Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=976298
 
 

Citations (9)



 
 

Footnotes (344)



 


 



The Limits of Backlash: Assessing the Political Response to Kelo


Ilya Somin


George Mason University School of Law

June 11, 2009

Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 6, pp. 2100-2178, June 2009
George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 07-14

Abstract:     
The Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which upheld the power of government to condemn private property for purposes of economic development, generated a massive political backlash from across the political spectrum. Over forty states, as well as the federal government, have enacted post-Kelo reform legislation to curb eminent domain. This Article is the first comprehensive analysis of the legislative response to Kelo. It challenges the validity of claims that the political backlash to Kelo will provide the same sort of protection for property owners as would a judicial ban on economic development takings. Most of the newly enacted post-Kelo reform laws are likely to be ineffective.

Part I describes the Kelo decision and documents the widespread anger it generated. Both state-level and national surveys show overwhelming public opposition to economic development takings - opposition that cuts across racial, gender, political, and socioeconomic divisions. The backlash against Kelo is the largest against any Supreme Court decision in decades, and the legislative response is possibly the most extensive to any Supreme Court decision in history.

Part II analyzes the state and federal political response to Kelo. Thirty-six state legislatures have enacted post-Kelo reform laws. However, twenty-two of these are largely symbolic in nature, providing little or no protection for property owners. Several of the remainder either have significant loopholes or were enacted by states that had little or no history of condemning property for economic development. The major exceptions to the pattern of ineffective post-Kelo reforms are the eleven states that recently enacted reforms by popular referendum. Strikingly, citizen-initiated referendum initiatives have led to the passage of much stronger laws than those enacted through referenda initiated by state legislatures.

Finally, Part III advances a tentative explanation for the pattern of ineffective post-Kelo reform, in spite of overwhelming public sentiment in favor of such legislation. I contend that the ineffectiveness of post-Kelo reform is largely due to widespread political ignorance. Survey data collected for this Article shows that only 13% of Americans know whether or not their home state has enacted effective post-Kelo eminent domain reform. The political ignorance hypothesis accounts for three otherwise baffling anomalies: the sudden emergence of the backlash after Kelo in spite of the fact that the decision made little change in existing precedent; the passage of ineffective laws by both state and federal legislators; and the fact that post-Kelo laws enacted by popular referendum tended to be much stronger than those enacted by state legislatures.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 80

Keywords: Kelo, property, constitutional law, economic development, post-Kelo reform, eminent domain reform, condemnation, New London, takings

JEL Classification: D23, K11

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: March 27, 2007 ; Last revised: June 14, 2009

Suggested Citation

Somin, Ilya, The Limits of Backlash: Assessing the Political Response to Kelo (June 11, 2009). Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 6, pp. 2100-2178, June 2009; George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 07-14. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=976298

Contact Information

Ilya Somin (Contact Author)
George Mason University School of Law ( email )
3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States
703-993-8069 (Phone)
703-993-8124 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 15,570
Downloads: 1,744
Download Rank: 4,369
Citations:  9
Footnotes:  344

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.485 seconds