The Clark County Republican Party head office in Las Vegas on Saturday, Sept. 28, 2019. (Erik Verduzco/Las Vegas Review-Journal) @Erik_Verduzco
A Clark County District Court judge turned down the Nevada Republican Party executive director's demand to dismiss a character assassination claim versus her on Thursday.

Judge Jessica Peterson rejected Alida Benson's motion to dismiss the case that was brought in October 2022 by a trio of Republicans who declared the executive director maligned them throughout a Clark County Republican Party conference in September.

Amy Tarkanian, a political commentator and former chair of the Nevada Republican Party, and Republicans Elliot Malin and Jason Guinasso submitted a complaint against Benson and James Blockey, a member of the Clark County Central Committee Republican Party, alleging that the statements they made harmed their track record and ability to generate income in their respective fields.

At the conference in September - - when the county party's central committee voted on a resolution to censure Republicans who had actually announced their support for Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford rather than the Republican prospect Sigal Chattah - - Benson had stated Tarkanian and Malin, a signed up Republican lobbyist, were "personally benefiting" by supporting Ford in the 2022 election, according to the lawsuit.

Blockey had likewise stated in the meeting that those called in the resolution to censure "are working for Democrats, getting paid," the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs alleged that those statements were both defamatory and incorrect. Tarkanian, Guinasso and Malin were members of "Republicans for Ford," a group of more than a dozen Republicans who crossed the aisle to support Ford and enhance his re-election quote.

After the initial suit was filed, Benson submitted a SLAPP motion on Dec. 13, 2022, along with a movement to dismiss. Anti-SLAPP laws, or "tactical lawsuits against public involvement," are ways for an accused to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits before they sustain significant expenses.

Benson needed to show that what she stated remained in advance of totally free speech, was made in public and was made in good faith. But she likewise had to reveal that she was informing the fact or did not understand at the time that what she was saying was false.

Peterson concurred that the statements were made in a public online forum and in connection to an issue of public interest, but did not find proof that Benson's statement was sincere or made without her understanding of being false, according to Peterson's order.

Benson had offered Peterson with Ford's webpage, and a post from the Review-Journal about the Republicans backing Ford.

" Nowhere in any of those files does it state that Amy Tarkanian, Jason Guinasso, or Elliot Malin were ‘‘ fundraising, generating income, or personally profiting' from marketing for Democrats," Peterson wrote in the order, concluding there was no evidence to show that Benson understood at the time that the statement held true or made without knowledge of its fraud.

The defendants have a right to appeal the decision to the Nevada Supreme Court; otherwise, the case will progress.

In a statement to the Review-Journal, Tarkanian, Malin and Guinasso said they are "extremely pleased" with the judgment and "look forward to holding the Republican Party Executive Director further liable for her harmful and reckless fabrications."

Benson referred the Review-Journal's ask for comment to her attorney Brian Hardy, who did not immediately return a request for remark.

This is an establishing story. Check back for updates.

Contact Jessica Hill at jehill@reviewjournal.com. Follow @jess_hillyeah on Twitter.

Order by Jessica Hill on Scribd