Sides

The preliminary memorandum represents the first formal framework outlining how Washington and Tehran intend to move from military confrontation toward diplomacy.

While many details remain unpublished, statements from U.S., Iranian and Pakistani officials provide a broad outline of the deal’s structure.

Rather than resolving every dispute immediately, the agreement establishes a phased process aimed at reducing tensions first and addressing more difficult issues later.

The approach reflects the reality that both sides were able to reach consensus on ending hostilities more easily than on the underlying disputes that fueled the conflict.

Phase One: Ending the Fighting

The first stage focuses on immediate de-escalation.

According to mediator Pakistan, both sides have agreed to permanently halt military operations across all fronts.

The formal memorandum is expected to be signed in Switzerland, after which implementation would begin.

The objective of this phase is straightforward: stop active hostilities, reduce the risk of escalation, and create space for broader negotiations.

This represents the most immediate achievement of the agreement and is likely the reason markets reacted positively.

Reopening the Strait of Hormuz

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is arguably the agreement’s most significant economic provision.

The waterway serves as one of the world’s most important energy transit routes and has been at the center of global concerns throughout the conflict.

Both sides indicate that commercial shipping will resume following the signing of the memorandum.

The restoration of maritime traffic could:

• Increase global oil supply.
• Reduce shipping disruptions.
• Ease pressure on energy prices.
• Lower inflation risks for major economies.

However, questions remain over how the route will be governed.

Iran has suggested it will coordinate management of traffic with Oman, potentially giving Tehran a more formal role in overseeing one of the world’s most strategically important waterways.

That issue could become a future source of diplomatic friction.

The Nuclear Issue Has Been Deferred

The most controversial subject in the negotiations remains unresolved.

Rather than settling the nuclear dispute immediately, both sides appear to have agreed to address it during a 60-day negotiation period.

According to Iranian officials, Tehran would freeze nuclear activities during that time by halting additional enrichment and refraining from expanding facilities.

The long-term future of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains unclear.

Washington continues to emphasize inspections and preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Tehran continues to insist that its nuclear program is peaceful and seeks recognition of its right to maintain civilian nuclear activities.

These competing positions are likely to dominate the next phase of talks.

Sanctions Relief Could Shape the Success of the Deal

Economic issues may ultimately prove as difficult as nuclear negotiations.

Iran expects meaningful sanctions relief as part of any final settlement.

Iranian officials have spoken about:

• Temporary waivers on oil sanctions.
• The release of frozen assets.
• Financial support mechanisms.
• A pathway toward lifting U.S. and international sanctions.

The Trump administration has signaled a more cautious approach.

Washington has indicated that sanctions relief will depend on Iranian compliance and future negotiations rather than automatic implementation.

This difference highlights one of the central tensions in the agreement: each side expects benefits on different timelines.

Lebanon Remains a Flashpoint

The agreement’s treatment of Lebanon illustrates how regional conflicts have become intertwined.

Iran views a ceasefire in Lebanon as a critical component of the broader settlement.

Lebanese political leaders have welcomed the inclusion of Lebanon in the framework.

Israel, however, has made clear that it does not consider itself bound by all aspects of the agreement and intends to maintain military positions in areas it views as strategically important.

This creates uncertainty about whether the Lebanon component can be implemented as envisioned.

The issue could quickly become one of the first tests of the agreement’s durability.

Why This Matters

The memorandum matters because it shifts the conflict from the battlefield to the negotiating table.

The agreement addresses several immediate concerns:

• Rising energy prices.
• Shipping disruptions.
• Escalating regional instability.
• Growing economic uncertainty.

At the same time, it leaves the most difficult questions unresolved.

This means the framework should be viewed as the beginning of a diplomatic process rather than its conclusion.

Its success will depend on whether negotiators can transform temporary understandings into binding commitments.

Key Stakeholders

• United States
• Iran
• Pakistan (mediator)
• Israel
• Lebanon
• Oman
• European powers
• Gulf Arab states
• International energy markets
• Global shipping industry
• International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and nuclear inspectors

What to Watch Next

• Formal signing of the memorandum in Switzerland.
• Reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
• Progress during the 60-day negotiation period.
• Discussions on Iran’s nuclear program.
• Decisions regarding sanctions relief.
• Reactions from Congress and international partners.
• Israeli actions in Lebanon and other contested areas.

The memorandum creates a framework for de-escalation, but its long-term success remains uncertain.

