Maricopa County Recorder Heap Declines Board-Proposed Early In-Person Voting Locations Citing Uneven Distribution

Summary: Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap rejected the Board of Supervisors' proposed early voting plan, citing uneven site distribution (e.g., Mesa's one site vs. Tempe's three) and lack of collaboration. He accused the Board of misrepresenting spreadsheet contents.

MARICOPA COUNTY – Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap rejected the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors' proposed plan for early in-person voting locations in a letter dated February 26, 2026. The rejection was based on concerns about the distribution of sites and lack of collaboration in developing the plan.

The letter was addressed to Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee and Vice Chair Debbie Lesko in response to the Board's February 24, 2026 letter and public statement on early voting.

Uneven Distribution of Proposed Early Voting Sites

Recorder Heap stated that the proposed plan shows an uneven distribution of early voting locations across the county. Specific examples include:

• Tempe, with a population of approximately 180,000, has three designated early voting sites (one per roughly 60,000 residents).

• Mesa, with a population of approximately 500,000, has one designated site (one per roughly 500,000 residents), located in the extreme southeast corner of the city.

• Many residents in Mesa would need to travel more than 10 miles to reach the site.

• Other areas, including Glendale, Scottsdale, Queen Creek, and parts of the West Valley, have few locations, while Tempe and some West Valley areas have more.

The letter includes an attached map and site list illustrating the proposed locations. Heap noted that this distribution could make early voting less accessible for residents in certain communities.

Statutory Authority and Resource Issues

Arizona Revised Statutes § 16-542 authorizes the County Recorder to establish early voting locations. The letter states that the Recorder has sought cooperation from the Board for over a year to transition control of early voting in accordance with statute.

The letter indicates that no staff, funding, equipment, or planning authority has been transferred to the Recorder’s Office. It also states that the Board’s Elections Director, Scott Jarrett, developed the plan without involving the Recorder’s Office, and the Recorder received only a broad outline with a request for approval within days.

Arizona Revised Statutes § 11-601(2) requires the Board to fund necessary expenses for the Recorder’s office. The letter expresses willingness to collaborate but states that the Recorder will not approve a plan that disenfranchises voters.

Public Statements and Dispute Over Spreadsheet

Vice Chair Debbie Lesko posted on X that the Board provided a list of over 160 sites for the Recorder to use or modify, and that no specific plan was sent.

Recorder Heap responded on X, sharing screenshots of the spreadsheet provided by the Board. He stated that the document was a master list of 253 voting locations from the 2024 election cycle (including early voting, Election Day, and emergency sites), with only 26 having served as early voting sites previously, and none confirmed for 2026. He described the claim of a second tab with 160+ alternate early voting locations as inaccurate.

Maricopa County dismissed Recorder Heap's response, but did not address their misstatements on the spreadsheet.

Public Reactions

Attorney Jen Wright posted on X calling for review of the plan in relation to past selection of vote centers.

Merissa Caldwell, chairwoman of EZAZ.org, posted on X, replying to Supervisor Lesko pointing out the history of Maricopa County disenfranchising long-distance voters, sharing a 2024 Election Day map indicating areas with limited nearby locations.

Voters overwhelmingly responded in support of Recorder Justin Heap.

The dispute involves the division of responsibilities under Arizona law, with the Recorder responsible for voter registration and early voting, and the Board handling Election Day operations and funding. The disagreement centers on site selection, resource allocation, and coordination for the 2026 election cycle.

________

EZcivics.org is funded by our readers. If you found this news brief educational, consider chipping in to fuel our work by going HERE.