Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Defining the Democracy Movement: Stephen Richer

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

Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger

Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.

This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping.

Recent data shows that Americans view members of the opposing political party overly negatively, leading people to avoid political discourse with those who hold different views.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

How To Motivate Americans’ Conversations Across Politics

Introduction

A large body of research shows that Americans hold overly negative distortions of those across the political spectrum. These misperceptions—often referred to as "Perception Gaps"—make civil discourse harder, since few Americans are eager to engage with people they believe are ideologically extreme, interpersonally hostile, or even threatening or inferior. When potential disagreement feels deeply uncomfortable or dangerous, conversations are unlikely to begin.

Correcting these distortions can help reduce barriers to productive dialogue, making Americans more open to political conversations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Divided American flag

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson writes on the serious impacts of "othering" marginalized populations and how, together, we must push back to create a more inclusive and humane society.

Jorge Villalba/Getty Images

New Rules of the Game: Weaponization of Othering

By now, you have probably seen the viral video. Taylor Townsend—Black, bold, unbothered—walks off the court after a bruising match against her white European opponent, Jelena Ostapenko. The post-match glances were sharper than a backhand slice. Next came the unsportsmanlike commentary—about her body, her "attitude," and a not-so-veiled speculation about whether she belonged at this level. To understand America in the Trump Redux era, one only needs to study this exchange.

Ostapenko vs. Townsend is a microcosm of something much bigger: the way anti-democratic, vengeful politics—modeled from the White House on down—have bled into every corner of public life, including sports. Turning “othering” into the new national pastime. Divisive politics has a profound impact on marginalized groups. Neither Ostapenko nor Donald Trump invented this playbook, yet Trump and his sycophants are working to master it. Fueled by a sense of grievance, revenge, and an insatiable appetite for division, he—like Ostapenko—has normalized once somewhat closeted attitudes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand blocking someone speaking

The Third Way has recently released a memo stating that the “stampede away from the Democratic Party” is partly a result of the language and rhetoric it uses.

Westend61/Getty Images

To Protect Democracy, Democrats Should Pay Attention to the Third Way’s List of ‘Offensive’ Words

More than fifty years ago, comedian George Carlin delivered a monologue entitled “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” It was a tribute to the legendary Lenny Bruce, whose “nine dirty words” performance led to his arrest and his banning from many places.

His seven words were “p—, f—, c—, c———, m———–, and t—.”

Keep ReadingShow less