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

Changing Conversations Around Immigration

At FrameWorks, we consider it our personal and moral mission to support those working to build a more humane immigration system. While we certainly don’t have all the answers, we join in the shared outrage over current injustices and harms and want to offer support where we can.

One thing we know is that the language we use to demand that change affects how people think about immigration. And if we aren’t intentional, the language we use to highlight protections for immigrants can inadvertently lead people towards thinking about the need to protect “us” from immigrants.

Keep ReadingShow less
"They want us divided sign" that represents partisanship among democrats and republicans.

In recent philosophical and political discourse, the concept of “deep disagreement” has gained traction as a diagnostic for the dysfunction of contemporary public debate.

Getty Images, Jena Ardell

Manufacturing Dissent: How ‘Deep Disagreement’ Serves the Anti-Democratic Elite

In recent philosophical and political discourse, the concept of “deep disagreement” has gained traction as a diagnostic for the dysfunction of contemporary public debate. The premise is simple yet highly seductive: Some disagreements we are told are so fundamental, so rooted in incompatible worldviews or paradigmatically incommensurable epistemologies, that no meaningful argumentation is possible between the disagreeing parties. The implication is stark: Reason and Dialogue cannot bridge the gulf. But this diagnosis, while sounding sobering and serious, is in fact a dangerous illusion. It is an intellectual sleight of hand that masks both the manufactured nature of such disagreements and the vested interests that thrive on perpetuating them.

Indeed, contrary to its glossy surface neutrality, the notion of “deep disagreement” is not merely a philosophical tool but has become a performative trope, perfectly suited for an age of outrage, polarization, and algorithmic amplification. It helps rationalize the breakdown of dialogue, casting it not as a product of bad faith, deliberate miscommunication, or elite manipulation, but as a tragic inevitability of divergent rationalities. In doing so, it gives cover to a much darker political agenda: The delegitimation of democracy itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bipartisan Bonding on the Ballfield: Women in Congress Find Unity Through Softball
a yellow baseball sitting on top of a table
Photo by Patti Black on Unsplash

Bipartisan Bonding on the Ballfield: Women in Congress Find Unity Through Softball

On a recent hot and steamy July evening in Washington, D.C., the players for a unique sporting event were warming up. Audi Field, home of the DC United and Washington Spirit soccer teams, had been converted into a baseball diamond. And the athletes were not some group of high-paid professionals – they were amateurs at softball, but not at politics.

This was the annual Women’s Congressional Softball Game, now in its 17th year. The game was founded by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Florida) and former Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri) as a vehicle to raise money for the Young Survival Coalition (YSC), a nonprofit that helps young women affected by breast cancer by providing resources and support. Wasserman Schultz was a breast cancer survivor at the age of 41 and explained in an interview before the game why she founded the event. “I knew when I came out on the other side, I wanted to use my platform to be able to help fill a void in the fight against breast cancer,” she said.

Keep ReadingShow less
Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz: Connecting With Community

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz was sworn in for a second term as a Democratic member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for the 129th district, January 8, 2025

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz: Connecting With Community

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz is an American businesswoman and politician who is a Democratic member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for the 129th district.

Cepeda-Freytiz was elected on November 8, 2022, and returned to Harrisburg for a second term after being re-elected in 2024. The 129th district includes parts of Reading and Spring Township as well as Sinking Spring, West Reading, and Wyomissing.

Keep ReadingShow less