advertisement

UPDATE: Missouri judge rejects eminent domain ballot summary

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 | 5:53 p.m. CDT; updated 6:42 p.m. CDT, Tuesday, June 30, 2009

JEFFERSON CITY — A Missouri judge on Tuesday struck down a ballot summary prepared by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan for an initiative that would limit the use of eminent domain to take private property for redevelopment.

Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan ruled that Carnahan's summary was "insufficient and unfair" because it suggests the measure would add some protections for private property that already exist in the state constitution.

The ruling marks the second time within a week that Callahan has rejected ballot summaries prepared by the secretary of state's office. Last Friday, he invalidated the summary for an initiative limiting affirmative action programs.

Under Missouri's initiative process, the secretary of state's office is responsible for writing a summary that appears on petition-signature sheets and the ballot.

Supporters, opponents and state attorneys have until next week to decide whether to appeal Callahan's recent decisions. Initiative sponsors are waiting until there is greater legal certainty before gathering signatures to get their measures on the November 2010 ballot.

Previous initiatives limiting the use of eminent domain didn't survive court fights in 2006 and 2008.

The latest campaign by Missouri Citizens for Property Rights would place two eminent domain amendments on the ballot. The combined intent is to prevent a person's home, business or other private property from being condemned for another private development, such as a shopping center.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 upheld the power of local governments to seize property for private development projects that generate tax revenue. The decision drew criticism from private property and civil rights advocates and prompted efforts in many states to tighten the use of eminent domain.

The Missouri Municipal League, which opposes the amendments, raised numerous legal challenges to both but prevailed on only one claim against one of the measures.

Callahan struck down a portion of Carnahan's summary that said the amendment would restrict eminent domain by "requiring that any taking of property be necessary for a public use and that landowners receive just compensation."

The public use and just compensation requirements have been included in Missouri's Constitution since 1820, a year before it became a state, Callahan wrote in his decision. He said Carnahan's summary "will tend to unfairly influence voters" by implying that passage of the amendment would adopt those restrictions.

Carnahan's spokesman Ryan Hobart said the secretary of state's office stands by its summary and is considering an appeal.

Municipal League Executive Director Gary Markenson described the ruling as a partial victory and said the organization also is considering whether to appeal.

But initiative sponsor Ron Calzone suggested appeals "should be considered malicious acts to the voters of Missouri" by attempting to entangle the measures in the courts and keep them off the ballot.

Calzone submitted the ballot proposals to Carnahan's office late last fall.

"Every week delay makes this process more expensive; it decreases the likelihood of our success" in gathering enough signatures, he said.

Sponsors of ballot proposals have until May to turn into signatures to the secretary of state's office. The Municipal League and Carnhan's office both denied that legal appeals would act as roadblocks to the initiatives.

"If there is any appeal from our end, it would be to ensure that voters have a fair and accurate summary to go off of when they are trying to make a decision about this proposal," Hobart said.

 


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Ted Picraux June 30, 2009 | 8:09 p.m.

Well here goes Dumb Mr. Callahan at it again. How can this man still be allowed to rule on things? The man is the worst judge in Missouri history. The man is incompetent. He consistently rules against the will of the people and it elected officials. The man is out of control. We need to take steps to remove him. I call on the Missouri Supreme Court to act at once. This So-called judge can not decide anything anymore. We will give the MO Supreme Court one month to investigate his actions and remove him, otherwise the entire slate of judges in Missouri shall be considered frauds.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz June 30, 2009 | 8:40 p.m.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what the summary says. People should ALWAYS read the full text of the proposition and not rely on the ballot summary. Remember constitutional amendment 7 from 2006? It's ballot summary read:

Shall Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution be amended to require that legislators, statewide elected officials, and judges forfeit state pensions upon felony conviction, removal from office following impeachment or for misconduct, and to require that compensation for such persons be set by a citizens' commission subject to voter referendum?

However, anyone who read the actual proposed amendment also saw that the commission's recommendations could only be overriden by a 2/3rds majority of the legislature, as opposed to the existing 1/2 majority. In other words, the amendment made it easier for the legislature to raise their pay by not rejecting the commission's proposals.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements