Les Christie’s article [Kelo’s revenge: Voters restrict eminent domain: Eight (actually, 10) states vote to prohibit or restrict the use of eminent domain to take property from one private individual and give it to another [CNN/Money]](http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/08/real_estate/kelos_revenge/index.htm?postversion=2006110811) summarizes the election aftermath relating to eminent domain.

We discussed the historic [Kelo v. the City of New London](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) court decision last year in [Eminent = Imminent](http://matrix.millersamuelv2.wpenginepowered.com/?p=711) where a homeowner could lose their private home to a private developer.

After the outrage relating to this court decision, [more than 30 states enacted laws and/or constitutional amendments](http://www.jbs.org/node/1605) to prevent this from happening. It has energized watchdog groups such as [Castle Watch](http://www.castlecoalition.org/CastleWatch/articles/11_9_06.html), to prevent more of this type of emminent domain taking.

Here’s a [pre-election tally](http://www.ncsl.org/programs/natres/emindomainleg06.htm) and its substantial. California did not vote for the proposition because the law was too broad and pressure from conservation groups concerned that it would weaken government authority too much.

One Comment

  1. John Philip Mason November 13, 2006 at 6:53 pm

    There has been such a backlash to the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain, it has now become a high priority topic with many towns and counties considering enacting restrictions on the permitted uses of eminent domain. Regardless of their legal right to enact such laws (i.e. should it be left to the states rather than the towns, etc.), it is clear the Supreme Court is out of step with many Americans. Home ownership is an issue of great pride for many, no matter if they own castles or cottages. Unlike the prior courts which made daring (and progressive) decisions regarding numerous matters (i.e. on civil rights, desegregation of schools, etc.), the current members of the court have angered many with such a provincial outlook on the rights of the individual. The current Supreme Court risks losing the respect of many should it fail to place the rights of individuals above all else.

    Peace – John

Comments are closed.