Maricopa County Supervisor Mark Stewart on Wednesday called for better communication and cooperation between county leadership and the Recorder’s Office after Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap asked a court to hold county officials in contempt. The request is the latest development in an ongoing dispute over election administration authority.
Stewart said the Recorder’s request for contempt findings may reflect a broader breakdown in communication and trust between county officials and the Recorder’s Office.
My statement on the Recorder's recent contempt filing.
— Mark Stewart Maricopa County Supervisor District 1 (@MarkStewart_AZ) June 3, 2026
“The Recorder’s request for contempt findings may be more aggressive than necessary, but it is likely a symptom of the breakdown in communication and trust that has been building for some time,” Stewart said.
Heap argued in an Application for Order to Show Cause that the Board continues to exercise powers that the court determined belong to the Recorder’s Office and has refused to return critical election personnel, systems, and resources to the Recorder’s office.
“The Court settled these issues 43 days ago,” Heap said. “Since then, the Board has refused to comply, continued exercising powers the Court ruled it does not possess, and even interfered with Recorder personnel carrying out their lawful duties at Recorder-operated election sites.”
🚨 MARICOPA ELECTIONS UPDATE
43 days ago, the Court ruled the Board of Supervisors was acting in violation of the law.
43 days later, they still haven't returned the IT staff, systems, and resources the Court ordered restored. Instead, they continued interfering in election… pic.twitter.com/whIXbRzWh6
— Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) May 30, 2026
Stewart said county officials should accept the court’s ruling in the dispute and focus on implementing the decision ahead of Arizona’s upcoming primary election.
“My view is straightforward. We should accept the court’s ruling, implement it, and move forward,” Stewart said. “As we move forward with implementation, county leadership should carefully consider and prepare operational timelines to ensure a smooth transition ahead of the upcoming primary election.”
The statement follows continued legal disputes between the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors regarding election administration responsibilities. Stewart said his priority is supporting implementation of the court’s judgment and ensuring county staff have the guidance needed to administer elections effectively.
“The court has ruled. My priority is supporting the execution of the judgment and providing staff with the operational clarity they need to administer elections effectively,” Stewart said.
According to Stewart, he has previously encouraged direct discussions between county leadership and the Recorder’s Office in an effort to reach a negotiated resolution.
“I have worked to encourage direct discussions between county leadership and the Recorder to reach a negotiated solution,” Stewart said. “In my experience, most long-term solutions are achieved around a table, not in a courtroom.”
Stewart said those efforts did not result in a resolution and that the dispute has continued to escalate. While acknowledging the Recorder’s concerns, Stewart said he does not believe contempt proceedings are the best path forward.
“While I understand the Recorder’s frustration, I believe pursuing contempt findings is not helpful at this stage,” Stewart said. “The public is tired of litigation. Voters want their elected officials focused on administering elections, solving problems, and delivering results.”
Stewart reiterated his support for direct discussions between the parties and said long-term success will require rebuilding trust and improving communication between county officials.
“Litigation may resolve legal questions, but lasting solutions and successful operations require communication, trust, and a willingness to work together,” Stewart said.
The supervisor also expressed support for efforts by Supervisor Debbie Lesko to facilitate public discussions between county leadership and the Recorder’s Office.
“I am encouraged that my colleague, Debbie Lesko, is working to bring the parties together for direct public discussions,” Stewart said. “This is something I have been advocating for since early 2025.”
Lesko posted to X on May 29 criticizing Recorder Heap’s decision to request a contempt finding.
“I am once again disappointed that Recorder Heap turns to the court instead of meeting with the Board of Supervisors to resolve our differences in order to run the upcoming elections,” she wrote. “It’s been 9 days since our last invite to meet and we still haven’t heard back from him.”
Stewart concluded by stating that his focus remains on election administration and restoring working relationships between county officials.
“My responsibility is not to relitigate the past,” Stewart said. “My responsibility is to establish secure, transparent, and efficient elections while rebuilding the professional working relationships necessary for long-term success. The voters deserve nothing less.”
Legislation allowing courts to redesignate certain lower-level felony convictions as misdemeanors after successful completion of a sentence passed the Arizona Legislature unanimously. It now awaits action from Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs.
House Bill 2749, sponsored by State Rep. Tony Rivero (R-LD27), would establish a process allowing eligible individuals convicted of certain Class 4, 5, or 6 felonies to petition a court to have those convictions redesignated as Class 1 misdemeanors five years after completing all terms of their sentences.
According to the Arizona House Republican Caucus, the measure received unanimous support in both legislative chambers before being transmitted to the governor’s desk.
“HB 2749 is about accountability, redemption, and common sense,” Rivero said in a statement announcing the bill’s passage. “When someone commits a nonviolent, victimless offense, pays their debt, completes every requirement ordered by the court, and proves for years that they are living the right way, Arizona should not force that person to carry a felony label forever.”
Under the legislation, eligibility would be limited to individuals convicted of non-dangerous offenses that did not involve a victim and who have no prior felony convictions. Applicants must also successfully complete all terms of their sentence before petitioning the court for redesignation.
