Note: Ballotpedia will be read-only from 9pm CST on February 25-March 5 while Judgepedia is merged into Ballotpedia.
For status updates, visit
Ballotpedia's coverage of elections held on March 3, 2015, was limited. Select races were covered live, and all results will be added once the merger is complete.

Michigan Eminent Domain Restriction Amendment, Proposal 4 (2006)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Michigan Constitution
Seal of Michigan.png
Michigan Eminent Domain Restriction Amendment, Proposal 4 was on the November 7, 2006 election ballot in Michigan as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved.

Proposal 4 prohibited government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain private purposes.[1]

The effects of Proposal 4 were to:

  • Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.
  • Provide that if an individual’s principal residence is taken for public use, the individual must be compensated for at least 125% of property’s fair market value.
  • Require government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for a public use; if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of that property is for a public use.
  • Preserve existing rights of property owners.[2]

The proposal was one of 12 eminent domain-related ballot measures throughout the country on the 2006 ballot.

Election results

Proposal 4 (Eminent Domain)
Approveda Yes 2,914,214 80.1%

Official results via: The Michigan Secretary of the State


The Mackinac Center for Public Policy endorsed the measure. Their Senior Legal Analyst Patrick J. Wright said Proposal 4 was a "reasonable and significant restrictions on Michigan governments’ ability to use eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another."[3]

Fiscal Impact

The fiscal impact of land acquisition costs on state and local governmental entities from passage of Proposal 06-04 cannot be determined, because the number of purchases and the prices at which these purchases would occur are not known.[4]

Taxpayer's perspective

A Taxpayer’s Perspective from the National Taxpayers Union: The Save Our Homes Amendment (Proposal 06-4) would proscribe government eminent domain seizures that aren’t justified by clear purposes of general public benefit.

Campaign funding

Below is information on the amount of funds raised for Proposal 2:[5]

Contributions for Proposal 2:

Contributor Total
Protect Our Property Rights $375,748
Prime Housing Group $2,204

See also

Suggest a link

External links