Lawmakers debate bill that would make plaintiffs liable for damages from losing lawsuits over permitted state projects

First Substitute Senate Bill 183 prompted prolonged debate on March 6, 2002, as members argued over whether a statute that would make plaintiffs liable for damages when they lose suits challenging permitted state construction projects is an appropriate check on litigation or an improper deterrent to lawful judicial review.

Sponsor Representative Garn described the bill as accountability for groups whose lawsuits delay permitted state projects and said delay costs for a high-profile project reached $2,000,000 per month. "When a group decided they didn't like the Legacy Highway ... the taxpayers of this state are spending $2,000,000 a month," the sponsor said, framing the bill as a remedy for economic harm from successful injunctions that halt construction.

Opponents called the measure retaliatory and warned it would chill public participation and extend beyond frivolous litigation. "This bill is pure retribution," said Representative Becker, arguing that citizens and organizations have the right to seek redress in courts and that the bill reverses protections passed the prior year to prevent intimidation of public participation.

Legal concerns were raised on constitutional grounds. One member noted potential conflicts with the state constitution's open-courts provision and the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause, saying the bill could deter legitimate petitions to the courts and might raise retroactivity concerns if applied broadly.

Supporters countered that the bill targets permitted state projects — a high standard — and would not bar suits but would impose liability for damages if plaintiffs lose. They argued this restores balance between judicial and legislative/administrative processes and protects communities and economies from disruption caused by protracted litigation.

During the floor debate, numerous representatives recounted local traffic and emergency-response harms tied to delays in highway projects and invoked the Legacy Highway as the policy background for the bill’s intent. Members also discussed procedure, amendments that narrowed the bill to state projects, and the legislative record of prior related bills (including SLAPP-related language).

At the time the transcript ends for this item the bill had completed extended debate and voting was opened on the first substitute for Senate Bill 183; a final roll-call tally for the substitute as recorded on the transcript is not specified.

Action taken: Debate concluded and the House opened a vote on the first substitute to Senate Bill 183; the transcript does not record a final tally for the bill in the provided segments.