Walters’ Constitutional Amendment to Protect Property Rights Killed

Assemblywoman Mimi Walters’ constitutional amendment to protect private property rights and to place limits on the powers of eminent domain was killed by the California State Assembly’s Judiciary Committee today.

In her statement before the Committee, Walters said, “ACA 2 begins with the premise from the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that private property may only be taken for a true and legitimate public use, or to protect the public safety.”

The Assembly Judiciary Committee, which is heavily-weighted in favor of Democrats, killed Walters’ bill on a party-line vote of 3 to 7.

“It is disappointing to see that the majority party does not support equal property rights for all Californians, regardless of region, socio-economic status, or political clout,” Assemblywoman Walters said after ACA 2 was killed by the Committee. “It is improper for this Legislature to place the desires of a few ahead of the property rights of all Californians.”

Introduced last December, Walters’ legislation, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 2 (ACA 2), came on the heels of the narrow defeat of Proposition 90, a state wide initiative to protect private property rights and place strong limitations on the use of eminent domain. As the Honorary Statewide Chair of Proposition 90, Walters traveled throughout the State of California meeting with victims of eminent domain abuse.

Both Proposition 90 and ACA 2 were drafted in response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, where it was decided that a local government could take a person’s private property and give it to another private entity, simply to increase tax revenue.

“People were outraged by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Kelo case,” Walters continued. “Until that decision came forward, people were unaware that – at any time – local government could take your private property and give it to someone with more political clout who could generate more revenue for the local government.”

“It is critical that we continue to fight for the property rights protections of those individuals who do not have a voice in the process or a seat at the table,” Walters concluded.