Judge rules Maricopa County supervisors illegally removed IT staff from Recorder's Office

A Superior Court judge found the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors illegally took away Recorder Justin Heap’s information technology team and must give that staff back in an order that resolves a yearlong battle over control of the county’s elections.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney issued the ruling nearly a year after Heap first filed suit against the board, alleging it violated state law when it passed last-minute revisions to a shared services agreement with outgoing Recorder Stephen Richer in late 2024.

That agreement made a number of changes to the way the board and recorder work together to administer elections in Arizona, which has a bifurcated system that splits election administration duties between the two offices.

Those changes included removing IT staff from the Recorder’s Office and reassigning them under the board’s supervision.

At the time, both the supervisors and Richer defended the change, arguing it would improve efficiency.

IT staff

In court, an attorney for the board later argued it would be difficult to split the new, combined system, which touches on dozens of election-related systems used by both the recorder and Election Department, which is overseen by the board.

But Blaney rejected those arguments, finding state law requires the board to fund “necessary expenses incurred in the conduct of their offices.”

In the modern world, that includes information technology staff, Blaney wrote.

Removing that staff — along with direct access to IT systems — without Heap’s consent amounts to “an unlawful usurpation” of Heap’s legal authority, he found.

Blaney also pointed out that the board never adopted similar policies moving IT staff from other elected officials, like the county assessor, under its control.

“The board’s decision to fund separate IT departments for every other elected county officer while stripping the recorder of his own IT department strongly suggests that an independent IT department is a necessary expense of county office — and that the board’s refusal to afford the recorder the same resource appears to not be motivated by a legitimate governmental purpose but instead serves to deprive him of the tools necessary to perform his statutory duties,” the judge wrote.

Blaney cited testimony from Bryan Colby, Heap’s chief information officer, who said more than half of the recorder’s 147 requests for IT service have gone unresolved under the new arrangement and that multiple systems outages affecting the Recorder’s Office were the result of a lack of coordination by the IT team supervised by the board.

Blaney ordered the board to either give Heap his IT staff and systems back or provide him with the funds needed to replace them.

Still, Blaney did find that the board has general authority over the county budget and how it spends public dollars.

That means it can deny specific requests from Heap, like a new Agilis ballot-sorting machine.

That request generated headlines after multiple members of Heap’s staff testified in court that, without the machine, hundreds of provisional ballots had gone uncounted, resulting in voter disenfranchisement — a claim Heap then backtracked on during testimony to the board.

Blaney found the board was within its legal authority when it denied Heap the new machine and also declined to let his office use $4 million in new funding sent to the recorder by the Arizona Legislature last year.

That’s because those denials were based on an existing board policy to deny budget requests that rely on temporary funding sources.

“The board’s witnesses credibly testified that the underlying policy on which the board relied predated Recorder Heap’s tenure and had been consistently applied,” Blaney wrote.

Gage Skidmore

/

CC BY-SA 2.0

Who controls what?

The lawsuit wasn’t just about IT staff, though.

Heap’s original complaint also asked the judge to clear up exactly which election responsibilities belong to the Recorder and which tasks are assigned to the board.

Arizona’s complicated web of election laws aren’t always clear on that question.

In some cases, those laws give a task to a board of supervisors or a recorder.

But, other times, they 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, after Heap tore up the deal signed by Richer and the board before he took office, the two sides failed to reach a new deal.

In court and public, the board and Heap regularly lobbed threats at one another over who was to blame for the impasse.

But, in the judge’s view, the culprit was clear.

“The recorder has consistently expressed willingness to cooperate with the board. The court does not see the same willingness from the board,” Blaney wrote.

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.

Notably, the ruling appears to keep control of early election boards in the hands of the supervisors. Those boards examine, count and verify early ballots before they are tabulated.

For years, Maricopa County recorders oversaw those boards through a shared services agreement with the board of supervisors. But the board took back control under the new agreement signed with Richer.

And it appears it will stay that way because, under state law, “the board of supervisors or the governing body of the political subdivision shall appoint one or more early election boards.”

The result

For now, the ruling provides some clarity on Arizona’s complicated election laws heading into the 2026 election season, though board Chairwoman Kate Brophy McGee said she could appeal the decision.

Still, many of the issues resolved by Blaney’s ruling were resolved in practice in February, when the board voted to adopt a policy to split the IT staff and give Heap back control of in-person early voting, one of Heap’s top demands.

However, the judge’s findings are still significant.

Blaney accused the board of overstepping its legal authority and taking away powers that rightfully belonged to the recorder, who was chosen by Maricopa County voters.

“The board cannot substitute itself for the recorder without either the Recorder’s consent or express legislative authorization,” Blaney wrote.

Brophy McGee said she disagreed with much of the ruling, though she agreed with Blaney’s finding that the board has broad authority over the county budget.

“But I disagree with other portions of the ruling, and I will explore all options with the Board of Supervisors, including an expeditious appeal,” she said in a statement. “From day one, the Board of Supervisors has provided Recorder Heap the resources and staffing needed to fulfill his statutory duties. We will continue to do so because voters always come first.”

In a statement, Heap praised the decision.

"I am grateful to the court for this clear and decisive victory for the rule of law and for the voters of Maricopa County,” Heap said. “The court confirmed that the Board cannot override state law, use funding as leverage, or take control of election duties assigned to the Recorder. This ruling restores both the authority and the resources necessary for my office to do its job.”