The Center for Public Integrity

A legal challenge to Proposition 207, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, was dismissed by the Arizona Supreme Court on August 31. The measure, if approved by voters on November 7, would restrict the government’s use of its eminent-domain power and require compensation for regulatory takings.

The lawsuit — brought by a coalition led by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns — argued that Proposition 207 doesn’t comply with a state law requiring that it identify a funding source.

Superior Court Judge Paul J. McMurdie, whose ruling the high court upheld, previously found that the plaintiffs had shown substantial evidence that the compensation-triggering provisions of the takings initiative were in violation of the funding-source requirement. But he held that the issue didn’t warrant removing the initiative from the ballot and that any challenge on that ground would have to come after the election. The Supreme Court will issue its opinion at a later date.

On November 7, 2006, ballot initiatives that seek to restrict “regulatory takings” will be put to voters in at least four Western states: Arizona, California, Idaho, and Washington. Although the potential impact of these initiatives is far-reaching — all would generally require landowners to be compensated for government regulations that reduce property value — citizens and journalists in these states might not know who’s underwriting the multimillion-dollar campaigns to promote and pass them.

Through its Takings Initiatives Accountability Project, the Center for Public Integrity aims to exhaustively investigate the ideological and financial interests behind these ballot measures and to make the findings of its research and reporting available to others as soon as is practicable.

The overarching rationale for this project is to allow citizens in those states and elsewhere to assess not only the substance and potential impact of the takings initiatives but also to report on who’s bankrolling these measures, and why, as well as who’s opposing them, and why. In this way, the Center hopes to uniquely contribute to a better-informed electorate and news media in the important but narrow window before the November 7 elections.

The Takings Initiatives Accountability Project was launched in August 2006 with a grant from the Wallace Global Fund.

Key Personnel

Missouri: Constitutional Amendment to Article I - Eminent Domain, 2006-34 “The Protect Our Homes Initiative”

Read the full text of the ballot initiative.

See who financed the “Yes” efforts 
2006 04 10 Missourians in Charge Filing .pdf
2006 05 24 Missourians in Charge Filing .pdf
2006 07 17 Missourians in Charge Filing .pdf
2006 08 04 Missourians in Charge Filing .pdf
2006 09 07 Missourians in Charge Filing .pdf

Status: Missouri Secretary of State disqualified the initiative because the signed petitions were not submitted in the legally required manner.

Colorado: Proposed Intiatives 79 and 86
Unofficially captioned “Compensation for Land Use Regs that Diminish Property Value”

Status: Proponents did not submit petitions.

Oklahoma: State Question 729
“The Protect Our Homes Initiative”

Ballot initiative. A procedure by which a specified number of voters may, by means of a petition, propose a statute, constitutional amendment, or ordinance and compel a popular vote on its adoption. For more, see Wikipedia entry for initiative.

Eminent domain. The inherent power of the government to expropriate private property without the owner’s consent, either for its own use or by delegation of its taking power to third parties for “public uses,” the most common examples being public utilities or railroads. For more, see Wikipedia entry.

Kelo v. City of New London. A 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision (545 U.S. 469) that upheld the plans of New London, Connecticut, to condemn homes and transfer the land to private interests to further commercial and residential development on the ground that such a plan was in the public interest and therefore was permissible under the government’s eminent-domain power. For more, see Wikipedia entry.

Land-use planning. The scientific, aesthetic, and orderly disposition of land, resources, facilities, and services with a view to securing the physical, economic and social efficiency, health, and well-being of urban and rural communities. From the Canadian Institute of Planners; for more, see Wikipedia entry.