Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Meet the Faces of Democracy: Stephen Richer

Republican county recorder in Arizona’s largest county discusses the challenges of running elections when the the information environment is awash in lies

Ariana Rojas and Michael Beckel are part of the research department at Issue One, the leading cross partisan political reform group in Washington, D.C., uniting Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in the movement to fix our broken political system and build an inclusive democracy that works for everyone.

Editor’s note: More than 10,000 officials across the country run U.S. elections. This interview is p art of a series highlighting the election heroes who are the faces of democracy.


In November 2020, Stephen Richer, a registered Republican, was elected as the county recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona — which is home to Phoenix and ranks as the second-largest voting jurisdiction in the United States, with nearly 2.5 million registered voters. On the same day that Republican President Donald Trump lost Maricopa County to Democrat Joe Biden by about 45,000 votes, Richer defeated the incumbent Democratic county recorder by about 4,600 votes, or 0.2 percent of the votes cast.

Richer is one of several local officials in Maricopa County responsible for election administration. In Maricopa County, election administration responsibilities are split between the county recorder and the five-member board of supervisors. As the Maricopa County recorder, Richer oversees voter registration and mail voting. Meanwhile, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors oversees voting on Election Day and the tabulation and certification of votes cast.

Since taking office, Richer has been at the center of a firestorm fueled by election deniers. Most notably, Republican Kari Lake has baselessly claimed that Richer sabotaged the 2022 general election, in which Lake was a gubernatorial candidate. Earlier this year, Richer sued Lake for defamation, arguing that he and his family had their lives turned upside down by Lake’s lies, including being the target of death threats.

Richer has a bachelor’s degree from Tulane University, a master’s degree from the University of Chicago, and a law degree from the University of Chicago Law School. He is a former corporate mergers and acquisitions attorney and business owner. In 2006, Richer was awarded the Presidential Volunteer Service Award by President George W. Bush for his rescue, recovery, and rebuilding work in the South after Hurricane Katrina.

In 2021, Richer was among several GOP election officials in the state named as “Arizonan of the Year” by the Arizona Republic. And that same year, the Phoenix New Times named him the “Best Republican Politician of the Year” for his willingness to speak the truth about the integrity of the state’s election processes.

Richer enjoys sports, reading, writing, logic puzzles, word games, and spending time with his wife. Since 2023, he has been part of Issue One’s Faces of Democracy project advocating for protections for election workers and for regular, predictable, and sufficient federal funding of elections.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Issue One: Election deniers and election denialism have been center stage in Arizona — and Maricopa County — since the 2020 presidential election, often making national headlines. Why do you think that is?

Stephen Richer: There are incentives to lie about election administration. You can get endorsements. You can get donations. You can shock people and draw crowds. You can keep your name in the media even after you’ve lost. You can pave your way in a Republican primary.

For instance, the 2022 Republican nominees for governor, attorney general, and secretary of state in Arizona were all election deniers. Election denialism is especially strong in Maricopa County in part because of the six-month-long “audit,” which cost Maricopa County taxpayers more than $3 million. That circus became a rallying point that other states didn’t have.

Issue One: What part of the election administration story in your area do you think isn’t told enough or isn’t widely understood enough?

Stephen Richer: So many parts. I wish everyone understood we have hand-marked paper ballots; that would have killed the “hacking” and “internet” concerns.

I wish everyone understood that the political parties do a post-election, hand-count audit; that would have killed the “vote switching” theory.

I wish everyone understood that the tabulators produce a cast vote record of 1s and 0s for the different contests; that would have killed the “fractional voting” theory.

I wish everyone understood that we only send mail ballots to verified voters with verified addresses; that would have killed the “ballots flown in from South Korea” theory.

I wish everyone understood that early ballots must be returned in a special return envelope assigned to a specific voter, with a specific barcode, with a valid signature; that would have killed the “2000 Mules” theory.

I wish everyone understood that all critical parts of the process are bipartisan, subject to partisan observers, and under 24/7 video surveillance.

Issue One: What do you think are the most effective ways to combat conspiracy theories and false information about our elections?

Stephen Richer: I’m not sure. I read the same reports and see the same testing as you all, but I’m still not sure. So we try a bit of everything — videos, reports, interviews, tours of our facility, encouraging people to be temporary election workers, seminars, Q&As. I know it’s made a difference with some individuals who have participated. But we haven’t moved the needle significantly in terms of the number of Republicans who believe the 2020 and 2022 elections were stolen.

Issue One: This year, several Republican-controlled states have left ERIC. Why do you think this is problematic? What value does ERIC have, in your opinion?

Stephen Richer: It’s just politics. I’m concerned for some of those departing states who grasp desperately for pretextual reasons for abandoning ERIC. ERIC is a key tool for voter list maintenance. When someone moves to another state, he or she may not inform us to cancel their registration in Arizona. When they register to vote in their new state without telling us, we are not notified of that information. ERIC, however, provides some of that information. It’s the closest thing we have to a national voter registration database.

Issue One: Across the country, many election officials — including yourself — have been the target of threats and harassment. How have you responded to these challenges? How supportive have law enforcement agencies been?

