A judge has shifted key responsibilities over how ballots are handled in Arizona’s largest county, a decision that alters who runs parts of the election machinery ahead of a high-stakes fall cycle. The ruling strengthens the county recorder’s control over several voting operations in Maricopa County, where disputes over election management have simmered since 2020.
The Maricopa County Superior Court judge found that the county board of supervisors exceeded its legal authority when it moved personnel, equipment and certain election functions away from the recorder’s office. The decision, filed Thursday and entered on the public docket Friday, redraws the line between the two offices just months before statewide and national contests that will draw national attention.
What the court assigned to each office
Energy transition urgency spikes after Middle East crisis: Colombia urges rapid shift
Albert Sommers, former House speaker, launches bid to retake Wyoming seat
- Recorder’s office: restored control of in-person early voting operations and the staff, systems and equipment needed to run them.
- Board of supervisors: retains responsibility for selecting Election Day polling places, providing polling sites and hiring poll workers.
- The court also ruled the board could not use funding or administrative arrangements to seize duties legally allotted to the recorder.
The judge’s language emphasized that the board’s broad supervisory powers do not allow it to unilaterally reassign statutory election duties. By returning staffing and resources, the ruling effectively empowers the recorder to manage early voting logistics without board interference.
County leaders signaled a split response. Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee said supervisors will weigh an appeal and defended the board’s past support for the recorder’s office, while Recorder Justin Heap framed the decision as a vindication that restores his office’s operational authority.
Heap, a Republican and former state legislator, ousted the previous recorder, Stephen Richer, in last year’s GOP primary and later won the general election. His tenure has been marked by clashes with the board over an agreement his predecessor had struck that reallocated election responsibilities.
Heap challenged that legacy arrangement in court, arguing the board had effectively taken control of critical election functions — including funding and IT personnel — through the prior agreement. His lawsuit received backing from America First Legal, a conservative legal group.
Richer and others have blamed a wave of threats and hostility directed at election office staff since the 2020 presidential contest on a climate of distrust surrounding the county’s voting system. Richer has criticized Heap for aligning with activists who fueled that mistrust; Heap has not fully embraced claims that the prior elections were fraudulent but has argued the system needs reform.
The decision matters because it determines who will make on-the-ground choices about early voting locations, ballot drop box management and the technical infrastructure that supports vote processing — all elements likely to affect turnout and voter experience this fall.
Practical implications for voters and election officials include:
- Faster restoration of equipment and staff to the recorder’s control, which could change how early-voting sites are configured.
- Clearer lines of responsibility that may reduce operational disputes during preparations for major races.
- A potential legal appeal that could prolong uncertainty before final procedures are set for the election calendar.
Legal observers say the dispute illustrates a broader tension in state election law: the balance between a county’s administrative oversight and the statutory roles assigned to separately elected officials. In a closely watched battleground like Maricopa County — home to Phoenix and a decisive share of Arizona’s electorate — that balance can shape how smoothly voting runs on election day and how much public confidence the process commands.
For now, the recorder’s office has regained specific responsibilities and resources, but the board’s announced intent to consider an appeal means the precise operational picture could shift again before ballots are cast later this year.
