Eminent domain ruling: state constitutional action likely?

[Northern_Piper]

Is it at all likely that some of the states may respond to the eminent domain ruling by passing stricter rules for eminent domain in their state constitutions?

After all, the federal constitutional principles only provide the floor - states can choose to put stricter standards on their state/municipal governments (or more expansive individual rights) in their state constitutions (see: Massachussetts same-sex marriage).

So, do the Dopers think that some states may say “meh” to the SCOTUS interpretation of the federal constitution, and start taking steps to create a narrower meaning of “public purpose” in their equivalent state constitutional provisions?

[Hamlet]

I sincerely doubt any action will be taken via amending state constitutions. I haven’t seen/heard much outcry from the masses. Which is incredibly depressing. We the people can amass enough outrage and action to deny gays the right to marry, but not to limit the taking of property. What’s that tell you about our society?

[Mtgman]

It is already happening. A Texas state representative has called for a state constitutional amendment as have four other states that I am aware of.

Austin - In response to Thursday’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to allow local governments to seize homes and businesses against the owner’s will for economic development, Representative. Frank Corte, Jr. of San Antonio, Texas will file a constitutional amendment in the special session to defend the rights of property owners in Texas. The legislation will limit a local governmental entity’s power of eminent domain, preventing them from bulldozing residencies in favor of projects for private developers. “The power of eminent domain was never intended to be used to line the pockets of private companies,” Corte remarked of the ruling.

Representative Corte will ask the governor to add the issue to the call of the current special session, allowing the legislature to consider the matter. In order for the constitutional amendment to appear on the November ballot, it is critical that the issue be addressed without delay.

“The right to own and use property is inherent to a free society. When a government decides they know how to use private property better than the individual, private property rights cease to exist,” noted Rep. Corte.

I don’t have a lot of hope for these initiatives to succeed, but it is nice to see some people taking interest.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Gaudere]

Some of the states already have stricter limits on eminent domain: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois (yay!), Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington forbid taking the land unless if is blighted. Conneticut is talking about making some new eminent domain laws, too. I suspect a fair number may eventually get around to it. Maybe it’s not something they feel the need to hop on right away, like gay marriage.

[pravnik]

@Gaudere

Some of the states already have stricter limits on eminent domain: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois (yay!), Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington forbid taking the land unless if is blighted. Conneticut is talking about making some new eminent domain laws, too. I suspect a fair number may eventually get around to it. Maybe it’s not something they feel the need to hop on right away, like gay marriage.

I’m surprised we here in Texas were able to get to it as quick as we did. We have an extremely serious problem with sexy cheerleader dancing we’ve been dealing with down here.