Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T12:27:02.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond Kelo

An Experimental Study of Public Opposition to Eminent Domain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Logan Strother
Logan Strother*
Affiliation:
Syracuse University
*
Contact the author at lrstroth@syr.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The power of government to take private property for public use has been a frequent source of political disquiet because of the tension it creates with notions of individual rights ingrained in liberal society. The backlash against takings after Kelo offers a case in point. Existing research has focused on the public’s distaste for the taking of homes and has thus missed an important cause of the backlash: the purpose for which property is taken. I utilize a combination of experimental and observational methods to advance our understanding of this important issue, finding that purpose is crucial in shaping attitudes toward takings.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , Fall 2016 , pp. 339 - 375
Copyright
© 2016 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author gratefully acknowledges funding from the Institute for Humane Studies and the Department of Political Science at Syracuse University that made this research possible. I thank Shana Gadarian for patiently guiding this project from its inception and giving generously of both her time and her expertise on public attitudes and experimental methods. Additionally, I benefited greatly from comments and suggestions from Spencer Piston, David Klein, Laura Hatcher, participants at the 2015 Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, and the anonymous referees. Finally, I thank Laura Hatcher, Randy Burnside, and Patrick Murray for generously sharing data. Replication materials can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QUBHXU.

References

Albertson, Bethany, and Kushner Gadarian, Shana. 2015. Anxious Politics: Democratic Citizenship in a Threatening World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin. 2012. “Cognitive Biases and the Strength of Political Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (2): 271–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barros, D. Benjamin. 2008. “Nothing ‘Errant’ about It: The Berman and Midkiff Conference Notes and How the Supreme Court Got to Kelo with Its Eyes Wide Open.” In Private Property, Community, and Eminent Domain, ed. Malloy, Robin Paul. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2013. “Linking Issues to Ideology in the Supreme Court.” Journal of Law and Courts 1 (1): 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becher, Debbie. 2010. “The Rights behind Eminent Domain Fights: A Little Property and a Lot of Home.” In Property Rights and Neoliberalism: Cultural Demands and Legal Actions, ed. McIntosh, Wayne V. and Hatcher, Laura J. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Beienburg, Sean. 2014. “Contesting the U.S. Constitution through State Amendments: The 2011 and 2012 Elections.” Political Science Quarterly 129 (1): 55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., Huber, Gregory A., and Lenz, Gabriel S. 2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis 20:251–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, Robert C. 2010. “Reviving Necessity in Eminent Domain.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 33 (1): 239–81.Google Scholar
Bird, Robert C., and Oswald, Lynda J. 2009. “Necessity as a Check on State Eminent Domain Power.” Journal of Constitutional Law 12 (1): 99–141.Google Scholar
Bryan, Amanda C., and Ringsmuth, Eve M. 2016. “Jeremiad or Weapon of Words? The Power of Emotive Language in Supreme Court Dissents.” Journal of Law and Courts 4 (1): 159–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhrmester, Michael, Kwang, Tracy, and Gosling, Samuel D. 2011. “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality Data?” Perspectives on Psychological Science 6 (1): 3–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Druckman, James N., and Kam, Cindy D. 2011. “Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the ‘Narrow Data Base.’” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, ed. Druckman, James N. et al. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Richard A. 1985. Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hatcher, Laura J., Strother, Logan, and Burnside, Randolph. 2013. “Unpacking Public Attitudes toward Eminent Domain: An Exploratory Study.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, Boston, June.Google Scholar
