Arizona Proposition 207 - Private Property Rights Protection Act. (Passed with 65% of the vote.) Measure defines "public use" to mean only the public will own and use the land and declares that the public benefits of economic development, including increased tax revenues and employment, shall not constitute a "public use." The Act ensures that Arizona citizens receive just compensation if they lose their property or lose the value of their property when government takes or enacts a law that diminishes the value of private property.

California Proposition 90 - Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. (Defeated, received 48% of the vote.) Measure sought to bar state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects or uses. Would have limited government’s authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations, except when necessary to preserve public health or safety. Sought to void unpublished eminent domain court decisions and stipulate that condemned private property must be offered for resale to prior owner or owner’s heir at current fair market value if government abandons condemnation’s objective.

Florida Amendment 8 - Eminent Domain. (Passed with 69% of the vote.) Prohibits the transfer of private property taken by eminent domain to a natural person or private entity; providing that the Legislature may by general law passed by a three-fifths vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature permit exceptions allowing the transfer of such private property; and providing that this prohibition on the transfer of private property taken by eminent domain is applicable if the petition of taking that initiated the condemnation proceeding was filed on or after January 2, 2007.

Georgia H.R. 1306 - Condemnation of Property. (Passed with 82% of the vote.) Requires that the condemnation of property for redevelopment purposes must be approved by vote of the elected governing authority of the county or city in which the property is located; to restrict the use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes to the elimination of harm; to provide that the use of eminent domain by counties and municipalities shall be subject to limitation by general law; and to prohibit the use of eminent domain by certain non-elected local authorities.

Idaho Proposition 2 - Initiative Limiting Eminent Domain When Used for Economic Development. (Defeated, received 25% of the vote.) Sought 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. Would have added a new section to provide for definitions relating to highest and best use, fair market value, just compensation, and land use law; and to provide for just compensation when a regulatory action reduces fair market value of property and to provide just compensation.

Michigan Proposal 06-4 - Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit Government from Taking Private Property by Eminent Domain for Certain Private Purposes. Prohibits government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue. Provides that if an individual’s principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of the property’s fair market value. Requires government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for a public use. If a property is taken for the purpose of eliminating blight, a higher standard of proof is required to demonstrate that the taking is for a legitimate public use.

Nevada Question 2 - Nevada Property Owner's Bill of Rights. (Passed with 63% of the vote.) Amends Article 1 of Nevada's Constitution regarding the determination of public use of property, payment for private property taken under eminent domain actions, compensation for economic loss from government actions, and the rights of property owner's with respect to court proceedings. If voters approve this initiative during the 2006 election, it will be resubmitted to the voters at the 2008 General Election.

New Hampshire Question 1 - Power to Take Property Limited. (Passed with 86% of the vote.) Prohibits the use of eminent domain if the property is to be transferred to another private entity for private development.

North Dakota Initiated Constitutional Measure 2 - The Taking of Private Property for Public Use. (Passed with 67% of the vote.) Provides that the taking of private property for public use or purpose does not include public economic development benefits and that private property could not be taken for private benefit unless necessary for conducting a common carrier or utility business.

Oregon Measure 39 - Prohibiting Public Body from Condemning Private Real Property if Intends to Convey to Private Party. (Passed with 67% of the vote.) Prohibits public bodies from condemning private residence, business establishment, farm, or forest operation if government intends to convey all or part of the property to another private party. Excludes property condemned as dangerous to health or safety, or for transportation or utility services; allows government to lease condemned property for accessory retail uses.

South Carolina Constitutional Amendment 5 - Eminent Domain. (Passed with 80% of the vote.) Prohibits the State or a local government from condemning, or taking, private property for any purpose except for a public use, and says that economic development in itself is not a public use; allows the General Assembly to pass a law that allows condemnation for a private use only if the property is blighted and is dangerous to the community's safety and health and if fair compensation is paid; and deletes language about condemnation of blighted areas by some specific local governments.

Washington Initiative 933 - Government Regulation of Private Property. (Defeated, received 43% of the vote.) Sought to require government agencies to consider the effects of and alternatives to regulating private property. Compensation would have been required when regulations are enforced that damage private property use or value, including regulations prohibiting or restricting property uses that were allowed as of January 1, 1996. Sought to create exceptions for regulations applying equally to all property subject to the agency's jurisdiction. Development regulations that would prohibit existing legal property uses would not have been permitted.