While reading an unrelated weblog, I saw an interesting mention that New Hampshire was one state where voters would be deciding on a proposed amendment to the constitution. I am always suspicious of ballot questions that I have not heard about (usually a sure sign that some group is trying to trick the voters by avoiding debate and then presenting just those sections of the amended constitution or statute that make the change appear to be a good idea), so I searched a bit. I found one comment against the amendment on the Nashua telegraph's website.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061030/OPINION02/110300281/-1/SPORTS
The description of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision does not quite agree with the Wikipedia article, neglecting to mention the role of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, which is very interesting (and was apparently not accurately presented by either side in the case):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
In view of this, it is hard to tell how accurate the writer's assessment of relevance of the case to New Hampshire is. A bit of further searching revealed a couple of letters in favor of the amendment:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061102/OPINION02/111020226/-1/opinion
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Michael+L.+Coyn%3A+Ban+'Kelo'+land+grabs%2C+vote+ye
s+on+Question+1&articleId=1495aa0b-281c-4212-9ce8-f822cd46f6d2
These letters are noteworthy in that they fail to give any detail at all as to the actual wording of the proposed amendment or what it would actually do; in fact, the one in the Union Leader talks more about Ohio than New Hampshire.
A look on the State's website revealed a voter guide on Question 1, as well as a second question.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/2006votersguide.pdf
It does appear that the proposed amendment avoids the Trojan horse aspect of some other states, where the threat of one's house being taken away is used to lure people into supporting the ability of landowners to sue any local or state government that passes a law that limits their ability to profit from that land (brings to mind a picture of Craig Benson suing for loss of profit if he can't bulldoze his wetlands (assuming that he would let such a law stop him)). It also appears that it doesn't really accomplish much, except perhaps to draw libertarians to the polls. If it has that effect, hopefully those libertarians will also keep in mind who signed the Military Commissions Bill.