Several of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors reviewed the recorder’s new signature verification process this week.
Supervisors Mark Stewart and Debbie Lesko visited the recorder’s office on Friday to observe what Recorder Justin Heap has promised to be a stronger approach to signature verification.
Also present were members of the Maricopa County Republicans and local election integrity advocates.
Currently with Maricopa County Recorder @azjustinheap, Supervisor @DebbieLesko, @MaricopaGOP, and several election integrity enthusiasts (@MerissaCaldwell) learning about the Recorder's new signature verification process.
— Mark Stewart Maricopa County Supervisor District 1 (@MarkStewart_AZ) February 6, 2026
Supervisor Stewart publicized some of the training materials given to elections workers tasked with signature verification, including metrics for accepting or flagging signatures based on broad and local characteristics.
The new format for signature verification has two levels of review, the first for the user and second for the manager. At the level one user review, two signature reviewers of differing political parties compare signatures with the reference signature on file.
Signatures with obvious matches based on characteristics may be accepted as good signatures, while signature comparisons that yield differences outweighing similarities must be flagged for level two review by a manager.
The level two managerial review concerns the review of all available signatures in a voter’s registration record, which can be upwards of 50 samples. The signature pool could include signatures from voter registration forms, verified early voting affidavits, and in-person sign-ins from rosters.
Signatures consistent with the signature pool would be approved and sent to another level two manager of a differing political party for review, while nonmatching signatures would be set aside for further action. The recorder’s office has a set limit of disposition types: no signature, household exchange, need packet (a catch-all disposition type), deceased (which flags National Voter Registration Act research), and pre-questioned signature.
That last disposition qualifies for automatic submission to another manager of a differing political party for level two review.
All signatures with any discrepancy at any levels are required to be part of a mandatory audit review, set at two percent currently.
Training materials also made clear the efforts by the recorder’s office to integrate user-friendly updates to signature review software.
Level one reviewer screens will display the current election affidavit signature alongside the historical affidavit signatures from newest to oldest, removing the old requirement for users to scroll to compare signatures.
The training materials also stressed that users should default to flagging signatures for review for any reasons other than a “good signature” determination.
The visit marked an unusual bright point in the strained relationship between the board and the recorder.
The board and recorder have been engaged in a year-long legal battle in the Maricopa County Superior Court over elections administration powers.
This week marked a particularly tenuous moment in the battle after board leadership issued subpoenas against three of the recorder’s staff members.
The Maricopa County Superior Court sided with the recorder on the issue and put in place a temporary restraining order against the board to halt the subpoenas.
Friday’s visit was not a signal by the two visiting supervisors that they were on the recorder’s side in this court battle. Lesko reposted statements from Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee addressing the subpoenas. Stewart issued his own statement recognizing the validity of arguments from both his fellow board members and the recorder’s office.
Supervisor Calls Out SSA Deadlock: Push for Transparent Talks, Voter-Centric Fixes, and Immediate Action
I have watched with growing frustration as the Board of Supervisors, our Elections Subcommittee, and the County Recorder’s Office have struggled to reach a resolution on the… pic.twitter.com/N1JRPQ1x5e
— Mark Stewart Maricopa County Supervisor District 1 (@MarkStewart_AZ) February 6, 2026
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
In the latest escalation between Maricopa County leaders’ legal jockeying for elections authority, the Board of Supervisors reportedly subpoenaed staff with the Recorder’s Office.
Recorder Justin Heap issued a statement on Tuesday accusing the board of attempting “to intimidate and bully” his staff and “unduly influence” the pending court ruling. The recorder and board have been fighting for months in the Maricopa County Superior Court over who has proper authority over which elections administration powers.
“Their actions are beyond inappropriate,” said Heap. “My staff has bent over backwards to work with the Board, yet despite our earnest efforts the Board continues to engage in unhinged, emotional, and unprofessional behavior.”
🚨 BREAKING ELECTION INTEGRITY UPDATE
My office is currently involved in an Election Integrity lawsuit against the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for their unlawful seizure of my statutory duties.
— Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) February 4, 2026
Within the hour of Heap’s post, supervisor and former chair Thomas Galvin quoted Scripture that appeared to allude that the truth of the matter was beyond Heap’s remarks.
“‘And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.’ – John 8:32,” posted Galvin.
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” -JOHN 8:32
— Thomas Galvin: Maricopa County Brd of Supervisors (@ThomasGalvin) February 4, 2026
Galvin also shared a video from Chair Kate Brophy McGee addressing the accusations from Heap. McGee said their subpoena concerned an apparent conflict between Heap’s remarks during his annual budget request and sworn testimony on voter disenfranchisement from Heap’s staff, both of which took place last week on separate days.
