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.
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.”
Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap has asked the Maricopa County Superior Court to hold the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in civil contempt, claiming the Board has failed to comply with a court order issued more than six weeks ago restoring election authority and resources to the Recorder’s Office.
The filing comes 43 days after Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney ruled that the Board of Supervisors has exceeded its statutory authority by assuming control over election functions assigned by Arizona law to the County Recorder.
In an Application for Order to Show Cause filed on May 28, 2026, Heap argued the Board has continued to exercise powers the court determined belong to the Recorder’s Office while refusing to return critical election personnel, systems, and resources.
“The Court settled these issues 43 days ago,” stated Heap. “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.”
The dispute stems from a lawsuit filed by Heap against the Board after disagreements over election administration responsibilities, funding, and operational control.
In its April ruling, the court rejected the Board’s argument that it possessed “plenary” authority over county election administration. Blaney wrote that Arizona election statutes specifically assign numerous election duties to the Recorder and that the Board cannot assume those responsibilities without legislative authorization or the Recorder’s consent.
The court found that Arizona law designates the Recorder as the responsible official for 111 election-related functions assigned to the “recorder or other officer in charge.” As a result, Blaney ordered the Board to restore authority, personnel, and election systems to the Recorder’s Office or immediately fund replacement systems.
The ruling also directed the Board to release election-related funding appropriated for the Recorder and prohibited the Board from exercising election functions delegated by law to the Recorder.
According to Heap’s latest filing, the board has yet to return election IT personnel, servers, databases, websites, and other systems necessary for the Recorder’s Office to carry out its statutory responsibilities. The filing further claims the board has refused to authorize the use of state and federal funds appropriated for election administration.
Heap also pointed to actions taken during recent May jurisdictional elections, stating that the county’s Elections Director instructed poll workers at Recorder-operated ballot replacement sites to disregard directions from the Recorder’s Office staff regarding voter information requirements under state law.
Additionally, the Recorder’s Office argues that the Board adopted a resolution asserting authority over early ballot drop boxes during the early voting period despite the court’s injunction and Arizona statutes assigning that responsibility to the Recorder.
The Recorder’s Office contends these actions represent continued violations of the court’s order rather than delays in implementation. The filing states that Recorder officials attempted to negotiate phased transition plans, resource-sharing agreements, and other cooperative solutions which were rejected by the Board.
Heap is now asking the court to order the Board to appear and explain why they should not be held in contempt, impose sanctions sufficient to compel compliance with the April ruling, and award attorney fees and court costs.
“The voters of Maricopa County deserve election administration that follows the law, respects the courts, and remains focused on conducting elections that are lawful, secure, accurate, accessible, and worthy of the public’s trust,” added Heap.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap declined what his office described as a last-minute request from the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to appear before the board regarding a proposed resolution on ballot drop box locations, a move that further escalates an ongoing dispute over election authority in Arizona’s largest county.
The Recorder’s Office said it was not consulted on the proposed drop box locations and only became aware of them after the board publicly posted its meeting agenda. It added that the board requested Heap’s appearance with less than an hour’s notice, without providing advance questions or topics, and characterized the request as “political theater” rather than a genuine attempt at cooperation. The office also argued that Heap did not have sufficient time to review the proposal for legal compliance, operational feasibility, or voter access concerns.
According to a statement, the recorder’s legal counsel previously provided the board with objections asserting that Arizona law places authority over ballot drop boxes with the recorder’s office rather than the Board of Supervisors. The office also cited ongoing litigation between the parties as a reason Heap declined to participate in what it described as an impromptu public examination concerning active legal disputes.
“The Recorder remains willing to meet in a properly noticed setting and resolve these issues professionally and cooperatively if the Board is willing to do the same,” the statement said.
Recorder Rejects Board’s Political Theater on Dropbox Resolution
(PHOENIX) – Today, Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap declined the Board of Supervisors’ last-minute demand that he appear before the Board to answer questions regarding a proposed resolution attempting to seize… pic.twitter.com/1CZTFTc5mi
— Maricopa County Recorder's Office (@RecordersOffice) May 20, 2026
The dispute follows months of legal conflict between Heap and the Board of Supervisors over control of election administration duties in Maricopa County.
Heap said, “The law is not optional. The Court has already ruled that the Board does not possess unlimited authority over election administration, yet the Board continues attempting to exercise powers Arizona law assigns to the Recorder.” He added, “Voters deserve lawful, professional election administration, not political gamesmanship and last-minute public ambushes.”
In April, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney ruled largely in Heap’s favor in a lawsuit challenging the board’s authority over election operations. Blaney determined the board exceeded its statutory authority by maintaining control over election-related personnel, systems, and functions that legally belong to the recorder’s office. The ruling affirmed greater authority for the recorder over early voting administration and rejected the board’s assertion of broad supervisory authority over election administration.
The Board of Supervisors subsequently voted to authorize 237 vote centers and drop box locations for the upcoming July primary election, according to a press release issued the same day. The Board also voted unanimously to transfer funds to create eight full-time IT positions in the County Recorder’s Office.
