JUNE 8, 2026

Helen Purcell Reminds Arizona Why the "Purcell Principle" Exists

Former Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell has entered the ongoing legal battle between current Recorder Justin Heap and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, urging the Arizona Court of Appeals to delay any major changes to election operations until after the July primary election.

For those unfamiliar with Helen Purcell, she served as Maricopa County Recorder from 1989 until 2017. During her tenure, she oversaw some of the largest elections in the nation and built a reputation for professionalism, competence, and integrity. Many of Justin Heap's own supporters have publicly stated over the years that Helen Purcell was the finest Recorder Maricopa County has ever had.

That is why her recent court filing deserves serious consideration.

Purcell is not weighing in as a partisan combatant. Instead, she is offering the perspective of someone who spent nearly three decades administering elections. Her message is simple: regardless of who ultimately prevails in court, now is not the time to make sweeping changes to election administration.

In her filing, Purcell points to a legal doctrine that bears her own name: the Purcell Principle. Established by the United States Supreme Court in 2006, the principle holds that courts should be reluctant to make significant changes to election procedures close to an election because doing so can create voter confusion and administrative chaos.

That principle exists for a reason.

The dispute between Recorder Heap and the Board of Supervisors involves control of election information technology systems and election administration responsibilities. Judge Scott Blaney's ruling would require significant operational changes just weeks before ballots are mailed to voters for the July primary. Purcell argues that implementing those changes now could create confusion, disrupt established procedures, and undermine public confidence in the election process.

Perhaps most importantly, Purcell notes that throughout her time as Recorder, authority over election technology systems existed because of agreements between the Board and the Recorder's Office—not because state law automatically granted that authority to the Recorder. Her firsthand experience provides important historical context that only a former Recorder can offer.

Purcell also raises concerns about chain-of-custody procedures, the counting of early ballots, and the preparation of official election canvasses. These are not minor administrative details. They are critical components of election integrity that require clear lines of authority and established procedures.

What is disappointing is seeing some of the most vocal supporters of Recorder Heap now attempt to attack Helen Purcell personally simply because she offered an opinion they disagree with. For years, many of these same individuals praised Purcell's service and experience. Now, because she has entered the debate with a perspective they do not like, they are attempting to diminish her legacy.

Disagreeing with someone's legal arguments is fair. Attempting to rewrite history about a public servant who dedicated nearly three decades to administering elections is not.

Whether one supports Justin Heap, the Board of Supervisors, or neither, Helen Purcell's warning should not be dismissed. The issue before the court is not who wins a political fight. It is whether Arizona's largest county should fundamentally alter election operations on the eve of a major election.

The Purcell Principle was created to protect voters from confusion and uncertainty. As the July primary approaches, Helen Purcell is reminding Arizona of a lesson she learned through decades of election administration: stability and clarity matter, especially when millions of voters are counting on the system to work.

The Court of Appeals will ultimately decide the legal questions before it. But when a seven-term former Recorder with nearly thirty years of experience warns against last-minute election changes, her perspective deserves thoughtful consideration—not political attacks.

Show Up and Be Heard: The 2026 Primary Matters

The 2026 Primary Election is quickly approaching. Election Day is July 21, and early mail ballots will begin arriving in mailboxes on June 24. Like every election, this one is critical.

Many races feature multiple Republican candidates competing in the primary. As voters sort through those choices, one principle is worth remembering: the Buckley Rule. Named after conservative commentator William F. Buckley Jr., the rule encourages voters to support "the most conservative candidate who can win." It is a practical reminder that elections are about both principles and results.

Last Saturday, I attended an outstanding candidate event hosted by the Arrowhead Republican Women. As always, the organization did a fantastic job. Their volunteers work hard to provide opportunities for voters to hear directly from candidates, ask questions, and make informed decisions. The event was well organized, informative, and featured excellent candidates.

Unfortunately, turnout was not what many had hoped. Approximately 60 people attended.

Folks, we cannot sit this election out.

