6 Feb 6th-Feb 12th, 2025 phoenixnewtimes.com PHOENIX NEW TIMES | NEWS | FEATURE | FOOD & DRINK | ARTS & CULTURE | MUSIC | CONCERTS | CANNABIS | Defame and No Fortune Op-ed: Did Stephen Richer really beat Kari Lake in court? I doubt it. BY STEPHEN LEMONS W ill former Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer be buying a resort in the Cayman Islands soon? That might be the easiest way to tell how much dough he raked in after settling his defamation suit against Kari Lake. Here’s my guess on that point: “little or none.” Over the past four years, the droll, ginger-headed Republican became one of the mainstream media’s favorite political figures. Voted into office in 2020, just as Donald Trump was voted out, Richer built a reputation for pushing back against the election deniers in the MAGA wing of his party, often via patient retorts on his X account. For that, he got love aplenty from the press — from Politico, Time Magazine, 60 Minutes, PBS, Wired and even Phoenix New Times, which last year named him “Best Republican.” I give Richer points for standing up for “election integrity” — though wasn’t that, like, his job? — but the constant lapdog-like fawning from my fellow journalists was annoying in the extreme. Particularly when it comes to his much-ballyhooed lawsuit against Lake. A refresher on the saga, if you need it: In 2022, Lake lost her gubernatorial race to Democrat Katie Hobbs, a setback Lake handled by characteristically spouting off a stream of crackpot conspiracy theories about the election. In 2023 Richer sued over Lake’s claims that he intentionally printed 19-inch images on 20-inch ballots so that tabulating machines would reject them and that he injected 300,000 “unlawful early voting ballots” into the election day vote count. Lake’s claims were disprovable bullshit, to be sure, as many news outlets pointed out at the time. While other politicians in Lake’s crosshairs (including then-County Supervisor Bill Gates) let the marketplace of ideas sort things out, Richer took Lake to court. Lake unsuccessfully tried to get the suit dismissed and then stopped defending it last March, which meant she legally admitted liability. Richer and Lake then haggled for months over damages. Then, in November, the Washington Post surprised many with an apparent scoop, headlined: “Kari Lake settles elec- tion defamation case brought by Arizona official.” In a text message, Richer told the Post that “both sides are satisfied with the result.” A day later, Arizona Republic columnist EJ Montini wondered “how much richer-er” Richer had become, observing that the settlement terms were confidential. The implication was clear: Lake lost, Richer won. End of story. Nope. First of all, it wasn’t over. Two days before Christmas, Richer’s attorneys filed a stipulation agreeing to a dismissal “as to all parties with prejudice, with each party to bear its own fees and costs.” On Jan. 6, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Randall Warner signed an order to this effect. Second, it’s not clear that Richer won anything. Warner did not mandate that Lake issue an apology, nor did he require that she retract her prior statements. There was no determination of damages — at least publicly. Most tellingly, Richer handled his own attorneys’ fees. So how exactly did Richer “win”? And why was the media, which now fears reprisals from the incoming Donald Trump administration, so eager to cheer- lead an elected official filing a lawsuit so clearly at odds with the spirit of the First Amendment? Devil’s advocate In an X post on Jan. 7, the day after Warner dismissed Richer’s complaint, Richer decried those who objected to his suit against Lake on First Amendment grounds but have remained silent about Trump’s suit against an Iowa pollster who incor- rectly forecast Trump would lose the 2024 election in the state. Richer also implied that he prevailed in his suit over Lake. “Heard a lot about ‘lawfare’ and ‘suppressing the First Amendment’ when I filed a suit against Kari Lake for her specific, demonstrably-false, no-basis-in- reality, lunatic-level claims about the 2022 election,” he wrote. He complained that he hadn’t “seen those same people” posting about Trump’s suit. “Hint: it’s never about actual law or about principles,” he added. He noted that “Kari’s two motions to dismiss lost at the trial court . . . She later defaulted on liability.” Lake did default, asking the court to move on to the money she would have to fork over to Richer as a result. “I look forward to entering the damages phase of this case,” Richer said in a press statement at the time. He mentioned an “endless barrage of threats” he said he received due to Lake’s statements and the resulting mental anguish he and his family endured. The case entered a contentious discovery process. Two days before the Post reported the settlement, Richer was still seeking “general and punitive damages” for the “distress” and reputa- tional harm Lake’s invective ostensibly caused him. Then the “settlement” bomb- shell dropped. But it’s not clear if Richer got anything. The lawyers involved are largely mum. Protect Democracy, the deep-pocketed, progressive nonprofit backing Richer’s suit, did not respond to my request for comment. Daniel Maynard, Richer’s Phoenix-based attorney, said: “I can’t get into what the settlement is because it’s confidential.” Maynard refused to say who, if anyone, was paying him. He did state that Protect Democracy wasn’t footing his bills. When I reached Richer by phone, he said he had nothing to add beyond what Maynard told me. Lake’s attorney, Dennis Wilenchik, wrote via email, “We are pleased the matter was resolved without the need for further wasteful litigation.” He added that Lake “has not withdrawn any statements.” He said he could not comment further on the settlement’s terms. A cursory review of Lake’s social media activity shows that she continues to engage in election denialism. Her feed still contains critical comments about Richer, including a November X post accusing Richer of “destroying evidence” and “refusing to comply with discovery,” which Richer’s attorneys disputed in court filings. In his original lawsuit against Lake, Richer asked for a laundry list of goodies: “attorneys fees,” “costs of the suit,” “prejudgment and post judgment interest at the highest lawful rates,” “declaratory relief” from the court stating that Lake’s statements were false and “injunctive relief” ordering Lake to remove any defamatory statements. If Richer didn’t get the attorneys’ fees, it seems unlikely he got anything else. That’s the interpretation of Former Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer settled the defamation suit he brought against Kari Lake, though it’s not clear if it netted him anything. (Photo by Katya Schwenk) There’s no evidence that Kari Lake was forced to retract statements or apologize to Stephen Richer as part of the settlement of his defamation suit against her. (Courtesy of Gage Skidmore/ Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0) >> p 8 | NEWS | | NEWS |