If implemented effectively, the agreement could stabilize energy markets, reduce regional tensions, and create momentum for broader diplomatic engagement.

However, many of the issues that triggered the conflict remain unresolved.

Nuclear enrichment, sanctions, regional security arrangements, and competing strategic interests are all likely to generate difficult negotiations.

The coming 60 days will therefore be more important than the announcement itself.

They will determine whether the framework becomes a durable peace process or merely a temporary pause in a conflict whose underlying disputes remain intact.

Analysis

The structure of the agreement reveals a pragmatic calculation by both Washington and Tehran.

Rather than attempting to solve every dispute at once, negotiators prioritized issues where agreement was achievable: ending active hostilities, reopening shipping routes, and creating a mechanism for future talks.

This approach reflects the political realities facing both governments.

For President Trump, reducing energy prices and ending a costly conflict addresses growing domestic pressure. For Iran, halting military operations while preserving room to negotiate on sanctions and nuclear issues offers a path to economic relief without immediate capitulation.

Yet the framework’s greatest strength may also be its greatest weakness.

By postponing the hardest questions, the agreement creates momentum for diplomacy but also leaves significant room for disagreement later. Nuclear enrichment, sanctions relief, and regional security arrangements are not peripheral issues—they are the core disputes that drove the conflict.

As a result, the memorandum should be viewed less as a peace treaty and more as a diplomatic bridge. It lowers immediate risks and creates opportunities for negotiation, but it does not yet resolve the strategic rivalry between the United States and Iran.

Whether this becomes a historic breakthrough or a temporary truce will depend on what happens after the signatures are placed on the document. The real negotiations are only beginning.

With information from Reuters.

What to do after writing some of this century’s most devastating songs about the torment of breaking up? Write some of this century’s most devastating songs about the ecstasy of getting together.

With her first two albums — 2021’s Grammy-winning “Sour” and 2023’s triple-platinum “Guts” — Olivia Rodrigo proved herself to be perhaps the most gifted of the many chroniclers of Gen Z romance to emerge in Taylor Swift’s wake. She could convey the hot sting of betrayal, as in her smash debut single, “Drivers License”; she could channel the injustice of watching an ex somehow carry on, as in “Good 4 U”; she could deliver a sick burn like somebody handing out Halloween candy, as in “Get Him Back!” (Because it deserves remembering: “He had an ego and a temper and a wandering eye / He said he’s six-foot-two, and I’m like, ‘Dude, nice try.’”)

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Yet on her thrilling third LP, “You Seem Pretty Sad for a Girl So in Love,” Rodrigo, 23, turns to the pleasure that comes before the pain — and, in a feat very few in pop music are ever able to pull off, ends up with a number of first-flush-of-love songs as potent as any breakup tune.

She opens the album with “Drop Dead,” in which she compares a guy in line for the bathroom at a bar to an “angel on the walls of Versailles” — an early sign of how high the emotional ceiling is here. In “Stupid Song” she cycles through a series of metaphors to describe her lovesickness — she’s a car without a brake, she’s a heart made of melting wax — before finding a simpler but infinitely more vivid way of getting her point across: “You should feel how I feel when somebody says your name.” (Chills.)

“Maggots for Brains” is a song about how useless she becomes “when my baby goes away,” and let’s just take a second to savor the fact that Rodrigo is putting that title into the world less than four years after she was still a working Disney kid. The album’s next tune, “U + Me = <3,” is its high point: a euphoric promise of devotion that sounds like Sixpence None the Richer reborn as a Midwestern emo band. It’s got two young lovers carving their names into car seat leather, and it’s got a girl trying to impress her boyfriend’s older sister with her cynical humor and her taste in yacht rock.

More important, it’s got these lines of pure poetry: “They say modern love’s a cruel endeavor / And to that I say, F— it, whatever.” Kurt Cobain would be proud.

Working with her longtime producer, Dan Nigro, Rodrigo has expanded her stylistic palette to accommodate these new emotions; “You Seem Pretty Sad” pulls in chiming folk-rock and synthed-up new wave and even has a gorgeous wine-bar piano ballad, “Less,” that might put the scare in Rodrigo’s pal Laufey.

The cover of Olivia Rodrigo’s new album.

(Geffen Records)

The album is structured to trace the arc of a relationship, which means that the second half dips into the heartbreak we’re used to getting from Rodrigo. But she’s writing about familiar scenarios with new wisdom, drawing sophisticated conclusions about why people in love do the things they do (and don’t do the things they don’t).

