The Arizona Supreme Court has sided with Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap in his ongoing election fight with the county’s Board of Supervisors.
Heap won a significant victory in a lower court in April after he sued the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors over allegations they usurped his authority and took away his access to information technology staff and systems he needs to run the office.
But the Arizona Court of Appeals paused that ruling last month over concerns it would require the board and recorder to make significant changes to election systems and processes — including splitting up a key voter database — on the eve of July 21 primary elections.
In a split decision, the appellate court pointed to the Purcell Principle, U.S. Supreme Court precedent that essentially states courts should avoid making significant changes immediately before upcoming elections.
The Arizona Supreme Court shared those concerns, but ultimately decided the Purcell Principle could not be used as a pretext to deny Heap his authority as a county recorder under state law.
In an order issued Tuesday afternoon, Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer dissolved the Appeals Court stay and reissued Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney’s ruling that had defined which election duties belong to the board and which belong to the recorder under state law.
But Timmer also modified that order to adopt an interim plan proposed by Heap’s attorney to avoid disrupting the primary election as voters cast early ballots.
In a statement, Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee and Vice Chair Debbie Lesko said they are disappointed by the decision and concerned about the impacts it could have on the ongoing election.
“Our primary concern has always been, and remains, Maricopa County’s 2.6 million voters,” they said. “The Board will follow the law and abide by the court’s decision, and we look forward to Recorder Heap’s plans in terms of how he intends to exercise his newfound authority to administer lawful, high-quality elections this year and beyond.”
The order
In his April order, Blaney found the board illegally withheld Heap’s access to IT staff and the shared systems that the supervisors and recorder use to administer elections.
He also interpreted Arizona’s complicated web of election laws, which split duties between county boards of supervisors and recorders. In some cases, those laws assign responsibilities to the “recorder or other officer in charge of elections” or the “board of supervisors or other officer in charge of elections.”
In most Arizona counties, boards and recorders sign shared services agreements to clear up that confusion and detail exactly which office will control specific duties. But Heap and the Maricopa County board have not been able to reach that type of agreement since he took office in January 2025.
To clear up the confusion, Blaney found that the elected officials actually named in a specific law are the ones who hold those responsibilities — which mirrors the interpretation James Rogers, Heap’s attorney, laid out in court filings.
So, any responsibility delegated to the “recorder or other officer in charge of elections” belongs to the recorder, unless the board and recorder mutually agree to change that through a shared services agreement.
In her order, Timmer agreed with that interpretation.
And she rejected the supervisors’ argument that they had the power to control functions delegated to "recorder or other officer in charge of elections” by assigning them to their own elections director, who runs the county’s Elections Department.
“Specifically, allowing the Board to appoint the officer would supplant the Legislature’s direction that the Recorder perform this function,” Timmer wrote.
The interim plan
Throughout the court case, attorneys for the Board of Supervisors have argued that Blaney’s ruling would create chaos and confusion for poll workers and voters in upcoming elections by forcing the supervisors and recorder to come up with new election administration plans on the fly.
Timmer attempts to sidestep that issue by adopting an interim plan proposed by Rogers, Heap’s attorney.
That comes as Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell is asking a lower court to find that Rogers, who works for the Trump-aligned America First Legal, is overstepping his authority and acting as the de facto county recorder.
Under Rogers' plan, many election functions will remain unchanged for the primary.
For instance, the Elections Department, which is overseen by the supervisors, won’t be forced to immediately split up the interconnected voter and IT databases used by both the board and the recorder to administer elections — a process that the supervisors argue could take months.
Instead, the board will be required to give Heap’s staff unfettered access to those systems.
The county will also keep all existing primary voting locations, drop boxes, poll worker assignments and other “voter-facing procedures” that are already in place under the plan, although exactly what constitutes a “voter-facing procedure” is not fully defined.
The plan would also require volunteers and staff working the polls to sometimes report to separate supervisors depending on which duty they are performing.
For instance, poll workers at ballot replacement sites would go to the recorder for guidance involving replacement ballots, voter registration checks and early voting issues “and shall follow Board direction for any distinct Board-assigned Election Day function at the same facility,” according to Rogers’ plan.
In an attempt to resolve communication issues, the plan calls on the supervisors and recorder to create a “responsibility matrix” identifying who controls which responsibilities and operate a joint operation center throughout the course of the election.
Heap celebrated the decision.
"The Arizona Supreme Court overturned the Board's stay and restored the Superior Court's injunction in favor of the Recorder," Heap said in a statement. "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.”