NEW: BOS acted on behalf of voters today to: -Approve 7/21 Primary Election voting locations -Defend election workers from threats of criminal prosecution -Call on Recorder Heap to collaborate in public, recorded meetings -Approve new IT positions for Recorder’s Office 🧵1/2
“I am willing to put in the hours to work with Recorder Heap to hammer out our differences for the benefit of our voters,” MCBOS Vice Chair Debbie Lesko said during the meeting. “That is why the Chair and I are calling on Recorder Heap to come to the table.”
Chair Kate Brophy McGee said in a statement, “Election systems work best when chain of command and procedures are clear. That clarity is what the Board is seeking in requesting face-to-face meetings with Recorder Heap, as well as in our appeal of the ruling in Heap v. Galvin, et al.” She added, “We are committed to ensuring the Recorder is able to carry out his statutory duties just as we are committed to carrying out ours on behalf of voters.”
In a post to X, Heap wrote, “The Board is having a full meltdown because I objected to a resolution unlawfully giving themselves control over ballot drop boxes and declined to appear for a surprise public interrogation on less than an hour’s notice. The Court has already ruled that the Board does not have unlimited authority over elections, yet it continues attempting to exercise powers Arizona law assigns to the Recorder. Voters deserve lawful election administration, not political stunts and last-minute public ambushes.”
The Board is having a full meltdown because I objected to a resolution unlawfully giving themselves control over ballot drop boxes and declined to appear for a surprise public interrogation on less than an hour's notice.
— Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) May 20, 2026
The dispute centers on how election responsibilities are divided between the recorder and the Board of Supervisors, including authority over early voting operations, election infrastructure, and ballot drop boxes. The board maintains it has sought negotiated agreements governing election administration, while Heap and his office argue Arizona law assigns specific election duties directly to the elected recorder. Maricopa County Superior Court denied the board’s request for a stay pending appeal on May 13 and ordered restoration of the recorder’s authority under the earlier ruling.
The drop box resolution and Heap’s refusal to appear before the board mark the latest developments in the continuing dispute as Maricopa County prepares for upcoming election cycles.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) lost again in a court battle to keep election powers away from the county recorder.
The Arizona Superior Court issued a short, two-page ruling on Wednesday denying a motion from the MCBOS to stay pending appeal an earlier ruling by the court that ordered the Maricopa County Recorder’s powers to be restored.
Judge Scott Blaney denied the argument by the MCBOS that restoring election powers to Recorder Justin Heap this late in an election season would burden election workers and complicate the voting experience. Blaney refused to suspend disbelief to entertain a notion that the MCBOS hadn’t planned to lose the court case.
“But the Court finds it inexplicable that the Board of Supervisors — in the nine months since Recorder Heap filed the present lawsuit — would not have considered and planned for the possibility that the Court would rule in favor of Recorder Heap,” said Blaney.
Blaney also commented on a recent filing by Supervisor Mark Stewart, who was the sole “no” vote to appeal Blaney’s initial ruling in Heap’s favor. Stewart requested court-ordered mediation between MCBOS and the recorder. Stewart expressed concern that the court ruling hadn’t yielded the resolve either party had desired.
“While it appears that the Supervisor Stewart filed his request in good faith, the Court has little confidence that parties will use this stay for good faith negotiation and will instead see it as an opportunity to moot the Court’s Ruling through extended delay,” stated Blaney.
Blaney concluded by encouraging the MCBOS and Heap to engage in negotiations for a partial or full resolution of their election powers spat. Regardless of the outcome, Blaney pledged support for any mutual agreement.
“The Court remains willing to defer to the parties’ judgment as elected officials if they mutually reach a resolution through good faith negotiation,” said Blaney.
Heap said in a press release that the ruling further affirmed his right to maintain certain election authorities.
“This case was never about personalities or politics,” said Heap. “It was about whether Arizona law still means what it says. The Court answered that question decisively. It is time for the Board to accept reality, respect the rule of law, and focus on preparing for the upcoming elections.”
BREAKING: Court Denies Board’s Motion to Stay Election Ruling Today, the Arizona Superior Court denied the Board of Supervisors’ Motion to Stay, delivering yet another decisive loss to the Board in its ongoing attempt to retain powers the Court has already ruled it does not… pic.twitter.com/nPuIDKMIPh
— Maricopa County Recorder's Office (@RecordersOffice) May 14, 2026
MCBOS appealed Blaney’s ruling, which was decided last month. That ruling rejected the MCBOS claim of plenary authority over elections administration, and ordered the board to restore to the recorder his elections personnel, systems, and equipment.
The board chair, Kate Brophy McGee, called the ruling “a total bust” rife with “so many fatal errors” in an interview with KTAR News last month. McGee explained that the motion for a stay pending appeal was to allow this election to be conducted under the ruled-against arrangement, so that questions of dividing elections powers could be figured out later.
McGee said the ruling failed to specify what elections administration powers ought to be restored to Heap.
“There is no clarity. There is confusion,” said McGee. “There is further potential for conflict, and we have to get this figured out[.]”
Arizona’s primary elections are scheduled for July 21, followed by the general election on Nov. 4.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
