by Logan Finney, Idaho Reports

The Idaho Senate in a 15-20 vote Thursday rejected a bill that sought to create a new court process for strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits.

“The key word there in SLAPP is strategic,” said Senate Bill 1352 sponsor Sen. Brian Lenney, R-Nampa. “These lawsuits are not designed to win. The point of these lawsuits that we’re talking about, these SLAPP lawsuits, are to intimidate, to distract, to bankrupt, or to punish free speech.”

The bill was drafted to implement ”Public Expression Protection Act” model legislation from a state-supported national organization that researches and proposes model uniform state laws.

“I’m not a lawyer, but I didn’t come up with this idea or come up this bill.” Lenney said. “Idaho has passed several Uniform Law Commission bills. This is just another bill that was poured over and dissected and edited and modified by tons of lawyers before I ever set eyes on it.”

Lenney characterized the bill as free speech protection, which earned warm support from some.

“The antidote for bad speech is not a lawsuit to shut that speech down,” said Sen. Phil Hart, R-Kellogg. “This provides an opportunity to keep the dialogue that needs to be in the public square in the public square and not in the courts. The courts are for controversies that the courts have the expertise to resolve.”

The bill passed out of the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee on Monday despite concerns from a few senators regarding the novel legal aspects of the proposal, which they echoed on the floor.

“Perhaps it needs to be done. I would offer though that this is a big idea that needs a little bit of time to work through our process,” said Assistant Majority Leader Abby Lee, R-Fruitland. “This is model legislation that might be perfect for other states. I would offer that Idaho needs an Idaho solution, and we need more time for this.”

Sen. Doug Ricks, R-Rexburg, said he supported the concept despite opposing the bill itself.

“We might look at taking time to consider this,” Ricks said, “to look at things that quite likely could override our existing laws and create new conditions where case law would have to come forth and be tried and tested out in our courts.”

Lenney in his debate touted support for an Idaho anti-SLAPP law from both “far-left” and “far-right” proponents, but some voices in support might have caused hesitation from a few of his colleagues.

As KTVB reported, “SLAPP lawsuits gained traction in Idaho politics after a years-long online feud between former Idaho Freedom Foundation Vice President Dustin Hurst and political activist and consultant Greg Graf ended in a stalemate. Both sides accuse the other of filing a SLAPP lawsuit to intimidate and censor speech” in their committee testimony earlier this week.

“Some public figures who support this concept, this bill, have gone out on social media and gone after others who testified in the committee the same day,” Ricks said. “So, it leads me to have concern about whether there’s something in this bill that’s not trued up that could be a problem.”

Most of the opposition to SB 1325 appeared to be uncertainty about the details of the particular bill, not opposition to anti-SLAPP legislation as a whole.

“Every year when we come back here, we hear from the judges and courts. We hear about how their caseload is heavy and they need additional funding,” said Sen. Ben Adams, R-Nampa.

He voted in favor of the bill, noting that he is the Senate floor sponsor for the judicial branch budget.

“If this alleviates some of that backlog then I’m all about it. It may end up saving us and the state some money as well,” Adams said.

The Senate passed a few additional budget bills and minor pieces of legislation in the Thursday evening floor session. They even cracked a few jokes during the period for introductions of any constituents or family members sitting among the audience up in the gallery.

“My mom and my aunt came to see you guys kill my bill,” Lenney said. “Welcome to the Senate.”

---