In “The Cure,” which rides a strummed acoustic-guitar pattern that strongly recalls Smashing Pumpkins’ “Disarm,” she realizes a boyfriend can’t fix what’s broken inside her; “Begged” examines the limits of one partner’s willingness to look past the failings of the other. After hearing these songs, the happier ones at the beginning of the album reveal bits of shadow that Rodrigo has built into them to presage what’s to come — to presage what always comes.

It’s fitting, then, that Robert Smith of the Cure — perhaps pop’s most jubilant gloommeister — hovers over this LP like a patron saint: nodded to in “The Cure,” of course, but also “Drop Dead,” where Rodrigo name-checks the Cure’s classic “Just Like Heaven.” Smith himself turns up in “What’s Wrong With Me” for a duet with Rodrigo in which the two learn to accept that love, in the end, might be what kills them.

“My head is spinning and my stomach is sick,” they sing, and neither sounds like they’d have it any other way.

BEIRUT — Israel and Iran traded fire on Monday, all but derailing a brittle two-month ceasefire that had largely stopped the fighting in the U.S and Israel’s assault on Iran.

The tit-for-tat attacks between the two sides threaten to widen the scope of a conflict that has already killed and wounded thousands, displaced more than a million people and rattled economies across the globe — even while embroiling the U.S. in a war with no clear off-ramp.

“Israel and Iran must immediately stop ‘shooting.’ ” wrote President Trump early Monday on his social media platform, Truth Social.

Later, he wrote, “Both sides, Israel and Iran, are looking to do an immediate CEASEFIRE!”

“Final negotiations on ‘Peace’ are proceeding, subject to ignorance or stupidity getting in its way. The Blockade will remain in place, and in full force and effect, until a ‘Final Deal’ is reached. Things should move quickly.”

The latest escalation came after Israel attacked the suburbs of Lebanon’s capital Beirut on Sunday in what it said was a targeted strike against Hezbollah, an Iran-supported paramilitary faction and political party.

In recent days, Iran conditioned a ceasefire agreement with Israel and the U.S. on a cessation of hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon, threatening it would respond to any Israeli action on the Lebanese capital. Israel rejects linking both battlefields, and insists on having a free hand to attack Hezbollah.

A number of U.S.-brokered ceasefires between the Lebanese and Israeli governments — but without Hezbollah involvement — failed to stop most of the fighting, with Israeli warplanes pounding wide swaths of Lebanon’s south while Hezbollah launched drones and missiles on northern Israel. Nevertheless, the Lebanese government has rejected being included in Iran’s negotiations with the U.S.

By Sunday night, Iran’s threats came to pass with several waves of Iranian ballistic missiles, which caused no injuries and were the first Tehran had fired at Israel since a ceasefire took hold in April. Iran’s military said the fusillade was a warning. But Israel said it would retaliate.

President Trump initially downplayed the Iranian attack on Sunday, saying in an interview with the Financial Times Iran’s barrage was “not going to have any impact on the deal.”

“We’ll see how it ends up. But they [the Iranian strikes on Israel] were attacks that did not kick at all,” he said.

“The deal may make it on its own merit, or not, but this will not have any effect on it.”

Trump also told the Axios news site he would talk to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop him retaliating against Iran’s barrage.

He also told the Financial Times that Netanyahu “won’t have any choice” but to accept the deal Trump negotiates with Iran.

“I call the shots. I call all the shots. He [Netanyahu] doesn’t call the shots,” Trump said.

Yet by the early morning on Monday, dozens of Israeli warplanes were striking western and central Iran. They hit a petrochemical complex in Mahshahr in southwestern Iran, and waged extensive strikes on “strategic defense systems,” according to Israeli military statements, in what observers said was a prelude to a wider offensive. Residents in Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz and Shiraz reported powerful explosions.

The Israeli military said in a statement it expected several days of fighting with Iran but was prepared for a prolonged campaign. It said the strikes on Iran were conducted by Israel on its own, but that they had been done in “full coordination” with U.S. Central Command, which also helped in intercepting Iranian missiles launched at Israel.

But that distinction appeared to matter little to Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Esmail Baghaei, who said in a press conference on Monday that the U.S held direct responsibility for recent ceasefire violations and Israel’s action “cannot be looked at in isolation from the U.S.”

“No one believes the Israeli regime would take any action without coordination with the United States,” he said.

