Missouri Eminent Domain Reform Initiatives (2010)
| Not on Ballot |
|---|
 |
| This measure was not put on an election ballot |
Missouri Eminent Domain Reform Initiatives did not appear on the November 2, 2010 statewide ballot as initiated constitutional amendments. A total of four initiatives were approved for signature circulation in Missouri.[1]
On March 28 supporters of the eminent domain initiatives said it was unlikely they would file signatures to qualify the measures for the 2010 ballot. Ron Calzone, chairman for Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, said, "We have not officially thrown in the towel, but we have effectively thrown it in." According to reports, legal challenges tied up the measures until March 19. The petition signature deadline was May 2.[2][3]
Three of the initiatives (3A, 3B and 3C) were extremely similar and were filed by the same group, suggesting that only one of those would be used as the final version for petition circulation purposes.
- A petition sample form for Version 2 was approved for circulation by the Missouri Secretary of State's office on December 15, 2008. The official ballot title was certified on January 6, 2009.
- A petition sample form for Version 3A was approved for circulation on December 30, 2008, with the official ballot title certified on January 21, 2009.
- A petition sample form for Version 3B was approved for circulation on December 30, 2008, with the official ballot title certified on January 21, 2009.
- A petition sample form for Version 3D was approved for circulation on December 30, 2008, with the official ballot title certified on January 21, 2009.
Official ballot titles
Version 2
The official ballot title of Version 2 is:[4]
- Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to change the power of the General Assembly and constitutionally chartered cities or counties to:
- Prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire and resell property found to be blighted, substandard or unsanitary for the purpose of clearance, redevelopment or rehabilitation; and
- Allow them to require owners of property found to be a public nuisance to abate or clean up the nuisance and, if the property owner fails to do so in a reasonable time, allow the local government to pay for the abatement and impose a lien to recover the cost?
Fiscal impact statement:
According to the fiscal estimate produced by election officials, "The total cost or savings to state or local governmental entities is unknown. Most state governmental entities estimate no costs, however, some state governmental entities may have unknown or indirect costs. Estimated costs, if any, to local governmental entities will vary, but could be significant."
Version 3A
The official ballot title of Version 3A is:[5]
- Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to restrict the use of eminent domain by:
- Allowing only government entities to use eminent domain;
- Prohibiting its use for private purposes, with certain exceptions for utilities;
- Requiring that any taking of property be necessary for a public use and that landowners receive just compensation;
- Requiring that the intended public use be declared at the time of the taking; and
- Permitting the original owners to repurchase the property if it is not so used within five years or if the property is offered to a private entity within 20 years?
Fiscal impact statement:
The total cost or savings to state or local governmental entities is unknown. Most state governmental entities estimate no costs, however, some state governmental entities may have indirect costs or unknown costs that may exceed $100,000. Estimated costs, if any, to local governmental entities could be significant.
Version 3B
The official ballot title of Version 3B is:[6]
- Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to restrict the use of eminent domain by:
- * Allowing only government entities to use eminent domain;
- * Prohibiting its use for private purposes, with certain exceptions for utilities;
- * Requiring that any taking of property be necessary for a public use and that landowners receive just compensation;
- * Requiring that the intended public use be declared at the time of the taking; and
- * Permitting the original owners to repurchase the property if it is not so used within five years or if the property is offered to a private entity within 20 years?
Fiscal impact statement:
The total cost or savings to state or local governmental entities is unknown. Most state governmental entities estimate no costs, however, some state governmental entities may have indirect costs or unknown costs that may exceed $100,000. Estimated costs, if any, to local governmental entities could be significant.
Version 3D
The official ballot title of Version 3D is:[7]
- Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to restrict the use of eminent domain by:
- * Allowing only government entities to use eminent domain;
- * Prohibiting its use for private purposes, with certain exceptions for utilities;
- * Requiring that any taking of property be necessary for a public use and that landowners receive just compensation;
- * Requiring that the intended public use be declared at the time of the taking; and
- * Permitting the original owners to repurchase the property if it is not so used within five years or if the property is offered to a private entity within 20 years?
Fiscal impact statement:
The total cost or savings to state or local governmental entities is unknown. Most state governmental entities estimate no costs, however, some state governmental entities may have indirect costs or unknown costs that may exceed $100,000. Estimated costs, if any, to local governmental entities could be significant.
