Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Defining the Democracy Movement: Stephen Richer

Opinion

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's weekly interviews engage diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This series is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

Stephen Richer is the former Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, and a current Senior Practice Fellow in American Democracy at the Ash Center at Harvard University.


For the last four years, Stephen was responsible for voter registration, early voting administration, and public recordings in Maricopa County, Arizona, the fourth-largest county in the United States.

Stephen gained widespread acclaim in many corners and scorn in others for his efforts to defend the results of the 2020 presidential and 2022 midterm elections. A committed Republican, Stephen stood up to many in his party, including President Trump, who pushed fraud narratives and conducted dubious audits. Additionally, Stephen worked tirelessly to convert election denialists, promoting extreme transparency, including frequent comprehensive tours of the election facility.

Probably because of his efforts to advocate for elections, Stephen lost the Republican primary in Maricopa in 2024. However, he is staying in the game, continuing to lead efforts to reform and improve elections and serving as an active member of the pro-democracy field.

I have gotten to know Stephen as a friend and colleague and am inspired by his work to put principles above party and his own career. At the same time, he is sober about the challenges ahead for democracy, having lost his job because of his efforts.

His advice for the field is both needed, and he is also struggling for the best road forward, as we all are now. His main reflections included:

  • A collective action problem has only gotten worse for Republicans: There is often a stated need from those in the pro-democracy field for Republicans to continuously and vigorously speak out against President Trump and his authoritarian tendencies. Stephen did, becoming a pseudo-celebrity for his pro-democracy activities, and lost his seat to a recorder who has espoused election denialist rhetoric.

As Stephen noted, this “is a very serious collective action. Every single person elected official on the Republican right over the last 5 years can tell you that there have been plenty of people who have said, this is not my cup of tea. I wish this would all go away. This is nonsense, but if anyone who sticks their neck out, it just gets whacked off immediately, either they get targeted online, or if they get primaried.”

This is a big problem, but there’s no easy solution. As Stephen went to observe: “The most frustrating thing to me was the number of higher profile elected Republicans, former elected Republicans who privately would sing my praises, thank me for doing the right thing but then wouldn't say darn thing publicly, or would even endorse some of the people who were my detractors."

It's easy to say that Republicans should speak out. However, the associated action is more complicated when they lose or get targeted.

  • There is a need to pick battles right now: A ton of action is coming out of the federal government. Stephen urges pro-democracy actors to be judicious as they pick their battles. The distinction between opposing Trump and advocating for democracy is a challenging but important endeavor.

As Stephen notes, “The pro-democracy movement needs to figure out its messaging better, and I still think that a lot of people are carrying on as if it's just politics as usual..But at the same time, we need to separate some of that messaging from just messaging (focused on I don't like Donald Trump. So therefore, I'm going to criticize him for everything, because I do think that there's a decent amount of eye rolling from the average American. If you consistently say democracy is under attack, or we have a constitutional crisis every single day…We need to study what actually resonates with Americans. And then we need to let them know when those things are happening, and we need to remind them that those things are happening.”

  • Pro-democracy should not be confused as espousing all progressive policies: Stephen is a Republican who has placed principles above party loyalty. But that should not be confused with Stephen supporting all progressive policies. There is sometimes a dangerous tendency to assume that all Republicans who speak out against dangerous tendencies in their own party are on board with all priorities on the left.
Stephen admitted that one of the most frequent rebuttals he hears from the right about continuing to support Trump is a deep frustration with Democrats' policies. Progressives may roll their eyes at this thinking, but it exists, and it’s important to recognize it. Along these lines, it’s also important for those on the left to call out their own- and not worry about both sides-ism. Stephen wishes that more Democrats would have called out anti-democratic behavior from the Biden Administration: “I think it would have been very helpful if all the left that said like, no, that's an abuse of the pardon process and undermines the rule of law.” I appreciate Stephen’s honesty and candor. There’s a lot to be learned from conservatives standing up for principles and listening to their concerns with the pro-democracy movement.

Scott Warren is a fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. He is co-leading a trans-partisan effort to protect the basic parameters, rules, and institutions of the American republic. He is the co-founder of Generation Citizen, a national civics education organization.

SUGGESTIONS:

Defining the Democracy Movement: Andy Moore

Defining the Democracy Reform Movement: Rev. F. Willis Johnson

Defining the Democracy Reform Movement: Julia Roig


Read More

An illustration of two people on opposite sides of a floor.

A new Pew Research survey shows most Americans question each other’s morality. Can civic friendship—championed by Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln—restore trust in U.S. democracy?

Getty Images, Boris Zhitkov

Can Democracy Survive When Americans See Each Other as “Bad People”?

Last week brought more bad news for American democracy when the Pew Research Center released survey results showing that “Americans are more likely than people in other countries surveyed in 2025 to question the morality of their fellow countrymen.” As Pew reports, “The United States is the only place we surveyed where more adults (ages 18 and older) describe the morality and ethics of others living in the country as bad (53%) than as good (47%).”

It is one thing for people in a democracy to disagree about policies or who should lead the country. It is quite another for them to think of their fellow countrymen as immoral. Without a presumption of goodwill, even among those with whom we disagree, democratic politics runs aground.

Keep ReadingShow less
A stone bench with the word "Trust" etched in its side.
Photo by Dave Lowe on Unsplash

America’s Love and Trust Crisis

Last night, the President of the United States stood before Congress for nearly two hours and showed us exactly what America’s love and trust crisis looks like.

He called Democratic lawmakers “crazy.” He accused them of cheating. He pointed at half the chamber with contempt. Members of Congress shouted back. One was escorted out for holding a sign that read “Black People Aren’t Apes”—a reference to a video the President himself posted depicting the Obamas as primates. Democrats walked out. Republicans roared. The longest State of the Union in modern history became a spectacle of mutual degradation in the very chamber where we are supposed to govern ourselves together as one people under God.

Keep ReadingShow less
Friends, Conversation, and Social Cohesion During a Time of Polarization
selective focus photography of USA flaglet
Photo by Raúl Nájera on Unsplash

Friends, Conversation, and Social Cohesion During a Time of Polarization

In the middle of last summer, a group of old college friends, now over the age of forty, flew across the United States to a rural hunting lodge in Georgia. For three days, they stayed on the property, threw the football around, retold old stories, and played practical jokes on one another. One friend, a jack-of-all-trades, taught them how to refine their fishing skills, shoot guns, and better appreciate the outdoors. Every so often, one would sneak away to call a significant other or speak with their children. Meals were prepared together, and advance planning was kept to a minimum. Briefly free from the demands and worries of modern living, they were able to live in the moment.

For more than twenty years, this group has met in various locations across the United States. They took a road trip along the Pacific Coast Highway, camped in the Rocky Mountains, and spearfished in the Florida Keys. At other times, they rented Airbnbs to explore new cities and towns. Some of their best memories come from these gatherings. On one occasion, a friend led an epic karaoke session, delivering a full-throated rendition of Meat Loaf’s “I Would Do Anything for Love” in a packed dive bar. The energy in the room rivaled that of a modern music venue. Then there are practical jokes. Once, they arranged for the police to briefly handcuff and detain a friend the day before his wedding. Another time, one friend bought a lifelike Sasquatch costume and tried to lure everyone into the woods to scare them.

Keep ReadingShow less