As the GOP bottomed out nationwide in the midterm election, Idaho remained a conservative stronghold. Idahoans went for George W. Bush by more than 60 percent in both 2000 and 2004, and even as the president's national approval rating dips down to the low 30s, a majority of the state still approves of his performance. To be sure, two statewide races -- Idaho's House district and the gubernatorial race -- were a lot closer than they were supposed to be this past election. When Democrats Larry Grant and Jerry Brady polled well in the week before November 7, running on strong centrist platforms concentrating on fiscal responsibility, public lands, and protecting civil liberties, many thought Idaho was catching "Western Democrat" fever from neighboring states Montana and Wyoming, each with populist Democratic governors. Instead, Idahoans rejected their Democrats, and chose to remain red while most of the rest of the country hung out the blue drapes.

It was a real surprise, then, to see an anomaly in the November 7 returns: the state's voters turned down Proposition 2. The initiative was a libertarian concoction meant to handcuff local and state government from regulating land use -- a regulatory takings bill cloaked in the guise of citizens' protection against eminent domain. It was the progeny of the anti-government group, Americans for Limited Government. Similar legislation made its way onto several ballots this fall, including California, Washington, and Arizona. While California and Washington voters also rejected their initiatives, nowhere was the legislation rejected to the extent it was in Idaho, where residents voted against the proposition 72 to 28 percent.

So how did this happen? Why was the regulatory takings initiative so thoroughly rejected in an ultra-conservative state?

Proposition 2 is related to Oregon's Measure 37, which passed in 2004. Oregon's law requires local and state government to compensate landowners for devaluation of their property resulting from regulation, such as zoning, subdivision, or antisprawl ordinances; otherwise the land-use regulation must be waived. Such "regulatory takings" legislation effectively serves to hinder the government from regulating land use at all, ultimately preventing communities from planning or controlling growth. Oregon's Measure 37 has become increasingly unpopular as it has created thousands of lawsuits and allowed years' of land-use regulations to be ignored. Those that voted for Measure 37 are now realizing the importance of their local government's regulatory powers, as billboards, mobile-home parks, and subdivisions have transformed their neighborhoods.

Proposition 2 was part of a larger movement to get similar bills onto the 2006 ballots in Arizona, California, Montana, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Washington, all funded by a network of nonprofits and front donors connected to the group Americans for Limited Government and a New York real estate developer named Howie Rich. Rich funneled millions of dollars into numerous states to write legislation and hire professional signature gathers to force the issue on state ballots. In many states, pervasive fraud in the signature gathering effort ended up torpedoing Rich's efforts in the courts, but Idaho's Proposition 2 made its way onto the ballot. (For a more in-depth examination of the funding of the Libertarian initiatives, check out Ray Ring's High Country News piece, "Taking Liberties," and PBS NOW's "Taking the Initiative.")

Why did Idaho voters reject the bill? Like in other rural areas, Idaho citizens are suspicious of external meddling in their local affairs. Rich's multimillion dollar effort and the wave of mercenary signature gatherers that descended on their state certainly soured the political atmosphere for Proposition 2. Rumors of fraud circulated: professional petitioners, paid by the signature, were misleading citizens about the content of the bill, even claiming that the government would take their homes if they didn't sign the petition.

Moreover, the issue that Proposition 2 was using as cover -- eminent domain -- had recently been addressed in the state legislature. Idaho voters had to wonder why a bill was pushed onto their ballot ostensibly for the purpose of addressing an issue already covered by existing law. (The language involving eminent domain on the initiative was taken verbatim from the state law.) The debate, then, was allowed to focus on regulatory takings.

Galvanized by the impact the bill would have on city zoning and rural land development, a large and diverse coalition sprung up to oppose Proposition 2. Environmentalists, ranchers, and farmers allied with business groups and politicians from both sides of the aisle to denounce the legislation. Republican Governor Jim Risch even held a widely publicized summit in his office to showcase the broad opposition to the bill. The voters in Idaho followed the advice of their civic leaders and thrashed the regulatory takings legislation.

Still, the action of Idahoans shouldn't be taken for granted. In more liberal California, for example, voters only narrowly defeated the bill, 52-48 percent, despite similar urging from their state government and business leaders. (Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who cruised to an 18-point victory in this year's gubernatorial race, strongly opposed it.)

It's true that, unlike California, Idaho both already has somewhat lax land-use regulation and is nearly uniform in its political leanings. Idaho is a conservative state and has a conservative state government, so in general it can be said that the state's citizens feel their government aptly represents them. But the circumstances at work weren't entirely state-specific. Other states looking to emulate Idaho's success against regulatory takings legislation would do well to heed the broad coalition of urban and rural interests that opposed Proposition 2, as well as the moderation of the state's existing zoning laws. Regulatory takings is truly a revolutionary idea, one that could possibly handcuff the ability of communities to help shape the environment in which they live. Loosening zoning regulations now could save potential civic disaster later and help create the type of strong front needed to discourage Howie Rich's libertarian fantasies.

Jay Stevens is the founder and main contributor to 4&20 blackbirds, a progressive Montana blog on national, state, and local politics and culture. He lives with his family in Missoula, Montana. A graduate of the University of Montana's writing program, Jay also writes poetry and fiction, works in computer software, and is a left-leaning political activist.

* * *

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to The American Prospect here.

Support independent media with a tax-deductible donation here.