By Matthew Holloway |
Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap rejected the Board of Supervisors’ proposal for a public meeting to discuss unresolved election administration disputes, arguing the offer was intended to create an appearance of cooperation while the Board continued litigating election authority issues.
In a June 5 statement, Heap said the Board’s latest proposal was “not a serious effort to resolve this dispute” and accused the Board of continuing “a pattern of delay, obstruction, and political theater” that has lasted more than 18 months.
“They rejected proposals, rejected meetings, rejected mediation, and forced taxpayers to fund unnecessary litigation,” Heap said. “After losing decisively in Superior Court, they are now doing everything possible to delay compliance while pretending the problem is a lack of communication. The problem is not communication. The problem is that the Board refuses follow the law and accept Court orders they do not like.”
The dispute follows an April ruling in the litigation between Heap and the Board over election administration duties. The Maricopa County Superior Court issued a ruling in Heap’s favor on April 16, rejecting the Board’s claim of “plenary” authority over election administration, and held that Arizona law establishes the Recorder as the county’s principal elections officer.
The Recorder’s Office said the court ordered the Board to return control of IT staff, servers, databases, software, and election systems to the Recorder or fund their immediate replacement. The office also said the court found that the Board’s control of the Recorder’s IT systems and personnel constituted an “unlawful usurpation” of authority.
The Board has disputed Heap’s characterization of the litigation and said the April ruling could disrupt election operations. In a May 4 release, the Board said it had filed a motion for a stay pending appeal and warned that the ruling could cause “significant disruptions to election operations,” including confusion over chain of custody, on-site tabulation, and the handling of mail-in ballots on Election Day.
The Board has also maintained that it negotiated in good faith with Heap over a Shared Services Agreement. On the county’s election duties dispute page, the Board said it has “consistently negotiated in good faith” to reach an agreement on how to divide election responsibilities and said Heap chose to file a lawsuit in 2025 instead of finalizing a new agreement.
The latest exchange centered on whether unresolved Shared Services Agreement issues should be discussed in a public meeting or through structured negotiations involving counsel.
Heap pushed back in a June 1 letter, saying he had sought discussions and negotiations since the beginning of the dispute, had submitted multiple Shared Services Agreement proposals, had requested meetings with Board leadership, and had offered mediation.
Heap said the Board’s proposed public meeting format was “unlikely to achieve” the objective of resolving the dispute. He wrote that effective negotiations over legal authority, operational responsibilities, staffing, resources, and election administration required candid discussion, counsel’s participation, and a process capable of producing written agreements.
“Public Board meetings are not designed for that purpose,” Heap wrote in the letter. “They are designed for conducting public business. While appropriate for informing the public, they are ill-suited for negotiating and memorializing agreements between parties engaged in active litigation.”
Heap also said the Board could not “simultaneously litigate authority before the courts” while expecting the same disputes to be resolved through informal public meetings rather than structured negotiations involving counsel.
In a June 3 letter, Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee and Vice Chair Debbie Lesko asked Heap to meet in person “as quickly as you are available,” noting that UOCAVA ballots would be mailed within days and that early voting for the primary would begin in three weeks.
“The Board seeks, and voters deserve, a resolution to these SSA issues,” Brophy McGee and Lesko wrote in the letter. “There is no time to waste.”
Brophy McGee and Lesko said legal counsel and staff would be welcome to attend, but said the in-person dialogue should be limited to elected officials “empowered by and accountable to the people,” according to the June 3 letter. They also said the discussion should be livestreamed because election administration is a public-facing government responsibility.
“This discussion needs to occur in the light of day, not in secret,” Brophy McGee and Lesko wrote.
In his June 5 statement, Heap said the Board was demanding a public meeting where it would control the agenda, format, questions, and discussion while continuing to litigate the same issues in court.
“The Board has also attempted to portray my rejection of this proposal as opposition to transparency,” Heap said. “That is an obvious lie. I have offered to meet with Board leadership, County staff, and legal counsel for both parties. I proposed specific meeting dates and offered to make myself, my staff, and counsel available at any other time the Board preferred. The Board rejected that proposal.”
Heap said real negotiations require decision-makers, legal counsel, candid discussion, and a process capable of producing binding written agreements. He said public hearings would instead produce “speeches, soundbites, and political posturing.”
The disagreement comes as the Board appeals the April ruling and Heap continues seeking compliance with the court’s order. The Recorder’s Office said in a May 29 statement that Heap had requested the Superior Court hold the Board in civil contempt for allegedly refusing to comply with the April 16 ruling.
The election authority dispute remains pending as Maricopa County officials prepare for upcoming elections without a new Shared Services Agreement in place.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
