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.”
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 (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.
