Missouri Citizens for Property Rights seeks to restore constitutional protection against private use eminent domain.

About CPR

Amendment Language and summary

Contact

Article I petition sample

Article VI petition sample

Petitioner's Guide (Flash Video)

Petitioner's Guide (PDF)

Volunteer

Businesses: Click here

Missouri Citizens for
Property Rights

33867 Highway E
Dixon, MO 65459
(573) 759-3585

info@mo-cpr.org

DONATE
online

Donations are NOT tax deductible.

Join Email Group





 
 

 

 

Thank you to everyone who worked or gave!

ESSAYS Please Read These!
Read about the historical perspective of American Property rights. (click here)

How should we deal with “blight”? (click here)

DONATE
online
Donate

Donations are NOT tax deductible
Donate online or mail your check today to:
MO-CPR c/o Richard Westbrook, CPA
205 W Main St
Richmond, MO 64085

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

Endorsements

The Heritage Foundation
“I endorse the worthy and valuable principals of the Missouri Citizens for Property Rights' proposed constitutional amendment to better protect property rights, and I support the enactment of any proposal like it that prevents abuses of traditional eminent domain powers and provides safeguards against the confiscation of private property for other private uses.” -
Todd Gaziano, Director, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies The Heritage Foundation

Property Rights Alliance
Property Rights Alliance (PRA) commends Missouri Citizens for Property Rights for their efforts to protect private property in the state of Missouri. With the threat of eminent domain abuse looming at the state and national level, it is imperative that organizations and activists work together to protect property owners and small business enterprises from government’s grasp. PRA applauds the work of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights and supports its continued efforts to protect the Missourian property owner.” -Scott A. LaGanga, Executive Director of Property Rights Alliance (PRA)

Reason Foundation
I have looked at a lot of legislation and efforts around the country to limit eminent domain abuse. Most of them are laudable. But the effort of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights stands out from the crowd. Not only are they meticulous about changing the law to confine eminent domain to true public uses, they put real effort into discussing alternatives to eminent domain for cities dealing with blight and economic development challenges. I am impressed by how they combine a hard line on property rights with an effort to address the public policy consequences.“ Dr. Adrian Moore, Vice President, Reason Foundation (Blog)

American Policy Center
The threat to private property is real. Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo VS New London, no home is secure. As the battle rages across the country, two approaches have emerged: those who try to appease, consequently doing little for property owner's protection -- and those who are serious about protecting private property from the ravages of Eminent Domain. The effort by the Missouri Citizens for Property Rights takes the no-compromising stand and gets it right.” Tom DeWeese, President, American Policy Center

The Rutherford Institute
"I commend the Missouri Citizens for Property Rights in their work to protect the rights of private property owners. This is essential legislation and should be used in other states to ensure that what happened in Connecticut by way of the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision does not happen again."--
John W. Whitehead, President, The Rutherford Institute

The Claremont Institute
Our government officials seem to have lost their way. The primary purpose of government is supposed to be the protection of the inalienable rights of its citizens, including the right to own property, yet all too frequently planning department bureaucrats, with the sanction of both elected officials and courts, view their role as implementing some communitarian ideal, trampling individual rights for what these bureaucrats believe to be the common good. I therefore applaud the efforts of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights
to reinvigorate the protection of private property that the Missouri Constitution has historically afforded, amending the constitution to forestall erroneous interpretations of the long-standing provisions. The restoration of property rights as one of our fundamental rights, deserving protection against tyrannical majorities for all but the most compelling of public use reasons, is an important battle, and I wish you much success.” - John Eastman, Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law

Missouri Property Rights -

Defenders of Property Rights-
“Defenders of Property Rights applauds the Missouri Citizens for Property Rights for their effort to restore the traditional, constitutional principles of property rights in the state of Missouri. Considering the recent tragic results of eminent domain abuse, it is essential that organization’s collaborative efforts work towards returning eminent domain to its appropriate use and prevent private property owners from more unjust takings. Defenders of Property Rights commends the determination of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights in defending property rights and will continue to support their efforts to minimize the victimization of Missourian private property owners as a result of eminent domain abuse.” –
Nancie Marzulla, President, Defenders of Property Rights

MEDAC (Missouri Eminent Domain Abuse – Coalition)

Concerned Citizens for Family Farms and Heritage, Doug McDaniel President-

The O’Fallon Old Town Preservation Committee
The O’Fallon Old Town Preservation Committee is proud to endorse the Missouri Constitutional Amendments proposed by the Missouri Citizens for Property Rights.”

