City of Chandler Proposition 434 — Charter Amendment (Residency of Council Appointees) (Maricopa County)

What it does

Shall Article IX, Section 9.03 of the city charter be amended to require the city manager and all employees appointed by the city council to reside in Chandler within twelve months of appointment?

A YES vote means

Chandler's city manager and all council-appointed employees would have to live in Chandler within twelve months of appointment.

A NO vote means

Chandler's charter would not add this residency requirement for the city manager and council appointees.

Needed to pass

A simple majority: more than half of the YES and NO votes on this measure must be YES. Leaving it blank doesn't count either way.

Left–right lean

Not a left–right issue: a procedural or local question that liberals and conservatives don't typically split on (AI read of the official ballot summary).

The YES and NO lines are SpectrumVote's plain-language reading of the official text above; the official text is what you vote on.

Official text: source

Explained

Who would notice

The city manager, the Council's other direct appointees, and city department heads such as the police chief. It does not change any tax.

How it got here

It came from the nine-member City Charter Amendment Resident Advisory Committee the Council created in June 2025. The Council approved Resolution No. 6004 on April 23, 2026 to send it to voters. At a July 13 study session Councilmember O.D. Harris asked to revisit it; the Chandler Independent reports the mayor polled the Council and members did not share his concerns enough to change or withdraw it.

In the news

• Chandler Council leaves all 4 charter changes on Nov. 3 ballot · Chandler Independent, 2026-08-05

Written by SpectrumVote from 3 linked sources (1, 2, 3). Arguments are each side's own, not ours; the official text is what you vote on.

Background

The current charter says the city manager and department heads need not live in the city when appointed but must become residents within six months; Proposition 434 would apply the rule to the city manager and all other employees appointed directly by the City Council, with 12 months to establish residency.

According to Resolution No. 6004, the council proposed the change after considering recommendations of the City Charter Amendment Resident Advisory Committee, which presented them at work sessions on February 2 and April 6, 2026; the pamphlet describes this amendment as proposed by the council 'with the advice of' the committee.

The council adopted Resolution No. 6004 in April 2026 (the posted copy leaves the day blank). No arguments for or against were filed.

Put on the ballot by Chandler City Council, April 2026 (Resolution No. 6004), with the advice of the City Charter Amendment Resident Advisory Committee.

From official source 1, official source 2.

Next elections here

• 2028 presidential election · Who has filed so far, from FEC filings

Also on Maricopa County ballots

• City of Chandler Proposition 430 — Continuation of the Local Alternative Expenditure Limitation (Home Rule)
• City of Chandler Question 1 — Granting a Franchise to Arizona Public Service (APS)
• City of Chandler Proposition 431 — Charter Amendment (Selection of the Vice-Mayor)
• City of Chandler Proposition 432 — Charter Amendment (Resign-to-Run)
• City of Chandler Proposition 433 — Charter Amendment (Eliminating Second Consideration of Ordinances)
• City of Mesa Question 1 — General Obligation Bond: Enhance Public Safety ($150,000,000)
• City of Mesa Question 2 — General Obligation Bond: Transportation Improvements ($135,000,000)
• City of Mesa Question 3 — Charter Amendment: Section 209(A), Council Meeting Procedures and Public Notice
• City of Mesa Question 4 — Charter Amendment: Section 211, Ordinance Posting and Publication
• Town of Paradise Valley Proposition 426 — Permanent Base Adjustment to the Expenditure Limitation
• Town of Paradise Valley Proposition 427 — Capital Projects Accumulation Fund Exemption
• City of Avondale Proposition 418 — Public Safety Improvement Bonds ($55,000,000)

All Maricopa County races and measures →

Quick answers

What does a YES vote on City of Chandler Proposition 434 mean?

Chandler's city manager and all council-appointed employees would have to live in Chandler within twelve months of appointment.

What does a NO vote on City of Chandler Proposition 434 mean?

Chandler's charter would not add this residency requirement for the city manager and council appointees.

Would the police chief have to live in Chandler?

Not under this text. The city says it removes the residency requirement for department heads not directly appointed by the Council; the Chandler Independent names the police chief as one of them. City employees would still have to live within a reasonable distance of the city.

Were any arguments filed for or against it?

No. The city's pamphlet says no arguments were submitted for or against Proposition 434.

Does the city take a position?

No. The city says it does not support or oppose any of the measures.

How many votes does City of Chandler Proposition 434 need to pass?

A simple majority: more than half of the YES and NO votes on this measure must be YES. Leaving it blank doesn't count either way.

Should I vote yes or no on City of Chandler Proposition 434?

SpectrumVote doesn't endorse anyone or tell you how to vote. Read what a YES and a NO vote each do, and the official text, then decide based on what you want to happen.

When is the vote?

The general election was Tuesday, November 3, 2026. Counts are unofficial until each state certifies its results over the following weeks; your state or county election office has the official results.