The bill would not apply to dangerous offenses, offenses involving victims, or individuals with prior felony convictions.
According to the Senate fact sheet, the legislation would permit a court to redesignate an eligible felony conviction as a Class 1 misdemeanor if the court determines the person meets the statutory requirements and redesignation is appropriate. The measure does not provide for automatic redesignation and leaves the final decision to the court.
Rivero said the legislation is intended to help individuals who have demonstrated rehabilitation overcome barriers that can remain long after completion of a sentence.
“This bill protects public safety, excludes victim crimes, and gives deserving people a fair chance to work, find housing, support their families, and fully rejoin their communities,” he said.
According to the legislative fact sheet, the bill applies only to a limited category of felony convictions and requires individuals to affirmatively petition the court for relief. Courts would retain discretion in determining whether redesignation is warranted in each case.
Congressman Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ08) predicted Republicans could see unexpectedly strong results in November, citing voter dissatisfaction with Democratic leadership, ongoing redistricting battles, and what he described as a “hidden voter” poised to influence upcoming elections.
Hamadeh made the remarks during an appearance on James T. Harris’ Conservative Circus radio program and later shared excerpts from the interview on social media.
The real story is the growing sentiment across the country: people are tired of living like this and are finally ready to push back hard.
This November, many will be surprised. There’s a hidden voter who sees Democrats offering nothing — 20% approval, candidates with Nazi… pic.twitter.com/L9kzoY6TgI
— Office of Congressman Abe Hamadeh (@RepAbeHamadeh) June 1, 2026
“The real story is the growing sentiment across the country: people are tired of living like this and are finally ready to push back hard,” Hamadeh wrote in a post accompanying the interview.
“This November, many will be surprised,” he continued. “There’s a hidden voter who sees Democrats offering nothing — 20% approval, candidates with Nazi tattoos, and open America-haters. That’s not what voters want. They want leaders who inspire us to do better.”
During the interview, Harris asked Hamadeh whether Republicans were “underestimating the backlash building against the progressive left for their vision of America.”
“I think so,” Hamadeh responded.
The Arizona congressman pointed to recent redistricting efforts in Republican-led states and said Republicans had become more willing to counter Democratic political strategies.
“I think Republicans finally got smart. They started punching back at the Democrats,” Hamadeh said. “The redistricting wars that we’ve been succeeding on is one aspect.”
Hamadeh also referenced the Los Angeles mayoral campaign of Spencer Pratt, describing the campaign as reflective of broader voter dissatisfaction.
“Whether he wins or not, it isn’t really the issue,” Hamadeh said. “It’s a matter of there’s a growing sentiment in our country that people feel that they don’t have to live like this anymore and that they’re going to push back and punch back as much as possible.”
Hamadeh said he believes those frustrations could produce election results that exceed current expectations.
“So I think this November, people are going to be surprised at the result because there is a hidden voter right now that understands the Democrats, they offer nothing to the table,” Hamadeh said.
Hamadeh cited polling showing low approval ratings for Democrats and criticized Democratic candidates.
A recent Quinnipiac University survey found 20% of voters approved of the way Democrats in Congress were handling their jobs, while 72% disapproved, approaching an all-time low for congressional Democrats.
“If that’s what the voters want, I don’t think so,” Hamadeh said. “I think they want somebody that inspires them, that we can do better as a country.”
The Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit against the City of Phoenix seeking to block a proposed sale of downtown city-owned land to Pennrose, LLC. The lawsuit alleges the deal violates the Arizona Constitution’s Gift Clause and a state law governing municipal housing requirements.
The complaint, filed May 26 in Maricopa County Superior Court, challenges the city’s proposed sale of public land located at 1016 North 2nd Street for approximately $1.5 million. The lawsuit alleges the sale price is less than one-third of the property’s fair market value and would benefit a private developer in violation of Article 9, Section 7 of the Arizona Constitution.
According to the complaint, Pennrose proposed what the lawsuit describes as “a blend of LGBTQ+ affirming affordable housing and a tuition-free preschool for under-resourced children,” with the preschool component to be offered by Bezos Academy. The Bezos Academy is a nonprofit organization founded by Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com and owner of The Washington Post.
Court filings describe the property as consisting of three parcels totaling approximately 0.4 acres, or about 17,500 square feet. Goldwater attorneys allege the property was appraised at the direction of the city at approximately $4,812,500 in June 2023.
The Arizona Constitution requires government entities to receive a direct and proportionate return when they sell public assets. But Phoenix leaders are attempting to give Pennrose, LLC a massive discount on prime downtown real estate, agreeing to sell property worth at least…
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) June 1, 2026
The complaint states the city issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in November 2023 seeking proposals for the purchase and development of the property. According to the lawsuit, the RFP set the minimum purchase price at $4,812,500, the property’s appraised value, while allowing proposers to offer a combination of cash payment and other purported public benefits to meet or exceed that amount.
Pennrose submitted a proposal in January 2024 to acquire and develop the property, according to the complaint. Goldwater attorneys allege the developer proposed purchasing the land for approximately $1.5 million and acknowledged, according to the complaint, that the proposed purchase price represented more than a $3.3 million discount below the RFP’s minimum purchase price.
