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.
For 18 months, the Board refused negotiations. Then they lost in court. Six weeks later, they're still refusing to comply and facing contempt proceedings and sanctions for ignoring the Court's order.
I've offered to sit down with the Board and our respective legal counsel so we… https://t.co/DHiFwzCC5J
— Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) June 6, 2026
“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.
What a shocker😀…@azjustinheap puts out a statement on Friday night saying he won't meet with me & @KateBrophyMcGee to resolve elections issues because he doesn't want the meetings livestreamed to the public. Election negotiations should be public. I have nothing to hide.
“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.
Rep. Andy Biggs is advancing a constitutional amendment to permanently set the size of the U.S. Supreme Court at nine justices. He says the proposal would prevent future attempts to expand the Court through legislation.
According to a statement released by Biggs’ office, House Joint Resolution 1 would amend the U.S. Constitution to require that the Supreme Court consist of one chief justice and eight associate justices. The proposal seeks to place the Court’s size in the Constitution rather than leaving it subject to change by Congress.
The resolution was introduced at the start of the 119th Congress and referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
On June 3, the House Judiciary Committee voted 15-8 to advance the proposed amendment. According to Reuters, the vote fell largely along party lines, with Republican members supporting the measure and Democratic members opposing it.
During the committee proceedings, Biggs framed the proposal as a response to court-packing efforts.
“How can the Supreme Court protect Americans from government overreach if the same government can pack the Court whenever it dislikes a ruling?” Biggs asked. His office stated that the resolution is intended to preserve judicial independence and to prevent future court expansion efforts.
“Our nation’s founders built a system of checks and balances to protect citizens from concentrated power – a central part being the U.S. Supreme Court, whose duty is to defend the rights and freedoms of every American, not to serve as a political tool for any party,” Biggs said. “The judiciary was designed to be the quiet guardian of liberty, insulated from the passions of the moment. Unfortunately, special interests have been increasing their attacks on the Court, threatening to pack this iconic American institution to ensure favorable outcomes for their causes. The goal is not ethics or protecting rights but gaining power and intimidating the Court.”
This week, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee passed H.J. Res. 1, which proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices.
The U.S. Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices. Congress has altered the Court’s size several times throughout American history, with the number of justices ranging from five to ten before being set at nine by statute in 1869. The Court has remained at nine members since that time.
Supporters of the amendment have cited proposals by some Democrats in recent years to increase the number of Supreme Court justices. Opponents have argued that Congress should retain its constitutional authority to determine the Court’s size and structure through legislation.
“The ongoing and escalating assault on the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court must stop,” Biggs noted. “That is why I have introduced this constitutional amendment to fix the number of justices at nine. This action will protect the Court’s legitimacy, preserve the checks and balances that safeguard our cherished freedoms, and ensure every American’s rights remain secure – no matter who holds political power. I’m grateful for my colleagues’ support of this amendment, and I look forward to its passage on the U.S. House floor.”
Constitutional amendments face a high threshold for approval. A proposed amendment must receive support from two-thirds of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate before being sent to the states for ratification. Ratification requires approval from three-fourths of the states.
The last newly proposed constitutional amendment to clear Congress and be ratified by the states was the 26th Amendment, setting the national voting age at 18 in 1971. The D.C. Voting Rights Amendment was passed by Congress in 1978 but failed to meet the state ratification requirement before its statutory deadline expired. The 27th Amendment, which bars changes to congressional compensation from taking effect until after an intervening House election, was ratified in 1992; however, Congress originally passed it in 1789 as part of the Bill of Rights package.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury reported Tuesday that millions of Americans claimed tax relief under President Donald Trump’s Working Families Tax Cuts during the most recent filing season. According to the analysis, low- and middle-income households received the largest share of the benefits.
According to a June 2 press release from the Treasury Department, taxpayers claimed approximately $82 billion in individual tax relief through the April filing deadline under provisions included in the Working Families Tax Cuts. Treasury officials said the total is expected to increase as taxpayers who requested filing extensions continue submitting returns.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the data demonstrates that the tax package delivered significant relief to working Americans and families.
“American families and workers overwhelmingly benefited from the Working Families Tax Cuts, receiving the largest share of the historic tax relief delivered this past filing season,” Bessent said. “This analysis confirms President Trump’s tax policies deliver substantial tax cuts to hardworking Americans and provide greater relief and financial certainty to low- and middle-income households.”
