The Arizona Supreme Court issued its decision on Tuesday, ending a Court of Appeals stay and reinstating a superior court injunction that returns election‑administration responsibilities to Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap.
The court vacated the June stay and restored the superior court injunctions, with modifications, that allocate election duties between the recorder and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
The dispute centered on the statutory interpretation of duties assigned to “the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections.” The board argued that its budgetary and administrative authority permitted it to assign those functions to a board‑appointed elections director.
Relying on Arizona precedent, the court concluded that the recorder is likely to prevail, stating that a county board may not use its funding authority to assume or reassign statutory responsibilities entrusted to an independently elected officer.
The ruling reaffirmed the board’s nondiscretionary duty to fund the recorder’s necessary expenses while prohibiting the board from using budget control to displace duties assigned by law to the recorder or an officer acting under the recorder’s authority.
Although the court recognized the proximity of the 2026 primary election and ongoing early voting, it emphasized that timing concerns do not override the statutory analysis of authority.
To minimize disruption, the court reinstated the superior court injunctions as modified by the recorder’s twelve‑point interim operational protocol, a temporary measure intended to preserve continuity during the primary while the appeal proceeds.
Both parties may seek further interim modifications from the Court of Appeals, and the court’s order leaves the procedural framework in place pending additional judicial review.
The case originated in October 2024 when former recorder Stephen Richer entered an agreement with the board that shifted several election duties, including early ballot processing, oversight of a bipartisan board, and control of election‑related information technology and a $5 million budget, to the board.
A subsequent superior court ruling reversed that arrangement, restoring direct custody of IT staff, servers, databases, software, websites, and equipment to the recorder’s office and enjoining the board from exercising any election functions delegated by the legislature to the recorder.
