Judge rules new free speech law constitutional

Published 1:15 am Thursday, February 18, 2016

CLAREMORE, Oklahoma — A district court judge has declared constitutional the 2014 state law to protect citizens from retaliatory lawsuits for challenging public officials through free speech, petition or assembly rights.

Judge Russell Vaclaw issued the decision Wednesday in dismissing the defamation lawsuit brought by former District Attorney Janice Steidley against five residents of Rogers County for sponsoring a citizens’ petition for a local grand jury investigation of her conduct in office.

Steidley’s suit also named The Daily Progress and its former publisher, editor and reporter as defendants in the case. The Oklahoma Attorney General’s office intervened to defend the constitutionality of the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (OCPA).

Judge Vaclaw said the law, which took effect Nov. 1, 2014, specifically prohibits public officials from striking out at citizens who legitimately exercise their right of free speech, the right of petition or the right of association.

“From the facts presented,” he said, “defendants’ actions were an expression of said rights.”

The judge, however, declined to require Steidley to pay for the defendants’ attorney fees even though the OCPA law contains a provision for such penalty. He said the provision was aimed at public officials who deterred citizens from exercising their free speech rights or harassed them afterwards or deliberately dragged out the litigation to increase their costs.

“This is not the case here,” said Judge Vaclaw, who is from Washington County but was assigned to the Rogers County case. He recently held a hearing on case.

Steidley served as Rogers County District Attorney for four years, losing her bid for re-election in the Republican primary election of 2014. She and other county officials were the subject of a failed grand jury petition circulated by their critics in the fall of 2013.

The petition asked for a local grand jury investigation after local law enforcement officials complained about her performance in office. The petition collected more than 7,000 signatures from Rogers County voters but a Tulsa judge ruled it invalid because the names were obtained on unauthorized forms.

A subsequent state multicounty grand jury inquiry into the petition’s accusations found insufficient evidence to indict Stiedley and her top assistants, although the grand jury report expressed alarm over the lack of civility and professionalism between the DA’s office and local law enforcement agencies.

Steidley sued five of the petition sponsors – Bill Higgins, Erin O’Quin, Edith Singer, and Carl and Sally Williams — and The Daily Progress in October of 2015 for libel, slander and false light invasion of her privacy.  She accused the paper of conspiring with the petitioners.

The defendants challenged the lawsuit under the OCPA law, claiming Steidley was illegally retaliating against them for exercising their constitutional rights to question her official conduct.

The OCPA law is aimed at safeguarding citizens against retaliatory lawsuits by allowing for their preemptive dismissal if public officials cannot show by clear and specific evidence their legal actions are warranted.

Judge Vaclaw said Steidley did not attempt to meet her burden to establish a clear case for her lawsuit and instead chose to contest the constitutionality of the OCPA law on the ground it was an illegal special law adversely affecting public officials and also denied them a right to a jury trial.

The judge dismissed both arguments in his ruling.

He said the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1964 landmark decision for the New York Times — in a libel lawsuit for publishing an ad criticizing the mistreatment of civil rights protestors by Alabama police – set the legal precedent for “when it comes to a citizen’s right to speak against government officials, government officials will be treated differently than an average citizen.”

Judge Vaclaw wrote that the OCPA law “recognizes the different application and standard for those who represent the people, whether it be the undersigned judge, a state representative, a county treasurer, or in this case, a district attorney.”

He said the law’s provision for dismissal without a trial of public officials’ defamation suits that don’t clearly meet the standard for libel or slander is no different than legal rules that allow courts to preemptively dismiss any lawsuit for lack of supporting evidence.

In addition to the OCPA law, the judge ruled, the Oklahoma Constitution “provides that the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their own good, and to apply to those invested with powers of government for redress of grievances by petition, address, or remonstrance.”

He said the OCPA law “simply takes into consideration the special and unique nature of a citizen’s constitutional rights to act against one’s government.”

Oklahoma is not the first state to enact a law to protect citizens against unwarranted lawsuits. Several states have what are commonly called anti-SLAPP laws that offer varying degrees of protection. SLAPP is an acronym for strategic laws against public participation, and the laws are intended to protect government whistleblowers as well as citizens.