EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The June 17, 2026 Special Meeting was convened solely to enter Executive Session for legal discussions regarding election administration litigation. This meeting occurred during the escalating conflict between the Board and County Recorder Justin Heap over the 2026 Primary and General Election planning.
Key Outcome: Board unanimously voted (5-0) to enter Executive Session to receive legal advice on “Administration of Elections; Board Authority and Responsibilities; Litigation Update.”
Critical Context: This meeting took place exactly one week before the June 24, 2026 Special Meeting where the Board would vote 4-1 to adopt its own election plan without Recorder Heap’s participation.
MEETING DETAILS
| Attribute | Details |
|---|---|
| Date | Wednesday, June 17, 2026 |
| Time | 10:00 AM |
| Location | Sullivan Conference Room, 301 W Jefferson, 10th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003 |
| Meeting Type | Special Meeting with Executive Session |
| Duration | Not disclosed (Executive Session duration not public) |
Board Attendance (Summary Document)
- Present: Kate Brophy McGee (Chair, District 3)
- Remote: Debbie Lesko (Vice Chair, District 4), Mark Stewart (District 1), Thomas Galvin (District 2), Steve Gallardo (District 5)
- Also Present: Juanita Garza (Clerk), Yasmin Romero (Minutes Coordinator), Jen Pokorski (County Manager), Brooke Worcester (Legal Counsel)
AGENDA ITEMS
Public Agenda (Special Meeting)
Item 1: Executive Session
- Action: Vote to convene in Executive Session
- Purpose: Consider items on the Executive Agenda dated June 17, 2026
- Motion: Debbie Lesko
- Second: Thomas Galvin
- Vote: 5-0 Unanimous (Brophy McGee, Lesko, Stewart, Galvin, Gallardo)
Executive Session Agenda (Closed to Public)
Statutory Authority:
- A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3) – Legal Advice
- A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(4) – Litigation; Contract Negotiations; Settlement Discussions
Subject Matter:
“ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS; BOARD AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES; LITIGATION UPDATE”
Presenters/Participants:
- Kory Langhofer, Outside Counsel, Statecraft PLLC
- Zach Schira, Assistant County Manager, County Manager’s Office
- Scott Jarrett, Director, Elections Department
KEY ANALYSIS
1. Pattern: Escalating Election Conflict
This Executive Session occurred at a critical juncture:
- June 17: Executive Session on election litigation (this meeting)
- June 22: Informal Meeting (discussed election signage, wait times)
- June 24: Special Meeting where Board adopted its own election plan (4-1 vote)
Inference: The Board was receiving legal counsel on its authority to proceed with election planning independently of County Recorder Justin Heap, preparing for the June 24 confrontation.
2. Outside Counsel Involvement
The presence of Kory Langhofer from Statecraft PLLC as “Outside Counsel” is significant:
- Indicates the County Attorney’s office may have recused itself or recommended independent counsel
- Suggests complex legal questions about inter-branch authority
- Litigation was already at a stage requiring external legal expertise
3. Full Remote Participation
Four of five supervisors attended remotely:
- Lesko, Stewart, Galvin, Gallardo (all remote)
- Only Brophy McGee in-person
Pattern Note: Remote attendance reduces public accessibility and physical accountability. This meeting was entirely procedural (entering Executive Session), but the pattern is worth noting.
4. Scott Jarrett’s Presence
Elections Director Scott Jarrett attended the Executive Session, indicating:
- The litigation/legal discussion directly involved election operations
- The Board was coordinating with its elections staff separately from the Recorder’s office
- Technical election questions were being addressed
BOARD DISCREPANCIES & CONCERNS
1. Lack of Transparency
Discrepancy: The Executive Session was called for “litigation update” and “legal advice” but the public was given no indication of:
- What litigation was being discussed
- Who the parties were
- What legal questions required resolution
- What “settlement discussions” might be underway
Issue: A.R.S. §38-431.03 permits executive sessions for these purposes, but the statute’s permissiveness does not eliminate the public’s right to understand the scope of closed-door discussions about election administration.
2. No Public Discussion of Legal Strategy
The Board entered Executive Session immediately after convening. No public discussion was held regarding:
- The nature of the legal conflict with Recorder Heap
- Why the Board needed independent legal counsel
- What options were being considered
Pattern: This continues the Board’s pattern of handling the Heap conflict through private legal channels rather than public deliberation.
3. Missing Documentation
Critical Gap: No transcript or recording of this meeting exists in the public record.
- Only the agenda and summary documents are available
- Executive Session minutes are not publicly accessible
- The public has no record of what legal advice was given or what decisions were made
CONTEXT FROM SUBSEQUENT MEETING (June 24, 2026)
The June 24, 2026 Formal Meeting (covered in separate report) revealed what was likely discussed in this Executive Session:
From Juan Mendez’s public comment (June 24):
“Because of his inaction, because of Heap’s dragging his feet, we’re left with less time to activate and organize our community along our election roadmap. And let’s face it, Heap’s strategy was probably always to run out the clock.”
From the June 24 transcript (Supervisor Stewart’s question):
“Are you guys working with the recorders leadership… Did they have any input in this?”
Response: “They didn’t have any input into this presentation… But per the resolution and the coordination that’s happened since then despite everything that’s going on…”
Inference: The June 17 Executive Session likely addressed the Board’s legal authority to proceed with an election plan without the Recorder’s cooperation, setting the stage for the June 24 vote.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A.R.S. §38-431.03 – Executive Session Authority
The Board cited two statutory provisions:
(A)(3) – Legal Advice:
“A public body may hold an executive session for… consultation with the attorney of the public body in order to consider the advice of the attorney on specific legal matters.”
(A)(4) – Litigation/Negotiations:
“A public body may hold an executive session for… discussion or consideration of records, documents, information or testimony that are specifically required to be maintained as confidential by federal or state law, contract, or rules.”
Citizen Note: While these provisions permit closed sessions, they do not require them. The Board chose to discuss election litigation privately rather than publicly disclose the nature of the legal conflict.
RECOMMENDATIONS
- Public Records Request: Seek disclosure of the general nature of the litigation discussed (party names, case numbers if filed)
- Follow-up: Monitor for any election-related litigation filed in Maricopa County Superior Court following this date
- Pattern Documentation: Track the Board’s use of Executive Sessions for election-related matters
- Comparison: Compare this approach with other Arizona counties facing similar election administration conflicts