I understand that President Trump is not on the ballot this year, but that does not make this election any less important. The officials elected in 2026 will make decisions that impact our communities, our schools, public safety, election administration, energy policy, and the future direction of Arizona.

Republican clubs and grassroots organizations spend countless hours organizing forums and securing commitments from candidates to appear before voters. These events are one of the best ways to evaluate candidates beyond campaign mailers and television advertisements. They allow voters to hear directly from those seeking office and determine who best represents their values.

But these efforts only work if citizens show up.

The Republican agenda cannot move forward without voter participation. Every voter who attends a forum, asks a question, volunteers, or simply casts a ballot plays an important role in shaping the future of our state and nation.

My hope is that at the next candidate event, we see many more faces in the audience. The candidates are showing up. The volunteers are showing up. Now it is time for voters to show up as well.

July 21 will be here before we know it. Get informed, get involved, and most importantly, vote.

Arizona Must Do More to Protect Survivors

Recent reporting revealed that the Arizona Secretary of State's Office accidentally released the protected home addresses and telephone numbers of hundreds of vulnerable Arizona voters. The individuals affected were not ordinary voters. They were participants in Arizona's Address Confidentiality Program, a program specifically designed to protect victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, as well as judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers whose safety could be at risk if their personal information becomes public.

According to reports, the error occurred in early 2024 and remained undiscovered for nearly nine months. During that time, confidential information was released to multiple political data firms and researchers through routine public records requests. State law clearly states that the Secretary of State shall not disclose the addresses or telephone numbers of voters enrolled in the confidentiality program except under very limited circumstances.

The recent disclosure that protected information belonging to domestic violence victims was exposed due to errors within the Arizona Secretary of State's Office has made the protection of vulnerable victims more important than ever. That is why it is troubling that Representative Alex Kolodin cast the lone vote against legislation designed to strengthen protections for participants in Arizona's Address Confidentiality Program (ACP). The legislation requires courts to seal an ACP participant's residential address in marital and domestic relations cases and use a substitute address instead. It also establishes criminal penalties for anyone who obtains or discloses protected ACP information for the purpose of harassment, stalking, or domestic violence. If someone is unwilling to support commonsense protections for victims whose lives may depend on confidentiality, they should not be entrusted with overseeing the very program designed to protect them. Arizona domestic violence survivors, and vulnerable families deserve leadership that takes their safety seriously. For those who believe protecting victims must come before politics, Gina Swoboda is the clear choice.

As a survivor of domestic violence myself, this story hits close to home.

Most people who have never experienced abuse do not understand what it takes for a victim to leave an abuser. Leaving is often the most dangerous time. Victims frequently change jobs, move homes, alter daily routines, and take extraordinary steps to protect themselves and their children. Many live with the constant fear that an abuser will find them.

Programs like Arizona's Address Confidentiality Program are not simply administrative conveniences. They can literally be the difference between safety and danger.

While I appreciate that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes' office acknowledged the mistake, attempted to recover the data, and held employees accountable, the incident exposes a larger problem. Government systems are run by human beings, and human beings make mistakes. When a mistake can place victims at risk, we must look beyond damage control and ask what additional protections are needed.

One idea Arizona should seriously consider is following Tennessee's lead by creating a domestic abuser registry. Far too often, abusers move from one victim to the next. A pattern of abuse develops over years, leaving a trail of damaged lives behind them. While law enforcement agencies can access criminal histories, many potential victims have no easy way to determine whether a person they are dating or becoming involved with has a documented history of domestic violence.

Protecting survivors should not end when they escape an abusive relationship. Prevention matters. Information matters. Public safety matters.

The overwhelming majority of people enrolled in confidentiality programs are simply trying to rebuild their lives. They deserve confidence that the government will safeguard their information. They also deserve policymakers willing to explore new tools that can help prevent future abuse before it starts.

The recent data breach serves as a reminder that protecting vulnerable citizens requires constant vigilance. We owe it to survivors, law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors, and every person who relies on these protections to ensure that mistakes like this never happen again.

