Log in

Legal

Maricopa County Recorder defamation lawsuit against Kari Lake to go to trial

Judge rules statements by former GOP gubernatorial candidate must be proved to be true

PHOENIX — Kari Lake is now going to have to prove the charges she leveled against Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer are true.

In an extensive ruling Wednesday, Maricopa County …

You must be a member to read this story.

Join our family of readers for as little as $5 per month and support local, unbiased journalism.


Already have an account? Log in to continue.

Current print subscribers can create a free account by clicking here

Otherwise, follow the link below to join.

To Our Valued Readers –

Visitors to our website will be limited to five stories per month unless they opt to subscribe. The five stories do not include our exclusive content written by our journalists.

For $6.99, less than 20 cents a day, digital subscribers will receive unlimited access to YourValley.net, including exclusive content from our newsroom and access to our Daily Independent e-edition.

Our commitment to balanced, fair reporting and local coverage provides insight and perspective not found anywhere else.

Your financial commitment will help to preserve the kind of honest journalism produced by our reporters and editors. We trust you agree that independent journalism is an essential component of our democracy. Please click here to subscribe.

Sincerely,
Charlene Bisson, Publisher, Independent Newsmedia

Please log in to continue

Log in
I am anchor
Legal

Maricopa County Recorder defamation lawsuit against Kari Lake to go to trial

Judge rules statements by former GOP gubernatorial candidate must be proved to be true

Posted

PHOENIX — Kari Lake is now going to have to prove the charges she leveled against Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer are true if she wants to avoid being found guilty of defaming him.

In an extensive ruling Wednesday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jay Adleman said it is clear that the claims made by the failed Republican candidate for governor that Richer had sabotaged the election were not, as her lawyers claim, “mere rhetorical hyperbole.”

“In point of fact, defendant Lake’s statements regarding improper 19-inch ballots and/or the existence of 300,000 fraudulent ballots may be discerned by a factfinder as either true or false when considered in the light of any available evidence,” the judge wrote. “These statement constitute assertions of fact that are actionable under prevailing Arizona law.”

That means the burden is now on her to back up, in court what she said about him.

And there’s something else.

Adleman said that Richer’s lawyers have enough allegations in his lawsuit against her, her campaign and the Save Arizona Fund which she has used to raise cash, to provide a basis to show that she and they acted with “actual malice.”

That is critical.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that people who are considered public figures, like Richer, can sue for defamation only if they also can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statements were made with actual malice. In general, that means the person making the statement knew it to be false or that the statement was made with a reckless disregard for the truth.

Wednesday’s ruling clears the way for a trial. And given that it was Lake who made the claims that Richer says were not just false but that she knew were false, she now has to prove they are true — something she has been unable to do in any of her still-ongoing legal efforts to get any court to overturn her 2022 loss to Democrat Katie Hobbs by more than 17,000 votes.

In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Lake doubled down on her allegations, saying that Richer “is suing me for revealing the corruption in the elections he administered.”

“This is about taking away our First Amendment rights and interfering in the U.S. Senate race,” she said, a reference to her bid for the GOP nomination for that seat in 2024. “This case should have been tossed out of court.”

Richer, in a prepared statement, said he was pleased he will get to present his case to a jury.

“My family and I have faced endless and vile threats, including calls for our execution, and I’ve lost important personal relationships and seen my reputation severely damaged by defendants,” he said. Richer also said he and his wife spent “thousands of dollars of their own money installing additional security features at their home.”

“Working as a public servant should not lead to death threats, harassment or defamation,” Richer continued. “No one is above the rule of law in this country.”

The case involves two separate claims made repeatedly by Lake about her loss and what she said was Richer’s role in all that.

One involves the problems in Maricopa County on Election Day.

The county, like several others, uses vote centers. That allows any registered voter to cast a ballot at any location rather than just his or her home precinct.

That, in turn, requires the ability to print 20-inch ballots on site that are specific to each voter, with only those races applicable to that voter like city council, school board, legislature and congress.

What happened is that many of the printers — the number is in dispute — spit out images designed to go on 19-inch paper.

That made them unreadable by the tabulators which spit them back out. And that, in turn, created long lines at the vote centers.

Lake charged that Richer and others did that deliberately, knowing that Republicans are more like to vote on Election Day than Democrats who tend to cast early ballots. And she said that some people, rather than wait in lines, simply left without voting, contributing to her loss.

“They realize that they couldn’t cheat in some of the other ways that they cheated before so they had to do something as diabolical as intentionally printing the wrong image on the ballot on Election Day only,” Lake said in a Twitter Space broadcast in April, one of the claims cited by Richer in his lawsuit. “The only way they can win these days is to cheat elections.”

But Richer, in his lawsuit, pointed out that neither he nor his office was responsible for Election Day operations but only for early voting. That was the responsibility of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

Adleman also took note of something else.

The county had asked Ruth McGregor, a retired Supreme Court chief justice, to look into the issue of the ballot-size problems.

“Although separating related causes is always difficult, in my judgment, the primary cause of the Election Day failures was equipment failure,” McGregor wrote, not intentional acts. And that report was published in April, before Lake made some of her charges.

That, the judge said, is enough for a jury to decide whether Lake’s claims amounted to defamation.

Then there’s Lake’s claim that Richer “injected” about 300,000 “phony” early ballots received on Election Day into the final vote count, including at one point saying that “they had to sabotage Election Day.”

Richer, however, pointed out that Lake had made similar claims of intentional misconduct about the ballots to a trial judge who was considering her bid to overturn the election. And in that case, Richer said, the judge found “nothing to substantiate” Lake’s claim of intentional misconduct — a ruling that was made months before Lake made her comments charging Richer with sabotaging the election.

Here, too, the judge said, that allows Richer to force Lake to prove her statements in a defamation lawsuit.

Adleman acknowledged there is a long line of cases which say that people can’t be sued for defamation for “mere rhetorical hyperbole.” That even includes one which used the term “blackmail” to describe negotiation tactics and another which said terms like “traitor” or “scab” in a labor dispute were not actual factual claims.

That, he said, is does not apply here.

“The alleged statements in this case cannot be classified merely as ‘descriptive’ language,” the judge wrote.

“In point of fact, defendant Lake’s statements regarding improper 19-inch ballots and/or the existence of 300,000 fraudulent ballots may be discerned by a factfinder as either true or false when considered in the light of any available evidence,” Adleman continued. And that, he said, makes them grounds under Arizona law for a defamation lawsuit.

The judge made a special note to reject Lake’s contention that she was entitled to have the lawsuit dismissed right now, before any evidence was presented, based on the state’s anti-SLAPP law.

It is designed to provide protections for those sued by government officials, allowing them to avoid having to go through the time and expense of a trial. But it first requires a defendant to show that the public official sued primarily “to deter, retaliate against or prevent the lawful exercise of a constitutional right.”

Adleman said, though, it is clear that Richer’s lawsuit is limited in scope to just the two issues of the mis-sized ballots and the alleged fake votes. And he said Lake did not prove that he had sued to keep her from speaking out.

“With this limitation in mind, the court is satisfied that the disputed statement — if indeed they are provable as false and defamatory — would be undeserving of the protections associated with our First Amendment,” the judge wrote.

Share with others