“At Maricopa County, we count every lawful vote. That’s why we take any claim of disenfranchisement seriously, and have asked the Recorder’s office to provide further testimony regarding conflicting claims recently made by Recorder Heap and his staff,” said McGee. “This is an important issue and we need straight answers. If any voters are being disenfranchised, we will fix it immediately. If not, then the Recorder’s office must clarify to the court why it provided such testimony. Maricopa County voters need the truth.”
— Thomas Galvin: Maricopa County Brd of Supervisors (@ThomasGalvin) February 4, 2026
During last week’s board hearing, Heap said no voters had been disenfranchised since he took office in January 2025.
“We stated that we want this machine to make sure that we don’t disenfranchise voters. We didn’t say that any voters have been disenfranchised since I took office in the administration,” said Heap.
Two days earlier, Heap’s chief of staff, Sam Stone, issued sworn testimony in the Maricopa County Superior Court that disenfranchisement was occurring in the present.
“We had two potential places we would have made the substantial changes to one or the other to bring this in, to not disenfranchise voters, which is happening now,” said Stone.
Stone directed the court to testimony from Janine Petty, senior director of voter registration, who said disenfranchisement occurred during the 2024 election when certain provisional ballots were processed as federal-only due to time constraints even though they were voted as a full ballot.
“[Those provisional ballots] would be counted, but they would not be afforded the full ballot. So they would be duplicated by the elections board to be a federal ballot, when that voter was entitled a full ballot and voted a full ballot,” said Petty.
🚨Maricopa County: Legal Voters' Full Ballots Not Counted in 2024 Under Former Recorder Stephen Richer
Maricopa County Sr. Director of Voter Registration testified under oath this week that legal voters didn’t have full ballots counted in 2024 General Election🗳️
Heap earned a legal win on Wednesday against the board after the Maricopa County Superior Court rejected the board’s move to stop America First Legal (AFL) from representing Heap in court going forward.
AFL sued the board on behalf of Heap last summer over the contested elections administration powers, a battle stemming from a “lame duck” agreement between the outgoing recorder, Stephen Richer, and a board majority also on their way out.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Maricopa County Elections’ latest newsletter, released January 1, 2026, delivered key updates for upcoming elections, including precinct boundary changes, opportunities to support upcoming elections, and important dates for the 2026 election cycle.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors recently approved 235 voting precinct changes, which took effect on January 2, 2026, eliminating precincts with zero voters, aligning boundaries with major freeways, reducing overall precinct sizes for better manageability, and minimizing splits across cities, towns, and school districts.
These adjustments aim to accommodate ongoing population growth across the county and ensure sufficient precinct capacity to support efficient in-person voting operations. Additionally, the Board established a new Justice Court District in the West Valley, named Canyon Trails.
Maricopa County Elections also continues its search for community partners willing to host Vote Centers for the 2026 election season. By providing a suitable space, hosts play a direct role in strengthening election access and supporting participation in the community.
Ideal Vote Center locations must meet the following requirements:
Minimum room size of 1,600 square feet
Full ADA accessibility
Reliable power and air conditioning
Ample parking to handle high voter traffic
Hosts may commit to one of several durations: 27 days, 12 days, 4 days, 2 days, or 1 day, depending on the election period and location needs.
For the City of Tempe, Maricopa County Elections will conduct an all-mail election on March 10, 2026. Under Arizona law, eligible voters will automatically receive a ballot by mail. The voter registration deadline for this election is February 9, 2026.
Replacement ballots will be available for in-person voting starting March 3, 2026, at the Tempe History Museum.
Maricopa County Elections serves as the filing officer for a range of countywide elected offices, including Justice of the Peace, Constable, Judges seeking retention, Special Taxing Districts, and Precinct Committeemen.
To assist prospective candidates, Maricopa County Elections will host the following virtual training sessions:
January 13 and February 5, 2026 – General candidate training
January 15 and February 3, 2026 – Precinct Committeeman training
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Corporate media is making the case that the state’s largest sheriff’s office still needs federal oversight for racial profiling.
ABC 15 aired a segment criticizing a court filing requesting an end to the decade-long federal oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO). The oversight emerged from the Melendres v. Arpaio case, a class action complaint against allegedly racially motivated detentions that occurred during illegal migrant sweeps.
FOIAzona caught reporting errors made within a report by ABC 15 that no longer appears to be published, including the claim that MCSO filed the court motion.
However, it was the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) who submitted that court filing earlier this month. MCBOS has budgetary power over MCSO.
In their court filing, MCBOS made the case that MCSO had long ago achieved 100 percent compliance in remedying issues of racially motivated detentions. The county argued that further federal oversight would only divert critical funds for public safety.
