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.”
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.
Several Maricopa County staffers are now in the middle of an elections authority dispute between the recorder’s office and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
Several employees with the recorder’s office have been placed under investigation for the alleged theft of a piece of election equipment.
Several employees were contacted by an officer with the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office over the weekend as part of a criminal investigation initiated by special counsel appointed by Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, following a complaint from the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (BOS).
Mitchell’s office said MCAO has no involvement in the investigation.
An allegation was made to Maricopa County Attorney @Rachel1Mitchell, who had a conflict of interest, and she appointed a Special Counsel. MCAO is not involved in the investigation and has no further comment. https://t.co/HA2GYOxkDR
— Maricopa County Attorney's Office (@marcoattorney) June 8, 2026
BOS leaders Kate Brophy McGee and Debbie Lesko, chair and vice chair, said the criminal investigation was not some new development but the result of an incident that occurred months ago in March.
Per McGee and Lesko, Chief Information Officer Bryan Colby and one other, unnamed recorder’s office employee briefly removed a pre-tabulation ballot scanner from the Maricopa County Election and Tabulation Center (MCTEC) during the Tempe Jurisdictional Election. The two employees removed the scanner from MCTEC property for approximately 50 minutes before returning it.
The board also accused Colby of potentially jeopardizing the chain of custody by removing “a handful” of provisional ballots from MCTEC. However, the board said all ballots and envelopes were accounted for the day following the incident.
Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap contends the scanner belonged to his office, since recorder funds paid for it.
Following the brief removal of the scanner, the county decommissioned and replaced the equipment for $70,000.
Brophy McGee and Lesko issued their press release explaining the criminal investigation into Heap’s employees after Heap filed an emergency motion with the Arizona Superior Court over the weekend.
Heap petitioned the court to take stronger action against the board by stopping further actions like the deputy contacts with his staff that occurred over the weekend — which Heap characterized as retaliation — and for an enforcement action to require the board to adhere to the court’s previous ruling.
🚨 BREAKING: LEGAL UPDATE Yesterday, I filed an emergency motion with the Court after armed sheriff's deputies appeared at the homes of three Recorder's Office employees and informed them they were under criminal investigation.
— Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) June 8, 2026
Last month, the Arizona Superior Court ordered the board to restore election authority and resources to Heap’s office. The board, which maintains it has “plenary authority” over elections administration, rejected this ruling and plans to appeal.
Last week, Heap asked the court to hold the board in contempt.
And now this week, Heap has accused the board of doing the very thing they have accused him of doing: criminalizing election workers.
“For weeks, the board has attempted to convince the public that I somehow intend to seek criminal penalties against election workers for performing their duties,” said Heap. “That claim is a lie, and they know it. Yet, while making those false accusations, the board was quietly pursuing criminal investigations and penalties against election workers employed by the recorder’s office.”
Heap said “meaningful cooperation” with the board of supervisors has been “impossible,” as evidenced by this latest development.
“While the Board publicly talks about collaboration, claims it wants to work together, and falsely accuses others of creating conflict, behind the scenes it bullies employees, interferes with the recorder’s operations, and now seeks to subject election workers to criminal investigations for attempting to lawfully do their job using equipment purchased and owned by the recorder’s Office,” said Heap.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
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.”
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) paid a visit to Arizona last week.
Sara Carter, director of the ONDCP, came to address Arizona’s unique situation with its ongoing drug crisis. Arizona was one of few states to experience an increase in drug overdose deaths rather than a decrease in 2025. Not only that: Arizona had the most drug overdose deaths last year.
While drug overdose deaths decreased 31% nationwide, Arizona experienced a 30% increase in drug overdose deaths.
Republican Rep. Andy Biggs (AZ-05) hosted Carter’s visit to Arizona, and Republican Rep. Eli Crane (AZ-02) joined the pair for meetings according to a press release from Biggs. These meetings were also attended by Drug Enforcement Administration officials, tribal partners, local law enforcement, and Angel Families.
Angel Families include all family members of individuals victimized or killed by criminal illegal aliens. Nearly all of the Angel Families in attendance last week were those whose loved ones fell victim to the crimes and violence resulting from drug cartel activity.
Eight of those families testified at a roundtable hosted at the Arizona State Capitol on Friday. These families claimed that the deaths of their loved ones were preventable through stricter immigration enforcement policies.
Among those to testify were Mary Ann Mendoza, who recounted how her son, Mesa police officer Brandon Mendoza, was killed in 2014 by an illegal alien drunk driver who had a criminal record dating back to 1994 and was living as a fugitive at the time of the crash.
Doug and Patricia Quets shared how their adult son Nicholas Quets, a Marine veteran, was murdered by Sinaloa cartel members in 2024.
Fernando Basurto explained that his grandson, Fernando Jose Basurto Jr., was about to graduate high school and had plans to enter the Air Force when he was murdered by a criminal illegal alien in 2016, who had been released shortly prior to the murder. Basurto said that former Sen. Martha McSally initially soured him on Congress because she refused to see their family to discuss Fernando Jose’s murder.
Patti Fox testified alongside her adult daughter, Carissa Aspnes, who was struck and severely disabled by an illegal alien running a stop sign in 2025. Carissa — a second-generation American on her grandmother’s side, a legal immigrant from Thailand — suffered a traumatic brain injury and now requires full-time care. Fox said local investigators initially covered up the fact that Carissa’s assailants were illegal aliens who entered the country under the Biden administration.
Karen Griffin explained that her teen son, Tyler Griffin, passed away in 2020 after taking a pill he believed to be Tylenol, but was actually laced with fentanyl.
Similarly, Anne Fundner shared that her 15-year-old son, Weston Fundner, passed away in 2022 after taking pills laced with fentanyl.
Carter promised to incorporate those suggestions from Friday’s roundtable into legislative proposals and policies put forth by the Trump administration.
Attendees included Reps. Quang Nguyen (R-LD-1), Nick Kupper (R-LD-25), and Lisa Fink (RLD-27); Sen. Carine Wrner (RLD-4); Maricopa County Supervisor Debbie Lesko; Queen Creek Mayor Julia Wheatley; and Art Del Cueto, formerly president of the National Border Patrol Council.
As part of its mission to address the drug crisis, ONDCP has taken a special focus on Arizona’s increase in drug overdose deaths, especially those involving fentanyl. It is the belief of the Trump administration, and Biggs and Crane, that the border policies of former President Joe Biden are to blame for Arizona’s ongoing drug crisis.
Carter commended Arizona as taking steps to fight back against the drug crisis.
“These communities know firsthand the devastating impact of illicit drugs,” said Carter. “President Trump and his administration will continue to fight for our citizens until every American is free to live a safe and healthy life, free from the scourge of illicit drugs.”
Earlier this month, ONDCP released a 200-page National Drug Control Strategy for 2026.
Under this administration, Trump has signed legislation classifying fentanyl-related compounds as Schedule I drugs; designated cartels as foreign terrorist organizations; designated illicit fentanyl and its core precursor chemicals as weapons of mass destruction; and signed legislation expanding the border wall and increasing deportations.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
