Kansas bill could violate First Amendment, target indigenous people, opponents say
A bill that would establish stiff new criminal penalties for damaging or trespassing near natural gas pipelines and other “critical infrastructure” was denounced by opponents Wednesday, who said it violated the First Amendment and targeted indigenous communities.
The measure attracted scant attention when it was passed by the Senate in a 29-9 vote March 2. But a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee drew numerous detractors.
The legislation is similar to numerous other bills nationwide, many patterned after model legislation drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative non-profit funded by fossil fuel companies and other industries.
Thirteen states have already passed such legislation into law since 2016, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
The Kansas bill was introduced at the request of the American Fuel and Petrochemicals Manufacturers.
“It’s part of a national effort by fossil fuel interests and partisan political organizations to stifle political speech in pursuit of their own economic and political interest,” said Rabbi Moti Rieber, executive director of Kansas Interfaith Action. “Protest, including civil disobedience, is an honorable American tradition.”
It is already a crime In Kansas to tamper with a pipeline. The bill would create four new offenses with harsher penalties that address trespassing and damaging infrastructure, including felonies that carry prison time.
Critics say the bill is part an industry response to the 2016 protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, which runs through sacred tribal lands of the Standing Rock Sioux. In North Dakota, where the protests took place, lawmakers went as far as to consider making it legal to hit a protester with a car if the individual was blocking a roadway. That legislation failed in 2017
Rep. Ponka-We Victors, D-Wichita, said she didn’t know about the bill ahead of the Senate vote. Victors said she and Rep. Christina Haswood, D-Lawrence, the only two Native American lawmakers in the Kansas Legislature, both immediately recognized the bill once it was passed on to the House.
“Having these types of harsher penalties, that’s so directly attacking Native American and indigenous communities,” Haswood said in written testimony.“That’s also just another target on people of colors’ backs for police brutality … when we just want to raise our voices and speak passionately about protecting our land.”
Proponents of the bill said it’s meant to create more severe penalties for people looking to tamper with water facilities, natural gas pipelines and other critical infrastructure.
In his testimony, Gavin Kreidler, a lobbyist for American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, referred an incident in Oldsmar, Florida, in February where a hacker attempted to raise lye levels in the water supply. The Wall Street Journal reported the levels were quickly fixed, but had the tampering not been detected, the water could have become poisonous to consumers.
“Critical infrastructure facilities represent an extremely sensitive target to criminal perpetrators who might seek to damage our state or our local economy,” Kreidler said. “They also might seek to disrupt the services associated to that critical infrastructure facility and overall create sustained damage and potential chaos.”
He said the intent of the bill was not to disrupt First Amendment rights. But it would be ill-advised, he said, to protest “for instance, inside the fence of an oil refinery” regardless of the bill.
First Amendment lawyer Max Kautsch said the bill is “troublesome” because it is too vague to specifically target those wanting to cause harm. In a statement, he said because the crimes in the bill are so broadly defined, it has the potential to be applied to groups like those protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline.
“it could be applied to impose its broadly defined, felony-level punishments on peaceful protesters exercising their First Amendment rights in a manner that ‘inhibit(s) operations’ of a critical infrastructure facility, chilling free speech in the process,” he said.
Lawmakers questioned whether there were any instances of hacking or damage to infrastructure in Kansas that the measure might address. The only specific Kansas example Kreidler mentioned were scrap metal thefts. He wouldn’t share specific details because representatives of those facilities chose not to testify before lawmakers.
“No disrespect, but I’m not going to take the word of unidentified, second-hand informants in making public policy in Kansas,” Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita, responded. “I have serious concerns about your legislation.”