2006 Idaho Proposition 2

Not to be confused with 2006 Idaho Amendment 2.

Proposition 2
Shall the above-entitled measure [see text] proposed by Proposition Two be approved?[1]
Results
Choice
 Votes %
Yes 105,778 23.94%
No 336,083 76.06%

Idaho Proposition 2 was a 2006 ballot initiative in the state of Idaho, U.S. that aimed to force government to reimburse property owners whose property value is decreased as a result of government regulation.

The initiative, which is similar to the controversial Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004), was defeated.[2]

Text

The long title of the proposition states:

AN INITIATIVE RELATING TO EMINENT DOMAIN; AMENDING SECTION 7 701, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE LIMITATIONS ON EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE PARTIES, AND FOR URBAN RENEWAL OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; AND PROVIDE FOR FURTHER JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN; ADDING A NEW SECTION 7-701A TO PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS RELATING TO HIGHEST AND BEST USE, FAIR MARKET VALUE, JUST COMPENSATION, AND LAND USE LAW; AND AMENDING CHAPTER 80, TITLE 67, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR JUST COMPENSATION WHEN A REGULATORY ACTION REDUCES FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AND TO PROVIDE JUST COMPENSATION TO A CONDEMNEE.

Result by county

County Yes Yes % No No %
Ada 29,002 24.68% 88,493 75.32%
Adams 387 23.08% 1,290 76.92%
Bannock 4,298 17.70% 19,991 82.30%
Bear Lake 752 33.59% 1,487 66.41%
Benewah 633 22.17% 2,222 77.83%
Bingham 2,278 17.87% 10,473 82.13%
Blaine 1,394 19.19% 5,870 80.81%
Boise 851 29.88% 1,997 70.12%
Bonner 3,505 25.47% 10,258 74.53%
Bonneville 5,505 18.24% 24,674 81.76%
Boundary 877 27.82% 2,275 72.18%
Butte 258 23.16% 856 76.84%
Camas 70 15.59% 379 84.41%
Canyon 11,672 27.80% 30,320 72.70%
Caribou 371 14.75% 2,145 85.25%
Cassia 1,274 22.40% 4,413 77.60%
Clark 68 20.30% 267 79.70%
Clearwater 827 28.40% 2,085 71.60%
Custer 585 30.92% 1,307 69.08%
Elmore 1,583 27.64% 4,026 72.36%
Franklin 1,402 36.76% 2,412 63.24%
Fremont 788 18.08% 3,570 81.92%
Gem 1,597 28.45% 4,016 71.55%
Gooding 778 18.93% 3,332 81.07%
Idaho 2,056 32.60% 4,250 67.40%
Jefferson 1,420 19.34% 5,921 80.66%
Jerome 921 19.64% 3,869 80.36%
Kootenai 9,873 26.74% 27,051 73.26%
Latah 2,793 23.69% 8,999 76.31%
Lemhi 807 26.01% 2,296 73.99%
Lewis 413 30.28% 951 69.72%
Lincoln 298 20.82% 1,133 79.18%
Madison 1,331 16.68% 6,650 83.32%
Minidoka 1,038 20.39% 4,053 79.61%
Nez Perce 3,438 29.08% 8,384 70.92%
Oneida 448 29.97% 1,047 70.03%
Owyhee 994 36.52% 1,728 63.48%
Payette 1,883 32.79% 3,860 67.21%
Power 327 15.63% 1,765 84.37%
Shoshone 1,034 27.90% 2,672 72.10%
Teton 643 21.02% 2,416 78.98%
Twin Falls 3,532 18.47% 15,594 81.53%
Valley 846 21.92% 3,014 78.08%
Washington 973 29.09% 2,372 70.91%

Source: Idaho Secretary of State

References

  1. ^ "Sample Proposition Ballot" (PDF). Idaho Secretary of State. September 26, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 26, 2006. Retrieved November 26, 2021.
  2. ^ 2006 General Results statewide Archived 2006-12-13 at the Wayback Machine


Stub icon

This article relating to urban planning is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Stub icon

This Idaho-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.