Celebrate Earth Day: Become a Sustaining Member! Join LCV Today

Weakening Land Use Protections — “Takings”

Senate Roll Call Vote 197

1998 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

52

Votes Against

42

Not Voting

6

Sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Property Rights Implementation Act of 1998, S. 2271, combines two House-passed takings or so-called “property rights” bills. The bill contains language similar to H.R. 992 (as introduced) which would significantly amend most federal environmental laws, allow polluters to newly challenge long settled federal environmental protections and invite massive forum shopping by industries in search of responsive courts (See House vote 1).

S. 2271 also incorporates provisions of H.R. 1534 (LCV 1997 Scorecard, House vote 3). Like H.R. 1534, S. 2271 would override existing local procedures to allow developers to challenge city and county zoning and other property safeguards directly in the federal court system instead of through existing local administrative appeals and state courts.

The Supreme Court has held that land developers or other property owners must first try to resolve land disputes through local administrative appeals and in state courts before filing a lawsuit in federal court claiming a “taking” of private property. S. 2271 attempts to reverse these precedents to allow claimants to bypass local procedures and state courts. Small towns, cities, and counties would be pressured to avoid the costs of defending against premature and even meritless court challenges of local environmental and public health protections. Large developers could use the threat of expensive federal lawsuits to intimidate local communities into permitting inappropriate activities, such as corporate hog farms in floodplains and hazardous waste dumps in residential areas.

By combining these two proposals, S. 2271 would threaten both federal environmental laws and local zoning.

S. 2271 was opposed by virtually every state and local government organization, including the National Governors Association, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, National Conference of State Legislatures, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Also opposing the bill were major religious organizations, including the U.S. Catholic Conference and the National Council of Churches, and national and local historic preservation, planning, labor, and conservation groups. Prior to the Senate vote, the Clinton administration threatened to veto the bill. Floor opposition was led by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and John Chafee (R-RI).

On July 13, 1998, the Senate voted 52 – 42 on a motion to proceed to consideration of S. 2271–short of the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster against the bill. (Senate debate on an issue can continue indefinitely without a final vote on passage unless 60 senators vote to invoke “cloture” to cut off debate.) NO is the pro-environment vote.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Alaska
2025 State Scorecard Average

11%

Arizona
2025 State Scorecard Average

89%

Arkansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

California
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Colorado
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

Connecticut
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Delaware
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Florida
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Georgia
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

Hawaii
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Idaho
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Illinois
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Indiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Iowa
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Kansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Kentucky
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

Louisiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Maine
2025 State Scorecard Average

63%

Maryland
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Massachusetts
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Michigan
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Minnesota
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

Mississippi
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Missouri
2025 State Scorecard Average

4%

Montana
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

Nebraska
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Nevada
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

New Hampshire
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

New Jersey
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

New Mexico
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

New York
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

North Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

North Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Oklahoma
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Oregon
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Pennsylvania
2025 State Scorecard Average

40%

Rhode Island
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

South Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

South Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Tennessee
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Texas
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Utah
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Vermont
2025 State Scorecard Average

96%

Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Washington
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

West Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Wisconsin
2025 State Scorecard Average

49%

Wyoming
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%