GOP state Sen. Dan Laughlin sues Democratic Party chair, Erie Reader over column

Republican state Sen. Dan Laughlin alleges in a lawsuit filed Friday that the chairman of the Erie County Democratic Party and an alternative monthly publication defamed him by publishing a July 14 column that claimed he and U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly were on a pardon-request list before then-President Donald Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol.

The lawsuit, filed in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, names Jim Wertz — the Democratic chairman since 2018 and the author of the column — and the Erie Reader, the publication in which it appeared, as the defendants, and claims they published "statements (that) are materially false and misleading" and did so "with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth."

Lawyers for Laughlin, of Millcreek Township, R-49th Dist., want the court to order Wertz and the Erie Reader to publish a retraction, "discontinue any and all disparaging and/or defamatory statements concerning Laughlin," and award $1 million in damages from both Wertz and the Erie Reader for "reputational, emotional and economic harm."

They argue that Laughlin has suffered personally and politically as a result of the alleged defamation.

The lawsuit claims Laughlin is seeking re-election to his 49th District Pennsylvania Senate seat (in 2024) and that prior to the July 14 opinion piece he "was expected" to run uncontested. As a result of Wertz's column, the lawsuit contends, Laughlin could face a contested primary and general election in which the cost to run a campaign "would be significantly more costly and potentially upwards of $2 million."

“There is no such (pardon-request) list, nor was there ever such a request,” said Laughlin spokesman Dennis Roddy in a statement. “Jim Wertz imputed criminal conduct to Dan simply because he signed a friend-of-the-court brief along with 23 other members of the state senate. “And that brief, contrary to Wertz’s reckless claims, never sought to overturn a single vote in the 2020 election, nor did it side with any plaintiff in the case.”

Wertz is reviewing the lawsuit in an effort to fully understand the objections raised, "but I will say this feels particularly politically motivated," he said.

Officials with the Erie Reader did not respond to a request for comment.

Lawsuit: Wertz column in Erie Reader 'wholly without basis'

Wertz, in his "Erie at Large" column titled "A Congressman and a State Senator Walk Into a Bar," named Laughlin and Kelly in the opinion piece, stating they "found themselves on a pardon request list" related to attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Wertz cited a letter U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks of Huntsville, Alabama, R-5th Dist., sent to an official in the then-Trump administration in January 2021 in which Brooks asked the former president to consider pardoning any Republican who voted against certifying the Electoral College votes for Pennsylvania, like Kelly, and Arizona when both chambers of Congress met on Jan. 6 to certify Biden's victory over Trump. Brooks also asked that anyone who signed onto "the" amicus curiae brief, known informally as a friend-of-the-court brief, in the election-related lawsuit Texas v. Pennsylvania, be pardoned, too.

Kelly signed one of the amicus briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Texas v. Pennsylvania case. Laughlin signed another.

More:In combative news conference, Rep. Mike Kelly responds to claims of pardon, fake electors

In his lawsuit, however, Laughlin contends that his and Kelly's names or those of others were never on an actual pardon-request list, that Laughlin never personally asked for a pardon because he had no reason to, and that Wertz referenced the wrong amicus brief in his article.

Laughlin said at the time that he and other state senators who signed the same amicus brief, which was one of six filed, were not seeking to overturn the election results, unlike others. In his lawsuit, Laughlin adds that the amicus brief explicitly states that its signers were neither in support of the plaintiff nor the defendants.

Texas v. Pennsylvania was among the many lawsuits filed after the 2020 presidential election by Trump supporters or the Trump campaign itself that sought to overturn election results in key battleground states won by Biden.

More:In brief in Texas case, Laughlin says he's not claiming fraud but worried over Pa. action

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the lawsuit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin, claiming they violated the U.S. Constitution and the independent state legislature theory when they changed election procedures through non-legislative means. In Pennsylvania's case, the state Supreme Court had sided with then-Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar to extend the deadline for county boards of elections to receive mail-in ballots by three days after the election. The ballots were to be segregated until other issues were resolved.

Other states, as well as federal lawmakers, including Kelly, signed amicus briefs in support of the Texas lawsuit. But the brief that Laughlin and his other colleagues filed asked the Supreme Court to simply "recognize the authority of the state legislature as the primary authority to enact elections regulations for federal elections." It did not seek the same relief that Texas sought. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, filed a similar amicus brief that supported neither the plaintiff nor defendant.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Laughlin's lawsuit against the Erie Reader and Wertz contends that although Wertz's column acknowledged Laughlin's public statements at the time he signed the amicus brief, specifically that he was not attempting to overturn election results, it omitted the fact that the brief explicitly stated the same.

"...The single premise of the Article — that Representative Brooks’ email sought a pardon for Senator Laughlin’s benefit— is wholly without basis," the lawsuit says. "...Representative Brooks, who is from Alabama, refers to the signatories of a single amicus brief, which in the context of the email (Brooks' email to a Trump official), could not possibly be construed as referring to the amicus brief submitted by a group of state senators in Pennsylvania."

The lawsuit also cites statements Wertz made at a press conference on July 22 at Erie County Democratic Party Headquarters on State Street. Wertz called the press conference in response to remarks Kelly had made that morning at a press event of his own.

More:Pa. Supreme Court dismisses Mike Kelly-led lawsuit that sought to invalidate mail-in votes

More:Pa. justice: In suing, congressman set out to 'play a dangerous game' at voters' expense

More:Supreme Court rejects US Rep. Mike Kelly's election appeal; he calls ruling 'astounding'

More:U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly celebrates court's unconstitutional ruling on PA mail voting law

Kelly weighs in

Kelly's campaign demanded on the morning of July 22 that the Erie Reader retract Wertz's column because, Kelly said, he never sought a pardon from Trump.

"We're at a point in this country where people are losing their faith and confidence and trust in our system," Kelly told the media at his July 22 news conference. "And when people can print whatever they print, whenever they want to print it and it be a blatant, outright lie, and then sit back to see how you're going respond to it, my response to it is they don't deserve a response."

Kelly threatened to file a lawsuit, but "at this point, we are not" going to, Melanie Brewer, Kelly's campaign spokesperson, told the Erie Times-News in an email Friday. Laughlin is only seeking relief for himself.

The Erie Reader responded on July 25 to Kelly's demand for a retraction and public apology.

Paula Knudsen Burke, a local legal initiative attorney for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, wrote on behalf of the publication that Kelly had not identified anything factually wrong in the column and that the courts have generally found statements "that are clearly theoretical or speculative, such as openly 'wondering' about another person's motives, to be protected opinion."

"The First Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitution provide robust protection for individuals and entities to gather, report, publish, and comment on accurate information that is a matter of public concern or significance," Knudsen Burke wrote in her July 25 response. "The Op-Ed falls squarely within the scope of those important constitutional protections."

Matthew Rink can be reached at mrink@timesnews.com or on Twitter at @ETNRink.

This article originally appeared on Erie Times-News: GOP PA Sen. Dan Laughlin sues Erie Democratic Party chair, Erie Reader