Heap, Board of Sups Spar Over Maricopa Election Rules

Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap and the county’s Board of Supervisors are locked in a dispute over control of key election responsibilities. The conflict erupted after outgoing Recorder Stephen Richer and the previous Board approved a late-2024 agreement shifting several election duties from the Recorder’s Office to the Board’s jurisdiction.

Heap, who took office in January, criticized the move in a statement, calling it “former Recorder Stephen Richer’s parting gift to the voters of Maricopa County after suffering an embarrassing primary election defeat—a punitive backroom agreement with the lame-duck Board majority designed to hamstring the office of the County Recorder.”

Background: Shared Election Duties in Maricopa County

Arizona’s election laws require county boards and recorders to cooperate, with statutes outlining some duties for each and many tasks that either office can perform. State law intentionally uses broad terms like “the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections,” giving counties flexibility in assigning responsibilities. To clarify these roles, Maricopa County relies on a Shared Services Agreement (SSA) between the Board of Supervisors and the Recorder’s Office, which defines how election functions are divided.

For over 30 years, all election duties in Maricopa County were effectively under the Recorder’s control—a structure established during the tenure of former Recorder Helen Purcell. Under former Recorder Adrian Fontes, Arizona’s current Secretary of State, a 2019 SSA designated the Recorder as responsible for early voting (including mail-in ballots and voter registration), while the Board oversaw in-person voting and ballot tabulation.

The current clash stems from a controversial agreement enacted weeks before Heap assumed office. On October 18, 2024, outgoing Recorder Stephen Richer and Board members quietly approved a new SSA transferring future responsibility for many elections operations from the Recorder to the Board. The agreement took effect in December, 2024, right before the new administration’s inauguration.

Heap sharply criticized the outgoing officials’ actions, calling the last-minute agreement a “backroom, lame-duck power grab” to undermine the incoming Recorder’s authority. He noted that the agreement had been executed without input from him or the newly elected supervisors who would soon take office.

Upon assuming office in January, Recorder Heap quickly nullified the late-2024 agreement. Citing legal guidance that one Board cannot bind future officeholders to a voluntary power-sharing contract. Heap unilaterally canceled the Richer-era SSA, asserting that it would not be enforced unless reaffirmed by both the new Board and the Recorder.

Heap’s office issued a press release warning that without an agreement in place, Maricopa County’s elections are at risk of inefficiency and disorder.

The statement read, “The county’s most populous county currently has no SSA in place—positioning the 2025 special elections and the 2026 election for failure,” arguing that election duties will default to overlapping statutory responsibilities, virtually ensuring confusion and inefficiency.

Heap vs. Galvin

Heap claims he ran for office promising to reform what he described as a ‘flawed election system.’ He argues that the last-minute agreement signed by his predecessor stands in the way of those voter-mandated reforms.

“With the exception of signature verification, all of early voting is now the Board’s responsibility,” Heap stated, pointing out that roughly one-third of his staff, including his entire IT department, was moved out of his office under the new deal.

Thomas Galvin, chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, defended the previous Board’s decision to assume a greater share of election duties, arguing it was a move toward efficiency and accountability. Galvin rejected Heap’s claims that the shift was a wholesale power grab, stating that the October agreement only transferred early ballot processing and oversight of IT staff to the Board, not “nearly all” of the Recorder’s duties.

“He thinks a lot of functions had been, quote-unquote, taken away. That’s just simply not the case,” Galvin said of Heap, suggesting the new Recorder may not yet fully grasp the scope of his role.

Galvin posted a breakdown of election duties on X:

Wondering how election duties are divided between the Board of Supervisors and the Recorder’s Office? Here’s the breakdown from the Oct. 2024 agreement: pic.twitter.com/NBCBHZcQqj

— Maricopa County (@maricopacounty) February 24, 2025

The Arizona Globe asked the Recorder’s Office whether Galvin’s breakdown accurately reflected the current division of election responsibilities. Heap’s Chief of Staff Sam Stone responded that the graphic was incorrect because it “more or less aligns with the pre-2024 SSA.”

Heap expressed frustration with the Board: “For weeks, since before being sworn into office, I’ve sought reasonable, common-sense solutions with my fellow Republicans on the Board, only to be ignored. Maricopa County elections need a practical, workable Shared Services Agreement to ensure efficient, accurate elections; however, the Supervisors’ refusal to engage in honest dialogue risks a crisis in our upcoming elections.”

He further warned that if the Supervisors fail to act, he will take legal action against the Board to restore the Recorder’s authority and fulfill the election reforms he promised voters.

During the February 26 Board of Supervisors meeting, Galvin spoke to the angry crowd gathered for the meeting, stating that he had spoken with Heap two days prior. On a radio show, Heap indicated that since going public with the issue, he had finally received a date in March to meet with Galvin.

At that same meeting, the Board approved funding for a comprehensive election review and technology audit, with Galvin announcing that Heap agreed to participate. Galvin called the agreement “a big deal.”

The Board’s press release stated: “The technology audit is expected to be completed by summer 2025, while parts of the comprehensive review will be finished by fall 2025. The County Board of Supervisors will release those findings publicly, without edits, revisions, or changes. The auditors’ work will be theirs and theirs alone.”

During the public comments period, over 15 speakers were left to speak. Galvin abruptly ended the meeting without a vote. Supervisors Mark Stewart and Debbie Lesko remained to engage with citizens in attendance, according to Merissa Hamilton who was present at the meeting.

This is a developing story.

‼️Maricopa Board of Supervisors Meeting Ends Abruptly. The public sat through THREE hours of the committee hearing. There were 19 speakers registered to speak. The first 4 spoke, then @ThomasGalvin abruptly ended the meeting and cited “too much yelling.” The disagreement was… pic.twitter.com/K9bYa4db2i

— Christy Kelly✨ (@Kelly4Humanity) February 26, 2025