New Life Evangelistic Center

Concerned Women for America

 

So, what happened?
(September 5, 2008)

In the fall of 2005, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous Kelo decision, Missouri Citizens for Property Rights began this ballot initiative project.

After months of amendment drafting and coalition building we began to collect signatures in April of 2007. Increased attention to the project and burgeoning awareness of the abuses of private use eminent domain resulted in fundraising successes which facilitated a paid petition drive that started early in 2008. However, there were just a few months until the May 4th deadline for filing with the S.O.S.

Our two petitions were the only constitutional amendments to make the filing - the other three petitions filed were statute changes, which require far fewer signatures.

In the end, we were short several hundred signatures in one of the 6 congressional districts we were required to get signatures from. For those who invested so much time, money and prayers, and for others who just care about justice and traditional American principles of property rights and free enterprise, the following is an explanation of what happened.

How many Signatures?
The Constitutional Requirement

The Missouri Constitution stipulates the number of signatures required for ballot access and where those signatures must come from:

Article III, Section 50. "Initiative petitions proposing amendments to the constitution shall be signed by eight percent of the legal voters in each of two-thirds of the congressional districts in the state, and petitions proposing laws shall be signed by five percent of such voters."

There are 9 congressional districts, so you must collect signatures in at least 6. The 6 we chose required 147,445 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. One must collect many more than that since signers who are not registered or are otherwise disqualified from signing won't be counted.

For the Article I amendment, we collected exactly 71,000 more signatures than the total required. For Article VI, we collected 63,502 more than the total required.

Total "raw" signatures (before validation)
filed with the S.O.S.
 
Collected
Required
Excess
Article I
218,445
147,445
71,000
Article VI
210,947
147,445

63,502

Total
429392

Again, a large excess is required since as many as 20% to 30% of the signatures won't count. In the case of the Article I petition, about 51,000 of the 71,000 "extra" signatures were not counted because they were considered "invalid".

That still left us with 20,000 more valid signatures than needed for the statewide total, but there was one more requirement. The constitution says you must have signatures equaling 8% of voters in each of the 6 districts. Excess in one district does not help you in another district in which you are short. Although we had lots of extra signatures in 5 of the 6 districts, in congressional district 2 we were short.



Signature Totals Reported By
Local Election Authorities (Art. I)
Total Valid
Required
Net
CD 1
27,195 23,182 4,013
CD 2
25,597 28,787 -3,190
CD 3
26,837 23,775 3,062
CD 5
30,535 23,527 7,008
CD 7
29,312 25,450 3,862
CD 9
28,038 22,724 5,314
Totals
167,514 147,445 20,069

How could this happen?

Districts 1, 2 & 3 are the St. Louis metropolitan area. District 2 is comprised of residents from Lincoln County, St. Louis County, and St. Charles County. However, not all residents of St. Charles County are in congressional district 2 - many are in CD 9.

Likewise, many, in fact most, of the residents of St. Louis County are not in CD 2 - they are split between CD 1, CD 2 & CD 3. As a result, you don't really know which district a petition signer is from until his signature is validated, or checked, against the voter registration database.

Distirct Map

That shouldn't be a problem, if all goes well. The petition management company we hired to track this sort of thing used a Michigan company to do 100% verification of the signatures we collected. They fell way behind in their verification, and so in the final weeks of the project the petition management company could only guess how many signatures we had in each of the St. Louis area districts.

Had we been able to move some of the signatures from CD 1 and CD 3 into CD 2, we would have had enough - at least as reported from the local election authorities.

Signature Recovery

The signature shortfall in CD 2 was not actually the 3190 figure reported by the local election authorities. There are always a certain number of signatures that are hard to read and were, therefore, overlooked when the government checked them. We hired petition forensic experts to pour over the rejected signatures and "glean" the remaining good ones. Additionally, we searched through most of the other 40,000 petition pages for misfiled sheets and even identified sheets for St. Louis County which had been mislabeled as St. Louis City petition pages.

