Maricopa County officials are highlighting updated options for voters who receive ballots by mail as part of preparations for the 2026 election cycle.
In a recent post on X, the county directed voters to information outlining “more options for voters who receive their ballot in the mail,” including guidance on how and where to return ballots.
Arizona is a predominantly a vote-by-mail state, with the majority of voters participating through the Active Early Voting List (AEVL), which automatically sends ballots to registered voters ahead of elections. According to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, early voting typically begins 27 days before an election.
A new state law taking effect in 2026 provides additional options for voters returning early ballots, including expanded in-person verification and tabulation procedures.
According to Maricopa County election officials in a recent video update, voters who bring a sealed early ballot in the required affidavit envelope to a Vote Center prior to Election Day may check in and provide identification, allowing the ballot to be processed without signature verification at the county’s central tabulation facility.
On Election Day, voters may also bring their early ballot to a Vote Center, check in, present identification, and have the ballot tabulated on-site using equipment designated for early ballots. County officials noted these tabulators are distinct from those used for ballots issued and cast in person on Election Day. Ballots tabulated at Vote Centers are included in Election Night results.
Voters may continue to return early ballots by mail or by depositing them in authorized drop boxes. Under Arizona law, early ballots must be received by 7 p.m. on Election Day to be counted.
Maricopa County elections are administered jointly by the Board of Supervisors and the Recorder’s Office, which oversees voter registration and early voting.
Ongoing disputes between the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and the Recorder’s Office over election administration responsibilities have resulted in litigation and disagreements regarding control over certain election functions since Recorder Justin Heap took office in January 2025.
Maricopa County Supervisor Debbie Lesko also addressed election administration in recent statements, emphasizing coordination between county offices responsible for conducting elections.
Speaking to KTAR News’ The Mike Broomhead Show on March 6, Lesko said, “We need to work together to run smooth elections, and what has transpired is frustrating, but we’re working it out between the Recorder’s Office and the Board of Supervisors.”
In a March ruling, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge denied a request from the Board of Supervisors to introduce testimony compelled from Heap, finding the board’s actions fell outside proper legal procedures and could interfere with ongoing proceedings.
The court also raised concerns about the board’s use of subpoenas and attempts to introduce evidence obtained outside the judicial process, while the broader legal dispute between the two offices remains unresolved.
Supervisor Mark Stewart, however, expressed optimism at the time, saying that the parties were nearing a resolution following the Court’s ruling.
“Regardless of the back-and-forth or expressed frustrations from the Recorder’s office and the Board Chair, we are making progress and working together. It may not be perfect, but it is happening,” Stewart said.
County officials have continued to provide voter education materials and updates as part of ongoing preparations for the 2026 election cycle.
This week, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors kept a tradition going when they unanimously approved a resolution to extend a moratorium on new county government regulations.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors first adopted the moratorium in 2013 and was effective until the end of 2017. The Board then extended the moratorium in 2019, 2021, 2023, and 2025.
This most recent extension lasts until December 31, 2026.
The moratorium prohibits all county departments from initiating any ordinance, rule, or regulation except in emergencies, when approved by a majority of the Board of Supervisors and when such a regulation would prevent a significant threat to public health, peace, or safety.
“The extension of this moratorium provides stability for current businesses to thrive and grow in Maricopa County,” said Board of Supervisors Vice Chair, Debbie Lesko, District 4 in a press release. “It will also encourage new businesses to setup shop in Maricopa County, because they won’t have to navigate unnecessary rules and costs to do business.”
“As a business owner myself, I understand how much unnecessary regulations can get in the way of progress and innovation,” said Supervisor Mark Stewart, District 1. “At the end of the day, our job as the Board of Supervisors is to provide peak conditions for our economy to grow while maintaining quality of life for residents. The extension of this moratorium does just that.”
Deregulation is in the air this month.
Earlier this month, Maricopa County officials also announced that a recent determination from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will not trigger additional air quality regulations for the region, maintaining its current “moderate” nonattainment classification under federal ozone standards.
According to a County press release, the County remains designated as a “moderate” nonattainment area under the 2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), meaning ozone levels in parts of the region continue to exceed federal limits. However, the County has avoided a “serious” classification, which would increase regulatory burdens on industry.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Maricopa County leaders say it’s time to bring federal monitoring to an end for a judgment made nearly 15 years ago.
