2006 Idaho Proposition 2

Last updated
Proposition 2
Shall the above-entitled measure [see text] proposed by Proposition Two be approved? [1]
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes105,77823.94%
Light brown x.svg No336,08376.06%

Idaho Proposition 2 was a 2006 ballot initiative in the state of Idaho, U.S. that aimed to force government to reimburse property owners whose property value is decreased as a result of government regulation.

Contents

The initiative, which is similar to the controversial Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004), was defeated. [2]

Text

The long title of the proposition states:

AN INITIATIVE RELATING TO EMINENT DOMAIN; AMENDING SECTION 7 701, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE LIMITATIONS ON EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE PARTIES, AND FOR URBAN RENEWAL OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; AND PROVIDE FOR FURTHER JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN; ADDING A NEW SECTION 7-701A TO PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS RELATING TO HIGHEST AND BEST USE, FAIR MARKET VALUE, JUST COMPENSATION, AND LAND USE LAW; AND AMENDING CHAPTER 80, TITLE 67, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR JUST COMPENSATION WHEN A REGULATORY ACTION REDUCES FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AND TO PROVIDE JUST COMPENSATION TO A CONDEMNEE.

Result by county

CountyYesYes %NoNo %
Ada 29,00224.68%88,49375.32%
Adams 38723.08%1,29076.92%
Bannock 4,29817.70%19,99182.30%
Bear Lake 75233.59%1,48766.41%
Benewah 63322.17%2,22277.83%
Bingham 2,27817.87%10,47382.13%
Blaine 1,39419.19%5,87080.81%
Boise 85129.88%1,99770.12%
Bonner 3,50525.47%10,25874.53%
Bonneville 5,50518.24%24,67481.76%
Boundary 87727.82%2,27572.18%
Butte 25823.16%85676.84%
Camas 7015.59%37984.41%
Canyon 11,67227.80%30,32072.70%
Caribou 37114.75%2,14585.25%
Cassia 1,27422.40%4,41377.60%
Clark 6820.30%26779.70%
Clearwater 82728.40%2,08571.60%
Custer 58530.92%1,30769.08%
Elmore 1,58327.64%4,02672.36%
Franklin 1,40236.76%2,41263.24%
Fremont 78818.08%3,57081.92%
Gem 1,59728.45%4,01671.55%
Gooding 77818.93%3,33281.07%
Idaho 2,05632.60%4,25067.40%
Jefferson 1,42019.34%5,92180.66%
Jerome 92119.64%3,86980.36%
Kootenai 9,87326.74%27,05173.26%
Latah 2,79323.69%8,99976.31%
Lemhi 80726.01%2,29673.99%
Lewis 41330.28%95169.72%
Lincoln 29820.82%1,13379.18%
Madison 1,33116.68%6,65083.32%
Minidoka 1,03820.39%4,05379.61%
Nez Perce 3,43829.08%8,38470.92%
Oneida 44829.97%1,04770.03%
Owyhee 99436.52%1,72863.48%
Payette 1,88332.79%3,86067.21%
Power 32715.63%1,76584.37%
Shoshone 1,03427.90%2,67272.10%
Teton 64321.02%2,41678.98%
Twin Falls 3,53218.47%15,59481.53%
Valley 84621.92%3,01478.08%
Washington 97329.09%2,37270.91%

Source: Idaho Secretary of State

Related Research Articles

Eminent domain, land acquisition, compulsory purchase, resumption, resumption/compulsory acquisition, or expropriation is the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use. It does not include the power to take and transfer ownership of private property from one property owner to another private property owner without a valid public purpose. This power can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized by the legislature to exercise the functions of public character.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1978 California Proposition 13</span> Ballot initiative which capped property tax at 1% and yearly increases at 2%

Proposition 13 is an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process. The initiative was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the case, plaintiff Susette Kelo sued the city of New London, Connecticut, for violating her civil rights after the city tried to acquire her house's property through eminent domain so that the land could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan". Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the five-justice majority that the city's use of eminent domain was permissible under the Takings Clause, because the general benefits the community would enjoy from economic growth qualified as "public use".

Just compensation is a right enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is invoked whenever private property is taken by the government. Usually, the government (condemnor) files an eminent domain action to take private property for "public use.", but when it fails to do so and pay for the taking, the owner may seek compensation in an action called "inverse condemnation." For reasons of expedience, courts have been generally using fair market value as the measure of just compensation, reasoning that this is the amount that a willing seller would accept in a voluntary sales transaction, and therefore it should also be payable in an involuntary one. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged that "fair market value" as defined by it falls short of what sellers would demand and receive in voluntary transactions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1964 California Proposition 14</span> 1964 California ballot proposition

California Proposition 14 was a November 1964 initiative ballot measure that amended the California state constitution to nullify the 1963 Rumford Fair Housing Act, thereby allowing property sellers, landlords and their agents to openly discriminate on ethnic grounds when selling or letting accommodations, as they had been permitted to before 1963. The proposition became law after receiving support from 65% of voters. In 1966, the California Supreme Court in a 5–2 split decision declared Proposition 14 unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision in 1967 in Reitman v. Mulkey.

