In defamation suit rebuttal, Kari Lake says Stephen Richer wants to 'silence' her

Kari Lake and her lawyers say Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer is seeking to "deter, retaliate against and prevent" free speech by suing her for defamation, according to a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Lake, a Republican who lost a bid for Arizona governor last year, alleges in the document that Richer, also a Republican, wishes to "punish or silence" her "core political speech about the integrity of the 2022 election ... a matter of tremendous public concern."

"Stephen Richer is an elected official," Lake wrote in a statement released on X, the platform formerly called Twitter. "His unlawful attempt to abuse our legal system in order to insulate himself from criticism of his awful job performance establishes a dangerous precedent in our nation's history."

Lake is represented in the case by attorney Tim La Sota, former head of the Arizona Attorney General's Election Integrity Unit Jen Wright and attorneys with the First Amendment Clinic at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law.

Jared Davidson, counsel at Protect Democracy and one of Richer's attorneys for the lawsuit, said Richer's legal team received Lake's motion on Monday evening and is reviewing it.

"We look forward to filing our response with the court," Davidson said.

The Maricopa County Clerk of the Superior Court could not immediately confirm whether Lake's motion had yet been filed.

Richer claims in his suit, filed in June, that Lake made false allegations that he had sabotaged the 2022 election by injecting 300,000 illegal ballots into the final vote tally in Maricopa County and intentionally had the county's ballot-on-demand printers produce incorrectly sized ballots.

His lawsuit points to a variety of social media posts and statements made by Lake and her affiliates following Election Day. The complaint alleges that as a result of Lake's statements, Richer and his family "have been the target of threats of violence, and even death, and have had their lives turned upside down."

The suit further alleges that Lake knew, or should have known, that the statements were false.

Lake lost the election to Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, by 17,117 votes. In May, a Maricopa County judge affirmed Hobbs' win and rejected Lake's claims that improper signature verification and misconduct affected the outcome.

Still, Lake's motion to dismiss argues that falsity is "almost never a black-and-white issue."

"Even a court decision finding insufficient evidence to support a fraud claim to challenge election results is not a finding that the statements are objectively false and cannot be the basis of an opinion about the fairness of an election," Lake's motion to dismiss reads.

Politics: Kari Lake may appear on TV on Trump's behalf after GOP presidential debate in Milwaukee

What's next in the defamation case?

Lake and her attorneys filed the motion as an anti-SLAPP action. SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation," a meritless lawsuit that is brought to silence or intimidate someone who is speaking about a matter of public concern.

Arizona's anti-SLAPP law was originally passed in 2006 and revised last year. It allows for expedited dismissal of a lawsuit if it arises from a desire to deter the exercise of the rights of free speech and petition.

If the court finds that Richer's suit was substantially motivated to deter Lake's free and lawful speech, it may dismiss the case and award Lake attorney fees, per state law. If the court finds that Lake's motion to dismiss is "frivolous or solely intended to delay," it may award attorney fees to Richer.

If the suit goes forward, Richer must prove a high legal standard known as "actual malice" for his suit to prevail. That means he must provide evidence that Lake knew her statements were false or "acted in reckless disregard" of the truth, according to the State Bar of Arizona.

The court has not yet scheduled a hearing in the case.

How did ASU's First Amendment Clinic get involved?

Gregg Leslie, executive director of ASU's First Amendment Clinic, said Lake and her attorneys reached out to his team about taking the case.

"This is about a person being sued by a public official over her statements made, so it really was not a difficult decision to make that we were willing to take this on," he said.

Leslie said the clinic is always looking for First Amendment cases that could tread new ground in the courts. It's currently unclear how Arizona's recently revised anti-SLAPP law will be interpreted by the legal system, he said, making Lake's case a perfect opportunity to test the new legal standards the law sets.

"We've been, for a year now, looking to get involved in anti-SLAPP cases just to help make this law do what it's supposed to do and make sure that the courts are interpreting it the right way," Leslie said. "That was our biggest consideration — that she seems like the kind of speaker that is meant to be protected by a law like this."

The clinic is primarily funded through the Stanton Foundation, Leslie said. The foundation is a private organization established by longtime CBS president Frank Stanton. Since the clinic started roughly five years ago, it has represented journalists and public speakers in a variety of First Amendment cases.

Recently, Leslie testified in Gateway Pundit author Jordan Conradson's case against Maricopa County over its press credentialing during the 2022 election. The clinic also filed an amicus brief in another anti-SLAPP case years ago involving a protester and a commercial developer seeking a zoning variance before a city council, Leslie said.

Sasha Hupka covers county government and election administration for The Arizona Republic. Do you have a tip to share on elections or voting? Reach her at sasha.hupka@arizonarepublic.com. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @SashaHupka. Follow her on Instagram or Threads: @sashahupkasnaps.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Kari Lake moves to dismiss Maricopa County defamation suit