President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and the ACLU alleged racial profiling in a lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) under former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. A federal court found MCSO to be guilty in 2011, and placed the department under a federal monitor to achieve reforms.
Last December, Maricopa County filed a motion to end that federal oversight. Then, last month, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Vice Chair Debbie Lesko followed up on that termination request before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. Joining Lesko were MCSO Community Advisory Board member Felix Garcia and Goldwater Institute’s vice president for litigation and general counsel Jon Riches.
The trio emphasized in their individual testimonies how county spending has gone on “indefinitely” to meet the “moving goalposts” of federal oversight.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05), gubernatorial candidate, led the subcommittee hearing, “The Monitoring Racket: The Grift That Keeps on Giving.”
This month, another Maricopa County leader spoke up to advocate once again for an end to federal oversight. Supervisor Mark Stewart published a Substack article criticizing the federal government’s lack of interest in removing the federal monitor.
Stewart and county leaders say the oversight has cost the county nearly $350 million (though proponents of the oversight such as the ACLU argue that county inflated this total with unrelated costs and the real total is far less: around $60 million).
“Notably, over the past five years, there has not been a single sustained claim of racial profiling. Yet federal oversight remains in place, costing Maricopa County taxpayers nearly $350 million,” stated Stewart. “Even as compliance has been achieved and maintained, Maricopa County residents continue to bear the financial burden of prolonged oversight. Hindering resources that could otherwise be invested directly into public safety, training, hiring, and community engagement.”
The county’s millions spent in compliance efforts over the years have yielded reforms to include the implementation of body-worn cameras, structured constitutional policing curriculum, and data-driven accountability policies.
About ten percent of the $350 million estimate given by the county for compliance payments, over $30 million, was given to the court monitor Robert Warshaw.
Warshaw has faced allegations of capitalizing on a financial incentive to continue his federal oversight, not only in Arizona but in municipalities within other states. He has earned tens of millions over his years as a federal monitor.
Elected officials say MCSO has met and exceeded criteria for resolving the issues found by the court, yet the monitoring activities have not only continued but in recent years gone beyond the initial scope of the court findings.
The ACLU and the district judge in the case, G. Murray Snow, acknowledged last October that MCSO reached Phase One compliance with the 2011 court order.
“Courts are often called upon to correct past failures. They are also uniquely positioned to recognize when those corrections have taken hold,” said Stewart. “Maricopa County has reached that point. The progress is undeniable, leadership is strong, and the time has come to move forward.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Recorder are at odds over plans to establish early voting locations.
Maricopa County Supervisor Mark Stewart, who has been an independent voice within the board, addressed two public concerns with this dispute in a press release issued on Monday.
The concerns relate to the delegation of early voting responsibilities under Arizona law, and the timeline for finalizing early voting locations, staffing, and logistics. Stewart disclosed that conversations between the board and recorder’s officer were underway, even with the very public back-and-forth between the two bodies.
“Regardless of the back-and-forth or expressed frustrations from the Recorder’s office and the Board Chair, we are making progress and working together. It may not be perfect, but it is happening,” said Stewart.
The final week of February marked a particularly fraught period in a long-standing dispute between the board and recorder over election duties. At the center of it all was the disputed existence of a spreadsheet containing alternative early voting locations.
Last week Recorder Justin Heap publicly disparaged the proposed early voting location sites delivered to him by the board. His criticisms accused the board of potentially disenfranchising voters, prompting an immediate response from Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee and Vice Chair Debbie Lesko. The pair said Heap had misinterpreted and failed to adequately review the materials given to him.
1. Heap demands early in-person voting. 2. We give it to him. 3. We send Heap list of over 160 sites he can use or modify. 3. Heap apparently doesn't open all site spreadsheet tabs and rejects "our plan". 4. We didn't even send him a plan…just a list of voting sites. 5. 🥺 https://t.co/cl7E8tGM3F
Heap disputed this narrative of his review. He accused the board of “lying to voters yet again,” in addition to demanding that he approve their early voting proposal.
🚨 MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERVISORS’ FLAWED EARLY VOTING PLAN UPDATE
This week I shared my response to the Board’s demand that I approve their poorly designed, proposed early voting plan.
