Seems doubtful this would be constitutional if it were to pass (and no one else quoted in the report seemed too enthused about it). By his own admission, the bill is a response to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, and so (although the language itself is neutral) it is arguably a content- or even viewpoint-based restriction because the intent is to deter a certain kind of speech. If so, it would be subject to strict scrutiny and almost certainly struck down. (Note that it doesn’t require the “obstructing” to be illegal, so far as I can tell.) Even if you consider it content-neutral, it would still have to pass the rational-basis test. And it’s hard to see what the rational basis for this would be, or at least I can think of reasons it’s irrational.