All of that was a massive job and took hundreds hours - we left no stone unturned - but in the end we just couldn't find enough more valid signatures to meet the requirement. In the end, we were just hundreds of signatures short - not several thousand.

The Circulator Registration Problem

Another obstacle we faced was an issue over circulator registration forms. The Secretary of State claimed that many of the petition sheets were circulated by unregistered circulators. There were, in fact, a handful of circulators whose registration forms the petition management company could not account for. Most of those claimed missing by the SOS, however, we could clearly demonstrate had, indeed, been filed.

In some cases the SOS threw out whole petition sheets, labeling them "Circulator Not Registered" (CNR) but accepting other sheets from that same circulator because his or her registration form was, in fact, on file. Other times, the circulator had mailed in forms directly to the SOS, as the form instructs, but they were not counted.

In Cole County Circuit Court we contended that a voter who signed a petition should not be disenfranchised because someone else failed in the registration process. Although the lower court disagreed, we think we could have won that issue in the higher court. We did not pursue that question, however, because we could recover all but a few hundred of the CNR signatures without the appeal. That few hundred signatures was not enough to make the difference in success anyway.

Hurdles to Success

We could have made it - we should have made it - but there were a lot of things working against us. In retrospect, we clearly had enough time had there been fewer obstacles. A number of "challenges", in addition to the ones mentioned above, exasperated the problem posed by a limited time table. The elimination of one or two of the challenges would probably have resulted in success.

The weather alone surely cost us enough signatures to succeed. It was one of the wetter winters and springs in a long time and that was especially troublesome in the last couple of weeks, when we were concentrating on CD 2.

"Blockers" were also a problem. Many of the professional circulators were carrying a petition for a another group, independent of ours, the "Civil Rights Initiative". (Some pros won't work unless they can carry a few different petitions.) Opponents to the CRI petition sometimes slowed up the collection of eminent domain signatures as a result of their blocking.

Local authorities were also a problem at times. Sometimes they didn't understand our rights and would forbid petitioning in places it was clearly legal.

Just How Hard Is It To Get On The Ballot?

It's hard! And it should be. Amending the constitution is no trifling matter.

Of the many ballot initiative on the street this year, only five collected enough signatures to turn into the SOS, and we had two of them. The other three were only statute changes, so they didn't need to collect nearly as many signatures.

Since 2002, there have been 30 groups who have attempted to amend the constitution by initiative but only five made it to the ballot.

  • Collective Bargaining (2002)
  • Gambling on the White River (2004)
  • Highway and Transportation Tax (2004)
  • Tobacco Tax (2006)
  • Stem Cell Research (2006)

Each of these issue had well-heeled proponents with financial stakes in the outcome. For a true grassroots effort like ours to get as close as we have is pretty good.

We Are The Wiser Now - We Will Prevail!

Someone once said, "There is no great loss without some small gain." In this case the gain was more than a small one. The MO-CPR team knows so much more about the process than we did even a year ago. We will be "armed for bear" next time and we will prevail!

It took 8 years - from 1775 to 1783 - to finally throw off the shackles of the king's tyranny. We can do no less than spend a couple of more years trying to preserve the liberty our forefathers secured for us.

George Washington

 

The Next Step

The next election cycle is for the 2010 November election. Unless the governor calls a special election, we cannot take our amendments before the people any sooner. Now is the time to begin to prepare.

We need to build our coalition and we need to raise money. The volunteers were a very important part of the first attempt, but we will not succeed with volunteers alone. Encourage your friends and family to go to www.mo-cpr.org and give either by mail or online. Remember, money given to a candidate may or may not go toward issues you care about, but all of the money given to MO-CPR hits the target. (No one on the board has ever taken any compensation.)

We also need to continue to build our email list and list of volunteers. When we have another petition ready, we want the troops already mustered.

Thank you, again, to everyone who gave of their time or money!! It was not wasted - we will continue the war from higher ground this time!

