Former Maricopa County Recorder Supports Board of Supervisors Over Justin Heap

Helen Purcell, the former Maricopa County Recorder who served from 1988 to 2017 (28 years), has filed an amicus curiae brief with the Arizona Court of Appeals supporting the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors over current Recorder Justin Heap in their ongoing legal dispute over election database control.

This is a devastating development for Heap’s legal position. The namesake of the “Purcell principle” (from Purcell v. Gonzalez, 2006) is now arguing against the very claims Heap has been making about election administration authority.

Key Facts

Legal Context

The Underlying Case: Heap v. Galvin

• Filed: June 12, 2025 (by Heap, represented by America First Legal)
• Trial Court Ruling: April 16, 2026 — Heap won
  • Judge Scott A. Blaney ruled Recorder has “exclusive statutory authority” over early voting
  • Ordered Board to return IT staff, servers, databases, and equipment to Recorder
  • Found Board’s seizure was “unlawful usurpation” of statutory authority
• Board’s Appeal: May 22, 2026
  • Board of Supervisors appealed the April 16 judgment
• Heap’s Contempt Motion: May 28, 2026
  • Heap asked court to hold Board in civil contempt for violating the April 16 judgment

Purcell’s Intervention

Purcell filed her amicus brief after the Board’s appeal but before the contempt hearing. Her brief is directed at the appellate court, not the trial court.

What This Means

The Irony

Heap has claimed he is “restoring” the Recorder’s proper authority under the “Purcell rule” — the longstanding structure where the Recorder controlled election administration. Now the actual Purcell is arguing against him.

Legal Significance

1. Credibility Impact: Purcell’s 28 years of experience administering Maricopa County elections gives her unmatched credibility on how the system actually works.
2. Historical Context: Purcell established the “Shared Services Agreement” (SSA) structure that Heap is now attacking. She can testify to its original purpose and functionality.
3. Political Neutrality: Purcell is a Republican (same as Heap and most of the Board), so this isn’t partisan positioning.
4. Practical Authority: Per AZ Central, her attorney wrote that her perspective would add credibility on how Arizona’s largest county should administer elections.

What Purcell Is Arguing

Based on available reporting, Purcell’s brief argues:

Do not split control of Maricopa County’s elections database ahead of the primary.

This suggests she supports:

• Maintaining unified control of election infrastructure (currently under Board management)
• Rejecting Heap’s claim to exclusive IT/database authority
• Stability over disruption before the July 2026 primary election

Contrast with Heap’s Claims

Background: The “Purcell Principle”

The Supreme Court case Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006), 549 U.S. 1, established that:

• Federal courts should not issue orders changing election rules close to an election
• Purcell was the defendant (Recorder) seeking to enforce Arizona’s voter ID law
• The case is frequently cited in election law disputes

Important distinction: The “Purcell principle” (court deference to state election officials near elections) is different from any “Purcell rule” about Recorder authority. Heap has been conflating or misusing the terminology.

Garrett Archer’s Reaction

Garrett Archer (ABC15 Data Guru, respected Arizona elections analyst) posted on X/Twitter:

“This is big. Former @maricopacounty Recorder Helen Purcell, for whom the Purcell rule is named, filed a brief with the state Appellate court in support of the Board of Supervisors over Justin Heap.”

Archer’s assessment that this is “big” confirms the significance. Archer is known for data-driven, nonpartisan election analysis.

What’s Next

1. Appellate Court Review: The Court of Appeals, Division One will consider Purcell’s brief along with the parties’ filings
2. Potential Outcomes:
   • Court could stay the April 16 judgment pending appeal (maintaining Board control)
   • Court could order expedited briefing given proximity to primary
   • Court could reject the appeal and affirm Heap’s victory
3. Contempt Hearing: Heap’s request to hold the Board in contempt is still pending
4. Primary Election: July 2026 — ballots go out soon. The court may feel pressure to rule quickly.

Analysis

Why This Hurts Heap

1. Authority Undermined: Heap’s claim to be restoring the “Purcell” system is now contradicted by Purcell herself.
2. Credibility Gap: Purcell has 28 years of actual experience running Maricopa elections; Heap has ~17 months.
3. Precedent Risk: If the appellate court sides with Purcell’s view, it could establish precedent that shared governance is legally valid.
4. Political Isolation: Heap is now opposed by:
   • The elected Board of Supervisors (4 of 5 are Republicans)
   • The County Attorney’s Office
   • His predecessor (Stephen Richer)
   • AND NOW the legendary former Recorder who built the system

What to Watch

• Does Purcell’s brief become public? (amicus briefs are typically filed on the public docket)
• Do other former election officials weigh in?
• Does the appellate court cite Purcell’s perspective in any ruling?

Sources

1. AZ Central – “Ex-Maricopa County recorder sides with supervisors in elections fight” (June 2, 2026)
2. Democracy Docket – Case tracker for Heap v. Galvin
3. America First Legal – Press release on April 16, 2026 victory
4. Garrett Archer X/Twitter – @Garrett_Archer status 2061910972273721487
5. Maricopa County Superior Court – Case documents