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 leaders say it’s time to bring federal monitoring to an end for a judgment made nearly 15 years ago.
President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and the ACLU alleged racial profiling in a lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) under former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. A federal court found MCSO to be guilty in 2011, and placed the department under a federal monitor to achieve reforms.
Last December, Maricopa County filed a motion to end that federal oversight. Then, last month, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Vice Chair Debbie Lesko followed up on that termination request before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. Joining Lesko were MCSO Community Advisory Board member Felix Garcia and Goldwater Institute’s vice president for litigation and general counsel Jon Riches.
The trio emphasized in their individual testimonies how county spending has gone on “indefinitely” to meet the “moving goalposts” of federal oversight.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05), gubernatorial candidate, led the subcommittee hearing, “The Monitoring Racket: The Grift That Keeps on Giving.”
This month, another Maricopa County leader spoke up to advocate once again for an end to federal oversight. Supervisor Mark Stewart published a Substack article criticizing the federal government’s lack of interest in removing the federal monitor.
Stewart and county leaders say the oversight has cost the county nearly $350 million (though proponents of the oversight such as the ACLU argue that county inflated this total with unrelated costs and the real total is far less: around $60 million).
“Notably, over the past five years, there has not been a single sustained claim of racial profiling. Yet federal oversight remains in place, costing Maricopa County taxpayers nearly $350 million,” stated Stewart. “Even as compliance has been achieved and maintained, Maricopa County residents continue to bear the financial burden of prolonged oversight. Hindering resources that could otherwise be invested directly into public safety, training, hiring, and community engagement.”
The county’s millions spent in compliance efforts over the years have yielded reforms to include the implementation of body-worn cameras, structured constitutional policing curriculum, and data-driven accountability policies.
About ten percent of the $350 million estimate given by the county for compliance payments, over $30 million, was given to the court monitor Robert Warshaw.
Warshaw has faced allegations of capitalizing on a financial incentive to continue his federal oversight, not only in Arizona but in municipalities within other states. He has earned tens of millions over his years as a federal monitor.
Elected officials say MCSO has met and exceeded criteria for resolving the issues found by the court, yet the monitoring activities have not only continued but in recent years gone beyond the initial scope of the court findings.
The ACLU and the district judge in the case, G. Murray Snow, acknowledged last October that MCSO reached Phase One compliance with the 2011 court order.
“Courts are often called upon to correct past failures. They are also uniquely positioned to recognize when those corrections have taken hold,” said Stewart. “Maricopa County has reached that point. The progress is undeniable, leadership is strong, and the time has come to move forward.”
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 Arizona Republican Party is picking sides in the ongoing spat between the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and County Recorder Justin Heap.
The party’s new chair, Sergio Arellano, issued a press release on Tuesday commending Supervisor Mark Stewart for speaking out against the rest of the board for their posturing to oust Heap from office.
“I appreciate those Republicans who are able to ignore the rancor being generated by those outside the process, and who are willing to listen to the voices of those of us who want a solution that unites Republicans behind the proposition that Arizona voters deserve a process that respects their choices, and that the power of the people, exercised through their vote, prevails and is honored,” said Arellano.
Arellano advised voters to focus on the merits of policy over the noise of personal conflicts in the matter; the chair agreed with Stewart that Heap should have full restoration of elections administration duties under the Shared Services Agreement (SSA).
“Ignore the fake news and those who are intent on whipping up hysteria to further their own personal ambition, but we as a Party must deliver on real and effective reform and restore full faith in our elections,” said Arellano. “Recorder Heap must be allowed to do his job and then he must do it properly. The same goes for our County Supervisors. I am grateful to Supervisor Stewart for seeking a path that accomplishes all of this and encourage everyone involved to follow his lead and reach an agreement of which we might all be proud.”
The board ordered Heap to appear on Wednesday to provide a report and testify on his administration and allegations of voter disenfranchisement made by his office.
It is the latest escalation in the public spat between the two over who has primary control over elections via the SSA. The current SSA, all but gutting the recorder’s office of elections duties, was put in place by a “lame duck” recorder, Stephen Richer, and board majority in their final months in office. After Heap failed to convince the board to reverse course on that SSA, Heap sued last summer.
