Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Arizona’s free newsletter here.
Maricopa County’s new recorder is rejecting an agreement that splits control of the county’s elections between his office and supervisors, and is threatening to sue the supervisors if they don’t give him more power.
Recorder Justin Heap’s protest puts control over elections in the state’s most populous and high-profile swing county up in the air and sets up a messy fight between prominent Republican officials that could affect voters, with local elections approaching in May and the 2026 gubernatorial election looming.
Heap, a former state representative, is seeking more staff for the recorder’s office and more control over early voting. He claimed in a news release this week that the previous board of supervisors took this away from his office in a “backroom, eleventh hour power grab,” referring to a shared-services agreement they approved shortly before he took office.
He said the new supervisors’ refusal to quickly meet to discuss a new agreement is “jeopardizing Maricopa County election readiness.”
Supervisors Chairman Thomas Galvin rebutted Heap’s claims in his own news release, saying that “conversations have been happening for weeks,” and that supervisors look forward to working with Heap on a new agreement.
Pressure is on to run smooth and accurate elections after false claims and real problems over the last four years damaged voter trust in Maricopa County. But because of the way Arizona law splits duties between the recorder and supervisors, Heap will need to collaborate with the supervisors to make that happen. The hostile start to their relationship points to the challenges.
The officials will need to reach consensus before April, when the county must send out ballots for Glendale’s and Goodyear’s all-mail elections.
Matt Salmon, a Republican former congressman who is now on the leadership team of the Democracy Defense Project, said Heap won’t be able to win the supervisors’ support — or instill confidence in voters — by being combative.
“The most important thing is that our democracy, our republic works,” Salmon said. “The people are sending folks to the county board of supervisors, and they are sending a representative to the recorder’s office, and they expect them to work together.”
Heap calls October agreement a ‘power grab’
Former Recorder Stephen Richer signed the latest agreement with the board in October — after Heap had defeated Richer in the Republican primary but before Heap won the November election.
In rejecting the agreement, Heap is continuing the aggressive tone of his campaign, in which he called the county’s elections a “laughingstock.” As a candidate, he expressed doubt over the fairness of past election results and promised voters that he would upend the election system, even though recorders in Arizona generally don’t control most of the county’s election operations.
Recorders typically oversee voter registration and early voting, while supervisors hire election directors to handle Election Day voting and ballot counting.
The supervisors, too, have said they want to improve the county’s elections. On Wednesday, they voted unanimously to set aside $480,000 for two independent audits to examine the processes and technology used to run elections. Galvin said Heap told him his office will participate.
Maricopa County supervisors have been slowly taking back control of elections from the recorder’s office over the past decade or so.
The past two recorders, Richer and Adrian Fontes — now the secretary of state — argued with supervisors over how best to divide up duties, but almost always behind closed doors. Heap’s public criticism marks a significant turn from that united front.
“There are people who work to get stuff done, and there are people who just like fighting,” Richer said in a statement. “You can get away with the latter personality type when you’re in the state Legislature, city council, or the Congress, and you’re not actually responsible for anything other than your own vote. It’s harder to survive like that when you have to run things.”
The current supervisors and Heap started out cordially. During a public budget session last month, they sat together around a table and tried to work out a key point of disagreement: who should manage the county’s election-related IT staff.
At that meeting, Heap said he hoped to audit and improve the county’s voter registration system, and needed more people and money to do that. Galvin responded that having election IT staff for both the recorder and supervisors would be redundant and more costly.
But shortly after the meeting, state lawmakers who are part of the Freedom Caucus in the Legislature began to publicly criticize Galvin, saying he was “railroading” Heap, a former caucus member, and stripping him of his budget and power.
Heap then sent out his news release on Monday and posted on social media that he was in a “BATTLE OVER MARICOPA COUNTY ELECTIONS” with supervisors.
“I don’t see this as a ‘battle,’” Galvin responded in his release.
Disagreement about what the October agreement says
Heap and the supervisors disagree not only on who should control what election functions, but also on what the October agreement says about that.
All sides agree that the October agreement shifted control of the elections IT staff and a key election database from the recorder to the supervisors. Heap wants that database, and the majority of the staff, shifted back.
But Heap also claims that the October agreement took from the recorder’s office crucial early voting processes such as sending out and receiving mail ballots. Galvin disputes that.
Heap said that after consulting with the County Attorney’s Office, he notified supervisors in January that he was rejecting the agreement, citing “a standing principle” of Arizona law that “no elected body or office may bind the powers of a future body or office.”
After that, Heap and the supervisors both hired outside lawyers to advise them on the agreement.
It’s unclear whether supervisors accept that Heap can cancel the agreement, or what happens if they don’t approve a new one. A spokesperson did not directly answer that question. But Supervisor Kate Brophy McGee said in an interview that she believes Heap’s decision doesn’t change anything yet, since the October agreement says any termination would take effect only after the next general election. That would mean it stays in place through the end of 2026.
Heap has said he won’t let that happen.
“With an election less than 90 days away,” Heap said in his release, “the Supervisors’ unwillingness to address these concerns will force me to take legal action against the Board to restore this office’s full authority, and deliver the results voters elected me to achieve.”
Jen Fifield is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Jen at jfifield@votebeat.org.
