by Staff Reporter | Mar 4, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
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.
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.
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.
by Staff Reporter | Mar 2, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
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.”
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.
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.
by Matthew Holloway | Feb 27, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has sent a letter to Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap regarding preparations for in-person early voting for the upcoming July Primary Election, urging cooperation to ensure sufficient voting locations, staff, and equipment are in place.
In a joint statement dated Feb. 24, 2026, Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee and Vice Chair Debbie Lesko said the board delivered the letter to Recorder Heap now that his office “oversees that important function.”
The supervisors emphasized that “big decisions need to be made in short order” to guarantee that in-person early voting is adequately staffed and resourced for the 27-day early voting period prescribed by state law.
The letter requests that Heap provide the “same level of service that Maricopa County voters have come to expect in past years, when the Board oversaw in-person early voting.” The supervisors wrote that this includes a “large number of sites spread out evenly and fairly across our county” during the early voting period.
Brophy McGee and Lesko also asked whether the recorder would collaborate with the board’s elections department, which they described as “staffed, resourced, and experienced in this area.”
According to the Board’s Feb. 24 statement, the letter followed a court filing by Recorder Heap in which he indicated he was willing to cooperate on logistical issues. Supervisors also said they had sent a staff-level communication outlining key decisions that must be made to meet statutory deadlines.
The board approved a requested $550,000 budget increase for the Recorder’s Office, earmarked for signature verification efforts. “Signature verification is under the complete and total control of the recorder,” Brophy McGee stated in a press release on Wednesday regarding the $550,000 increase. “While we have questions about the recorder’s new process, we will proceed with the recorder’s budget requests to ensure sufficient resources are in place by the 2026 primary. Our top goal is fair and secure elections.”
The supervisors gave Heap until Friday to respond to the board’s letter so that preparations can proceed in advance of statutory deadlines for the July Primary. The statement concludes that if the recorder does not respond, the board will assume he can manage in-person early voting “without our help.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Staff Reporter | Feb 15, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is divided on moving forward with a pathway that may result in the recorder’s removal, even with little time left before the primary election.
The board published a statement Wednesday announcing their vote requiring Recorder Justin Heap to provide a written report and sworn public testimony on February 18.
The board statement accused Heap of “lying to the public” and stonewalling the board.
“He has been unreliable. He has been unprofessional. He has been untruthful. He has been unaccountable,” read the statement. “The Board cannot responsibly set a budget, make policy decisions, or oversee county operations, including an active election in Tempe right now, without complete and truthful information from Mr. Heap.”
The board made its decision during its formal meeting on Wednesday. State law authorizes the board to require any county officer to make reports under oath concerning office duties.
The written report would address key issues identified in Chair Kate Brophy McGee’s letter to Heap last month concerning expenditures and prepayments, signature verification and curing, and the special election board and deputy registrar program.
Heap will also be required to provide the identities of the provisional voters his office said were disenfranchised; records of requests by his office for federal funds, legislative appropriations, or county funds; communications with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office concerning the distribution of mail-in ballots to voters who didn’t request them in the 2025 special election in Congressional District 7; and records of the reassignment of the space in the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office to his office.
Although the supervisors voted unanimously to impose these requirements on Heap, not all supervisors supported the official statement condemning Heap.
Supervisor Mark Stewart said the statement wasn’t approved by him. Not only that, Stewart said, but the remarks were disrespectful and potentially damaging to current negotiations with Heap.
“We are in active negotiations on the Shared Services Agreement, and my focus remains on reaching a constructive resolution that delivers results for the people we serve,” said Stewart.
Other supervisors fanned the flames of the statement.
Supervisor Debbie Lesko shared her remarks from Wednesday’s meeting, in which she said she endured over a year of frustrations with Heap. Lesko lodged multiple accusations against Heap, such as that he had something to hide.
“I feel Recorder Heap has left us no alternative,” said Lesko.
The only alternative for the board would be to continue negotiations with the recorder’s office through public discussions and the court.
This pathway by the board may lead to the largest county in the state and fourth-largest county in the nation without its elections leader with a few months left to go before elections begin. The primary election was moved up from August to July recently.
Should Heap refuse to comply with Wednesday’s order, the board may opt to remove the recorder from office with just five months to go before the primary elections.
This latest action by the board appears to be their response to the Maricopa County Superior Court striking down the board’s attempt to subpoena three staff members within Heap’s office. This court restraining order occurred within the case initiated by Heap last summer to restore elections powers to his office.
AZ Free News reached out to Heap regarding the board’s decision. As of this report, no response has been received.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Feb 9, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Several of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors reviewed the recorder’s new signature verification process this week.
Supervisors Mark Stewart and Debbie Lesko visited the recorder’s office on Friday to observe what Recorder Justin Heap has promised to be a stronger approach to signature verification.
Also present were members of the Maricopa County Republicans and local election integrity advocates.
Supervisor Stewart publicized some of the training materials given to elections workers tasked with signature verification, including metrics for accepting or flagging signatures based on broad and local characteristics.
The new format for signature verification has two levels of review, the first for the user and second for the manager. At the level one user review, two signature reviewers of differing political parties compare signatures with the reference signature on file.
Signatures with obvious matches based on characteristics may be accepted as good signatures, while signature comparisons that yield differences outweighing similarities must be flagged for level two review by a manager.
The level two managerial review concerns the review of all available signatures in a voter’s registration record, which can be upwards of 50 samples. The signature pool could include signatures from voter registration forms, verified early voting affidavits, and in-person sign-ins from rosters.
Signatures consistent with the signature pool would be approved and sent to another level two manager of a differing political party for review, while nonmatching signatures would be set aside for further action. The recorder’s office has a set limit of disposition types: no signature, household exchange, need packet (a catch-all disposition type), deceased (which flags National Voter Registration Act research), and pre-questioned signature.
That last disposition qualifies for automatic submission to another manager of a differing political party for level two review.
All signatures with any discrepancy at any levels are required to be part of a mandatory audit review, set at two percent currently.
Training materials also made clear the efforts by the recorder’s office to integrate user-friendly updates to signature review software.
Level one reviewer screens will display the current election affidavit signature alongside the historical affidavit signatures from newest to oldest, removing the old requirement for users to scroll to compare signatures.
The training materials also stressed that users should default to flagging signatures for review for any reasons other than a “good signature” determination.
The visit marked an unusual bright point in the strained relationship between the board and the recorder.
The board and recorder have been engaged in a year-long legal battle in the Maricopa County Superior Court over elections administration powers.
This week marked a particularly tenuous moment in the battle after board leadership issued subpoenas against three of the recorder’s staff members.
The Maricopa County Superior Court sided with the recorder on the issue and put in place a temporary restraining order against the board to halt the subpoenas.
Friday’s visit was not a signal by the two visiting supervisors that they were on the recorder’s side in this court battle. Lesko reposted statements from Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee addressing the subpoenas. Stewart issued his own statement recognizing the validity of arguments from both his fellow board members and the recorder’s office.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
