Amicus Briefs Published June 1, 2026

Heap v. Galvin — Election Duties Dispute (AZ)

Arizona Court of Appeals

Issue Areas
  • Election Protection

In This Resource
Background

In January 2025, Justin Heap took office as the recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona.

Heap’s predecessors and the county’s Board of Supervisors had previously negotiated agreements that divided election-related responsibilities in the county. But when Heap took office, he terminated the existing agreement, and he and the Board were unable to agree to a new one.

As a result of the impasse, Heap sued all the members of the board in June 2025, alleging that they had unlawfully taken certain election-related responsibilities and IT resources away from his office. He asked the court to declare that he had authority to perform those functions, as well as a right either to control of the county’s election-related IT resources or to the funding required to replace it.

In April 2026, the court sided with Heap, ordering the board to either give Heap control of the county’s election-related IT system or to duplicate that system for use by his office. The judge also ruled that the state’s election laws should be interpreted to only allow the recorder or someone of his choosing to perform certain functions.

On May 19, 2026, the board appealed the decision and filed an emergency motion the next day to pause the trial court’s injunction. The board’s motion noted that the judge’s ruling would require significant changes to administer the upcoming primary election, early voting for which was set to begin just six weeks later.

Amicus brief

On June 1, 2026, former Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell, a longtime member of the Republican Party, filed an amicus brief in support of the board.

Represented by States United and Coppersmith Brockelman PLC, Purcell—who served as the county’s chief election official for nearly 30 years—argues that it is too close to the election to make changes to the county’s election administration procedures, and that the trial court’s reading of the law fails to reflect how election administration has historically been executed.

“The risks of voter confusion, administrative error, and damage to public confidence in election outcomes far outweigh any conceivable harm from maintaining the status quo for the duration of this appeal,” the brief reads.

Purcell urges the court to grant the supervisors’ motion to temporarily pause the lower court’s order while their appeal moves through the courts.

Related documents
Related news