Supervisor Stewart announced on Monday that he sought outside legal counsel to negotiate with Heap over the SSA, since the board and recorder’s office appear to have hit a stalemate.
Stewart retained counsel after failing to receive a response to his request to postpone Wednesday’s meeting from Chair Kate Brophy McGee. The supervisor said all members of the board ought to have additional time to consult with counsel about negotiations with Heap.
“My counsel requires additional time to fully evaluate the issues raised, assess the scope and legal basis for the required direct report, and advise me accordingly. Proceeding before that review is complete would not allow me to participate in the discussion or any potential vote with the preparation and confidence that such a consequential action demands,” said Stewart. “Out of respect for the institution, the Recorder’s Office, and most importantly, the residents we serve, I believe it is prudent to delay consideration of this item until all members of the Board have had sufficient opportunity to consult with counsel and fully assess the implications.”
A Call for a Pause and Clarity
This morning I sent a letter to the Board Chair requesting we postpone Wednesday’s discussion to allow time for full staff participation and so the Board can meaningfully review the sworn report, Shared Services Agreement, and signature… pic.twitter.com/ITiVfuK8Gx
— Mark Stewart Maricopa County Supervisor District 1 (@MarkStewart_AZ) February 14, 2026
Stewart also denounced the possibility of Heap’s removal should he refuse to show on Wednesday.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is divided on moving forward with a pathway that may result in the recorder’s removal, even with little time left before the primary election.
The board published a statement Wednesday announcing their vote requiring Recorder Justin Heap to provide a written report and sworn public testimony on February 18.
The board statement accused Heap of “lying to the public” and stonewalling the board.
“He has been unreliable. He has been unprofessional. He has been untruthful. He has been unaccountable,” read the statement. “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.”
The board made its decision during its formal meeting on Wednesday. State law authorizes the board to require any county officer to make reports under oath concerning office duties.
The written report would address key issues identified in Chair Kate Brophy McGee’s letter to Heap last month concerning expenditures and prepayments, signature verification and curing, and the special election board and deputy registrar program.
Heap will also be required to provide the identities of the provisional voters his office said were disenfranchised; records of requests by his office for federal funds, legislative appropriations, or county funds; communications with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office concerning the distribution of mail-in ballots to voters who didn’t request them in the 2025 special election in Congressional District 7; and records of the reassignment of the space in the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office to his office.
Although the supervisors voted unanimously to impose these requirements on Heap, not all supervisors supported the official statement condemning Heap.
Supervisor Mark Stewart said the statement wasn’t approved by him. Not only that, Stewart said, but the remarks were disrespectful and potentially damaging to current negotiations with Heap.
“We are in active negotiations on the Shared Services Agreement, and my focus remains on reaching a constructive resolution that delivers results for the people we serve,” said Stewart.
District 1 did not review or approve this post and does not share its tone.
I respect my colleagues, Recorder Heap, and most importantly our residents, and I believe our public communications should reflect that respect.
We are in active negotiations on the Shared Services…
— Mark Stewart Maricopa County Supervisor District 1 (@MarkStewart_AZ) February 12, 2026
Other supervisors fanned the flames of the statement.
Supervisor Debbie Lesko shared her remarks from Wednesday’s meeting, in which she said she endured over a year of frustrations with Heap. Lesko lodged multiple accusations against Heap, such as that he had something to hide.
“I feel Recorder Heap has left us no alternative,” said Lesko.
The only alternative for the board would be to continue negotiations with the recorder’s office through public discussions and the court.
This pathway by the board may lead to the largest county in the state and fourth-largest county in the nation without its elections leader with a few months left to go before elections begin. The primary election was moved up from August to July recently.
Should Heap refuse to comply with Wednesday’s order, the board may opt to remove the recorder from office with just five months to go before the primary elections.
This latest action by the board appears to be their response to the Maricopa County Superior Court striking down the board’s attempt to subpoena three staff members within Heap’s office. This court restraining order occurred within the case initiated by Heap last summer to restore elections powers to his office.
AZ Free News reached out to Heap regarding the board’s decision. As of this report, no response has been received.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
