The battle for control of Maricopa County elections reached a dramatic climax in April 2026, with a Superior Court judge delivering a stinging rebuke to the Board of Supervisors. The ruling stemmed from a power struggle ignited months earlier, following Justin Heap’s victory over Stephen Richer in the July 2024 Republican primary for County Recorder.
Just weeks after Heap’s primary win, and before he even assumed office, the outgoing Recorder Richer brokered a surprising agreement with the Board of Supervisors. This agreement effectively stripped the incoming Recorder of crucial election duties, including oversight of early ballot processing and control of a $5 million IT budget.
The move centralized these functions under the Board’s authority, appointing them to oversee the bipartisan teams responsible for examining and verifying early ballots – a critical step in the election process. This included the meticulous task of opening envelopes, verifying codes, and identifying any damaged ballots.
Heap, upon taking office, immediately challenged the agreement, viewing it as a blatant overreach of power. He demanded renegotiation and warned of potential legal action, arguing the Board had improperly seized control of responsibilities rightfully belonging to the Recorder’s office.
He didn’t hesitate to follow through on his threat, initiating a legal battle that culminated in the April 2026 court decision. The judge sided firmly with Heap, asserting that the Board had exceeded its authority as defined by state law.
The court’s ruling hinged on the principle that while the Board could delegate certain election functions to the Recorder, they could not permanently wrest control away. Crucially, the judge affirmed the Recorder’s right to reclaim those responsibilities at any time.
The judge’s order was unequivocal: the Board of Supervisors was directed to immediately return all election-related IT infrastructure – staff, servers, databases, and equipment – to the Recorder’s direct control. They were also forbidden from further exercising any election functions delegated to the Recorder by the state legislature.
The Board had argued they possessed the authority to manage the Recorder’s office’s funding and operations, but the judge rejected this claim. The court emphasized the Board’s “non-discretionary duty” to fully fund the Recorder’s office as mandated by Arizona law, ensuring they have the resources to fulfill their statutory obligations.
This decisive victory for Recorder Heap underscored the importance of clearly defined roles and responsibilities in election administration, and reaffirmed the authority of the elected Recorder in overseeing the integrity of Maricopa County’s elections.
