State legislation protecting citizens from becoming victims of SLAPPs is not a new concept. Twenty states have already passed legislation aimed at preventing SLAPPs  and assisting victims when these suits are filed. The efforts have been bipartisan; allowing for full public participation and input in decisions made by governmental entities is both a Republican and Democratic principle. Further, the federal government has even shown its support:  In the mid-80s Congress introduced legislation encouraging states to enact anti-SLAPP legislation. 

The sample legislation offered by SERC has not been used in any state because it was developed specifically to correct various inadequacies in state legislation already enacted. The authors of the legislation are George W. Pring and Penelope Canan, authors of SLAPPs: Getting Sued For Speaking Out and founders of the University of Denver Political Litigation Project. It uses the elements of the California, New York, and Minnesota bills and incorporates federal law and a Supreme Court decision. Minnesota’s law most closely resembles the sample legislation, and the bill passed handily in the House (102-23) and unanimously in the Senate (51-0). 

Other state legislatures have enacted similar bills, and the following information gives some background on how anti-SLAPP bills are received in legislatures across the country. 

Washington
The first modern anti-SLAPP bill was passed in Washington state, a legislative reaction propelled by a high profile SLAPP case involving a woman who discovered that her housing developer was withholding taxes from the state (amounting to more than $350,000) and subsequently was SLAPPed by the housing company. The “Brenda Hill Bill,” as it was coined, passed unanimously in 1989. The bill is not as comprehensive as it should be – it neglects the need for an expedited dismissal, if warranted (the courts have countered this with judicial action that corrects some of the flaws). 

New York
Similarly, the New York Legislature took on the anti-SLAPP cause with a reactionary motive—legislators thought that the courts were not doing enough to discourage SLAPP litigation. In 1991, the first bills were introduced and had widespread support from the executive branch and from various public interest groups. Unfortunately, the bill, after having passed the state assembly 134-1, died in the senate. In 1992, another attempt was made and was met with success: the bill passed unanimously in the assembly and 53-5 in the house. New York’s Citizen Participation Act, according to George W. Pring and Penelope Canan, authors of SLAPPs: Getting Sued For Speaking Out, “is a commendable step forward in procedures but is not without its compromises and limitations.” Both Delaware (1992) and Nebraska (1994) have adopted very similar legislation. 

California
California’s anti-SLAPP law  was a long time coming, due to intense opposition from the California Building Industry Association. Legislation overwhelmingly passed both houses twice and was subsequently vetoed by different governors. The third attempt, in 1992, was signed into law by Governor Pete Wilson in 1992 after again overwhelmingly passing in the legislature. Governor Wilson, as quoted in SLAPPs: Getting Sued For Speaking Out, stated “It is our right as Americans to hold and express differing opinions about key public issues. This legislation will give courts new powers to throw out frivolous lawsuits whose only intent is to cut off public debate and stifle free speech.” Two states, Rhode Island (1993) and Massachusetts (1994), followed California’s lead and enacted parallel legislation. 

Minnesota
Minnesota’s law easily passing in 1994 (House 102-23; Senate 51-0) with the support of a large number of environmental and social justice groups, most closely reflects the provisions in the sample bill highlighted by SERC and authored by George W. Pring and Penelope Canan. 

New Mexico and Utah
Most recently, New Mexico and Utah enacted anti-SLAPP laws. New Mexico’s law is intended to deter the filing of SLAPP suits, and provides that individuals or organizations are immune from liability for participating in the processes of government unless there is no reasonable basis for the conduct and the conduct is undertaken in bad faith. A successful dismissal allows for recovery of attorney’s fees, and possibly other sanctions if the court finds that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. This bill passed the House 44-22 and the Senate 30-12, and was signed into law on April 3, 2001. Utah’s Citizen Participation in Government Act was enacted in 2001 also and came into effect April 30, 2001. 

For information on other states that have adopted anti-SLAPP legislation or that are trying to do so, please see the California Anti-SLAPP Project’s website at http://www.casp.net/menstate.html.