The Maricopa County Recorder must have his powers restored, per a new court ruling.
On Friday the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors wrongfully took away delegated powers from the recorder’s office.
The court ruled the board must fund the recorder’s office and may not use its budgetary powers to coerce the recorder into surrendering statutory responsibilities to the board.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney declared that Arizona law obligates the county to pay for the recorder’s expenses; Blaney clarified this obligation wasn’t contingent upon the existence of a Shared Services Agreement between the board and the recorder.
The legislature appropriated $4.1 million to the recorder’s office, however the board has refused to expend that funding. The board also denied the recorder access to $1 million federal funds set aside for county election officials. Blaney did agree with the board on those expenditure decisions, in which the board cited their consistent policy to decline requests for one-time appropriations in order to fund ongoing, recurring expenses.
A key point of contention, the IT systems and personnel, were ruled to belong to the recorder’s office. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney’s ruling stated the county’s actions amounted to an “unlawful usurption” of recorder authority.
“The Board’s decision to fund separate IT departments for every other elected county officer while stripping the Recorder of his own IT department strongly suggests that an independent IT department is a necessary expense of county office — and that the Board’s refusal to afford the Recorder the same resource appears to not be motivated by a legitimate governmental purpose but instead serves to deprive him of the tools necessary to perform his statutory duties,” stated Blaney.
Court proceedings revealed some of the impacts of the board’s withholding of IT services to the recorder: the recorder’s IT support backlog exceeded 50 percent after the board deprived Heap’s office of its own IT systems and personnel. They also revealed that an outage from a misapplied security patch prevented the recorder’s office from clipping signatures as part of the absentee voting process.
“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,” stated Blaney. “These harms will not resolve and may likely increase absent court intervention, particularly as general election cycles approach.”
Recorder Justin Heap called the ruling “a decisive victory for the rule of law” as well as Maricopa County’s millions of voters.
“The court confirmed that the Board cannot override state law, use funding as leverage, or take control of election duties assigned to the Recorder. This ruling restores both the authority and the resources necessary for my office to do its job,” said Heap. “From day one, my focus has been on delivering elections that are secure, transparent, accessible, efficient, and lawful for every voter in Maricopa County, regardless of political party.”
Major victory for the rule of law. The court rejected the Board’s power grab and restored the Recorder’s authority as the principal elections officer in the county. With this ruling, we will move forward focused on delivering the secure, transparent, and accessible elections the… https://t.co/8V7XYmYW7E
— Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) April 17, 2026
This marks a second major court victory for Heap in his battle to undo the “secretive” changes made by his predecessor, Stephen Richer, to the duties of his office — outlined within the SSA — during Richer’s final months in office.
Earlier this year the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled Heap could keep his attorneys in the above case, striking down Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell’s argument that she had to approve Heap’s counsel.
Be the first to comment