Does Utah's Anti-SLAPP Act protect all election-related political speech? Jacob v. Bezzant Explained

In Jacob v. Bezzant, the Utah Supreme Court addressed the scope of Utah’s Anti-SLAPP Act and whether it protects all political speech during elections. The case arose from a heated local election controversy involving candidate eligibility and competing political advertisements.

Background and Facts

The dispute began when Tom Hunter and Rick Storrs, both city employees, sought seats on the American Fork City Council. William Jacob believed city ordinances prohibited their candidacies and published an anonymous political advertisement claiming they were ineligible. In response, Brett Bezzant, editor of the American Fork Citizen New Utah, published an “Urgent Election Notice” apologizing to the candidates and stating they were eligible to run. Bezzant’s notice also disclosed Jacob’s identity as the author of the original advertisement. Jacob subsequently sued Bezzant for defamation.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether Utah’s Anti-SLAPP Act protected Bezzant’s election notice as “participation in the process of government.” The court also addressed whether the allegedly defamatory statements had defamatory meaning and whether attorney fees were properly awarded under both the Anti-SLAPP Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court held that the Anti-SLAPP Act does not encompass all political speech regarding elections. Instead, protection is limited to speech that exercises “a citizen’s First Amendment right to influence legislative and executive decision making.” The court distinguished between citizen decision making (voting) and government decision making by legislative and executive branches.

Applying this standard, the court found Bezzant’s election notice was not protected because it did not attempt to influence government decision-makers. The American Fork City Council had already decided the candidates were eligible, and Bezzant’s notice was directed at voters, not government officials. However, the court affirmed dismissal of the defamation claims, finding they lacked merit because the statements were privileged editorial opinion protected by Utah’s public interest privilege.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly narrows Utah’s Anti-SLAPP Act protection compared to broader statutes in other jurisdictions like California. Practitioners must carefully analyze whether political speech actually seeks to influence pending government decisions rather than merely inform voters. The ruling also reinforces strong First Amendment protections for editorial opinion in political contexts, even when Anti-SLAPP protection doesn’t apply.