We live in a country that reveres the democratic process. Checks and balances. he ability to voice our concerns and advocate for what we believe in. Accessibility to the courts and to our government. Due process.
Which is why I was disappointed when I learned about House Bill 168 — The Industrial Security: Industrial Operation Bill. At its core, this bill intends to impose an impossible financial barrier between Alaskans and the courts when seeking an injunction on an industrial operation. This financial barrier would come in the form of a “security bond.”
So what does that even mean? It means that if you or I, or any organization that represents our social, personal health, economic, or ecological values saw an industrial scale operation clearly violating the terms of their permit, and we wanted to call that violation to the attention of the state courts, we would have to come up with the money to cover all lost corporate profits, contractor payments, and employee salaries for the life of the court case. In many cases, this would reach several million dollars. Realistically, who is going to be able to come up with several million dollars to file an injunction on what is a clear violation of a permit? Nobody, which is exactly the point of this bill.
To put it plainly, HB 168 intends to take our access to the courts from us. A regression of our democratic values. A regression of responsibility.
Representative Eric Feige, R-Chickaloon, originally sponsored the bill in an effort to keep potential litigants with frivolous objections to industrial operations from reaching the courts. Funny thing is, judges already have the discretion to dismiss cases they view as frivolous. In other words, Feige’s bill would do nothing to keep frivolous cases out of our courts. If anything, it would punish cases with merit. Sound cases based on evidence — the cases that deserve to be heard. It would make Alaskan citizens pay for corporate permit violations. How’s that for American freedom?
This bill is bad for Alaskans and needs to die in committee. Contact your senator, or all of them for that matter, and let them know you don’t support unconstitutional legislation.
Kate Jensen
Juneau
Comments (6)
Add commentyup.
Well said. This bill basically wants Alaskan residents to pay for corporate misdeeds, either in the form of polluted water, or in the form of an industrial security bond. Either way, Alaskans lose, ex oficio multinational corporations win. Same old story. When are we ever going to wake up and learn from the countless mistakes we've already made?
Thanks for the LTE.
Corporations as individuals
If Corporations are considered to be citizens with all rights that come with this designation, and Alaska law requires the losing litigant to pay said citizen's legal costs, then this bill is not such a huge leap in logic. A surety bond? Nope. But, correct me if I wrong here, organizations such as Sierra Club are not required to cover the defendant's legal expenses, much less anything else, should the defendant prevail.
HB 168
Alaska already has a "loser pays" mechanism in the courts, as you referenced. If the Sierra Club loses a court case, the Sierra Club pays its opponent's legal fees.
This bill, however, is a further leap toward corporatocracy. It proposes not a "loser pays" mechanism (which already exists in Alaska), but rather, a "pay to play" mechanism. Not only would the losing party in a court case have to pay its opponents legal fees, but under this bill, the party seeking the injunction (be it the Sierra Club, the City and Borough of Juneau, the Hoonah Indian Association, or anyone else) would first have to post a security bond simply to gain access to the court. This opens up the door for industrial operations to cut as many corners as they'd like without much regard for anyone filing an injunction against them, regardless of how egregious their permit violations may be. It would effectively give industrial operations in Alaska a free ticket to do whatever they want without fear of citizens fighting back, because the citizens literally would not be able to afford to.
Does that legal landscape sound like the America you love? Sounds a little more like Belarus to me...
1%
Justice in this nation is reserved for those who can afford the best lawyers. Just look at O.J. Simpson.
"With liberty and justice for some."
It passed
It passed the House on April 7. It's headed for the Senate.
It sounds utterly American
The new United States: where corporations are people, and individual citizens are criminals unless proven innocent and even then their sole purpose is to provide money to corporations.