In a courtroom showdown that highlights the complexities of election management, Maricopa County’s top officials are at an impasse over who should take charge of auditing the county’s election systems. Both parties agree on the need for an audit, yet the question of who should oversee it remains hotly contested.
The debate unfolded in Maricopa County Superior Court, where Recorder Justin Heap is seeking a judicial order to prevent the Board of Supervisors from allowing a third-party contractor access to critical election technology systems. These systems include the voter registration database, a point of contention in the ongoing power struggle.
Heap initiated legal proceedings after the Board brought in The Intersect Group to recommend how to divide the election management systems shared by the two offices, aiming to resolve who ultimately controls county elections.
Dispute Over Authority
Attorney Kory Langhofer, representing the supervisors, argued before Judge Scott Blaney that the Board’s actions were in response to a request made by Heap, who had earlier asked for funds to hire a consultant for system auditing. However, Heap’s attorney, James Rogers, contended that the Recorder’s Office is merely a “spectator” in the process under the current contract with The Intersect Group.
Rogers asserted that this arrangement contravenes state laws, which grant the recorder authority over the voter registration database and its audit. “So if the county wanted to do this, they could have, but as our briefing showed, as all the papers show, the Recorder asked for this, and he was shut out,” Rogers stated.
The disagreement traces back to a 2024 agreement between former Recorder Stephen Richer and the Board, which restructured election management, including shifting IT staff under Board supervision. Heap dissolved this agreement upon taking office, claiming it stripped his office of legally assigned powers—a charge the Board disputes.
After unsuccessful negotiations, Heap filed a lawsuit against the Board, alleging unauthorized control over IT staff and systems.
Concerns Over Contractor Selection
Judge Blaney expressed particular concern over allegations that the Board had hired an unvetted contractor, potentially jeopardizing sensitive voter data. The court heard testimony from Bryan Colby, the Recorder’s chief information officer, who raised these issues.
Langhofer challenged Colby’s claims, noting Colby’s lack of election or government experience despite his three decades in IT. Colby testified about potential risks, such as unauthorized access and cyber threats, though he admitted having no evidence of malicious intent by the contractor.
County officials countered that protective measures, like non-disclosure agreements and background checks, are in place. Nate Young, the county’s deputy CIO, assured that the contractor’s access is limited to testing environments, with rigorous checks before any system changes.
“Code bombs, document destruction, felonies like this is, it’s nonsense,” Langhofer said. “It’s complete rake speculation with really no basis in fact.”
Challenges in System Separation
Colby suggested that county staff could internally manage the system split, bypassing the need for a third-party audit. He estimated a two to four-week timeline for planning, contrasting sharply with the 14-week period projected by The Intersect Group. Nonetheless, Langhofer and Election Director Scott Jarrett emphasized the interconnectedness of the election systems, highlighting the complexity of the task.
Under questioning, Colby conceded he hadn’t consulted with the staff he claimed could handle the project internally.
Awaiting a Judicial Decision
Judge Blaney is expected to rule soon on Heap’s request to halt the audit. He urged both parties to seek a resolution outside of legal proceedings, remarking, “The court does not like to get involved in political issues…our political branches and the political experts can duke it out a little bit better than the court can, but I’ll do what’s required of this court.”
