Maricopa supervisors approve $550,000 for signature-verification workstations amid Agilis dispute

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted 4–1 on Feb. 25 to approve a $550,000 appropriation adjustment for the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office to fund signature-verification workstations and related facility improvements.

The item, which used funds the state legislature provided and the county holds in contingency, drew sustained public and board scrutiny because residents and some supervisors asked whether the reallocation buys an Agilis voting system or otherwise relates to litigation and a separate $4 million legislative grant to the recorder.

County Manager’s office staff told the board the appropriation is not for the Agilis machine. “This item is not to fund the Agilis machine,” the county manager said, adding the request specifies roughly $400,000 for facility infrastructure improvements and about $150,000 for computers, monitors and related technology.

Vice Chair Debbie Lesko, who moved the item, described a midyear request by Recorder Justin Heap and said staff helped expedite the reallocation after Heap asked for an urgent early disbursement. “He really asked for my help and ... I helped him,” Lesko said while explaining why she voted yes and urging cooperation to ensure a smooth election.

Supervisor Thomas Galvin cast the lone no vote, saying he had unresolved questions about broader funding and the recorder’s signature-verification process. “A $550,000 request from Justin Heap without any justification is very hard for me to go with,” Galvin said, citing concerns about the governor’s $4 million award and a high ratio of rejected ballots in a prior election that he has asked staff to explain.

Public commenters pressed for clarity on whether the appropriation funds Agilis, operational control, or litigation expenses. Elizabeth Townsley told the board that if the money “relates to Agilis, please state clearly whether it funds equipment, restores operational control, or addresses litigation exposure.”

Board members said they had asked Recorder Heap to collaborate with the county elections department on early in-person voting logistics and gave him a deadline to respond so statutory deadlines for site booking and staffing can be met. The board’s letter asks Heap whether he will coordinate with elections staff; if he does not respond, the board said it will assume the recorder can manage early voting without county assistance.

The vote allows the Recorder’s Office to proceed with tenant improvements and equipment purchases described in the agenda memo; it does not itself change statutory authority over signature-verification procedures, which the board noted are within the recorder’s jurisdiction.

The board’s action is a near-term funding decision; supervisors said further oversight and information requests will continue as staff monitors expenditures and seeks answers to outstanding questions about signature-verification outcomes from prior elections.