A defamation suit filed by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer against one-time gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake lives after a superior court judge found Lake’s statements could not be deemed “rhetorical hyperbole.”  

Judge Jay Adleman denied two motions to dismiss from Lake and found her claims were “provably false” and potentially made with “actual malice.” The decision tasks Lake’s attorney with proving Lake’s accusations were rooted in fact.  

Richer sued Lake and her campaign for defamation after she repeatedly claimed he interfered in the 2022 election by tampering with printers and injecting invalid ballots into the count.  

Her attorneys lodged two motions to dismiss, one on free speech grounds and the other under Arizona’s anti-SLAPP law, which aims to deter lawsuits lodged to fetter constitutional rights and political participation. 

Lake contended the statements were based on facts but merely colored with “rhetorical hyperbole” and protected by the First Amendment. Adleman rejected the argument.  

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

As far as the printer error, Adleman points to statements Lake made in interviews where she claimed to have “proof and evidence” that Richer and Maricopa County Supervisor Bill Gates “printed intentionally the wrong image on the ballot, knowing that 75% of people showing up on Election Day were voting for me.”  

And for the ballot injection claim, Adleman cites another interview in which Lake said Richer and Gates, “couldn’t steal it by just throwing in 300,000 bogus ballots with no chain of custody, which they did. They had to sabotage Election Day.”  

Adleman further found Richer alleged sufficient allegations for actual malice. Actual malice requires a statement be made either “with knowledge of falsity and/or with reckless disregard for the truth.”  

Richer claimed Lake acted with actual malice in parroting the accusations and she and her campaign “had a financial motivation to solicit donations in connection with their defamatory statements.” He further alleged Lake had established a narrative ahead of the election and continued to do so after the claims were rejected by multiple courts.  

As for the anti-SLAPP law, Adleman found Richer’s claims were “consistent with First Amendment principles” and therefore could not be dismissed under the statute’s constitutional considerations. 

“I’m grateful that the Court rejected the Defendants’ efforts to avoid accountability for their campaign of false, defamatory statements,” Richer said in a statement. “Working as a public servant should not lead to death threats, harassment, or defamation. No one is above the rule of law in this country, and I look forward to continuing my pursuit of justice.” 

Lake posted on social media and wrote Richer sued her “for revealing the corruption in the elections he administered.” She added, “This is about taking away our First Amendment rights and interfering in the US Senate race. This case should have been tossed out of court.” 

The case now heads to discovery. Lake must now prove her accusations to be true. Adleman set a return hearing for Jan. 19.