November ballot initiatives in six states would force state governments to provide compensation for lost property value as a result of regulation or be forced to waive the regulatory protection.

The "regulatory takings" ballot initiative uses fear of eminent domain, spurred by the 2005 Supreme Court case Kelo v. New London, Conn., to push forward a sweeping anti-regulatory initiative. If the initiative wins voter support, it could have an enormous chilling effect on state and local governments' ability to pass and uphold needed health, safety and environmental protections.

In the Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. New London, Conn., the court upheld the right of the city government to seize property in order to redevelop. The ruling created a backlash at the state levels, and approximately 30 states passed laws limiting eminent domain. Right-wing, anti-government groups have used the property rights movement galvanized by the court decision to piggyback their anti-regulatory agenda.

Now, Washington, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada are set to vote on regulatory takings ballot initiatives. Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana and Nevada will vote on a ballot initiative that includes both restrictions to eminent domain and regulatory takings restrictions. The measure in Washington is solely to limit regulatory takings.

Called "Kelo-plus" by supporters, the measure would require states to compensate landowners for lost property value as a result of a law or regulation limiting land use, including any environmental, health or safety regulations that limited what an individual could do on private property. If the government could not pay, then most of the ballot initiatives require the regulation to be waived or amended.

A similar ballot initiative passed in Oregon in 2004, and already the measure has had far-reaching implications. Some 2,200 claims have been filed in the state totaling over $5 billion. About half of the cases have been resolved. Without the money to pay out claims, the state has been forced to waive the regulations in all cases. Under the auspices of upholding property rights, the law, known as Measure 37, has essentially provided a backdoor to deregulation.

The misleading connection drawn between property takings and regulatory takings in the ballot initiatives is no accident. In fact, this strategy was articulated by the libertarian magazine Reason in April of this year. All six of the ballot initiatives are funded by Howard Rich, head of Americans for Limited Government. Rich is also backing another radical ballot initiative, the Tax Payer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), which would put draconian limits on state spending. According to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, ALG has spent upwards of $11 million to push through the TABOR and regulatory takings measures.