By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Supreme Court partially overrode a lower court ruling that would have suspended a mandate for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to restore election authority to the Maricopa County Recorder.
The court ruling directed the supervisors and recorder to engage in settlement discussions and proceedings as part of a ruling issued on Tuesday. The two parties were scheduled to have a settlement conference on Monday in the Maricopa County Superior Court.
The superior court had ordered the supervisors to restore election authority and certain resources back to the recorder’s office. However, an appeals court issued a temporary stay on that order last Thursday. The latter court found that shifting duties and resources this late in the election season would likely disrupt the primary and general elections.
Recorder Justin Heap appealed on Monday, and the Arizona Supreme Court quickly took up the case.
Heap’s counsel through America First Legal (AFL) argued that the appeals court’s justification for its temporary stay was misapplied: a legal doctrine known as the “Purcell principle” that arose from a Supreme Court case involving Helen Purcell, former Maricopa County recorder.
“[T]he stay effectively prevents the recorder from exercising authority that state law assigns to his office,” stated AFL.
The Arizona Supreme Court also ruled that any agreement reached during settlement would need to be communicated to it.
The supervisors and recorder were also required to file simultaneous pleadings by Thursday addressing operational deadlines for the 2026 primary election; statutory functions that neither dispute; a potential interim relief alternative to the superior court and appeals court rulings; and operational effect of authorizing ballot drop-box locations per the 2025 Elections Procedures Manual, ballot replacement site operations supervision, chain of custody of provisional ballots, on-site tabulation logistics, and any other concrete operational risk supported by the superior court’s findings.
The recorder’s office issued a press release expressing confidence that their team could provide a persuasive operational framework proving the recorder’s office capable of taking on the election duties and resources which the supervisors were ordered to relinquish.
Heap said their office was encouraged by the Arizona Supreme Court ruling on the ongoing election dispute.
“Our office has consistently pursued practical solutions that protect voters and follow the law,” said Heap. “We welcomed mediation, we developed a detailed transition plan, and we remain prepared to implement a lawful division of responsibilities without disrupting the upcoming election. We are encouraged that the Supreme Court is carefully considering those options.”
The supervisors and the recorder have blamed one another for the litigation, which has lasted over a year and cost the board over $750,000. Heap noted that his representation — James Rogers, AFL senior counsel and LD10 candidate for the state legislature — has come at no cost to his office.
Rogers said in a statement that the board’s actions in court were attempts to run out the clock in the hopes that enforcing the superior court order would no longer be feasible. He warned that granting the board the stay would give a “green light” to Arizona’s government officials to avoid court orders through intentional delays.
“The Board of Supervisors lost in court. The court ordered it to comply. The Board refused — openly, repeatedly, and deliberately — for two months, while the election drew closer with every passing day. Now, after deliberately running out the clock, the Board claims the election is too imminent to obey the court’s order,” said Rogers. “That is not a valid legal argument. It is a confession that the Board’s strategy all along was to manufacture its own emergency.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
