Ex-Dem Rep. Stoneback can’t sue gun control group, current Rep. Olickal over NRA smears

By Jonathan Bilyk | Legal Newsline
The Center Square

An Illinois gun control activist group and a current Illinois Democratic state lawmaker appear poised to ultimately prevail over a former Democratic state representative who sued them for allegedly lying about her gun control positions amid a Democratic primary race.

But the defendants can’t use an Illinois state law forbidding politically motivated lawsuits to do so, a state appeals panel has ruled.

On April 16, a three-justice panel of the Illinois First District Appellate Court said they could not support the request from current Illinois State Rep. Kevin Olickal, D-Chicago, and the gun control group, Gun Violence Prevention PAC, to pull the plug on the legal action brought against them by former Illinois State Rep. Denyse Wang Stoneback under Illinois’ version of the law forbidding so-called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, commonly known as SLAPPs.

However, in their ruling, the justices still likely dealt a mortal blow to Stoneback’s lawsuit, finding her claims to be “meritless.”

Stoneback sued Olickal and Gun Violence Prevention PAC in 2023 in Cook County Circuit Court.

The lawsuit accused the current state lawmaker and the activist group of partnering on a smear campaign against Stoneback, which was centered on allegedly lying to voters and the public about her positions on gun control amid the 2022 Democratic primary election in Illinois’ 16th State Representative District.

The district includes a chunk of Chicago’s far North Side, as well as portions of Skokie and Lincolnwood, among portions of other north suburban communities.

Stoneback, of Skokie, had been elected as a Democrat to represent the district in 2020 and took office in 2021.

Before running for office, Stoneback had “built a reputation” as a gun control activist, according to published reports.

However, unlike many other Democratic incumbents, Stoneback faced a strong primary challenge in the very next election cycle just two years later from Olickal.

Olickal is a child of Malaysian immigrants who had served as executive director of the Indo-American Democratic Organization (IADO) before running for election in the 16th District.

The Chicago-based IADO bills itself as a “strong, unified voice for the South-Asian Americans in Chicago and across Illinois.”

Amid the race against Stoneback, the Gun Violence Prevention PAC reversed its support from Stoneback to Olickal, citing Stoneback’s decision to abstain from voting on a gun control measure, which was centered on requiring fingerprints from Illinois gun owners, among other restrictions.

Stoneback claimed she abstained from voting on the measure to express her displeasure with the decision by Democratic leadership in Springfield to weaken a more stringent measure she had supported.

However, during the political campaign, Olickal and Gun Violence Prevention PAC sent mailers to voters and other public messaging claiming Stoneback had “said NO” to the fingerprinting requirements and other gun control provisions, and asserted this placed her on the side of the National Rifle Association (NRA), which had publicly urged lawmakers to vote down the proposed fingerprinting law.

Olickal then edged Stoneback in the 2022 election and easily won election over a Republican opponent that November. Olickal secured reelection in 2024 running completely unopposed.

Following the 2022 election, Stoneback filed suit against her former opponent and the gun control group, accusing them of defamation for allegedly knowingly misleading voters about what actually happened with the gun control bill and falsely asserting she was somehow aligned with the NRA for not abiding by the wishes of the gun control group and Democratic legislative leaders.

In Cook County Circuit Court, Olickal and the gun control group sought to dismiss the action as an illegal SLAPP. They claimed Stoneback had wrongly sought to use her lawsuit to punish them for their constitutional speech amid the 2022 election and to deter them from speaking against her in the future.

Cook County Judge Jeffrey L. Warnick, however, disagreed, specifically finding Stoneback’s defamation claims were not “meritless” and rejecting the attempt to use the SLAPP law to toss the suit.

On appeal, however, the First District justices said the lower court may have been correct on the question of whether Stoneback’s suit was an illegal SLAPP. But they said he was wrong to find Stoneback’s claims held “merit.”

The decision was authored by Justice Freddrenna M. Lyle. Justices Ramon Ocasio and Clare J. Quish concurred in the decision. The ruling was issued as an unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23, which may limit its use as precedent.

In the decision, the justices held they believed the claims expressed in the anti-Stoneback mailers and messaging were “true,” even if they ultimately painted Stoneback as being allied with a political organization she opposed.

They noted the mailers never claimed Stoneback “voted no” on the fingerprinting measure. Rather, they said, the mailers said Stoneback “said NO” to the gun control measures contained in the law.

They agreed Stoneback’s abstention amounted to effectively voting against the measure. Thus, they said, by abstaining, Stoneback still allied herself on the measure with the position desired by the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment groups.

“The fact that Ms. Stoneback abstained from voting on House Bill 562 because she supported a—in her view—’stronger’ bill, does not render the statements in defendants’ flyers false,” Lyle wrote in the appellate order.

“Ms. Stoneback acknowledges that she did not support a bill that included the safeguards that defendants identified in their flyers: universal background checks, fingerprinting for FOID cards, and funding for communities affected by gun violence.

“Defendants were not required to provide voters with additional information about the reasons for Ms. Stoneback’s abstention. “

However, while acknowledging Stoneback’s lawsuit likely ends there, the panel still denied the defendants’ attempts to kill the lawsuit under the SLAPP law.

They said it was clear Stoneback’s lawsuit was not intended to interfere with anyone’s constitutional speech rights, but rather to seek redress for the reputational harm and loss she suffered from the allegedly defamatory and false accusations in Olickal’s and Gun Violence Prevention PAC’s campaign messaging.

The justices ordered the case sent back to Cook County court, where they said it will likely be summarily dismissed as “meritless.”

Defendants in the case were represented by attorney Michael J. Kasper, a prominent Democratic Party operative who served as general counsel for former Illinois House Speaker and chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party Michael J. Madigan, who is currently in prison after he was convicted of public corruption and bribery charges.

Kasper also has represented current Illinois Democratic House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch and other prominent Democrats and left-wing groups.

Stoneback has been represented in the action by attorneys from the firm of Mudd Law, of Chicago.