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.”
Unfortunately, this ruling DOES NOT end all litigation. So far the AzSC has overturned the Appellate Court's stay and reinstated the ruling of the Superior Court. The Board can still pursue its case on appeal. But the AzSC has now unanimiously stated that they agree with the…
— Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) July 8, 2026
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.”
The Arizona Supreme Court has kept a constitutional challenge to Arizona’s donor disclosure law alive, ruling that conservative organizations and anonymous donors may try to prove Proposition 211 violates the state constitution’s free speech protections as applied to them.
In its June 29 decision in Center for Arizona Policy Inc. v. Arizona Secretary of State, the court did not strike down Proposition 211, also known as the Voters’ Right to Know Act. The justices rejected the plaintiffs’ broad facial challenge to the law, along with their claims under the Arizona Constitution’s Private Affairs Clause. But the court ruled that the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and two anonymous donors sufficiently alleged that the law’s disclosure requirements could unconstitutionally burden protected political speech and association.
The case now returns to the Maricopa County Superior Court, where the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to develop their as-applied challenge and attempt to show that compelled disclosure of donors could expose supporters to harassment, retaliation, reprisals, or other harms tied to their advocacy.
Scott Freeman, senior attorney at the Goldwater Institute, which represented the plaintiffs, called the ruling “an important victory for every Arizonan who believes people should be free to support the causes they care about without fear of government-compelled disclosure.” He added that the court recognized that citizens are entitled to try to prove compelled donor disclosure violates Arizona’s free speech protections.
“From the very start, this case has been about protecting the freedom of everyday Arizonans,” said Peter Gentala, President of Center for Arizona Policy (CAP). “No one should have to choose between supporting a cause they believe in and fearing harassment, retaliation, cancellation, or personal safety. Today’s decision affirms what we’ve always known to be true: our constitutional freedoms belong to every one of us, not just to those whose views happen to be popular at the moment.”
The Voters’ Right to Know Act requires nonprofit groups that weigh in on ballot measures or reference incumbents near an election to publicly disclose their donors—not just names and amounts, but also home addresses and employers—in a searchable database.
The court’s majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Ann Timmer and joined by Justices James Beene and William Montgomery, along with retired Justice Rebecca Berch. Justice Kathryn Hackett King concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Vice Chief Justice John Lopez and Justice Clint Bolick. Justice Maria Elena Cruz was recused.
The majority held that Arizona courts must interpret the state constitution’s Speak Freely Clause independently from the First Amendment. The court said federal free speech cases may be consulted when helpful, but the Arizona Constitution remains its own source of free speech protection. “The Speak Freely Clause tolerates no censorship or restraint…for speech that falls within the Clause’s protective scope,” Timmer wrote.
The court also concluded that donations made to an organization for the purpose of funding campaign media or knowingly allowing donations to be used for that purpose can constitute expressive conduct protected by the Arizona Constitution’s Speak Freely Clause.
For compelled election disclosure laws, the court adopted an Arizona-specific standard requiring the state or another defender of the law to show that the disclosure requirement meaningfully furthers election integrity or transparency and does not unreasonably burden or hinder protected expression.
Applying that framework, the court found that Proposition 211 meaningfully furthers election integrity and transparency. The court also found, however, that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the disclosure requirements may impose a concrete burden on their speech because public disclosure could expose donors or organizations to harassment, retaliation, reprisals, or other harms tied to their advocacy.
The court cited allegations that CAP and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) had faced threats and harassment connected to their issue advocacy. The opinion noted that CAP alleged it received a message stating, “Sooner or later, you will die, and some of us pray it is sooner,” and “You are a cancer that will soon be sliced out of our nation’s sick body. I will make it my personal mission to bury every single one of you.” AZFEC reported that staff had received threats of violence and that one staff member’s car had been vandalized in retaliation for communicating AZFEC’s message.
The two anonymous donors alleged that they had previously donated more than $5,000 to nonprofit organizations involved in campaign media and would limit future donations to avoid disclosure. The court found those allegations sufficient at this stage to allow the as-applied free speech claim to proceed.