Oregon Ballot Measure 37 was a controversial land-use ballot initiative that passed in the U.S. state of Oregon in 2004 and is now codified as Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 195.305. Measure 37 has figured prominently in debates about the rights of property owners versus the public's right to enforce environmental and other land use regulations. Voters passed Measure 49 in 2007, substantially reducing the impact of Measure 37.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 218</span> Adopted initiative constitutional amendment

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance and taxation in California. Named the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," it was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark property tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment, Proposition 13, approved in 1978. Proposition 218 was approved and adopted by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.

Howard S. Rich, also known as Howie Rich is a real estate investor who is notable for funding libertarian-oriented political initiatives such as term limits, school choice, parental rights regarding education, limited government and property rights. He has published essays advocating these positions. He established advocacy organizations such as Americans for Limited Government and U.S. Term Limits. He is the former chairman of the Legislative Education Action Drive and the Parents in Charge Foundation. Rich has been described as one of the "lower-profile moneymen in American politics" but as a prominent "force in elections across the country." Rich focuses his advocacy mostly on local issues like term limits, not on national campaigns, and doesn't see himself as leaning right or left. He is an effective advocate; National Public Radio identified Rich as a leader behind the independent groups with potential to influence elections.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Arizona Proposition 207</span> Ballot measure to regarding eminent domain

Arizona Proposition 207, a 2006 ballot initiative officially titled the Private Property Rights Protection Act, requires the government to reimburse land owners when regulations result in a decrease in the property's value, and also prevents government from exercising eminent domain on behalf of a private party. It was approved by a 64.8% margin. The land use portion of this proposition is similar to Oregon's 2004 Ballot Measure 37, and the eminent domain portion is similar to initiatives advanced in numerous states following the 2005 US Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 California Proposition 90</span> Failed ballot proposition on government impacts to property

California Proposition 90 was a 2006 ballot initiative in the state of California, United States. Passing of the initiative would have made two changes to California law:

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (1970) ("URA") was passed by the U.S. federal government in 1970. It was intended to ensure fair compensation and assistance for those whose property was compulsorily acquired for public use under eminent domain law. Similar provisions have been introduced by most of the individual States.

Eminent domain in the United States refers to the power of a state or the federal government to take private property for public use while requiring just compensation to be given to the original owner. It can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized to exercise the functions of public character.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 San Diego elections</span>

Municipal elections were held in San Diego in 2016 for mayor, city attorney, city council, and ballot measures. The primary election was held on Tuesday, June 7, 2016, and the general election was held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. Five of the nine council seats were contested. Two city council incumbents ran for reelection.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 218 (Local Initiative Power)</span> Adopted initiative constitutional amendment

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment in the state of California that appeared on the November 5, 1996, statewide election ballot. Proposition 218 revolutionized local and regional government finance in California. Called the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” Proposition 218 was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark Proposition 13 property tax revolt initiative constitutional amendment approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. Proposition 218 was drafted by constitutional attorneys Jonathan Coupal and Jack Cohen.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California elections</span>

The California state elections in 2020 were held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Unlike previous election cycles, the primary elections were held on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Road Repair and Accountability Act</span> California legislative bill

The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, also known as the "Gas Tax", is a California legislative bill that was passed on April 6, 2017 with the aim of repairing roads, improving traffic safety, and expanding public transit systems across the state. The approval of the fuel tax was for a projected $52.4 billion, or $5.24 billion per year, to be raised over the next 10 years to fund the state's infrastructure. The bill passed primarily along party lines, with most Democrats supporting the bill while most Republicans were against it. The bill passed with a vote of 27–11 in the Senate and 54–26 in the Assembly. According to California Department of Transportation, for maintenance projects on state highways, while providing funding to enhance trade corridors, transit, and active transportation facilities, in addition to repairing local streets and roads throughout California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 Idaho Proposition 2</span>

2018 Idaho Proposition 2 is an approved ballot initiative that was included on the 2018 General Election ballot on November 6, 2018. Idaho's Proposition 2 is an initiative which addressed the proposed Medicaid gap within the state. This Ballot Initiative was approved and qualified to be included for voting on July 17, 2018, through campaigning and petitioning for signatures to acquire the necessary support of the voting Idaho population to be included for state-wide voting through the 2018 General Election ballot. This initiative moved to expand Medicaid to persons who did not previously qualify. Proposition 2 would expand Medicaid coverage to persons under the age of 65 if their income is below 133% of the Federal Poverty Line (FPL) and are unable to gain medical insurance or coverage through other means.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 15</span> 2020 California ballot measure

California Proposition 15 was a failed citizen-initiated proposition on the November 3, 2020, ballot. It would have provided $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increased taxes on large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties for homeowners or renters. The measure failed by a small margin of about four percentage points.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 19</span> Successful property tax ballot initiative

California Proposition 19 (2020), also referred to as Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11, is an amendment of the Constitution of California that was narrowly approved by voters in the general election on November 3, 2020, with just over 51% of the vote. The legislation increases the property tax burden on owners of inherited property to provide expanded property tax benefits to homeowners ages 55 years and older, disabled homeowners, and victims of natural disasters and fund wildfire response. According to the California Legislative Analyst, Proposition 19 is a large net tax increase "of hundreds of millions of dollars per year."

References

  1. "Sample Proposition Ballot" (PDF). Idaho Secretary of State. 26 September 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-09-26. Retrieved 26 November 2021.
  2. 2006 General Results statewide Archived 2006-12-13 at the Wayback Machine