A Big ‘L’ for LUCHA? ‘Hands Off Our Elections’ Demonstration Draws No Protesters Outside Maricopa County BOS Meeting

A planned “Hands Off Our Elections” demonstration promoted by Living United for Change in Arizona, or LUCHA, drew no visible protesters outside the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting Wednesday, despite the group’s call for supporters to attend amid the county’s ongoing election administration dispute.

The demonstration was scheduled to coincide with the Board’s June 10 formal meeting, as previously reported by California Globe. Organizers promoted the event in response to what they described as efforts by President Donald Trump and Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap to influence Arizona’s election system.

However, according to California Globe’s observation at the meeting, no demonstrators appeared outside the meeting location. The absence of an outside protest came after LUCHA and allied speakers had urged public involvement in the dispute between Heap and the Board of Supervisors over election authority ahead of Arizona’s July 21 primary election.

The meeting itself drew a number of public comments concerning Heap, the Board, and the continuing legal fight over election administration. Several speakers criticized Heap and urged the Board to continue resisting his position in the dispute.

One speaker, identified in the meeting transcript as Carmen Mendes Ramirez, said she was “deeply concerned by the intimidation tactics being used by County Recorder Justin Heap,” referring to threats of fines and potential prosecution of election workers. She urged the Board to “stand firm, protect election workers, reject intimidation tactics, and ensure that every eligible voter in Maricopa County can cast their ballot without fear.”

Communications Coordinator for LUCHA, Vivian Serafin, criticized Heap over the ongoing legal battle and cited an investigation into an election worker who allegedly took a scanner into an unmarked vehicle. Serafin told supervisors, “We need every member of this board on our side, every single one,” and specifically asked Supervisor Mark Stewart, “whose side are you on?”

Anthony Avalos, another public commenter, praised the Board for “continuing to fight for the needs of the voters” and urged supervisors to ask the Arizona Court of Appeals to consider the so-called Purcell principle, a doctrine cautioning courts against changing election procedures close to an election. Avalos also referenced an amicus brief filed by former Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell in support of the Board’s request for a stay pending appeal.

Yolanda Landeros, who identified herself as a Buckeye resident, accused Heap of attempting to “silence voters” and “undermine their participation in the democratic process.” She claimed naturalized citizens and minority voters would be most affected by the Recorder’s actions. Featured in a May 2026 LUCHA newsroom article, Landeros’ extended family fears deportation.

Another speaker later called on the Board to demand Heap’s resignation, claiming that the Recorder’s Office had thrown a long-standing election administration system into “complete chaos.”

Other speakers used public comment to criticize the Board. Lori Baron told supervisors that they “should resign” and accused them of “violating the court’s orders” in the Heap litigation. Baron later told the Board, “You all are embarrassing yourselves and this county to the rest of the world how you’ve been behaving regarding the whole Justin Heap situation,” adding, “Y’all should hang your heads in shame.”

Joe Hoff also questioned the Board’s use of consent agenda items, noting that roughly 84% of the agenda items scheduled before public comment had been placed into consent categories before the public-comment period began.

The public comments followed several weeks of escalating conflict between Heap and the Board of Supervisors. In April, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney ruled in Heap’s favor in litigation over election authority, finding that the Board had overstepped its authority in reallocating certain election functions from the Recorder’s Office. The Board has appealed the ruling.

Heap later filed an application asking the court to hold the Board in civil contempt, arguing that supervisors had refused to comply with the court’s April order. According to the Recorder’s Office, Heap’s filing accused the Board of failing to return election IT staff, systems, databases, software, websites, and equipment to the Recorder’s control, or to immediately fund their replacement.

The Board has disputed Heap’s allegations. Maricopa County maintains on its election duties dispute page that supervisors have negotiated in good faith over election responsibilities and that Heap chose to file litigation rather than reach a new shared services agreement.

LUCHA has sided with the Board during the dispute. On its News & Opinion page, LUCHA published a May 27 article claiming that the April ruling could hand Heap “total control” over Maricopa County election IT infrastructure and describing the dispute as a threat to democracy.

LUCHA, a progressive advocacy organization for “social, racial, and economic transformation,” has also been consistently active in Arizona’s election-related policy fights. In January, LUCHA lobbyist Jodi Liggett appeared at an Arizona House committee hearing on HB 2806, a bill dealing with lawful presence verification and voter registration. As previously reported by California Globe, Rep. Alexander Kolodin pressed Liggett and other progressive lobbyists on whether U.S. citizenship should be required to vote in Arizona elections.

The June 10 meeting took place two weeks before early voting begins for the July 21 primary. According to Maricopa County Elections, early voting begins June 24, and the voter registration deadline is June 22.

While several speakers used the Board’s public comment period to criticize Heap and support the Board’s position, others criticized supervisors over their handling of the dispute and the structure of the meeting agenda. However, both outside and inside the meeting, the demonstration LUCHA had promoted ahead of it did not materialize.