Hoehn, John P., and Adanu, Kwami. 2014. “What Motivates Voters’ Support for Eminent Domain Reform: Ownership, Vulnerability, or Ideology?” International Review of Law and Economics 37:90–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyman, Michele M., and McCall, Jamie R. 2010. “‘Not Imminent in My Domain!’ County Leaders’ Attitudes toward Eminent Domain Decisions.” Public Administration Review 70 (6): 885–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Knetsch, Jack L., and Thaler, Richard H. 1991. “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (1): 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Cindy D. 2005. “Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences.” Political Behavior 27:163–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., Wilking, Jennifer R., and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J. 2007. “Beyond the ‘Narrow Data Base’: Another Convenience Sample for Experimental Research.” Political Behavior 29:415–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupnikov, Yanna, and Seth Levine, Adam. 2014. “Cross-Sample Comparisons and External Validity.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 1:59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupnikov, Yanna, Piston, Spencer, and Bauer, Nichole M. 2016. “Saving Face: Identifying Voter Responses to Black and Female Candidates.” Political Psychology 37 (2): 253–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, John. 1909. A Treatise on the Law of Eminent Domain in the United States. 3rd ed. Chicago: Callaghan.Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2002. “Experimental Methodology in Political Science.” Political Analysis 10:325–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2004. “Prospect Theory in Political Science: Gains and Losses from the First Decade.” Political Psychology 25 (2): 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2011. “Internal and External Validity.” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, ed. Druckman, James N. et al. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Metcalf, Cherie. 2014. “Property Law Culture: Public Law, Private Preferences and the Psychology of Expropriation.” Queen’s Law Journal 39 (2): 685–731.Google Scholar
Mihaly, Marc, and Smith, Turner. 2011. “Kelo’s Trail: A Survey of State and Federal Legislative and Judicial Activity Five Years Later.” Ecology Law Quarterly 38:703–29.Google Scholar
Nadler, Janice, and Seidman Diamond, Shari. 2008. “Eminent Domain and the Psychology of Property Rights: Proposed Use, Subjective Attachment, and Taker Identity.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 5 (4): 713–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadler, Janice, Seidman Diamond, Shari, and Patton, Mathew M. 2008. “Government Takings of Private Property.” In Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy, ed. Persily, Nathaniel, Citrin, Jack, and Egan, Patrick J. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Philip. 1917. The Law of Eminent Domain: A Treatise on the Principles Which Affect the Taking of Property for the Public Use. 2nd ed. Albany, NY: Bender.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P., and Howard, Robert M. 2003. “Framing Support for the Supreme Court in the Aftermath of ‘Bush v. Gore.’” Journal of Politics 65 (3): 676–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Mary Massaron, and Tolan, Kristen. 2006. “Legislative Responses to Kelo v. City of New London and Subsequent Court Decisions—One Year Later.” Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law 16 (1): 52–85.Google Scholar
Scheiber, Harry N. 1973. “Property Law, Expropriation, and Resource Allocation by Government: The United States, 1789–1910.” Journal of Economic History 33 (1): 232–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, David. 2010. “Courts Matter: The Supreme Court, Social Change, and the Mobilization of Property Rights Interests.” In Property Rights and Neoliberalism: Cultural Demands and Legal Actions, ed. McIntosh, Wayne V. and Hatcher, Laura J. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Sears, David O. 1986. “College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influences of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychology’s View of Human Nature.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (3): 515–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, Elaine B., and Haider-Markel, Donald. 2008. “At the Invitation of the Court: Eminent Domain Reform in State Legislatures in the Wake of the Kelo Decision.” Publius 38 (3): 556–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somin, Ilya. 2009. “The Limits of Backlash: Assessing the Political Response to Kelo.” Minnesota Law Review 93:1200–1278.Google Scholar
Somin, Ilya. 2015. The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N. 2014. Negativity in Democratic Politics: Causes and Consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, Stephanie. 2013. “Protecting Property through Politics: State Legislative Checks and Judicial Takings.” Minnesota Law Review 97:2176–2244.Google Scholar
Weinberg, Jill D., Freese, Jeremy, and McElhattan, David. 2014. “Comparing Data Characteristics and Results of an Online Factorial Survey between a Population-Based and a Crowdsource-Recruited Sample.” Sociological Science 1:292–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkerson, William R. 2010. “Kelo v. New London, the Institute for Justice, and the Idea of Economic Development Takings.” In Property Rights and Neoliberalism: Cultural Demands and Legal Actions, ed. McIntosh, Wayne V. and Hatcher, Laura J. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Wolf, Michael Allen. 2008. “Hysteria versus History: Public Use in the Public Eye.” In Private Property, Community, and Eminent Domain, ed. Paul Malloy, Robin. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Zilis, Michael. 2015. The Limits of Legitimacy: Dissenting Opinions, Media Coverage, and Public Responses to Supreme Court Decisions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar