AZ Supreme Court Hands Heap Win In Maricopa Elections Battle 31%

By Shawn Fleetwood66%

7/9/2026, 11:37:44 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 32.7% saturation with 245 hits. Analysis detected 1,490 faulty-reasoning hits from 749 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.6% and a BS Rank of 31% (14,694 of 21,197 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 69.30% of the article peer group.

Image Credit Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons/ CC BY-SA 2.0 
The Arizona Supreme Court handed Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap a major victory on Tuesday in his ongoing battle to maintain his election responsibilities. 
In its new order , the Grand Canyon State’s highest court dissolved a stay (“pause”) issued by the Arizona Court of Appeals on an April ruling by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney. 
In his decision, Blaney determined that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) “acted unlawfully and exceeded its statutory authority by seizing [Heap’s] personnel, systems and equipment and refusing to return them.” 
The entire dispute between Heap and the board can be traced back to a month before the 2024 elections, when then-outgoing Recorder Stephen Richer  a known opponent to election integrity efforts  struck a new Shared Services Agreement (SSA) with the MCBOS to effectively strip key election responsibilities and resources from the recorder’s office and give them to the board. 
As The Federalist previously reported , this included giving the MCBOS control over Heap’s IT staff and finances and a greater role in early voting, a process typically overseen by the recorder’s office. 
Upon entering office in January 2025, Heap attempted to negotiate a new SSA with the MCBOS to re-acquire his office’s prior election powers. 
He ultimately filed a lawsuit in June 2025 after months of resistance by the board. 
In siding with Heap, Blaney recognized Heap’s statutory authority to carry out the election responsibilities delegated to his office by Arizona law and that the MCBOS has a “nondiscretionary duty to fund all necessary expenses of the Recorder” as expressed in the current statute. 
He further required the MCBOS to return all IT staff and resources under the recorder’s control prior to the October 2024 SSA to Heap or “immediately fund the replacement of these personnel and items” so that he may execute his legal duties as recorder. 
A panel for the Arizona Court of Appeals paused Blaney’s order last month at the request of the MCBOS. 
The judges ruled that it violated the Purcell principle, a doctrine that says courts should avoid altering election rules too close to an election. 
In lifting that stay, Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer ruled that the appellate court “abused its discretion in entering the Stay Order.” 
She further determined that “the statutory delegation of authority to ‘the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections’ is ‘the general provision permitting designation by the county recorder of another officer to exercise that function when necessary,'” and rejected the MCBOS’s argument that the legal text “authorizes ‘the Board  [to] authorize the task to be performed by the Board appointed Maricopa County Elections Director.'” 
“[T]he Board cannot use budgetary authority to usurp an independently elected officer’s statutory functions. 
And to the extent the Board may have attempted to do so, Purcell cannot now be invoked to permit it. 
Specifically, allowing the Board to appoint the officer would supplant the Legislature’s direction that the Recorder perform this function,” Timmer wrote. 
The Arizona Supreme Court additionally accepted a “12-point interim operational protocol” proposed by Heap to “modify the terms of the Stay Order and Injunction Orders in accordance with the protocol” for the state’s upcoming primary elections. 
In a new statement , Heap heralded the high court’s decision as a “decisive victory for the rule of law.” 
He further indicated that his office “is ready to implement the Court’s order and deliver secure, lawful, and professional elections for the people of Maricopa County.” 
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. 
He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. 
His work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. 
Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood 
Visit on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood 
Arizona Supreme Court 
information technology 
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 
Shop The #FDRLSTSWAG Store 
Leftist Lawfare Group Looks To ‘Silence’ Political Speech 
‘Imposter’ Candidate Can Appear On Ballot Ahead Of Alaska Senate Primary, State Supreme Court Rules 
‘Erroneous’ SCOTUS Ruling On Election Day Ballots Screams For SAVE Act 
Alito: Nuking Single-Day Elections Opens ‘Pandora’s Box’ Of Voter Fraud 
Grassley: Trump’s DOJ Is The Most Transparent, Shining A Light On Dark Biden-Era Secrets 
If Governments Won’t End No-Fault Divorce, Churches Should Help 
Young Washington Biopic Highlights Early American Grit 
Trump’s Immigration Enforcement Really Is Slashing Violent Crime 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.7%Shawn Fleetwood: 6.3%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias10.7%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Shawn Fleetwood: 2.9%The Federalist: 3.4%Availability Heuristic4.4%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.2%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias2.0%This article: 1.1%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.9%The Federalist: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias1.1%This article: 18.8%Shawn Fleetwood: 12.2%The Federalist: 10.1%Framing Effect18.8%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.7%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.2%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.2%Shawn Fleetwood: 8.6%The Federalist: 12.3%Negativity Bias15.2%This article: 6.1%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias6.1%This article: 8.1%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.6%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error8.1%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Shawn Fleetwood: 2.5%The Federalist: 4.0%In-Group Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.9%The Federalist: 2.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Shawn Fleetwood: 5.9%The Federalist: 2.3%Halo Effect11.9%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.5%The Federalist: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 3.3%The Federalist: 5.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 2.2%The Federalist: 2.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 32.7%Shawn Fleetwood: 4.0%The Federalist: 5.1%Appeal to Authority32.7%This article: 1.2%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.3%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma1.2%This article: 1.3%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.5%The Federalist: 2.2%Slippery Slope1.3%This article: 2.8%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning2.8%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 7.9%The Federalist: 11.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.7%Shawn Fleetwood: 8.1%The Federalist: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion14.7%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 3.0%The Federalist: 3.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.7%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.7%The Federalist: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.7%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.4%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.5%The Federalist: 1.1%Burden of Proof2.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.3%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.4%The Federalist: 2.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.4%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.3%Shawn Fleetwood: 2.1%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote4.3%This article: 4.3%Shawn Fleetwood: 2.0%The Federalist: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection4.3%This article: 16.8%Shawn Fleetwood: 17.7%The Federalist: 19.9%Biased Writer Voice16.8%This article: 6.5%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.8%The Federalist: 5.3%Indoctrination6.5%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Shawn Fleetwood: 18.8%The Federalist: 16.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias12.4%This article: 2.8%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.5%The Federalist: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.8%

749 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers52%attributed speech359writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageScott Blaney • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 61 words • 100.0% coverageThe Federalist • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageScott Blaney • 44 words • 0.0% coverageScott Blaney • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageAnn Scott Timmer • 25 words • 0.0% coverageAnn Scott Timmer • 67 words • 0.0% coverageAnn Scott Timmer • 14 words • 100.0% coverageAnn Scott Timmer • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAnn Scott Timmer • 21 words • 0.0% coverageArizona Supreme Court • 36 words • 0.0% coverageJustin Heap • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJustin Heap • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageArizona Supreme Court • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageMaricopa County Board of Supervisors • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Justin Heap

100%flagged-word coverage
46 attributed words12% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Indoctrination+54.0 ptsWriter: 2.5%Justin Heap: 56.5%56.5%Biased Writer Voice-25.9 ptsWriter: 25.9%Justin Heap: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -25.9 ptsWriter: 25.9%Justin Heap: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.8 ptsWriter: 5.8%Justin Heap: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.