By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Supreme Court has reinstated injunctions limiting the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors’ ability to assign election duties legally entrusted to County Recorder Justin Heap. The court concluded Heap is likely to succeed on the central statutory-interpretation issue in the ongoing legal battle over county election administration.
In a July 7 en banc order, the court vacated a June 18 stay issued by the Arizona Court of Appeals and reinstated the Maricopa County Superior Court’s injunction orders, subject to temporary modifications intended to prevent disruption during the 2026 primary election.
The case, Heap v. Galvin, concerns provisions of Arizona election law assigning duties to “the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections.” Heap has argued that the language gives those responsibilities to the recorder or an officer designated by the recorder. The Board maintained that its administrative and budgetary powers allowed it to assign the functions to a Board-appointed elections director.
In a post on X, Heap wrote, “Today’s unanimous Arizona Supreme Court decision is a major victory for the rule of law. The Court restored the Superior Court’s injunction, rejected the Board’s legal theory, and reaffirmed that Arizona’s election laws mean what they say. We look forward to moving ahead and delivering secure, lawful, a successful elections.”
The Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court’s interpretation that the recorder has the authority to designate another official to perform those duties when necessary. The court rejected the Board’s contention that control over funding allowed supervisors to determine who would exercise the statutory functions.
Citing Arizona cases dating to 1956 and 1974, the court said, “the Board cannot use budgetary authority to usurp an independently elected officer’s statutory functions.”
Allowing the supervisors to appoint the official responsible for the duties would replace the Legislature’s direction that the recorder perform them, according to the order. The court concluded that the likelihood-of-success factor weighed in Heap’s favor on the central statutory question.
The ruling does not conclude the underlying appeal. It determines which injunctions will remain in effect while the litigation proceeds and indicates how the Supreme Court views the parties’ likelihood of prevailing on the statutory issue.
The dispute originated in Maricopa County Superior Court, where Judge Scott Blaney held an evidentiary hearing in January. In an April 16 ruling, later incorporated into an appealable May 18 order, Blaney defined the respective responsibilities of the recorder and supervisors.
The Superior Court found that the Board has a nondiscretionary obligation to fund all necessary expenses of the recorder. It also ordered the return of IT personnel, servers, databases, software, websites and equipment that had been under the Recorder’s Office’s control before October 2024, or funding sufficient to replace those resources.
The ruling further prohibited the Board from exercising duties delegated by statute to the recorder. Questions concerning individual expenses and funding levels were left for good-faith negotiations between the offices.
The Superior Court denied the Board’s request to stay those injunctions on May 13. The Board appealed, arguing that implementing the order during an election cycle would disrupt poll-worker supervision, early-voting operations, ballot tabulation, information technology systems and other election procedures.
A divided Court of Appeals granted the Board’s emergency stay on June 18, relying heavily on the principle established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Purcell v. Gonzalez. That principle urges courts to exercise caution when ordering changes to election procedures close to an election because of the potential for confusion and operational disruption.
The Arizona Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals gave the Purcell principle too much weight and failed to conduct the full four-factor analysis required under Arizona law when considering a stay.
The court said Purcell remained relevant to questions of timing, feasibility, and public consequences, particularly because early voting in the 2026 primary was already underway. It did not, however, determine which official possessed statutory authority or replace the required analysis of the parties’ likelihood of succeeding on appeal.
The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals abused its discretion by granting the stay. To limit disruptions, the justices reinstated the injunctions as modified by a 12-point interim operational protocol proposed by Heap for the primary election.
According to an Arizona Supreme Court news release, the temporary procedures are intended to preserve continuity while the appeal moves forward. The court said neither its order nor the modified injunctions interfere with the public’s ability to vote in the primary or general elections.
Either party may ask the Court of Appeals for additional temporary modifications. If those requests require new factual findings, the appeals court may return the matter to Superior Court for further proceedings.
The Supreme Court also denied Heap’s request for sanctions against Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, who submitted an amicus brief in the case. The denial does not prevent either side from seeking sanctions later against an official who interferes with legally prescribed election procedures or fails to perform required duties.
The order took effect immediately. Heap called the ruling a victory for his office and said it restored the Superior Court injunctions.
“Today’s unanimous decision is a decisive victory for the rule of law,” Heap said in a statement released by the Recorder’s Office. He said his office was prepared to implement the order and administer the county’s elections. “In addition, it rejected the Board’s central legal arguments and made clear that the Recorder is likely to prevail on the merits. My office is ready to implement the Court’s order and deliver secure, lawful, and professional elections for the people of Maricopa County.”
Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee and Vice Chair Debbie Lesko said in a joint statement that they were disappointed by the decision and concerned about administrative changes during an ongoing election. They said county officials had reached a consensus following two days of court-ordered mediation shortly before the ruling.
“The Board will follow the law and abide by the court’s decision,” Brophy McGee and Lesko said. They added that the county’s 2.6 million voters remained their primary concern.
In a subsequent release, Heap announced that he had submitted what his office called “a court-aligned settlement proposal” to Judge Coury and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
“This proposal builds upon the framework developed during court-ordered mediation and more fully aligns the parties’ respective responsibilities with Arizona law and the direction provided by both the Superior Court and the Arizona Supreme Court,” Heap said.
“This agreement will provide a clearer operational framework designed to reduce future conflict and ensure the smooth, secure administration of elections for all Maricopa County voters,” he added. “I look forward to the Board’s cooperation with the Supreme Court and Superior Court’s orders as we finalize this agreement built upon respect for the rule of law.”
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.
