Maricopa County Standoff Escalates: Recorder Heap Grilled, Board Passes Unilateral Election Resolution

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors convened a special meeting on Wednesday to receive a sworn report from Justin Heap amid ongoing litigation and a breakdown in negotiations over control of election administration.

“This is a special meeting, and we will not be taking public testimony,” the chair stated at the outset, explaining the purpose was to receive requested information from the Recorder and hear from Board counsel regarding election services. All board members were present, except for Supervisor Mark Stewart, who joined remotely and has retained separate counsel in the lawsuit between the Recorder and the Board.

Before delivering his report, Heap’s legal counsel addressed the Board regarding document production demands. Counsel stated that approximately 10,000 pages of materials had been compiled within four business days, including over a holiday weekend, and described the demand as being treated “as if it were a public records request.” The attorney noted the documents contained personally identifiable information that had not yet been fully redacted.

Heap told supervisors the timeline had placed significant strain on his staff.

“This request was sent to our office essentially seven days ago to demand that we turn over thousands of pages of documents that have put an immense amount of stress on my staff,” Heap said, adding that employees worked through the holiday weekend to comply. He characterized the timing as “administrative interference” during an active election period.

“It is confusing to me why the board has demanded that our office provide these documents while all of these items are provided to the budget office through the expense,” Heap said. “The board could have obtained these documents through another department.”

In a post on X, The Epoch Times Arizona reported that Heap said, “Arizona Revised Statute 11-253 does not allow for the board to compel the production of documents. … The recorder’s plan was to provide an oral report, as the board had requested, even though it’s our position that that’s not allowed.”

The exchange then turned to ballot processing and allegations of voter disenfranchisement. Heap defended his office’s procedures.

“I think we have one of the best signature verification operations in the country now,” he said, citing additional oversight layers and efficiency improvements.

Responding to claims that ballots had been improperly rejected, Heap stated, “That is not disenfranchisement, that is the law,” explaining that ballots must be rejected when voters fail to cure signature discrepancies within statutory deadlines.

Heap added, “To be quite honest, I am disappointed in the board that the board would raise the specter of voter disenfranchisement on this case when it deals with my office, when the board has made no effort. Quite frankly, I think it’s dubious to think that the board is really concerned about my system disenfranchising anyone, because not a single member of the board has come down to my office and asked to see the rejected ballots.”

Vice Chair Debbie Lesko referenced court testimony from Heap’s chief of staff Sam Stone regarding whether the absence of an AGILIS ballot sorting machine had resulted in disenfranchisement. Heap responded that he had “not seen evidence that the lack of AGILIS machine has thus far this year caused us” to disenfranchise voters, though he acknowledged operational strain could occur in future election cycles without additional equipment.

The Recorder referred back to the administration of former-Recorder-turned Secretary of State Adrian Fontes noting that his office “became aware, we came to this office, that, starting under Adrian Fontes and through the prior administration, this program has been greatly expanded to allow full-time election workers who would remain with the office and between elections, would continue to do voter registration through the SEB program. This is not in… contemplated by the federal law, and quite frankly, I believe it violates Arizona’s law, which says that we cannot spend money on voter registration efforts with full-time employees. And so we decided to put an end to that program and roll back the SEB to what is intended to … assist with voter assistance.”

Supervisors also questioned Heap about prior testimony concerning a proposal to send mail ballots to voters who had not requested them in certain rural precincts. Heap said the proposal involved approximately three dozen voters in two remote precincts lacking nearby polling locations.

“This deals with about three dozen voters in rural Arizona that would not be given a polling location,” Heap said, disputing suggestions that the proposal amounted to universal mail-in voting. When asked directly whether the County Attorney’s Office had approved the proposal, Heap declined to give a definitive answer, citing privilege considerations.

The County Recorder also pointed to a pending $500,000 refund from the U.S. Postal Service after his office discovered the county had been overcharged for mail services “for several years.”  

“We used to give awards in this county for people who save the county money, and now we get subpoenas,” Heap told the Board, eliciting laughter from members of the public present.

In another post to X, The Epoch Times Arizona reported that Heap said, “The board, unfortunately has repeatedly restated this over and over again to imply that I tried to implement universal mail in ballot across the entire county, across the entire election, which is something I did not do. This deals with about three dozen voters in rural Arizona that would not be given a polling location. … suggested a concern that there was some bipartisan effort, some partisan bent in my office. I have basically taken hits from the board for the last year because I tried to put an implement to make sure that three dozen rural Democrats would not be disenfranchised and not being given an opportunity.”

As the discussion shifted to the broader dispute between the offices, Board attorney Corey Langhoffer told supervisors that settlement negotiations over a Shared Services Agreement had stalled.

“I don’t think it is too much to say settlement negotiations are dead,” Langhoffer said, identifying two primary areas of disagreement: division of the county’s election IT system and governance over in-person early voting.

According to Langhoffer, the Board’s most recent proposal would divide IT personnel and systems based on consultant recommendations while requiring joint safeguards. Under that proposal, the Recorder would select in-person early voting locations subject to Board approval of contracts and accessibility standards, with shared staffing resources intended to reduce costs. Langhoffer also referenced comments from the presiding judge stating the dispute “does not deserve to be in court.”

During the exchange, Heap raised concerns about potential removal proceedings under A.R.S. § 11-253 if the Board deemed his report insufficient.

“It is very difficult for me to commit to coming in to discuss this report when it’s the Board that is invoked a specific statute that says if you find my report insufficient… you can vote to remove me from office,” Heap said.

A motion from Supervisor Mark Stewart to declare the Recorder’s report satisfactory failed for lack of a second.

After Recorder Heap’s statements, Maricopa County Supervisor Chair Kate Brophy McGee began to state “I am working to establish enough of a relationship on behalf of the Board…” before being interrupted by loud laughter from public attendees. She then warned that security could remove members of the public from the meeting.

Only after the discussion concluded did the Board move to formal action. The supervisors voted unanimously to approve a resolution and policy governing election operations in the absence of a finalized Shared Services Agreement.

According to a county news release, the Board had delivered a revised SSA proposal to the Recorder’s Office on Feb. 11, 2026. The proposal includes additional IT positions for the Recorder’s Office until systems are fully separated, shared selection of early voting sites meeting federal civil rights requirements, collaborative troubleshooting at voting locations, joint poll worker training, and joint hiring of temporary election workers.

In the resolution, the board cited an April 11 text message from Heap to Supervisor Debbie Lesko in which he reportedly said: “We seem to be in agreement on 95% and are only discussing minor details.”

In the release, Vice Chair Lesko stated, “Justin Heap wants control of all IT functions; we offered to split them. He wants control of in-person early voting; we’re fine with that. This is a fair offer. The ball is in the Recorder’s court. All he has to do is reply.”

Speaking to Fox 10 Phoenix, Heap suggested that a resolution to the conflict could require court intervention. “I don’t know how we go forward and have negotiations if we don’t have the court clarify what the duties of each office are,” Heap told the outlet. “We can’t have a negotiation when one side says our duties are our duties, [and] the recorder’s duties are also all our duties.”

Prior to the meeting, Supervisors Lesko and Stewart publicly stated they would oppose Heap’s removal by the Board. Chairwoman Brophy McGee also stated that the board was not considering his ouster, adding, “Twitter doesn’t make it true. It really does not.”

The newly adopted policy establishes interim operational guidelines while litigation proceeds, according to the board’s release. No final agreement between the Recorder’s Office and the Board has been announced.