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

Group of young adult students sit at desks in classroom listening to teacher

Why do Americans respond so differently to hard history lessons? A look at the three psychological mindsets driving the patriotism debate — and a path past it.

Lighthouse Films/Getty Images

“They Hate America”: Patriotism in the Face of Historical Updates

I happened upon a civil discussion blog and read a post by a man who said he was happy to report that when he attended a panel discussion about teaching patriotism in the schools, all went well. He said that’s because most of the people in the bridging organization that hosted the event are “pretty patriotic.” He clarified that by writing, “None of the type of bad actors (and there are many) who want to teach kids to hate America and Western Civilization were represented.”

Someone made a comment about why we can’t incorporate historical change into curriculum and objected to the notion that a segment of the population wants to teach kids to hate America. The man who posted cited what he believes is proof. A last commenter simply input the emoji for a sleeping person, as though the argument was boring or unimportant.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Utah Governor Spencer Cox

Utah Governor Spencer Cox

Getty Images

Spencer Cox’s Off Ramp and Utah’s Tradition of Bipartisan Leadership

Utah has long impressed me as a place where governors take bipartisan leadership seriously, and my own experience confirms it. I first saw this more than a decade ago when I met former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman through No Labels. In January 2013, Huntsman, then a Republican, joined Democrat Joe Manchin as national co‑chairs of the organization, a partnership built on the belief that durable solutions require leaders willing to cross the aisle. Working with both of them during that period left a lasting impression on me. Their partnership embodied a simple but powerful truth: when leaders choose cooperation over contempt, they expand what’s possible for the country. Huntsman and Manchin worked deliberately to model cross‑partisan problem‑solving—demonstrating that principled disagreement can coexist with shared purpose.

That experience left a lasting impression on me, and it’s one reason Governor Spencer Cox’s new book Off Ramp: How to Be a Peacemaker in an Age of Contempt resonates so strongly with me today.

Keep ReadingShow less
Windows of a house

Low-angle view of two dormer windows protruding from townhouse roof

Grace Cary, Getty Images

Go Home

The distance from Washington, D.C., to my hometown of York, Pennsylvania, is 100 miles. When I worked as a Congressional staffer in D.C., I could get out of town and be back where I grew up in about an hour and a half, at least so long as I avoided rush hour traffic. Those last miles as I crossed the Pennsylvania-Maryland border brought a sense of gratitude for the relationships I would be keeping up. At my nephew’s soccer game, at an English-style pub with my long-time best friends, with my mother at the breakfast table having a local newspaper in her hands, life was ordinary.

I would return to work in D.C. feeling grounded. I felt better connected to

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol with a flag waving in front of it.

As Washington stalls, young bipartisan lawmakers in Alaska, Mississippi, and beyond are proving that cross-partisan collaboration still wins.

Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

The Politicians Who Can Fix America's Polarization Problem Will Win

Political predictions are notoriously unreliable, but here is one I am willing to stand behind: the elected officials who figure out how to govern across difference will dominate the next decade of American politics. With dysfunction and paralysis having become the status quo in Washington, elected officials who work together to get things done will turn heads, offering desperate voters a much-needed alternative to a broken system.

Consider what happened in Alaska last year. The state’s lawmaking structure does not encourage political independence. Alaska has the nation's highest veto-override threshold: three-quarters. So when a popular education bill promising smaller class sizes, a cellphone ban, and vocational training funding cleared the legislature, only to be vetoed twice by the governor, it looked dead in the water.

Keep ReadingShow less