Lake lost the race by a margin of 17,000 votes; Lost multiple challenges Cases, Appeals, and Arizona Supreme Court Results.

One of Lake's attorneys, former Arizona Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Wright, argued that Lake's statements about Richer were merely her opinions, supported by provable facts, and therefore protected speech. did.

When Mr. Lake said that Mr. Richer was somehow involved in the illegal injection of fake ballots or “interfered” with the election, those statements were meant to be taken as fact. No, Wright said.

“These are her opinions of the facts,” Ms Wright told the court.

Richer's attorney, Cameron Kistler of the nonprofit organization protect democracy, refuted Wright's claim.

For example, Lake told his followers at the Save Arizona Rally on Jan. 29 that Richer and Maricopa County Supervisor Bill Gates intentionally printed the wrong size ballots on Election Day 2022. He said it was part of an act of “sabotage.” The voters that day were Republicans who supported Lake, and tabulators would likely reject their ballots because they were the wrong size.

This was one of the judge's arguments arizona trial, appeal and the state supreme court Spit out during Lake's election challenge lawsuit.

Ballot printing issues caused significant delays and frustration in Maricopa County's 2022 voting, but ballots rejected by tabulators were later counted.

Wright also argued that the appeals court accepted Lake's argument that thousands of illegal early votes were added to legal ballots on Election Day 2022.

“As reflected in the Court of Appeals opinion, the custody process was not followed,” Wright said, adding that he would later strongly doubt Richer's ability to prove that Lake's statements were false. he added.

However, Kistler refuted this by citing some of it. Court of Appeal Judgment The article claimed there were “questionable” vote counts that Lake claimed were “false.” The appeals court's ruling did not include confirmation that the judges believed the ballots were illegally inserted or counted.

“The First Amendment gives defendants the right to criticize Stephen Richer's election administration, political views, and even his hair; “This does not give the defendants the right to falsely and repeatedly accuse Stephen of being a criminal,” Kistler said.

He added that Lake should not have told the audience he was speaking about Richer as if he were telling facts and that he was actually just sharing his opinion when he came to court.

“They are defending a sanitized version of what the defendant said, but not what she actually said,” Kistler said in court.

Jessica Banks, a student attorney with Arizona State University's First Amendment Project, argued on Lake's behalf that Richer's lawsuit violates Arizona's constitution. Strategic action on public participation lawcommonly referred to as anti-SLAPP laws.

“Richer is trying to chill Kari Lake's speech,” Banks said, referring to Lake's First Amendment right to speak out about political opponents and public figures. “Litigations motivated by deterrence or retaliation against a defendant's legitimate constitutional right to speech should not proceed.”

Mr. Richer's other lawyer, Harvard Law Practice Professor Larry Schwarztl, said Arizona's anti-SLAPP law allows free speech and gives defamed people their day in court. He insisted that he was striking a careful balance between the two.

Banks argues that Richer's request for relief if she wins the defamation lawsuit (in the form of Lake deleting all false posts about Richer) is itself an attempt to undermine Lake's right to free speech. said.

But Schwarztall said that if Banks' claims are true, simply filing a defamation lawsuit and seeking relief would be an attempt to chill free speech, and Arizona's anti-SLAPP law would halt all defamation lawsuits. I objected.

Richer said in her lawsuit that as a result of Lake's false claims about her, she faces daily hate in the form of emails, Twitter direct messages, voicemails and in-person confrontations.

Richer said in his complaint that he and his wife spent thousands of dollars installing new security features in their home, and that local police now regularly patrol Richer's home and his wife's workplace. Ta.

Because Mr. Richer is a public figure, he will have to clear a high bar to succeed in his defamation suit against Mr. Lake. He said that not only had Lake publicly made false statements about him; and made those claims. actual malicewhich means she knew they were false or acted recklessly as to whether they were true or false.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jay Adleman promised to issue a ruling “in a fairly short period of time” at the end of a Tuesday morning hearing, but did not provide a specific deadline.

Clarification: This story has been updated to clarify the meaning of actual malice.