“Free societies depend on people being willing to speak, advocate, and support important causes without fear of retaliation,” said Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “Today’s decision ensures that Arizonans will have the opportunity to demonstrate that the Arizona Constitution protects those freedoms.”
Andrew Gould of Holtzman Vogel, who argued the case for the plaintiffs, said the decision establishes that the Arizona Constitution is an “independent source of liberty” and confirms that Arizona courts are not required simply to follow federal free speech doctrine, adding it “recognized that plaintiffs may challenge compelled donor disclosure when it chills protected expression.”
The Goldwater Institute’s case page states that the organization represents the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and two private donors in the lawsuit against the Arizona Secretary of State, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, and public officials charged with implementing and enforcing Proposition 211.
Campaign Legal Center, which represents Voters’ Right to Know, framed the ruling as a victory for disclosure. In a statement, the organization said the court affirmed Proposition 211’s constitutionality by rejecting the broad challenge to the law while allowing the plaintiffs to attempt to prove serious harm from the disclosure requirements as applied to them.
Campaign Legal Center President Trevor Potter said the ruling affirmed “Arizonans’ right to know” who is spending major money to influence elections. The organization said Proposition 211 was supported by 72% of Arizona voters in 2022 and was designed to trace original sources of money spent in elections.
Justice King’s partial dissent, joined by Lopez and Bolick, would have gone further than the majority. The dissent argued that political advocacy before an election is core political speech and that anonymous speech contributes to liberty.
The case now returns to the Maricopa County Superior Court for further proceedings on the plaintiffs’ as-applied Speak Freely Clause claim. The court did not strike down Proposition 211, and the plaintiffs still must prove that the law unconstitutionally burdens their speech as applied to them.
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.”
The Board has wasted $750,000 of the taxpayer's money, so far, on a legal battle no one voted for. All that time @JamesRogersAZ has represented my office Pro Bono, at no cost to the citizens of Maricopa. He's a true champion for election integrity and the rule of law. https://t.co/5eXp42aZLC
— Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) June 20, 2026
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Republican State Rep. Alex Kolodin (LD3) is one of two contenders vying to unseat incumbent Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.
Kolodin, a longtime election lawyer, has been in the Arizona legislature since 2023.
Kolodin has previously defeated Fontes under different circumstances.
In 2020, Kolodin won an Arizona Supreme Court case against Fontes which determined the latter, while Maricopa County Recorder, had wrongly told mail voters that crossing out votes wouldn’t spoil their ballots. That ruling allowed Arizonans to further challenge election officials on unlawful actions.
In 2024, Kolodin again defeated Fontes in court, securing a requirement for the latter to comply with duties under the National Voter Registration Act.
Earlier this year, Kolodin successfully passed an election integrity bill (HB 2022) to ensure Arizona’s election timeline aligned with federal requirements and protected military members overseas from disenfranchisement.
Kolodin also led on HCR 2001, the Arizona Secure Elections Act, which promises to strengthen voter ID requirements through an amendment to the Arizona Constitution. The measure passed the Arizona Legislature and is now headed to the statewide ballot. If approved by voters, the amendment would mandate voter ID, declare citizenship as a mandatory qualification for registering and voting in elections, ban foreign funding in elections, and limit ballot acceptance times to Election Day.
Facing off against Kolodin in the primary is former Arizona Republican Party Chair Gina Swoboda.
Kolodin and Swoboda debated last month, with PBS moderating. Both said voters desire more reasons to trust their elections: competence, transparency, reliability, and experience.
Swoboda acknowledged that many voters believe elections have been rigged in recent years, but that the state has addressed issues with the administration, Elections Procedures Manual (EPM), and equipment through legislation and court challenges.
“The way I say it is, when people say, ‘Was it stolen?’, they were stolen fair and square,” said Swoboda.
Swoboda said issues with the EPM would always exist, but that the only issues that matter are those that affect the outcome of the election.
“We just won everything that was winnable in [20]24,” said Swoboda.
Kolodin disagreed with Swoboda’s view that the issues with the elections system, namely the EPM, have been resolved. He pointed to the Pima County GOP lawsuit against Fontes which alleges that Fontes’ EPM threatens voters’ free speech.