Arizona created its Address Confidentiality Program with good intentions. Now we must strengthen protections, restore trust, and continue looking for ways to keep survivors safe long after they have found the courage to leave an abusive situation.

Public Meetings, Transparency, and the Maricopa County Election Dispute

With early voting for the July 21 Primary Election beginning on June 24, time is running short for Maricopa County officials to resolve the ongoing dispute between Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

Over the past several months, voters have watched a growing conflict unfold involving lawsuits, court rulings, accusations, legal threats, and competing interpretations of election law. Both sides insist they are acting in the best interests of voters, yet the public disagreement continues to escalate as Election Day approaches.

Most recently, Recorder Heap asked a judge to hold the Board of Supervisors in contempt, alleging the board has failed to comply with a court order concerning election staff, funding, and certain early voting operations. Prior to that filing, Heap's attorney warned the Board that moving forward with county-operated early ballot drop boxes could expose board members and county employees to potential felony charges.

The dispute has created uncertainty among election workers and the public alike.

Former Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell expressed concern about the conflicting messages being sent to county employees. As Purcell noted, when one authority tells workers they are carrying out their duties correctly and another suggests those same actions could be illegal, it becomes increasingly difficult to conduct an election with confidence and certainty.

Meanwhile, Maricopa County Supervisor Debbie Lesko continues to publicly call for a meeting with Recorder Heap to resolve the dispute before voting begins. Importantly, Lesko and the Board have requested that such meetings be conducted publicly and recorded so there is a clear and transparent record of what is discussed and agreed upon.

Supervisor Lesko stated last Thursday, "Just last night, he responded. And he did not want to meet in open and transparent meetings. So again, I call on recorder he to meet with us so we can resolve this for the sake of the voters," said Supervisor Debbie Lesko of District 4 in Maricopa County.

That request raises a simple question: Why not meet publicly?

The Board has repeatedly stated it is willing to meet in an open and transparent setting where voters can see the discussion for themselves. A recorded meeting would eliminate confusion, prevent misunderstandings, and provide accountability for all parties involved. It would also allow voters to hear directly from the officials responsible for administering elections rather than relying on competing press releases, court filings, and media reports.

Transparency is often cited as a cornerstone of election integrity. If both sides genuinely want to reassure voters and avoid further confusion, a public meeting seems like a reasonable place to start.

As early voting approaches, Maricopa County voters deserve answers, cooperation, and confidence that their election officials are working together. Whether that happens may depend on whether both sides are willing to sit down in public view and have the conversation voters have been asking for.

The question remains: if a public, recorded meeting would provide clarity and transparency for voters, why hasn't it happened?

Battery Storage Systems Are Already in Our Neighborhoods

When many people hear the term Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), they immediately think about large industrial facilities and remember the McMicken battery fire that occurred nearly a decade ago. What many do not realize is that battery backup systems are already operating safely in communities across America every day.

Hospitals, emergency operations centers, data centers, telecommunications facilities, schools, and countless businesses rely on battery storage systems as part of their backup power infrastructure. These systems are often located near homes, businesses, and schools. Most people never give them a second thought because they operate safely and quietly in the background.

The reason is simple: technology has changed dramatically.

The McMicken fire occurred in 2019 and involved technology, designs, and safety standards that have evolved significantly since then. Today's battery storage facilities include advanced monitoring systems, thermal management, fire suppression technology, ventilation systems, emergency shutoffs, and strict safety requirements. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has developed comprehensive standards for battery energy storage systems, and modern facilities are designed with those lessons learned in mind.

That is why many experts support setback requirements far smaller than the 1,500-foot setback currently being discussed in Surprise. In fact, modern safety standards generally focus on engineering controls, fire protection systems, and site design rather than extreme separation distances.

The question facing Surprise, and many other cities, is larger than battery storage alone. It is about whether we are planning for the future.

