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.”
Apache County has removed the Spanish language from its print ballots.
Gila and Mohave counties made the same decision ahead of the 2024 general election.
Apache County officials cited printing costs and election wait times as deciding factors for the decision to limit printed ballots to one language. As support for these justifications, Apache County noted that it will continue to offer Spanish ballot translations on their electronic vote machines. Gila County does as well.
Rep. Abe Hamadeh (AZ-08) praised the county’s decision as “pure common sense.” Hamadeh said all citizens have a duty to speak the language of their nation.
“In America, we speak English. Naturalized citizens must prove they can read [and] write it to vote, ballots should reflect that too,” said Hamadeh.
In March, Hamadeh introduced legislation to require that only English be provided on federal ballots, the Voting Only Through English Act (VOTE Act). The bill would tie federal funding to compliance, something Hamadeh said was necessary to “end[ing] multilingual madness, [and] put[ting] America first.”
The legislative proposal was in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order designating English as the official language of the U.S. The order revoked former President Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 13166 requiring federal agencies to provide materials and services in languages other than English, though it didn’t ban agencies from continuing with the practice.
“To promote unity, cultivate a shared American culture for all citizens, ensure consistency in government operations, and create a pathway to civic engagement, it is in America’s best interest for the Federal Government to designate one — and only one — official language,” stated the executive order. “Establishing English as the official language will not only streamline communication but also reinforce shared national values, and create a more cohesive and efficient society.
Another Arizona county just eliminated Spanish ballots ahead of the midterms, pure common sense!
In America, we speak English. Naturalized citizens must prove they can read & write it to vote, ballots should reflect that too.
That’s why Congressman Hamadeh introduced the Voting…
— Office of Congressman Abe Hamadeh (@RepAbeHamadeh) July 8, 2026
Not all counties are permitted to simplify their ballots by keeping only the English language. Maricopa, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Yuma counties are required under federal law to include Spanish translations on their ballots and election materials.
The law requires non-English translations on ballots and election materials for states and political subdivisions with more than 5% of citizens voting age that are limited-English proficient, and political subdivisions with more than 10,000 citizens of voting age that are a single language minority and are limited-English proficient.
Progressive advocates say all counties should cater to non-English speakers who desire to vote.
Senior campaign managers with All Voting is Local (AVL), Natalia Sells and Justa Lopez, have spoken out against these three counties’ decisions.
The two issued an opinion piece with the Arizona Daily Star claiming counties were slowly regressing toward an election system accessible only to white men.
“Whether intentional or not, these changes move us backward to a time when many Americans’ fundamental freedom to vote was limited to only White men,” said the two campaign managers.
Sells later told AZ Family that counties have a duty to be accessible to all voters.
“Counties shouldn’t be making it harder for people to be able to vote just because English isn’t their first and primary language,” said Sells.
Sells, a graduate of Arizona State University (ASU) Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, has worked with AVL since 2024.
Lopez, also a graduate of ASU, has served in managerial positions for several voter advocacy groups prior to joining AVL in March, including the Fair Elections Center, Mi Familia Vota, and Supermajority.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Senate President and Republican candidate for attorney general Warren Petersen (LD14) has joined a court fight to ensure only citizens vote in elections.
Petersen filed an amicus brief alongside House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29) in a case where progressive advocates are challenging the Trump administration’s effort to centralize citizen data across multiple agencies in the name of voter identification verification and even immigration enforcement.
The League of Women Voters (LWV) and several of their local chapters, along with the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and five citizens, sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Social Security Administration (SSA), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Attorney General’s Office over the data centralization last September.
These advocacy groups and private citizens claim the Trump administration’s data pooling violates the 1974 Privacy Act. Judge Sparkle Sooknanan with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with them in a ruling last month. The federal government has filed for a stay of judgment pending appeal.
Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ-08), announced his intent to file articles of impeachment against Sooknanan for the ruling, which he claimed was an overreach and weaponization of the judiciary against the executive.
“[This ruling] was a blatant and unlawful subversion of the President’s executive authority and a direct assault on election integrity,” stated Hamadeh. “Judges who weaponize their bench to interfere with the President’s constitutional duties must be held accountable.
Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan’s egregious overreaching ruling blocking President Trump’s common-sense effort to verify the citizenship of those who want to vote in our elections was the final straw.