“The U.S. bears responsibility for the Israeli regime’s aggression, and it will also be responsible for the consequences of any escalation in tensions.”

Iran launched additional barrages throughout Monday, targeting Israeli airbases in Nevatim and Tel Nof and a petrochemical plant in Haifa, according to a statement from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. It added Israel was engaging in “a dangerous game by targeting civilian and oil infrastructure — a game that will now encompass all regional energy targets, with global economic consequences resting on America.”

The renewed hostilities also saw Yemen’s Houthis — who receive support from Iran and Hezbollah, and are part of a regional network of Iran-backed factions — enter the fray with a pair of ballistic missiles lobbed at Israel. The Israeli military said one of the missiles was intercepted; the second fell short of Israel.

Houthi spokesman Brig. Gen. Yahya Sarea confirmed the attack in a televised statement on Monday, and said Israeli maritime navigation in the Red Sea would be targeted.

During the Gaza war, the Houthis attacked commercial shipping in the Red Sea — including ships with no link to Israel — to pressure Israel into lifting its blockade on the enclave.

But, unlike Hezbollah, which attacked Israel on March 2, three days after the U.S. and Israeli campaign on Iran, the Houthis had refrained from helping their ally, until Monday.

Their involvement now raises the specter of another squeeze on energy markets already beleaguered by closures on the Strait of Hormuz. Since the U.S.-Israeli assault, the Red Sea has acted as the main alternative conduit for energy supplies, especially for those from Saudi Arabia. If the Houthis closed the Bab Al-Mandab Strait, it would all but paralyze commercial flows.

Oil prices spiked in the wake of the exchanges, with Brent Crude rising 5% to hit $98 a barrel.

MAURA Higgins has sparked an unexpected Dancing With The Stars feud as she took sides after a pro dancer’s bitter split from his ex-girlfriend.

The 35-year-old landed the biggest job in American telly back in April after her successful stint on The US Traitors.

Maura was snapped up for the job, which is the US equivalent of Strictly Come Dancing, as she continues to crack the showbiz scene out there.

In a recent interview, the reality star confessed the pro dancer she really doesn’t want to be paired with.

While she would love have Mark Ballas or Val Chmerkovskiy as her partner there’s one man that it seems would really hit a nerve.

Maura said: “To be honest, I’m okay to have anyone else – I just don’t want [Gleb Savchenko]. That’s the main thing for me, you know?”

Read more on Maura Higgins

MORE & MAURA

Maura Higgins’ US domination continues as she poses in bikinis at catwalk show

DANCE-PHWOAR

Maura Higgins shows off her abs in routine with Dancing With The Stars pro

The TV personality and model assured fans she wasn’t trying to be “mean” but was simply sticking up for her good pal Brooks Nader.

“It’s just because I get on with [Brooks], and that’s that. I’m on Brooks’ side. I’m a loyalist, okay,” she added.

Actress Brooks, 29, “really fell” for Gleb while they were competing on the show together back in 2024.

The Russian dancer, 42, has gained a reputation for being a “playboy” over the years after being linked to his partners from previous seasons.

Brooks and Gleb had quite the messy break up just seven months after their romance begun.

Reality star Brooks accused Gleb of cheating and he denied all of those allegations.

During Episode 3 of Alex Cooper‘s Unwell Winter Games earlier this year, Gleb called the Sports Illustrated model “crazy.”

He even made brutal comments about their sex life.

Maura and Brooks appear to have struck up a friendship after meeting at events over in America.

The girls posed for snaps together at a Vanity Fair party back in March and it seems they have only grown closer.

Former Love Island star Maura has proved she has Brooks’ back as she risked sparking a huge feud.

The celebrities’ pro dancer partners will be announced later this year.

Dancing With The Stars is set to kick of following it’s usual schedule in the Autumn.

Broderick Turner and Thuc Nhi Nguyen reported that Lakers coach JJ Redick said, “The Thunder is one of the greatest teams ever in NBA history.” Maybe Redick is right. The Lakers were able to contain Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, and with Jalen Williams not playing, OKC still won Games 1 and 2 by 18 points each.

Hopefully the Lakers can avoid a sweep when they return to The Crypt, but it doesn’t look very likely, not when committing 39 turnovers in two games.

Vaughn Hardenberg
Westwood

It was so bush league to see the Lakers crowd around the beleagued referees at the end of an 18-point loss to the Thunder in Game 2. The number of free throws was nearly even, favoring OKC 26-21. There are no bigger whiners in the league than LeBron James, Luka Doncic, Austin Reaves and Deandre Ayton, who have in their minds never committed a foul and are always fouled with no call on any possession. This is playoff basketball — grow up and play ball. The results in this series speak for themselves.

