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.millersamuel.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.