City records show the Phoenix City Council approved Ordinance S-51809 on April 9, 2025, authorizing the sale and redevelopment agreement for the property, and later adopted Ordinance S-52672 on March 4, 2026, approving an amendment to the development agreement with Pennrose modifying the purchase price.
In a statement released June 1, Tony Napolitano, Senior Attorney at the Goldwater Institute, wrote, “Pennrose claims that the development will create public benefits worth more than the massive subsidy. But there’s a major problem: no valuable public benefit is identified, much less required, in the final agreement. In fact, the developer suggests the city should consider Pennrose’s own private gains from the project as public benefits. That theory turns the Arizona Constitution on its head.”
The lawsuit argues the proposed transaction would provide a subsidy to a private developer without the city receiving direct and proportionate consideration in return, as required under the Arizona Constitution’s Gift Clause.
Goldwater also alleges Phoenix imposed an unlawful inclusionary housing requirement on the sale and development of the property. The complaint argues the city violated A.R.S. § 9-461.16, which restricts municipalities from requiring residential units to be designated for sale or lease to particular classes of residents as a condition of development approval.
Napolitano explained, “Pennrose initially proposed building a mixed-use development on the site, which would include low-income housing and a tuition-free preschool provided by a nonprofit. While the inclusion of a private nonprofit would not remedy the Gift Clause deficiency, it’s not even relevant because it was not included in the final terms of the deal.”
“That leaves the sole remaining alleged public benefit Pennrose claims: the residual value of the housing project once the agreement expires,” he continued. “However, the city retains no ownership interest in the property, and taxpayers will never receive any of their money back from the developer. Those assets remain with the private special interest—exactly what the Gift Clause was designed to prevent.”
The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the proposed sale violates the Gift Clause, block the city from completing the transaction or conveying the property, declare the inclusionary housing requirement unlawful, and enjoin the city from enforcing such a requirement as a condition of development approval.
“Simply put, Arizona law does not give way just because city officials find a particular project desirable.
“Public property belongs to the public. When government officials transfer millions of dollars in public value to a private developer, the Arizona Constitution requires a genuine public purpose and a proportionate exchange—not deep discounts justified by speculative or illusory benefits that taxpayers will never see.”
AZ Free News did not locate a public response from the City of Phoenix regarding the lawsuit prior to publication.
Editor’s Note: Following publication, a representative for Bezos Academy contacted AZ Free News and said that Bezos Academy does not plan to open a location at the proposed Pennrose development in Phoenix.
The City of Scottsdale has issued a Truth in Taxation notice advising residents that city officials may consider an increase in the primary property tax levy for fiscal year 2026-27 as part of the municipal budget process.
According to Scottsdale’s public notice and supporting budget documents, the city is proposing a primary property tax levy increase tied largely to Arizona’s statutory two-percent adjustment, while projecting that the primary property tax rate itself could decline due to growth in assessed property values.
The Arizona Daily Independentreported that Scottsdale is proposing an increase in primary property taxes of $681,888, or 1.70%, above the prior year’s levy level, excluding revenue generated through new construction and changes related to voter-approved bonded indebtedness or overrides.
Scottsdale’s published notice states that the city “may increase” its primary property tax levy over last year’s level and emphasizes that the notice itself does not mean a tax increase has been approved. Instead, the city said the notice reflects the possibility that the City Council could discuss and potentially adopt a levy increase during the budget process.
According to the city, the current primary property tax rate of $0.4891 per $100 of assessed valuation could decrease to as low as $0.4801 as rising assessed property values offset portions of the proposed levy increase.
City budget documents show Scottsdale’s proposed FY 2026-27 primary property tax levy totals approximately $41.29 million, an increase of about $1.02 million over the current fiscal year’s $40.27 million levy. City officials reported the increase is primarily attributable to the statutory two-percent adjustment and includes repayment to the Risk Management Fund for tort liability claim payments made during calendar year 2025.
Scottsdale’s proposed secondary property tax levy, which is used for repayment of voter-approved general obligation debt, is also forecast to increase. According to city documents, the proposed secondary levy would rise from $34.85 million in FY 2025-26 to $36.70 million in FY 2026-27 due to increased debt service obligations.
Despite those levy increases, Scottsdale projects the combined city property tax rate could decrease from $0.9124 to approximately $0.9068 per $100 of assessed valuation because of growth in the city’s net assessed property values. City officials estimate that a homeowner with an assessed property value of $100,000 would pay approximately $90.68 in combined city property taxes under the proposal.
The city has scheduled a Truth in Taxation hearing, Property Tax Public Hearing, and Municipal Streetlight Improvement District hearing for June 9 at 5 p.m. at Scottsdale City Hall Kiva, located at 3939 N. Drinkwater Boulevard. Meetings will also be broadcast on Cox Cable Channel 11 and streamed through Scottsdale’s website.
Following those hearings, Scottsdale officials plan to consider formal adoption of property tax ordinances during the City Council meeting scheduled for June 23.