- The MO-CPR Board

Details of Signature Collection, Below

Total Valid and Invalid Signatures for 2008-001 Article I, Eminent Domain Minus Selected Problems






County Total Signatures Blank Questionable Strikeout Net
Adair 1,415 1 0 13 1,401
Audrain 1,322 0 0 15 1,307
Barry 401 2 0 1 398
Boone 9,809 3 0 160 9,646
Callaway 1,329 0 0 12 1,317
Camden 118 0 0 8 110
Cass 828 0 0 10 818
Christian 2,898 3 0 33 2,862
Clark 20 0 0 0 20
Crawford 1,799 1 0 14 1,784
Franklin 6,895 7 0 43 6,845
Gasconade 809 0 0 7 802
Greene 17,588 14 0 166 17,408
Jackson 43,448 16 0 274 43,158
Jasper 5,900 2 0 65 5,833
Jefferson 12,906 6 0 120 12,780
Knox 52 0 0 0 52
Lawrence 1,059 2 0 7 1,050
Lewis 40 0 0 0 40
Lincoln 1,844 2 0 23 1,819
Macon 687 0 0 2 685
Maries 114 0 0 1 113
Marion 1,615 1 0 5 1,609
McDonald 1,343 2 0 8 1,333
Miller 270 0 0 3 267
Monroe 473 0 0 11 462
Montgomery 400 0 0 4 396
Newton 2,057 3 0 23 2,031
Osage 97 0 0 0 97
Pike 1,268 0 0 4 1,264
Polk 695 0 0 8 687
Ralls 651 0 0 3 648
Randolph 1,279 1 0 17 1,261
St. Charles 16,477 21 0 170 16,286
St. Louis City 21,422 25 0 370 21,027
St. Louis County 54,503 57 0 742 53,704
Ste. Genevieve 362 0 0 5 357
Scotland 49 0 0 1 48
Shelby 176 1 0 1 174
Stone 1,354 1 0 8 1,345
Taney 2,902 11 0 56 2,835
Warren 2,393 1 0 26 2,366
Totals 221,067 183 0 2,439 218,445









Total for both petitions:
429,392

Total Valid and Invalid Signatures for 2008-001 Article IV, Eminent Domain Minus Selected Problems






County Total Signatures Blank Questionable Strikeout Net
Adair 1,338 1 0 5 1,332
Andrew 1 0 0 0 1
Audrain 1,241 0 0 15 1,226
Barry 422 0 0 3 419
Boone 9,499 6 0 143 9,350
Callaway 1,215 1 0 18 1,196
Camden 118 0 0 6 112
Cass 839 0 0 8 831
Christian 2,862 13 0 14 2,835
Clark 25 0 0 0 25
Crawford 1,687 0 0 11 1,676
Dunklin 15 0 0 0 15
Franklin 6,609 2 0 35 6,572
Gasconade 802 1 0 2 799
Greene 17,335 10 0 122 17,203
Jackson 41,670 25 0 224 41,421
Jasper 5,797 4 0 42 5,751
Jefferson 12,394 9 0 88 12,297
Knox 52 0 0 0 52
Lawrence 1,096 0 0 6 1,090
Lewis 41 0 0 0 41
Lincoln 1,712 1 0 12 1,699
Macon 652 0 0 7 645
Maries 105 0 0 0 105
Marion 1,673 0 0 5 1,668
McDonald 1,324 0 0 4 1,320
Miller 274 0 0 2 272
Monroe 441 0 0 2 439
Montgomery 371 0 0 2 369
Newton 2,037 1 0 14 2,022
Osage 91 0 0 1 90
Pike 1,250 0 0 2 1,248
Polk 638 0 0 5 633
Ralls 627 0 0 2 625
Randolph 1,141 0 0 17 1,124
St.Charles 15,638 15 0 137 15,486
St. Louis City 20,728 62 0 307 20,359
St. Louis County 52,697 113 0 628 51,956
Ste.Genevieve 365 1 0 4 360
Scotland 51 0 0 1 50
Shelby 173 0 0 1 172
Stone 1,267 3 0 4 1,260
Taney 2,757 30 0 58 2,669
Warren 2,155 1 0 22 2,132
Totals 213,225 299 0 1,979 210,947









Total for both petitions:
429,392