Bob Goldstone

Corona del Mar

You cannot tell me that the defensive “mauling” allowed by NBA officials during the playoffs would be tolerated during the regular season. It almost looks like the NBA upper brass — Adam Silver and his cohorts/consultants — have directly or indirectly “suggested” that referees simply “let ‘em play.”

This inconsistency and change of “style“ by the officials has either confused or frustrated many offensive players as well as some fans. To me, a foul is a foul, period! Considerations like superstar or rookie, home team or visitors, the fourth quarter versus the first, closing minutes or seconds of a game, regular season versus the playoffs should not matter.

Rick Solomon
Lake Balboa

I’m watching Lakers-Thunder Game 2 and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander is running into people and getting the Michael Jordan treatment. Everything is a foul against the Lakers. On the another hand, LeBron James is getting the stuffing beat out of him and no calls. Coach JJ Redick needs to bring this bias up with the media and put the spotlight on the refs. That’s what Phil Jackson and Pat Riley would do. Lakers fans can start a go-fund-me page for the fine.

Ed Villanueva
Chino Hills

Within days of California’s long-anticipated single-use plastic law going into effect, environmentalists, anti-waste activists and the packaging industry reacted with anger and frustration.

Anti-plastic activists say Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration and CalRecycle inserted exemptions favoring the plastic industry into the law’s regulations that weaken it and undermine legislative intent.

“These new rules create huge loopholes for plastic packaging that violate the law,” said Avinash Kar, senior director of the toxics program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

On the other side, the packaging industry has sued over similar laws in other states. “Our members have real concerns about cost, compliance, and constitutionality,” said Matt Clarke, spokesman for the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors, which sued Oregon earlier this year over a similar waste law.

CalRecycle, the state’s waste agency, did not respond in time for publication. The final regulations putting the law into effect were released May 1 and posted for review Tuesday.

The environmental organizations say the law’s new final regulations open the door to what is known as “chemical recycling,” which produces large amounts of hazardous waste. The law also contains problematic exemptions for certain categories of plastic foodware, they say.

The language of the law forbids any kind of recycling that would produce significant amounts of hazardous waste. The new regulations allow for these recycling methods if the facilities are properly permitted.

The new regulations also exempt certain products if they are already covered by federal law. For instance, a packaging company, retailer or distributor can claim that they have such a preemption, Kar said, and CalRecycle might not immediately review that claim. “And as long as they don’t review it, they’ll get the exemption for as long as CalRecycle doesn’t review it,” creating a potential “forever loophole.”

“Californians were promised a system where producers take real responsibility for the waste they create,” said Nick Lapis, advocacy director for Californians Against Waste. “When regulations introduce broad exemptions and redefine key terms, that promise starts to erode. The details matter here, and right now they don’t line up with the intent of the law.”

Senate Bill 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was signed by Newsom in 2022. It was considered landmark legislation because it addressed the scourge of single-use plastics, requiring plastic and packaging companies to use less of them and ensuring that by 2032, all food packaging is either recyclable or compostable.

Accumulating plastic waste is overwhelming waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.

The law’s intent was not only to reduce it, but also to put the onus and cost of dealing with it on packaging producers and manufacturers, not consumers and local governments. It was supposed to incentivize companies to consider the fate of their products and spur innovation in material redesign.

According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale, or distributed during 2023 in California.

Similar laws have been passed in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington. Oregon’s law, however, is on hold while a lawsuit by the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors works its way through the courts.

“We see a lot of the same problems in California that we flagged in Oregon,” said Clarke, the trade group spokesman. “Given California’s scale, the cost implications are going to be even larger. Our legal counsel has noted that California’s proposed fees are already higher than what other states have put forward.”

Jan Dell of Last Beach Cleanup, an anti-plastic waste group based in Laguna Beach, doesn’t believe the law will work — irrespective of the final regulations — and said the “exorbitant” cost of its implementation will either spur producers to sue, or they’ll end up passing the higher costs onto consumers.

She referred to a report from the Circular Action Alliance, the state-sanctioned group established to represent and oversee the implementation of the law on behalf of the plastic and packaging industry. It finds the law will increase the cost of disposal between six and 14 times for common products, such as Windex bottles, made of polyethylene terephthalate.

