Kari Lake can’t use AZ law as protection from county official’s defamation suit against her: lawyer

Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer's attorney is disputing failed Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake's claim that a "special state law" makes Richer's lawsuit against her, her husband and her campaign unlawful, Arizona Capitol News reports.

"Richer's motivation is to put a stop to the specific defamatory statements at issue in this case," Attorney Daniel Maynard told County Superior Court Judge Jay Adleman, according to the report, emphasizing that the Maricopa official sued Lake "to remedy the harm done to him."

Maynard argues that Arizona's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Action Against Public Participation) statute "designed to promote political participation and debate does not give" Lake "the right to make up facts about" his client, "promote them, and not have to answer for them."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

During his argument, the attorney added, "Under this law, even though it may look like defendants have an advantage — getting a libel case dismissed solely because it interferes with their free speech rights — it is essential to realize that is exactly what the Legislature intended. Speech about the integrity of the election process is exactly the type of 'public participation' that the Legislature chose to protect."

He also told the judge Lake "is still entitled to have an opinion and state her beliefs about what happened in the 2022 election and who is to blame for mistakes,” but the law "provides no shelter for one-time gubernatorial hopeful and 2024 U.S. Senate candidate to avoid being held financially liable for making false statements and the damages she caused to Richer and his family," Arizona Capitol Times reports.

The news outlet reports:

In this case, Maynard said, Lake accused Richer of intentionally printing the wrong size ballots to 'sabotage' Election Day voting and said he injected more than 300,000 phony ballots into the system.

He said that came even after a trial judge hearing Lake's challenge to the election results found that she had provided nothing more than 'speculation' and 'conjecture' to support her claims of intentional misconduct. And Maynard also said that, as a matter of fact, Richer had nothing to do with Election Day operations in Maricopa County.

Additionally, the report notes, "Maynard said the protections of the Anti-SLAPP law require two things: proof that someone lawfully exercised a constitutional right, and proof that Richer’s lawsuit is improperly motivated by a desire to prevent or retaliate against that exercise."

READ MORE: AZ AG’s office investigates Trump’s alleged election interference 'well after Biden's inauguration': report

He told the judge, "There is no constitutional right to make defamatory statements with actual malice."

Arizona Capitol Times' full report is available at this link.