Maricopa County Supervisors Will Appeal Court Restoration of Recorder’s Election Powers

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will appeal a court ruling restoring key election powers, resources, and personnel to the county recorder.

The vote was consistent with the board’s decision to move forward, taken during their executive session meeting on Monday. 

Last week the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that the board of supervisors don’t have “plenary authority” over elections administration. Judge Scott Blaney found that state law does set aside some election authorities specifically for the recorder. Blaney also warned that continued denial of those authorities and resources to Recorder Justin Heap would hinder the upcoming elections. 

“The evidence at trial established that the recorder’s inability to exercise meaningful control over election systems and staff will likely cause concrete operational harms, including inability to timely process provisional ballots under A.R.S. § 16-134, resulting in voters being denied tabulation of the full ballots they had voted and to which they were entitled,” said Blaney. “These harms will not resolve and may likely increase absent court intervention, particularly as general election cycles approach.”

According to their vote during Wednesday’s formal meeting, the supervisors will petition Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney for a stay. If Blaney denies the stay request, the supervisors will appeal promptly. 

Supervisor Mark Stewart was the lone vote against this plan to appeal. 

Stewart questioned what justifications for appeal the board had. Chair Kate Brophy McGee said she wouldn’t open up that discussion in the public forum, since the board had received its legal advice during executive session. 

McGee indicated Stewart has distanced himself from discussions of the appeal plan, opting to take on his own counsel to act as a mediator of that information. Stewart commented that the board should have opted to go to the judge for clarification on the specifics of his ruling rather than appeal. 

Supervisor Thomas Galvin resisted Stewart’s characterization of his comments as an implication of secrecy by the board.

“Everything we’re doing here is transparent and open,” said Supervisor Galvin.

Public comment was split on the board’s vote.

Among those who opposed during public comment, some questioned the sagacity of the board to move forward with an appeal given the fast-approaching July primary elections. Others rejected the characterization by supporters that Maricopa County elections were fair and secure enough, citing the widely-publicized disenfranchisement in recent elections and urging the board to support Heap’s work rather than drag out the court contest.

Few supporters questioned Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney’s interpretation of the law. Many more flocked to the mic during public comment at the conclusion of the meeting to object to Heap’s independence in elections due to his support for President Donald Trump’s election-related policies and proposals. They construed Blaney’s ruling as a means for the Trump administration to meddle with Arizona elections. 

A nonprofit who spoke up on the issue during public comment near the middle of the meeting, All Voting is Local Action (AVLA), indicated it fell in the latter camp of public sentiment. AVLA called the court fight a “distraction” from elections administration.

Some among the public also expressed discontent with the board’s decision to not include supporting documents with the agenda item pertaining to funding for their ongoing litigation. 

Supervisor Stewart was the sole supervisor to vote against that item. Stewart said that his attorney reached out to Chair McGee’s attorney about the agenda item. 

“I don’t have enough information about this particular item to be able to move forward,” said Stewart.

Chair McGee reminded Stewart that the item was discussed during Monday’s executive session discussion, which Stewart wasn’t able to attend.