The West Valley continues to experience explosive growth. New homes, businesses, schools, and manufacturing facilities are placing increasing demands on the electrical grid. On some peak-demand days, utilities are already working hard to keep up with the region's growing energy needs.

Battery storage facilities play an important role in addressing that challenge. They store electricity when demand and prices are low and release that energy when demand is high or when additional grid support is needed. This helps stabilize the electrical system, improve reliability, and reduce the risk of shortages during periods of peak usage.

If communities fail to plan for future energy needs today, what happens when growth exceeds available capacity tomorrow? The answer could be reduced reliability, higher costs, and potentially even brownouts during periods of extreme demand.

Battery storage also brings economic benefits. Facilities generate property tax revenue and contribute to local economies. At a time when cities across Arizona are feeling the effects of state and federal tax reductions, local governments are being forced to tighten budgets and evaluate service levels.

Every major project that chooses to locate in a community contributes to the tax base that helps fund public safety, parks, streets, and other city services. If Surprise adopts regulations that effectively discourage battery storage development, those projects and their tax dollars will simply go elsewhere.

Many cities across Arizona and the nation are embracing modern energy infrastructure because they recognize the benefits of increased reliability, economic development, and future growth. They understand that today's battery storage technology is not the same technology that existed a decade ago.

The choice before Surprise is not whether battery storage technology exists. It already does, and it is expanding across the country. The choice is whether Surprise wants to be a leader in attracting investment and preparing for future energy demands or whether it wants to send developers to neighboring communities that are more willing to embrace innovation.

Technology has changed. Safety standards have improved dramatically. Communities throughout the country are benefiting from modern battery storage systems.

The question now is whether Surprise will embrace the future—or risk being left behind and, quite literally, left in the dark.

Republicans Ignore at their own Peril

May 2026 Registration Changes

PartyChange

Independent +2,900

Democrat +516

Republican -1,772

Current Maricopa County Registration Totals

PartyRegistered Voters

Independent 961,334

Republican 896,406

Democrat 716,404

For several years now, Arizona has seen a steady movement away from party registration and toward Independent status. Once upon a time, Republicans held a commanding registration advantage. Today, Independents are the largest voting bloc in Maricopa County.

What does this tell us?

Republicans lost 1,772 registered voters in one month. This is a frightening trend.

Some Republicans argue that the party's problem is that candidates are not conservative enough. However, the election results tell a different story. Arizona voters have repeatedly demonstrated that candidates perceived as too far to the right struggle in statewide general elections.

Whether Republicans like it or not, Arizona is no longer a deep-red state. It is a competitive state where statewide races are won and lost by persuading Independent voters.

Recent history provides several examples. Republicans have won statewide offices with candidates who could appeal beyond the Republican base. At the same time, candidates who energized the most conservative voters but failed to attract Independents have struggled in general elections.

Kari Lake's two statewide losses are often cited as evidence of this challenge. While she generated tremendous enthusiasm among Republican activists, it was not enough to overcome opposition from Democrats and skepticism from many Independent voters.

This is not about my personal politics. It is about data.

The largest group of voters in Maricopa County is now Independents. Republicans can no longer win statewide elections by focusing exclusively on Republican primary voters. Winning the primary is only the first step. The real challenge is building a coalition broad enough to win in November.

Republicans must ask themselves an important question:

Do we want a candidate who wins the primary but loses the general election?

Or do we want a conservative Republican who can hold Republican voters while attracting enough Independents to defeat Democrats in November?

If Republicans nominate candidates who cannot appeal to Independent voters, Arizona could very well spend another four years with Governor Katie Hobbs, Attorney General Kris Mayes, and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.

The registration numbers released this month are more than statistics. They are a warning sign. The voters who decide Arizona elections are increasingly choosing not to register with either major party.

The party that understands that reality—and adapts to it—will be the party that wins statewide elections in the future.

Blocked Crossings, Delayed Emergency Response, and the Cost of BNSF's Expansion

The West Valley is one of the fastest-growing regions in America. With that growth comes challenges. We need roads, utilities, schools, public safety resources, and infrastructure capable of supporting hundreds of thousands of new residents.

