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.
A court has ordered Maricopa County officials to participate in a settlement conference next week to determine election powers.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney issued the order in response to Recorder Justin Heap’s request for contempt sanctions against the board.
The settlement conference is scheduled for Monday, June 22. The contempt hearing will remain scheduled for Tuesday, June 30 unless the board of supervisors and recorder resolve their dispute.
In the order issued last week announcing the contempt hearing, Blaney stated that the supervisors would be required to explain their “willful, continuing, and escalating noncompliance” with his order to restore certain election responsibilities, personnel, and technology to Heap.
Heap says the board has failed to return resources to include IT personnel, servers, databases, and websites, as well as refused to authorize the use of state and federal funds.
The superior court ordered the board of supervisors to restore those resources to Heap back in April.
The board has refused to comply. They say the ruling would cause problems with the administration of the upcoming primary and general elections.
“[T]he ruling creates more confusion than clarity,” said the board. “The Board of Supervisors has purchased equipment and planned to provide tabulation of early ballots in the 2026 Primary and General Elections. However, the ruling calls into question who is responsible for overseeing and executing this option for voters.”
Instead, the board has established an independent resource page to provide “just the facts” about the ongoing lawsuit and the Shared Services Agreement (SSA) negotiations that determine the distribution of election authority between the recorder and board.
SSAs distinguish election responsibilities between the board and recorder. Heap’s predecessor, Stephen Richer, coordinated with the prior board of supervisors to reduce the recorder’s scope of responsibilities in his final months in office in 2024.
The board appealed the superior court ruling with the Arizona Court of Appeals last month.
The board maintains that it has “consistently negotiated in good faith” with Heap. Several efforts to settle on a new SSA have failed. The board claims that Heap has made inconsistent demands and “at least twice” rejected their proposed new SSAs.
Also last week, a months-old incident involving employees within the recorder’s office resurfaced following a public announcement by Heap. Heap accused the board of retaliation over a criminal investigation into two of his employees for alleged theft of election equipment. Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee accused Heap of perpetuating “a parade of falsehoods, misrepresentations and strawmen.”
The board responded that Heap’s employees had no right to remove and later return an envelope scanner from the Maricopa County Election and Tabulation Center during the Tempe Jurisdictional Election. According to the board, that equipment was replaced due to the alleged security compromise.
Heap countered that the equipment belonged to his office and was therefore under the purview of his employees. Heap claimed the board ignored the alleged incident for months and dismissed their narrative as “baseless allegations.”
🚨 UPDATE: RECORD CORRECTS THE BOARD'S MANUFACTURED SCANDAL AND MALACIOUS SLANDER.
The Board spent 3 months sitting on these baseless allegations. Then, after losing in court again and facing contempt proceedings, it launched a smear campaign against career election employees… https://t.co/FRSwQb27ml
— Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) June 12, 2026
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
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.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors gained a new ally in their ongoing court battle against Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap over elections authority.
The board received a supporting brief from a former longtime Maricopa County recorder, Helen Purcell.
Purcell, a Republican, filed the 57-page brief with the help of the States United Democracy Center (SUDC) — the same organization that colluded with Attorney General Kris Mayes to prosecute 2020 allies of President Donald Trump.
Purcell’s brief said that the board wasn’t mandated by statute to delegate election administration duties to the recorder but instead retained the power of discretionary judgment to award that authority based on whether the recorder was “cooperative and experienced,” and proving to “serv[e] the interests of the county and its voters.”
Further on, Purcell made the case that the court should “preserve the status quo” by keeping elections authority with the board, due to the nearness of the primary election set to take place next month. She referenced a Supreme Court case involving her, Purcell v. Gonzalez, and the resulting “Purcell Principle”: that courts shouldn’t modify election rules too close to an election.
Purcell also claimed that state law designating elections authority was ambiguous, and that the trial court that ruled in Heap’s favor had established “a blanket hierarchy” not imposed by the law.
“[That ruling declared that] the recorder controls every function where the office is named, and the ‘other officer’ serves only at the recorder’s discretion,” stated Purcell. “That construction disregards the historical and operational context against which these statutes were enacted, and […] would produce results the legislature could not have intended, stripping away the flexibility the legislature built into the statutory scheme.”
Instead, Purcell said the recorder and board each maintained direct authority over certain functions, and shared some. Recorder functions included voter registration and early ballot signature verification, and board functions included Election Day operations, ballot tabulation, and jurisdictional elections, said Purcell, and the two shared functions like chain of custody documentation.
Although Purcell departed from the recorder’s office nearly 10 years ago, she is no stranger to reentering the muddy waters of election-related disputes. Purcell served as county recorder from 1988 to 2017.
Purcell filed a joint brief in support of maintaining a ranked choice voting ballot initiative in 2024 with former state lawmaker Ken Bennett. Another former recorder for Maricopa County, Stephen Richer, also filed a brief in support of the initiative.
Ranked choice voting would require voters to rank every candidate on their ballot. Only the candidate to earn 50% of the vote would be declared the winner. Otherwise, voters would have to enter additional rounds of voting until a candidate breaks 50%.
Gov. Katie Hobbs appointed Purcell as co-chair of an elections task force her first year in office, and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes praised Purcell for the ensuing report. Hobbs ultimately allocated over $2 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for elections-related initiatives proposed by the task force for the 2024 election. ARPA funds were initially meant for economic stimulus efforts pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Republican lawmakers criticized the task force at the time for its “secretive” conduct, and alleged that the task force was Hobbs’ way of circumventing statutory requirements to modify election law and procedures.
The task force was also rumored to be influenced by SUDC.
Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Purcell and Bennett filed a joint brief in support of ranked choice voting. That statement has been corrected.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