The cliff notes version? The Board is lying to voters yet again.
— Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) February 28, 2026
According to Stewart’s press release from Monday, none of the early voting locations have been approved yet. The sites under discussion remain proposals.
Early voting locations were approved and released by mid-June during the 2024 election cycle.
This year, the election schedule is slightly more condensed. The governor and legislature approved a modification of the election dates to accommodate military and overseas voters.
Voter registration ends June 22, early voting begins June 24, and the primary election day is scheduled for the end of July.
Even with this adjusted timeline, Stewart says Heap has “ample time” to provide feedback on the proposed voting locations.
“We have a reasonable window of time to gather the Recorder’s feedback and a commitment to work collaboratively to refine location recommendations and ensure the selections are operationally sound and accessible to voters,” said Stewart.
While the rest of the supervisors have operated virtually in lockstep in their approach to the recorder, Stewart has generally taken a position independent of the rest of the board.
Lately, the supervisor is urging his colleagues to review the proposed early voting locations in an open public session to gather constituent input. Stewart advised he would be recommending a public discussion date in which Heap may participate.
“Voters deserve to see the decision-making process, understand the rationale behind site selection, and hear directly from both the Board and the Recorder,” said Stewart. “Transparency strengthens trust and improves outcomes.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) issued its polling place map for early voting, but the Maricopa County Recorder says its uneven distribution may disenfranchise voters.
Recorder Justin Heap issued a letter on Thursday to the MCBOS expressing these concerns. Heap said he doesn’t support the plan.
“I have serious concerns that the proposed early voting plan [the Board] provided makes voting inconvenient and inaccessible for a large number of Maricopa County voters,” said Heap. “I cannot support a plan that does not provide all voters a reasonably equal opportunity to vote. I remain willing to work in good faith. But cooperation does not mean rubber-stamping a plan my office had no role in building, and which fails to adequately protect the voters.”
I have serious concerns that the proposed early voting plan [the Board] provided makes voting inconvenient and inaccessible for a large number of Maricopa County voters.
I cannot support a plan that does not provide all voters a reasonably equal opportunity to vote.
— Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) February 27, 2026
According to the map, areas with higher population counts have significantly less early voting sites compared to areas with lower population counts. As an example, Tempe (population 180,000) has three designated early voting sites while Mesa (population 500,000) has one.
That Mesa voting site is not in the center of the city; it is located in the southeast corner, meaning most voters would have to travel over 10 miles to reach the location.
“That kind of imbalance makes voting more difficult in large portions of the county and risks leaving a substantial percentage of county voters without reasonable access to early voting,” said Heap. “Elections should be fair and accessible for everyone, regardless of where they live.”
In addition to those alleged troubles, Recorder Heap said that “no staff, funding, equipment, or planning authority” has been transferred to him by MCBOS as of the letter. Per Heap, the MCBOS Elections Director, Scott Jarrett, delivered to him an early voting plan on Monday developed without the involvement of his office and asked for an approval by Friday.
“Maricopa County voters made clear they seek us to have collaboration based on the statutory division of duties, rather than artificial deadlines or public narratives that obscure the facts and cause voter confusion,” said Heap.
NEW: BOS sets a 2/27 deadline for Recorder to say if he intends to partner with @maricopavote to provide in-person early voting in 2026. His decision will have a big impact on voters, candidates, ballot measures. Statement below from Chair @katemcgeeaz and Vice Chair @DebbieLeskopic.twitter.com/igMJLMyVU3
Arizona law requires the board to provide funds and resources to the recorder’s office.
In response, Chair Kate Brophy McGee and Vice Chair Debbie Lesko issued a joint statement dismissing his claims as “misleading and disappointing.” McGee and Lesko said the board would continue to plan for Election Day regardless of Heap’s rejection of the plan.
“We offered to help him because he’s never done [early in-person voting] before, and time is of the essence,” read the joint statement. “We even gave him a list of more than 160 voting centers he could use or modify, but we can’t force him to accept our assistance.”
The board issued a letter on Tuesday to Heap asking whether he would accept Jarrett’s plan for early in-person voting. According to their letter, the plan opposed by Heap maintained consistency with practices implemented by Heap’s predecessors.
“The Board of Supervisors strongly supports maintaining a comprehensive early in-person program consistent with prior practices,” stated the letter.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
