhile, calls for transparency and unity are growing louder as the council navigates a delicate power struggle.
Legal analysts warn the city may be vulnerable to a quo warranto action, a court challenge questioning the mayor’s legal right to hold office.
Under Arizona law, the council also has the authority to initiate forfeiture proceedings if a member is found ineligible, though this doesn’t seem likely.
Fun Fact: The city clerk confirmed Hartke initially filed to run for mayor again—but quietly withdrew after the controversy over his eligibility became public.
Photo Credit: GROK
Tempe: Small Business License & Park Permit Vote Sparks Debate
In a packed council chambers session on July 2 that stretched into the next morning, Tempe’s City Council voted separately on two major ordinances: a $25 annual business license requirement for all general small businesses and a $25 park permit fee for events with 30 or more attendees. Both measures passed unanimously, 7–0, but not without heated public testimony and libertarian-led criticism.
We previously previewed the $25 registration proposal, including Senator Lauren Kuby’s (D-LD8) support and community responses. Here is a copy of that report:
Over 100 residents filled the council chambers and overflow rooms well before the 6:00 PM start on July 1.
Of the two controversial ordinances on the agenda, the less contentious was the $25 small business license. The Council clarified during discussion that nonprofits would be exempt from the fee—despite earlier reports suggesting otherwise.
Joe Forte, a small business owner and City Council candidate, spoke out after the meeting, saying the experience left him “more amped up for the job.”
Forte criticized the process, pointing out that after just ten speakers voiced opposition to the fee, it was already clear the vote was a done deal.
“I could’ve had 82 more people speak against it. Didn’t matter. The Council had already made up their minds,” he said, calling the meeting “a waste of time.”
He emphasized that public comment should be meaningful—not just treated as a formality. His remarks previewed key themes of his campaign platform heading into the race.
You can listen to Forte’s statement here.
Libertarians Nathan Madden and Chairman Eric Fowler spoke against the registration requirement.
The Maricopa Libertarian Party said, “The answer is not always 'more government' whenever anything happens. We predict that this fee will continue to increase and won't do anything useful for the businesses it claims to "help".
You can watch their public comments here.
By far the more controversial measure was the new licensing fee for the parks in Around 85 individuals registered to speak, with nearly all opposing the proposed fee measures. Many framed the ordinance as a thinly veiled effort to police the homeless, referred to as the “unhoused” by most speakers. Critics argued that the new permitting structure would disproportionately impact grassroots mutual aid groups that offer food and services in city parks. Kuby who was in favor of the business license fee, weighed in on the record against charging residents to use the park on constitutional grounds.
Austin Davis, founder of AZ Hugs, told the Council, “This is an attack on our most vulnerable. The people who show up to feed and clothe the unhoused are doing the city’s job.”
Others echoed similar concerns. “You’re not regulating events,” said Sarah Covey, a volunteer with Tempe Mutual Aid. “You’re regulating compassion. This ordinance is about making poor people disappear.”
Even some of the few who supported the ordinance linked their support to concerns about the unhoused population. One resident urged the Council to “take back the parks,” while another said mutual aid events were “enabling people to live in squalor,” prompting groans from the audience and sharp pushback during later testimony.
Despite the emotional and sometimes heated testimony, the Council permitted everyone who wished to speak. Even after the official list was exhausted, each person was given three full minutes at the microphone. It was a rare display of civic endurance and public engagement even if the outcome was already decided.
Tempe is facing mounting backlash over a new “neutral permit requirement” that critics say is anything but neutral—sparking a federal lawsuit, public outcry, and a growing debate over the role of city governments in regulating charitable activity.
Many argue the ordinance was deliberately crafted to sidestep a pending federal lawsuit over free speech and assembly rights. Filed by Davis, along with Jane Parker and Ron Tapscott, the lawsuit contends that Tempe’s special-event permit rules effectively criminalize charitable acts like feeding the homeless by imposing prior restraints on peaceful assembly. Legal experts at the Pacific Legal Foundation state the ordinance is unconstitutional because it gives government officials “unchecked power” to silence unpopular speakers and restrict “sharing food or clothing with hungry people.”
Davis’s story highlights just how stark the shift has been. In March 2022, Tempe honored him with its Neighborhood Event of the Year award for his volunteer-led Sunday park dinners. But by fall 2022, the city began enforcing its special-event permit scheme—charging him with 34 violations, banning him from parks, and arresting him multiple times by July 2024, according to the lawsuit. The transformation from respected community volunteer to repeatedly cited defendant is abrupt.
State 48 News will continue to monitor this story as it unfolds, tracking court developments, enforcement trends, and further City Council actions.