Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap is rejecting a proposed early in-person voting plan from the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, arguing that the current framework would leave large portions of the county with limited access and fails to comply with Arizona law governing election oversight.
In a letter addressed to Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee and Vice Chair Debbie Lesko, Heap said his office remains committed to ensuring secure and accessible elections. However, he raised “serious concerns” about what he described as an uneven distribution of early voting sites across the county — a disparity he believes could make voting more difficult for working families, seniors, individuals with disabilities, and residents in rapidly growing communities.
Heap pointed to population differences among cities to illustrate his concerns. Under the proposal, Tempe — with roughly 180,000 residents — would have three early voting locations, while Mesa — home to nearly half a million people — would have just one. He argued that such a disparity would likely require many Mesa residents to travel significant distances to cast an early ballot, undermining equitable access to voting opportunities.
“The imbalance makes voting more difficult in large portions of the county,” Heap wrote, adding that elections should provide reasonably equal access to all voters, regardless of where they live.
Beyond site distribution, the disagreement also centers on authority and logistics. Heap cited Arizona law granting the County Recorder authority to establish early voting locations. He contends that while the Board has recently acknowledged that early voting falls under the Recorder’s statutory responsibilities, it has not transferred the staff, funding, equipment, or operational control necessary to carry out that duty.
According to Heap, the Board’s Elections Director has been developing an early voting framework for months without input from the Recorder’s office. He said his team was presented only with a general outline of the plan and given a short timeline to approve it — a process he characterized as insufficient collaboration.
The Recorder also disputed what he described as a public narrative suggesting that his office could simply assume control of early voting operations immediately if it declines the Board’s proposal. He emphasized that a countywide early voting program cannot function without the funding, contracts, staffing, and infrastructure that remain under the Board’s control. State law, he noted, requires the Board to fund necessary expenses tied to the Recorder’s official duties.
Heap framed the situation as a broader question of governance and statutory boundaries. He argued that elected voters entrusted him — not appointed officials — with managing early voting, and he called for an “orderly transition” of responsibilities back to his office in line with state law.
Despite the tension, Heap said he remains open to collaboration. He called for a jointly developed early voting plan based on agreed timelines and a clear commitment of resources to match the Recorder’s legal responsibilities.
As preparations for upcoming elections continue, the dispute underscores ongoing debates over election administration in Arizona’s most populous county — and the balance of power between elected offices tasked with carrying out the process.