While Iran’s economy is in free fall, the regime has chosen to co-opt digital asset technologies for its own corrupt agenda, including evading sanctions and transferring wealth out of the country. Iran’s current economic chaos is proof that @POTUS’ maximum pressure campaign has… https://t.co/CJPNSgccqh
— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) June 2, 2026
The Treasury Department stated that without the legislation, taxpayers would have faced the scheduled expiration of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which officials said would have resulted in approximately $5 trillion in tax increases over time. According to the Treasury, 97% of filers who received a tax cut during the most recent filing season would have owed more in taxes absent the extension of the 2017 tax provisions.
The analysis found that tax relief was concentrated among households earning less than $200,000 annually. The Treasury reported that 96% of filers receiving a tax cut earned less than $200,000 per year, while nearly 70% earned less than $100,000.
Among taxpayers earning between $100,000 and $200,000 who claimed one of the tax provisions, the average tax reduction exceeded $1,250. Taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $100,000 who claimed one of the provisions received an average tax cut of more than $815.
The report highlighted several signature provisions included in the package. The Treasury reported that more than 7.5 million filers claimed the “No Tax on Tips” deduction, receiving an average deduction of more than $7,000. According to the department, 90% of taxpayers claiming the deduction earned less than $100,000 annually, while 99% earned less than $200,000.
More than 29 million filers claimed the “No Tax on Overtime” deduction, with an average deduction exceeding $3,100. The Treasury reported that 75% of taxpayers using the provision earned less than $100,000 annually, while 96% earned less than $200,000.
The department also reported that more than 35 million seniors claimed the Enhanced Deduction for Seniors, receiving an average deduction of more than $7,500. According to the Treasury, 68% of participating seniors earned less than $100,000 annually and 94% earned less than $200,000.
Other provisions cited in the report included the “No Tax on Car Loan Interest” deduction, which the Treasury said was claimed by more than 1.4 million taxpayers purchasing qualifying American-made vehicles. Those taxpayers received an average deduction of more than $1,800. The Treasury reported that 62% of claimants earned less than $100,000 annually and 98% earned less than $200,000.
The Treasury also reported that more than 5.5 million Trump Accounts have been opened since the program’s launch, with approximately 1.4 million qualifying for a $1,000 pilot contribution. According to the department, 86% of the accounts are linked to families earning less than $200,000 annually.
The report further found that nearly 40 million families claimed the enhanced Child Tax Credit, which the Treasury noted was permanently expanded under the legislation. Approximately 65% of participating families earned less than $100,000 annually, while 89% earned less than $200,000.
In addition, the Treasury reported that more than 127 million taxpayers—representing roughly 90% of all filers—claimed the permanently doubled standard deduction during the filing season. The department said the provision continues to simplify tax filing requirements for millions of Americans.
The Republican National Committee is targeting Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) following reports that Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA) is facing a House Ethics Committee investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct.
The attack comes after Gomez publicly acknowledged an extramarital affair following reporting by the New York Post and amid reports that House investigators are reviewing allegations involving his conduct toward congressional staffers. Gomez has denied violating House rules and has maintained that any relationships were consensual.
In a statement distributed Wednesday, RNC Western Regional Communications Director Nick Poche sought to tie Gallego to Gomez and other congressional Democrats who have faced controversy.
“Ruben Gallego’s sick freak friends prey on women and employees. You are the company you keep, so Gallego needs to answer for what he’s seen, and the people around Gallego need to answer whether or not he is part of the problem as well,” Poche said.
According to the New York Post, Gomez admitted to an affair after initially denying reports concerning his personal conduct. The outlet also reported that allegations involving Gomez’s interactions with congressional staffers prompted a House Ethics Committee investigation. Gomez has disputed allegations that he engaged in misconduct and has stated that he did not violate House ethics rules.
As discussion of the allegations spread online, Brian Anderson of Saguaro Group and Arizona Capitol Oversight highlighted a resurfaced 2018 X exchange involving Gallego, Gomez, and Swalwell.
The RNC statement also referenced former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), another California Democrat who has faced scrutiny in recent years. Poche argued that Gallego’s political associations with Gomez and Swalwell warranted additional questions about the Arizona senator’s judgment and political alliances.
Gallego served alongside Gomez during his tenure in the U.S. House before winning election to the Senate in 2024. The RNC did not allege that Gallego engaged in any misconduct.
