Court Hands Heap Resounding Election Control Win

Recorder Justin Heap is calling a Maricopa County Superior Court ruling a decisive win for election law and voters after a judge rejected the Board of Supervisors’ attempt to assert control over key election functions.

“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.”

Heap continued, “From day one, my focus has been on delivering elections that are secure, transparent, accessible, efficient, and lawful for every voter in Maricopa County, regardless of political party. I am also grateful to my legal counsel, James Rogers of America First Legal and Alexander Kolodin of Kolodin Law Group, for their fidelity to the law and dedication to ensuring election integrity. I look forward to continuing this work and strengthening public trust in our elections.”

The Court’s ruling soundly rejects the Board’s claim of broad or “plenary” authority over election administration and affirms that Arizona law places those responsibilities squarely with the Recorder. From a legal standpoint, the BOS didn’t just lose its case. The Court dismantled the Board’s legal theory, rejected its operational justifications, and ordered corrective action. Despite the conflict with the Court’s finding, the Board is signaling a potential appeal.

Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee stated:

“The Court correctly concluded that the Board oversees the county budget and makes all appropriations decisions. But I disagree with other portions of the ruling… including an expeditious appeal.”

That framing leans heavily on budget authority, and the Court anticipated that argument and shut it down.

According to the ruling, “The Board may not use its budgetary authority to usurp the functions of the Recorder or to coerce the Recorder into ceding statutory authority.”

This is not a gray area. The Court explicitly ruled that budget control cannot be used as leverage to control election functions.

McGee also stated:

“From day one, the Board of Supervisors has provided Recorder Heap the resources and staffing needed to fulfill his statutory duties.”

The Court found the opposite.

Per the Court, “The Board’s transfer of the Recorder’s IT staff, servers, databases, software, and websites… constitutes an unlawful usurpation of the Recorder’s statutory authority.”

And more directly:

“The Board’s refusal to return the Recorder’s IT systems and staff… serves to deprive him of the means necessary to perform his statutory duties.”

That is not a disagreement over management style. That is a judicial finding that the Board’s actions interfered with the Recorder’s ability to do his job. The Board’s broader posture suggests it exercises supervisory authority over election operations. The Court rejected that premise outright.

“The Board is not a ‘supervisory board’ over the Recorder,” the Court stated. “The Legislature has consistently placed election responsibilities on the Recorder… The Board may not divest statutory responsibilities through its general supervisory authority.”

The ruling also outlines specific findings and orders, determining that the Board has a mandatory duty to fund the Recorder’s necessary expenses and cannot use that authority to force the Recorder to surrender statutory responsibilities. It found the Board’s control over IT systems and personnel constituted an “unlawful usurpation” of authority. The Court further noted the Recorder demonstrated a willingness to cooperate, while stating it “did not see the same willingness from the Board.” As part of the order, the Board must return control of IT staff, servers, databases, software, and election systems, or fund their immediate replacement.

The Recorder retains authority over all statutory election duties unless voluntarily delegated, and the Board is barred from exercising those duties without consent. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes previously called the underlying agreement between the Board and former Recorder Stephen Richer a “bad deal.” The Court’s ruling now reinforces that assessment in legal terms.

Although an appeal is possible, the Court’s language suggests it would not be granted on the grounds of a dispute over unclear law. The ruling directly addresses and rejects the Board’s core arguments. For Maricopa County, the legal question has been answered. What remains to be seen is whether the Board accepts it.

According to Merissa Caldwell, Chairwoman of EZAZ.org, “There is legal precedence going back to Arizona’s territorial days that the Recorder is the primary election officer of the county. If the Board appeals, it’s just more evidence that their strategy is one of doing the Maricopa County tango to delay honest election administration from being implemented by the Heap Administration. The voters were clear. The judge was clear. An appeal will simply result in another round of case law being established in favor of the Recorder as set in statute.”

You can read Recorder’s Justin Heap’s Full Press Release here.