“If the producers don’t successfully sue to stop the fees, this will certainly add to product inflation for CA consumers,” she said in an email. “Californians already have to pay exorbitantly high curbside collection fees for trash, recycling, and organics … so, starting in 2027, our groceries will cost a LOT more but we won’t see a reduction in our waste bills.”

Christopher “Smitty” Smith, a partner at law firm Saul Ewing in Los Angeles, who councils companies and interest groups on SB 54 and other Extended Producer Liability laws, said that although he could see areas of the law that “could be sharper and avoid the legal challenges … you can’t stop people from suing.” Environmentalists and anti-waste activists say they are preparing a lawsuit.

Smith said the law already has sparked changes in how companies think and respond to concerns about waste.

One of his national fast-food chain clients has realized that if its brand name is on plastic packaging, it’s that company’s responsibility, he said, so “they’ve spent the past year mapping out their franchise agreements, their supply chain agreements, their producer agreements, to figure out” what it needs to do to comply.

He said in the past, companies have paid little attention to these details and just let their franchisees figure this kind of thing out. Now, they’re spending a lot of time and money “to wrap their arms around what their supply chain looks like and like, what post consumer use of their plastic products looks like and what their regulatory obligations are.”

It’s bringing a new dialogue within companies. And that, Smith said, is what could make this law so powerful.

Times staff writer Meg Tanaka contributed to this report.

PHOENIX — The top election official in Arizona’s most populous county will get more authority in running elections after a judge sided with his office in a prolonged legal fight with the local board that shares responsibility for overseeing the vote.

The decision could have broad implications in one of the nation’s most prominent battleground states, which will have several high-profile races this fall. Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, has been roiled by election conspiracy theorists ever since President Trump lost the state to Democrat Joe Biden during his bid for reelection in 2020.

Justin Heap, the Republican recorder in Maricopa County, sued the predominantly Republican county board of supervisors last summer, alleging it had illegally taken control of certain aspects of election administration. Heap claimed the board transferred funding, IT staff and some key functions — including management of ballot drop boxes and establishing early voting sites — away from his office through an agreement negotiated with his predecessor, whom he had recently defeated in a GOP primary.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney mostly sided with Heap’s office in his ruling, which was filed Thursday but appeared on the public docket Friday. The board of supervisors “acted unlawfully and exceeded its statutory authority by seizing the Recorder’s personnel, systems and equipment and refusing to return them” to the recorder, he wrote.

Blaney also ruled that the recorder’s office is responsible for overseeing in-person early voting, among other duties, while the board is responsible for other operations, such as selecting election day voting locations, supplying polling locations and hiring poll workers.

“The Board’s assertion of plenary authority over election administration through its general supervisory powers is inconsistent with Arizona law,” the judge wrote.

Board Chairwoman Kate Brophy McGee said the board will consider an appeal.

“I disagree with other portions of the ruling, and I will explore all options with the Board of Supervisors, including an expeditious appeal,” McGee, a Republican, said in a statement. “From day one, the Board of Supervisors has provided Recorder Heap the resources and staffing needed to fulfill his statutory duties. We will continue to do so because voters always come first.”

In a statement, Heap praised the ruling as a “clear and decisive victory for the rule of law and for the voters of Maricopa County.”

“The court confirmed that the Board cannot override state law, use funding as leverage, or take control of election duties assigned to the Recorder,” Heap said. “This ruling restores both the authority and the resources necessary for my office to do its job.”

Heap, a former Republican state lawmaker, was elected in 2024 after unseating incumbent Stephen Richer in the GOP primary and defeating a Democratic candidate in the general election. In the past, Heap has stopped short of repeating false claims that the 2020 and 2022 elections were stolen but has said voters don’t trust the state’s voting system and that it’s poorly run.

False claims of fraud since the 2020 presidential election led to threats of violence against Richer and others in the Maricopa County elections office. Richer blamed Heap for contributing to an atmosphere of distrust and vitriol directed toward the office.

“He catered to the really ugly stuff that the people in that office had to live through,” Richer said of Heap, in an interview last month. “And he allied with people who were very much in the eye of the storm in terms of creating it.”

Once he took office, Heap terminated a previous agreement that was reached between Richer and the board that had revised how election operations were divided between the two offices. Heap filed his lawsuit with the backing of America First Legal, a conservative public interest group founded by Stephen Miller, now deputy chief of staff in the White House.

Kelety writes for the Associated Press.