Background
Two similar initiatives were circulated for the 2008 ballot, but did not collect sufficient signatures:
Missouri Eminent Domain Initiative Amendment to Article I (2008)
Missouri Eminent Domain Initiative Amendment to Article VI (2008)
Lawsuits
The Missouri Municipal League filed two lawsuits in January 2009 arguing that the fiscal impact statements prepared by the state auditor and the ballot language approved by the Missouri Secretary of State were misleading. In particular, the Missouri Municipal League said they believed that the fiscal note prepared by the state auditor was wrong because it underestimated the costs on cities.[8]
Because of the lawsuits, Missouri Citizens for Property Rights said they were holding off on collecting signatures.
According to Ron Calzone, president of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, "It's their [the Missouri Municipal League] goal to tie us up in court as long as they can to limit the amount of time we have to collect signatures. The frustrating thing about it is that the Missouri Municipal League is funded by cities, so the very cities that are abusing eminent domain power are using taxpayer money to keep this off the ballot and squelch the taxpayer."[9]
Ballot summary revised
On January 5, 2010 the Missouri Court of Appeals rewrote the summary of one of the proposed constitutional amendments. Additionally, the court rejected the second legal challenge. Despite the possibility of an appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court, Missouri Citizens for Property Rights said they planned to begin gathering the required signatures to qualify for the ballot. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan was expected to approve the revised ballot summary by January 10.[10]
A summary of Missouri Municipal League v. Carnahan can be viewed here.
Motive behind lawsuit questioned
On December 14, 2009 Missouri Citizens for Property Rights filed an audio recording of a November 20 meeting in which a lawyer, identified as Carrie Hermeling, for the firm representing the Missouri Municipal League was recorded as saying they were using the courts to delay the petition drive.
According to the court filing, Missouri Citizens for Property Rights recorded the conversation using a pen with a built-in recorder. Hermeling, a partner with Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, was recorded as saying that the case was appealed "with the main objective being to delay the gathering of signatures, and hopefully we're accomplishing that."[11]
Response to audio recording
In response to the filed audio recording, in which Missouri Citizens for Property Rights questioned the motives behind the ballot title challenge, Gary Markenson, executive director of the Missouri Municipal League, said, "The main objective of the lawsuit was to come up with fair and impartial ballot language."[11]
Path to the ballot
- See also: Missouri signature requirements
To qualify for the ballot, each initiative required signatures from registered voters equal to 8% of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor's election from six of the state's nine congressional districts. Petition signatures are due by May 2, 2010.
Sponsor
The sponsor of all four initiatives was:
Ron Calzone
Missouri Citizens for Property Rights
33867 Highway E
Dixon, MO 65459
See also
Articles
External links
Additional reading
- World Magazine, "2010 Preview: Ballot initiatives are a way for citizens to settle an issue directly without state legislatures," January 16, 2010
- Columbia Daily Tribune, "Group accused of petition delay," December 15, 2009
Footnotes
- ↑ Kansas City Infozine, "Two Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation for 2010 Missouri Ballot," January 9, 2009
- ↑ Associated Press, "Eminent domain changes unlikely to be filed," March 28, 2010
- ↑ Associated Press, "State eminent domain changes are unlikely to make November ballot," March 28, 2010
- ↑ Missouri Secretary of State, "Constitutional Amendment to Article VI, Section 21, Relating to Eminent Domain, version 2, blue paper, 2010-006," accessed November 23, 2009
- ↑ Missouri Secretary of State, "Constitutional Amendment to Article I, Section 26, Relating to Eminent Domain, proponent's version 3a, yellow paper 2010-011," accessed November 23, 2009
- ↑ Missouri Secretary of State, "Constitutional Amendment to Article I, Section 26, Relating to Eminent Domain, proponent’s version 3b, yellow paper 2010-012," accessed November 23, 2009
- ↑ Missouri Secretary of State, "Constitutional Amendment to Article I, Section 26, Relating to Eminent Domain, proponent’s version 3d, yellow paper 2010-014," accessed November 23, 2009
- ↑ Springfield Business Journal Online, "Eminent domain petitions await court decisions," March 16, 2009
- ↑ Fulton Sun, "Eminent domain petitioning to return to a street corner near you," January 23, 2009
- ↑ Associated Press, "Missouri: Petitioning to start on eminent domain measure," January 6, 2010
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Associated Press, "Motives in Mo. Eminent Domain Measure Scrutinized," December 14, 2009
 |
State of Missouri Jefferson City (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