One challenge that receives far less attention than it deserves is rail traffic.

Residents throughout Surprise, El Mirage, and other West Valley communities regularly encounter trains stopped across major intersections for extended periods. Sometimes the delays are a few minutes. Other times residents report being trapped for 45 minutes, 60 minutes, or even longer.

The frustration is understandable.

Taxpayers spend millions of dollars building and maintaining roads and intersections designed to move people efficiently through their communities. Yet when a train stops across all crossing, traffic comes to a complete standstill. Businesses are impacted. Workers are delayed. Parents are late picking up children. Entire traffic corridors can become gridlocked.

Many states have laws that prohibit railroads from blocking intersections for extended periods and authorize fines when trains obstruct crossings beyond a specified amount of time. Unfortunately, those laws often provide little practical relief because railroads frequently operate under federal authority that limits state and local enforcement.

Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia have adopted laws or regulations limiting how long trains may block crossings.

Courts have repeatedly struck down or rendered those laws unenforceable on the grounds that federal law preempts state and local regulation of railroad operations.

Legal analyses note that virtually every court to consider these blocked-crossing laws under federal preemption has ruled against the states or municipalities attempting to enforce them.

States including Oklahoma, Ohio, Indiana, Texas, Illinois, California, and others have been involved in major court battles over blocked-crossing statutes. In each case, railroads argued that federal law gives the federal government exclusive authority over railroad operations, and courts largely agreed.

The frustrating reality is that states have repeatedly tried to hold railroads accountable for blocking crossings, only to be told they lack the authority to do so. Oklahoma enacted a law allowing fines against railroads that blocked intersections for more than ten minutes. After BNSF challenged the law, federal courts ruled that federal railroad regulations preempt state authority, and in 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Oklahoma's appeal, leaving the lower court ruling in place. As a result, Oklahoma's blocked-crossing law became essentially unenforceable. The message to local communities was clear: even when trains block roads, delay commuters, and potentially impact emergency response times, states and cities have very limited power to force railroads to change their behavior.

The result is a frustrating reality for local governments and residents alike. Cities receive complaints. Councilmembers make calls. Discussions occur. Sometimes conditions improve briefly. Then the problem always returns.

Local officials often find themselves with very few tools available to address the issue.

This is one reason many West Valley residents are concerned about BNSF's proposed intermodal facility in Wittmann.

The project would dramatically increase rail activity in the area while generating thousands of additional truck trips each day. More rail activity means more opportunities for blocked crossings and more disruptions to surrounding communities.

The concern goes far beyond inconvenience.

What happens when an ambulance is transporting a patient to a hospital and encounters a blocked crossing?

What happens when firefighters are responding to a structure fire?

What happens when law enforcement officers are attempting to reach an emergency situation?

In emergency response, seconds matter. Delays can have serious consequences.

BNSF often emphasizes the economic benefits of its projects, and economic development is important. But residents also deserve to know what the real-world impacts will be on the communities that must live with those projects every day.

Many West Valley residents already feel that BNSF has not been a good neighbor. Complaints have ranged from blocked crossings to maintenance issues, debris concerns, and lighting impacts. Whether those concerns are justified or not, they reflect a growing frustration among citizens who feel their voices are not being heard.

The proposed Wittmann intermodal hub would bring those concerns to an entirely new scale.

This is not simply a debate about trains. It is a debate about quality of life, public safety, local control, and whether communities have any meaningful ability to protect their residents from the impacts of projects imposed upon them.

The people of the West Valley deserve infrastructure that moves traffic efficiently, supports emergency response, and respects the communities it serves.

Before approving a massive rail project in Wittmann, policymakers should ask a simple question:

If residents are already struggling with blocked crossings today, what will conditions look like after one of the largest rail facilities in the Southwest is built?

The answer should concern every resident of the West Valley.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE YOUR CLUB LISTED PLEASE CONTACT ME