“The voters of Arizona are ready to move forward and have an elections system that we can be proud of,” said Kolodin.
Kolodin also questioned why Swoboda continues to defend the exclusion of political party observers in the EPM. Swoboda said she was merely backing what the law was at the time.
Swoboda criticized Kolodin for his 2023 admonishment by the State Bar of Arizona. Kolodin was punished for participating in lawsuits challenging the 2020 election.
Kolodin defended mail-in voting as the right of Arizona voters, and said that his efforts in the legislature have been to make that voting method more secure.
“Arizonans love our mail-in voting. Most Arizonans use mail-in voting, and nobody is coming to take that away,” said Kolodin.
Similarly, Swoboda said that Arizona has used mail-in voting for a while and does it well, and indicated that Arizona has further to go to secure the voting method against potential fraud.
The two contended whether the ballot referral under HCR2001 would “crush” mail-in voting. Kolodin claimed Swoboda was “misleading” voters on the referral, which he said was measures to improve the security of mail-in voting. Swoboda claimed the county recorders stand opposed to the referral.
“The voters of Arizona are the only stakeholders that I care about,” replied Kolodin.
Kolodin said it was “extremely important” to boost voter participation, especially in rural areas. However, Swoboda said it wouldn’t be her job as the secretary of state to ensure voter turnout was high.
In closing statements, Kolodin said his focus was on restoring public perception of integrity in Arizona’s elections.
“What the voters have been waiting for is elections that we can be proud of again,” said Kolodin.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Arizona Supreme Court has agreed to take on a case determining whether Arizona State University (ASU) can mandate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) trainings for its employees.
Professor Owen Anderson sued the Arizona Board of Regents in 2024 after ASU required him to take a DEI training called “Inclusive Communities” (ASU referred to their version of DEI as “DEIB,” or “diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging”).
ASU requires the Inclusive Communities training as a condition of employment upon hire and every two years.
The Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based public policy and litigation organization, filed on Anderson’s behalf. Goldwater Institute attorney Stacy Skankey said the case represented Arizonans’ right to hold government agencies accountable for violating the law.
Arizona law prohibits any mandatory trainings which impart “blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex.”
“No one should be forced to participate in divisive DEI training or endorse race-based ideology as a condition for holding a government job,” said Skankey. “That’s exactly why Arizona lawmakers banned mandatory trainings that teach discriminatory ideas about race, ethnicity, or sex. But a law without enforcement is no law at all.”
The Inclusive Communities training included materials which taught that white supremacy exists as a structural phenomenon, minority faculty don’t have authority or control due to structural inequalities like racism and sexism, white privilege and white fragility exist and impact communities, white people have a duty to combat their privilege, racism can be implicit even if not intended, and sexual identities yield power.
Transcript examples from the training materials were included in the Goldwater Institute’s filing within the Arizona Supreme Court.
Along with the training, ASU formerly required employees to pass an accompanying module quiz. This exam graded certain answers as correct which served to advance DEIB ideology; the Goldwater Institute argued this final test further proved the training served as an impermissible mandate for employees to accept blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex.
Anderson said ASU’s mandate violated state law because the training assigned “race blame” based on skin color.
Anderson added that ASU’s training was rooted in a Marxist dichotomy reducing the world to oppressor versus oppressed, and that the training imparted impermissibly discriminatory teachings that conflicted with his religious and political beliefs. Anderson is a tenured faculty member who teaches philosophy and religious studies.
“Arizona State leaders broke the law when they forced me and every other employee to take part in an ideological training that taught that it’s okay to judge people on their race, ethnicity, religion, and sex. I simply refuse to do that,” said Anderson. “Ultimately, the question before the Arizona Supreme Court isn’t a left or right issue — it’s about whether a state employee has the right to hold their employer accountable when it violates the law.”
The Arizona Court of Appeals previously rejected Anderson’s lawsuit. The court ruled that the law doesn’t have a provision allowing individuals like Anderson to seek legal recourse.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
