Kari Lake No Longer Defending Allegations Of A Rigged 2022 Election In Court

(PatriotPostNews.com) – Kari Lake has decided not to argue in court that the 2022 Arizona governor’s race that she lost was rigged, as her attorneys filed for a default judgment in the defamation case against her.

The GOP candidate for the United States Senate has been involved in a legal battle since June 2023, when fellow Republican Stephen Richer, a recorder for Maricopa County, sued her and others for having uttered defamatory accusations about him rigging election results. Richer fought back by accusing Lake of speaking in a way that resulted in the tangible consequences of threats against him and his family.

Though on hold for some time, the Supreme Court of Arizona moved to hear the case earlier this month, following a ruling from a Maricopa County judge that Richer’s claims could be found as “either true or false” by a jury. On Tuesday March 26, however, Lake’s legal team filed to have the case concluded before upcoming elections, meaning the judgment would automatically be in Richer’s favor but not inherently provide him all the damages he is seeking.

As Richer detailed in his legal complaint last summer, Lake made similar comments and accusations against him while at political rallies, speaking on podcasts, and posting on social media. She alleged that he intentionally interfered with printing equipment in Maricopa County on Election Day and included 300,000 illegitimate ballots in the vote.

An independent investigation determined that the age of printers and larger ballots could have caused the malfunctioning equipment, but the trial judge later ruled that Lake’s allegations that the ballot image sizes were too small were something that warranted scrutiny and could be proven either true or false.

While Lake is now facing criticism for seemingly admitting she was wrong in her accusations, her attorneys wrote in the recent motion that “defaulting” is often misunderstood to be the defendant conceding to accusations against him or her. However, they described this as “a misnomer” and pointed out that the party entering the default is not required to “admit facts that are not well-pleaded” in the complaint.