Stephen Richer: We’re blessed with amazing law enforcement partners. The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (Paul Penzone) and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (Rachel Mitchell) have been especially wonderful. So too have local police departments, the Arizona Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the DOJ, CISA, etc. Arizona Governor Doug Ducey was very supportive. Now too is Governor Katie Hobbs. I really can’t say enough about how wonderful law enforcement has been.

The only challenge we’ve had with law enforcement was with the previous Arizona attorney general (his term ended at the end of 2022). He privately told people that the stolen election stuff was nonsense, but then he made public statements to the contrary (to support a run for U.S. Senate), and he subjected my office to a year-long criminal investigation that scared some of my team.

Issue One: What’s the current typical price tag of elections in Maricopa County?

Stephen Richer: We take into account how many temporary workers and support staff we’ll need and incidental expenses for facility rentals and things of that nature, so the cost of running an election may vary greatly from one election to the next. For the 2020 general election, the cost was $13.5 million. For the 2022 general election, the cost was $11.1 million. For the upcoming 2024 election cycle, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has budgeted $10.1 million to fund the presidential preference election and prepare for the upcoming primary and general elections, plus an additional $9 million in contingency funding that will be used to replace certain ballot-on-demand printers that serve voting centers.

Issue One: A lot of people are surprised to learn that the federal government doesn’t routinely fund election administration. Why do you think the federal government should routinely invest in elections?

Stephen Richer: I’m pretty mixed on federal involvement in elections. My strong libertarian/conservative sensitivities cringe at the notion of a federal-driven system. But if we have federal races on our ballot, the federal government should contribute financial support. I’m also increasingly open to the idea of a more standardized election administration process. Oftentimes we hear: “Why don’t you do it like they do in Florida, Texas, Oregon, etc.?” It’s because we have different state laws.

Issue One: If your jurisdiction had extra funding, how would you spend it?

Stephen Richer: Extra space. The more space we have available, the more people we can immediately put on all parts of the process, and the quicker we can tabulate and release results. That would have a direct and positive impact on confidence in our elections. Getting to 98 percent of ballots tabulated within 24 hours is my No. 1 wish if I had a magical election genie. But our Arizona laws and voter behavior make it nearly impossible right now.

Issue One: How did you end up in this profession?

Stephen Richer: I ran for this office in 2020 as a Republican. I won the primary, and I absolutely destroyed the Democratic incumbent in the general election. I won by about 5,000 votes out of 2.1 million ballots cast in Maricopa County. He (Adrian Fontes) successfully ran for secretary of state in 2022, and we’re now friends and partners in election administration. I ran for this office because I thought it nicely combined my three interests and abilities: politics, law (I’m a lawyer), and administration (I’ve long been involved in business and management).

I also thought that it would be fairly non-controversial — just let people record their documents, register to vote, and vote, right?!, So I thought I could pretty easily keep all of my friends — Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, or otherwise. Whoops.

Issue One: How many voters are on the roll in your jurisdiction? And what are the main challenges of a jurisdiction of this size?

Stephen Richer: There are nearly 2.5 million active registered voters in Maricopa County. We are larger than 24 states in terms of population, larger than seven states in terms of square miles, and Maricopa County is the second-largest voting district in the United States, behind Los Angeles County. The main challenge is being a highly competitive county that makes up 62% of the voting population of a highly competitive state. People are super obsessed with us for this reason, and while that has some fun parts to it, it has a lot of bad parts too.

Issue One: Election administration in the United States is very decentralized, with each state using its own system. As county recorder, what are you responsible for?

Stephen Richer: Elections are administered at the county level in Arizona. We have 15 counties. The three statutory responsibilities of the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office include recording public documents, voter registration, and election administration. When it comes to election administration, we share responsibility with the Board of Supervisors. The Recorder’s Office administers early voting while the Board of Supervisors handles all Election Day voting and tabulation.

Issue One: Outside of being passionate about running safe and secure elections, what are your hobbies? Or what’s a fun fact that most people might not know about you?

Stephen Richer: I read a lot. Fantasy (e.g., Kingkiller Chronicle by Patrick Rothfuss), business biographies (e.g., Jobs, Iger, Buffett, Welch, etc.), and classic fiction (especially 19th Century Russian and British lit). I love sports. Playing and watching. COVID killed a lot of the leagues I was in (basketball, baseball, soccer, dodgeball). Would love to get back into them. I love watching college football, NFL, and NBA in particular.

I love business and still do some business stuff. I like running. My wife and I do a lot of races. I used to be way faster. I’m trying to get back closer to mid-20s Stephen, but am currently about 1:15 per mile off. I like my wife a lot, and I closely follow her very impressive career as an attorney. We met at the University of Chicago Law School. She was the better student there, and she was the better lawyer after we left.

Issue One: Which historical figure would you have most liked to have had an opportunity to meet and why?

Stephen Richer: Adam Smith. No greater gift has ever been given to man than a freedom-based, rule-of-law-based market economy.

Issue One: What’s your favorite book or movie?

Stephen Richer: I grew up alongside Harry Potter. The first book was released in 1996, when I was 11 — the same age Harry is in the first book. So it will forever hold a very special place in my heart, and I’ve read the first four books at least 50 times each.


Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less