The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors overstepped and must restore elections authority to Recorder Justin Heap, according to a new court ruling.
The Maricopa County Superior Court rejected the board of supervisors’ argument in a new ruling issued on Friday in Justin Heap v. Thomas Galvin, et al. The court said the board does not enjoy “plenary” authority over election administration. Judge Scott Blaney ruled this view wasn’t consistent with Arizona law.
“The Board’s general authority does not override specific statutory delegations to other county officers,” stated Blaney. “The Legislature has authority over the conduct of elections and determines the extent to which the Board may conduct them. The Board may not override these specific allocations by invoking general supervisory authority.”
The court opted for a more balanced view of the law in which both the board and recorder have duties expressly given in elections administration. Blaney’s ruling interpreted Arizona law to reflect that the board holds only those powers expressly delegated to it. The same goes with the recorder.
“Where a valid delegation of authority exists, the delegation must clearly delineate the designated agency or officer,” said Blaney. “Arizona’s election statutes clearly delineate the Recorder as the designated officer for the 111 functions assigned to the ‘recorder or other officer in charge.’ The Board cannot substitute itself for the Recorder without either the Recorder’s consent or express legislative authorization.”
With this view, Blaney said the board had a duty to release withheld funding for those necessary expenses for which Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap has fought for months. The Arizona legislature appropriated $4.1 million from the state general fund for the recorder’s office for elections-related operations. That funding hasn’t been spent.
Blaney also ordered the board to abstain from weaponizing its budgetary authority as a bargaining chip. Blaney went one step further to preserve Heap’s statutory authority, specifying that the board couldn’t exercise those election funds designated to his office without his consent.
As a major part of restoring the power balance, Judge Blaney ordered the board to either return control of IT staff, servers, databases, software, and elections systems to the recorder’s office, or to fund their immediate replacement.
Should the board fail to restore Heap’s functions, Blaney warned that disenfranchisement could occur.
“[T]he Board has acted unlawfully and exceeded its statutory authority by seizing the Recorder’s personnel, systems, and equipment and refusing to return them to the Recorder’s control[,]” said Blaney. “The evidence at trial established that the Recorder’s inability to exercise meaningful control over election systems and staff will likely cause concrete operational harms, including inability to timely process provisional ballots under A.R.S. § 16-134, resulting in voters being denied tabulation of the full ballots that they had voted and to which they were entitled. These harms will not resolve and may likely increase absent court intervention, particularly as general election cycles approach.”
Immediately following the ruling, Heap declared his victory in a press release. Heap credited America First Legal along with attorney and state representative Alexander Kolodin (R-LD3) for the favorable ruling.
“The court confirmed that the Board cannot override state law, use funding as leverage, or take control of election duties assigned to the Recorder,” said Heap. “This ruling restores both the authority and the resources necessary for my office to do its job.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
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.
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors sustained a loss in their ongoing court struggle against the recorder on Wednesday.
The Maricopa County Superior Court denied the board’s request to open up discovery based on the testimony they forced County Recorder Justin Heap to give last month. Judge Scott Blaney said the supervisors acted well outside of the proper proceedings and had attempted to influence the court.
“The Court further finds that the Court’s initial fear — that the Board of Supervisors was using its extra-judicial subpoenas in part to influence these proceedings — was well founded. The Court will not allow this gamesmanship to interfere with or jeopardize the integrity of these proceedings,” said Blaney. “Even if Defendants’ request actually constituted a proper use of the rule (it does not), the Court would still not reward such shenanigans by allowing this extrajudicial ‘evidence’ to taint the record in this case. The matter has already been taken under advisement for final determination.”
The supervisors forced Heap to testify last month on account of his allegedly “lying to the public,” among other very public accusations.
“He has been unreliable. He has been unprofessional. He has been untruthful. He has been unaccountable,” stated a press release from the board. “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.”
That compelled testimony also required Heap to provide a massive report to the board on his office’s work within a week. Heap said during his testimony that it contained “thousands of pages of documents.”
Blaney also criticized the board’s decision to subpoena the recorder’s staff based on their court testimony.
“[The board] instead required witnesses to appear in front of the Board, under oath, in front of a hostile party and not a neutral arbiter, and without the protection of the rules of evidence,” said Blaney. “Upon learning of the Board’s compelled, extra-judicial discovery, the Court became concerned that the Board had issued the subpoenas in retaliation for the witnesses’ testimony at this Court’s evidentiary hearing and further, that the Board issued the extra-judicial subpoenas to improperly influence these proceedings.”
The court issued a temporary restraining order at Heap’s request that quashed the subpoenas. Heap accused the board of intimidating his staff in order to “unduly influence” the court ruling.
Based on this latest ruling, the board’s approach to any influence over the court seems unlikely.
The final ruling in the case between the recorder and board of supervisors could determine the balance of duties between the two. Heap is pushing for a complete restoration of the election duties his office lost under the Shared Services Agreement (SSA) put in place in the waning months of his predecessor and former supervisors.
The supervisors and recorder are presently at odds over plans to establish early voting locations. Supervisor Mark Stewart, who has expressed slightly more support for Heap than his fellow supervisors, said that the parties were nearing a resolution over this latest rift.
“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.
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.