The new scrutiny also follows controversy surrounding Gallego’s comments on allegations of sexual conduct involving Democratic Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner raised by a Fox News report.
FIRST ON FOX: Democratic Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner's deleted Reddit account reveals graphic posts about masturbating in portable toilets and praising explicit military restroom graffiti — the latest in a growing trail of vulgar comments that could define his race… pic.twitter.com/oejepVCv9y
— Fox News Politics (@foxnewspolitics) May 19, 2026
In May, Gallego defended Platner, arguing in a post to X that some of the conduct being criticized reflected experiences and attitudes common in military culture. The remarks drew criticism from Republicans and became a point of contention in Arizona political circles.
As of publication, Gallego’s office had not publicly responded to the RNC statement.
The Arizona Auditor General found that Apache Elementary School District (AESD) improperly received state funding for out-of-state students and more than $27,500 in excess transportation funding, while raising concerns about employee benefits, technology controls, and the future viability of the eight-student district.
The Auditor General’s Office also reported that one audit finding was omitted from the public report because of its “sensitive nature” and was communicated directly to the district’s governing board and management.
According to the audit highlights, AESD, located on the Arizona-New Mexico state border, served just eight students during fiscal year 2024, with four of those students residing in neighboring New Mexico. Auditors found the district failed to comply with state requirements governing the admission and reporting of out-of-state students and improperly received state funding for those students. The report recommended that the district evaluate operational alternatives given the small number of Arizona students it serves.
The audit found that the district improperly claimed funding for out-of-state students and failed to charge tuition as required by state law. Auditors also concluded that the district improperly reported transportation miles associated with transporting out-of-state students to and from their homes in New Mexico, along with other reporting errors.
The report stated that the district “paid parents to transport students but did not ensure that all reported mileage and transported students were eligible for State funding and reported data was accurate.”
According to the report, those errors resulted in the district receiving more than $27,500 in excess transportation funding during fiscal year 2025 that it will likely be required to repay to the state.
The Auditor General recommended that the district work with the Arizona Department of Education to correct its student enrollment and transportation reporting errors and ensure future compliance with state requirements. Auditors also recommended that if the district continues admitting out-of-state students, it should charge tuition in accordance with state law.
In addition to the funding issues, auditors found that the district may have violated the Arizona Constitution’s Gift Clause by providing unauthorized fringe benefits to two employees. According to the report, the benefits were not included in employee contracts and were not approved by the district’s governing board prior to being provided. Auditors recommended that the district consult legal counsel to determine whether a Gift Clause violation occurred and, if so, report its determination to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.
The audit also identified deficiencies in the district’s cash-handling procedures. Auditors reported that the district did not consistently prepare receipts when cash was collected and did not always make deposits in accordance with required timelines, increasing the risk of loss or theft.
The report further found weaknesses in the district’s information technology controls. According to auditors, employees and external users had excessive access to sensitive computerized data, while the district lacked comprehensive system monitoring, security awareness training, and an IT contingency plan. The Auditor General concluded that these deficiencies increased the risk of unauthorized access to sensitive information, data loss, errors, and fraud.
Auditors also recommended that the district work with the Cochise County School Superintendent’s Office to evaluate alternative operational structures. Potential options identified in the report include consolidating with another school district, operating as a transportation school district, or dissolving the district and requiring students to attend a nearby district.
The report noted that the majority of the district’s administrative spending was “for superintendent and business manager salaries and benefits.”
According to the Auditor General, the district’s governing board had three filled positions during fiscal year 2024, though one board member later resigned and only two of the three positions were filled when the report was issued in May 2026. The district’s small enrollment prevented the Arizona Department of Education from assigning a school letter grade or publicly reporting student achievement data in order to protect student privacy.
In its formal response to Arizona Auditor General Lindsey Perry, AESD agreed with the audit findings and stated it has already begun implementing corrective actions. Superintendent Loy Ann Guzman wrote, “While some recommendations already have been implemented, the district will continue to work diligently to complete administration of the remaining items and will work to improve the processes and procedures moving forward.”
The district reported that it has instituted procedures requiring proof of residency for enrolled students, worked with the Arizona Department of Education to correct enrollment reporting errors, and does not currently plan to admit out-of-state students. The district also agreed to evaluate operational alternatives with the Cochise County School Superintendent’s Office, review potential Gift Clause issues with legal counsel, improve cash-handling procedures, and implement additional information technology safeguards.