It was a blatant and unlawful subversion of the President’s executive authority and… pic.twitter.com/ezoLJJhiba
— Office of Congressman Abe Hamadeh (@RepAbeHamadeh) July 7, 2026
Petersen argued in their amicus brief that Arizona law relies on the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system to process voter registration and government benefit inquiries.
The lawmakers cited the Purcell principle, a precedent established in the 2006 Supreme Court ruling involving former Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell that declares that the courts should avoid ruling to change election rules too close to an election.
Petersen and Montenegro argued voter confidence in Arizona and other states would be jeopardized if the court declined to withhold enforcement of its ruling while the appeal was underway. Other states impacted by the district court ruling hindering SAVE usage for elections, as well as immigration enforcement, include Florida, Indiana, Iowa, and Ohio.
“Making changes to an important election-integrity system at this late stage in the election season creates unnecessary confusion for election officials and the public,” stated the brief. “This court’s order altered an election-related process in the middle of elections around the nation and thus harms the states’ interest in maintaining voters’ confidence in the electoral process.”
Their brief also argued that the ruling would fly in the face of federalism, the mechanism on which states rely to exercise their laws.
Today, I filed an amicus brief in the DC district court supporting DHS’s efforts to ensure that only citizens are voting in our elections. It may not surprise you that the ACLU is in opposition. pic.twitter.com/63JC2MJP1U
Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes have stood opposed to the Trump administration’s data centralization and voter verification efforts as alleged breaches of privacy.
Today, Judge Susan Brnovich's dismissed the DOJ's lawsuit demanding our voter registration rolls. @AZSecretary and I will continue to defend the privacy of voters against federal overreach.
Gov. Katie Hobbs once again vetoed key election bills, blocking a Republican-backed reform package.
The governor rejected six Senate bills restricting election equipment internet connection, expanding chain-of-custody requirements, publicizing cast vote records and voter registration rolls, increasing anti-counterfeiting measures for election ballot vendors, clarifying voter registration standards for those residing temporarily out of state, and requiring disclosures for out-of-state circulators.
Similar proposals were included in bills passed by the legislature and vetoed by Hobbs last year.
The following were the veto explanations Hobbs gave for the election reform package:
SB 1037: Hobbs said further specifications regarding election equipment belonged in the Elections Procedures Manual, citing her 2025 veto of SB 1064
SB 1038: Hobbs claimed jeopardization of constitutional protections for voter privacy, citing her 2025 veto of SB 1280
SB 1040: Hobbs claimed that voter registration information could be redistributed or posted online, citing her 2025 veto of SB 1375
SB 1057: Hobbs claimed election officials would endure added expenses and complexities, citing her 2025 veto of SB 1123
SB 1060: Hobbs claimed the bill would prevent U.S. citizens from registering to vote, citing her 2025 veto of SB 1052.
SB 1429: Hobbs claimed U.S. citizens would be prevented from registering to vote, namely those born overseas to service members, citing her 2025 veto of SB 1052
Arizona Senate Republicans rejected Hobbs’ arguments as unconvincing, and accused the governor of “a troubling pattern” in which she has been intentionally “keeping Arizona voters in the dark.”
A press release from the caucus issued Tuesday made the case that voters should have more opportunities to verify the integrity of their elections — not be forced into their current position where Republicans say their only option is, allegedly, to trust the outcome.
State Sen. Mark Finchem (R-LD1) insisted that these election reforms were necessary to combat voter insecurities over election results.
“When questions about election results come up, and they always do, election officials and poll workers need real tools to show their work and defend the outcome,” said Finchem. “These vetoes strip away the very things that would help good people running elections prove the system is working. Public cast vote records, stronger ballot security, and clearer chain-of-custody rules aren’t about attacking anyone. They’re about giving the people who administer elections the ability to back up their results with evidence instead of just statements. Blocking these reforms year after year doesn’t build trust, it makes the job of defending Arizona’s elections harder.”
State Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-LD7), chair of the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee, argued that Hobbs had also prevented additional means for voters to have hands-on oversight of their elections.
“She blocked public cast vote records, stronger anti-fraud features on ballots, tighter security on voting equipment, and more transparency on voter rolls and ballot measures. If everything is already so secure and trustworthy, why is she fighting so hard to keep voters from seeing more of it?” said Rogers. “These bills weren’t radical, they were basic safeguards. The governor keeps telling people to just trust the system while she works to keep it in the dark.”
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 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.