In a video explaining the filing, MCBOS Chairman Thomas Galvin said the end to federal oversight was long overdue.
“After 14 years, four sheriffs, and hundreds of millions of spent tax dollars, it is essential to defend taxpayer money if federal oversight is no longer warranted,” said Galvin. “All that’s left to enforce are matters unrelated to discriminatory policing which should be left to the sheriff who was elected by you: the Maricopa County residents.”
The 14 years of oversight have cost the county over $300 million in compliance. Around ten percent of those payments went to the court monitor, Robert Warshaw.
Leading up to MCBOS filing were months of allegations that Warshaw has a financial incentive to continue federal oversight of MCSO. Warshaw has earned over $30 million in monitor fees since taking on oversight of MCSO in January 2014 — around $3 million annually.
Warshaw faces similar accusations of exploiting federal oversight orders for personal gain in connection to his 15-plus years of monitoring the Oakland Police Department in California. There he earns over $1 million annually.
Warshaw has also earned millions from federal monitor assignments in New York, Michigan, and Louisiana.
Warshaw formerly served as the deputy drug czar for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under former President Bill Clinton.
Almost a decade ago, Judicial Watch reported on allegations that Warshaw allegedly employed “harsh” tactics that distracted from the county’s law enforcement activities.
Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell said Warshaw’s presence is no longer warranted.
“There is no defense for this ‘federal monitor,’” said Mitchell. “One more reason I like to get my news from the non-fiction section.”
There is no defense for this "federal monitor". One more reason I like to get my news from the non-fiction section. https://t.co/XcDTqWM4nL
— Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell (@Rachel1Mitchell) December 29, 2025
Mitchell has been a vocal critic of Warshaw’s continued presence.
“It’s time we stop talking about Joe Arpaio — he is long gone and has been replaced by 3 different sheriffs from both political parties — and start talking about why the federal monitor, Robert Warshaw, is dragging this on and on,” said Mitchell in a May post. “Maricopa taxpayers should be outraged that we are at $350 million. Warshaw has no incentive to wrap this up.”
Back in October, Congressman Andy Biggs also asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to lift MCSO’s federal oversight. Supervisors Mark Stewart and Debbie Lesko, along with Mitchell, offered their support for the letter.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The federal government has watched over the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) for well over a decade.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors says it’s no longer warranted.
The board filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to cease federal oversight of MCSO.
Chairman Thomas Galvin explained in a video announcing the court filing that the MCSO has not had an issue with racial profiling for years — the allegation at the heart of Melendres v. Arpaio which resulted in a federal court ruling against MCSO.
“After 14 years, four sheriffs, and hundreds of millions of spent tax dollars, it is essential to defend taxpayer money if federal oversight is no longer warranted,” said Galvin.
The county has spent over $300 million to comply with federal court orders; over $30 million in fees on a court-appointed monitor. That means every year, the county has spent around $25 million for federal oversight.
The Melendres case was a class action complaint alleging racially motivated detentions under former MCSO Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Under Arpaio, law enforcement would conduct sweeps targeting individuals suspected of being illegal immigrants, often in areas where day laborers abounded. The lead plaintiff in the class action complaint, Ortega Melendres, was detained despite having lawful presence. Other plaintiffs alleged they were stopped and questioned by law enforcement because they were Latino.
Galvin said the MCSO is “100 percent in compliance” with court-ordered policy changes, and has no evidence of ongoing civil rights violations.
The motion cited results from multiple periodic reviews, such as the Traffic Study Annual Reports from the last two years which found “no statistically significant differences between white drivers and [Hispanic drivers].”
The motion argued that MCSO hasn’t been able to devote full energy to public safety and “countless” other priorities due to the significant diversion of resources required to fund federal oversight.
“MCSO’s current practices do not violate federal law. But continued federal oversight diverts resources that could be used to serve the people of Maricopa County,” stated the motion. “It also upsets the democratic process and America’s federalist structure by making local officials accountable to a federal court — based on the conduct of a former Sheriff who has been out of office for eight years.”
Chairman Galvin characterized the county’s petition as a defense of federalism by restoring the power of accountability to voters.
“All that’s left to enforce are matters unrelated to discriminatory policing which should be left to the sheriff who was elected by you: the Maricopa County residents,” said Galvin. “In our federalist system, elected officials are accountable to voters.”
In a separate statement, Galvin said the MCSO was a “completely different agency” than when the Melendres ruling was handed down nearly 15 years ago.
“The voters held the responsible parties accountable and voted them out. Since then, MCSO disbanded immigration-related units, implemented new policies and anti-bias trainings, and is a law enforcement agency we can be proud of. Further federal oversight is unnecessary and only serves to divert taxpayer dollars away from true public safety needs,” said Galvin.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
