Bruce L. Woodbury is a county commissioner in Clark County, Nevada. Woodbury, a Republican, is a leader of Nevadans for the Protection of Property Rights, an organization formed to oppose Nevada’s eminent-domain and takings ballot initiative.

You have filed a lawsuit against PISTOL [People’s Initiative To Stop the Taking of Our Land] challenging the constitutional amendment initiative called the “Nevada Property Owner’s Bill of Rights.” Tell us about it.

The lawsuit is basically to prohibit the question from being on the ballot. We contend that it violates certain standards, statutes, and the U.S. Constitution in terms of being a valid ballot question.

This biggest issue is that, in Nevada, a ballot initiative must be a single subject. Our contention: It’s multiple subjects. It violates the equal protection clause by creating a privileged class of litigants with special rules for them. They’re seeking to exploit concern over the Kelo [v. City of New London] case, to add to it other agendas that constitute the bulk of the initiative.

What are those agendas?

One, to increase substantially the level of settlements and verdicts in eminent-domain cases involving public work where there’s a public purpose. [That has] nothing to do with Kelo and is being pushed by lawyers who specialize in eminent-domain cases and whose fees would be substantially increased if this passes. Two, Section 8 [of the proposed amendment to the Nevada Constitution] — the takings clause — says that any government act with a significant effect on anyone’s property values requires just compensation. That’s the agenda of Howard Rich and the libertarian caucus­ — to paralyze land-use planning and zoning and other government activities. Those are the reasons for our concerns, the reasons we’re fighting against it. It’s a bait and switch; Kelo is the bait. That’s easy to fix, I don’t oppose doing so. The rest is 95 percent of the consequences. Those include unintended consequences — it violates federal highway provisions and could forfeit highway funding. We have a letter from the U.S. Department of Transportation that says Section 11 [of the proposed amendment] violates federal regulations and would jeopardize federal highway funding.

Is the battle in Nevada similar to what we are seeing in the other states?

The battle here in Nevada is unique. It’s much different in other states, where they’re using Kelo to get the takings provisions attached to it. Here we have public works and eminent domain.

Who are the key players working to pass the initiative?

Kermitt Waters, an eminent-domain trial attorney [in Las Vegas], is partnering with [Howard] Rich. He sincerely believes that his clients and he, himself, aren’t getting enough money in highway condemnation cases and wants taxpayers to have to pay substantially more when eminent domain is used. I think [Waters and Rich] each had a separate agenda to use Kelo for their own purposes, came together, and melded their proposals into a 650-word initiative. Something that complex and multifaceted should be the subject of legislation, not a constitutional amendment.

Don Chairez, a [Republican] candidate for attorney general, is partnering with Waters and Rich on this whole thing. I don’t know why. When the ballot question was being formulated and signatures were being gathered, he was not a candidate.

Who is working to defeat the initiative?

A committee has been formed, and we’re just trying to get the word out. It’s called Nevadans for the Protection of Property Rights. It’s a broad-based group — business, labor, responsible developers, environmentalists, neighborhood watchdog groups. They are all concerned that homeownership will be affected, that property values will actually decrease if zoning and planning are paralyzed through Section 8. Water authorities and other groups are all concerned about the effects [this amendment might have] on public works projects. [They fear that it would be a] whole unlimited new realm of liability that would paralyze government.