Law student Steve at Eminent Domain has a good synopsis of state initiatives aimed at overturning the most far-reaching aspects of the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London.
Citing Charlottesville writer Ron Bailey, he notes that a lot of proposals go farther than just restricting the use of eminent domain authority by state and municipal governments. They also attempt to change the way property owners are compensated (or not, as is mostly the case today) when regulations reduce the value of their property. "Regulatory takings" is still a muddled concept in the law, with no clear guidance from SCOTUS or other courts, so legislation -- especially voter-initiated legislation -- may finally clarify its meaning and circumscribe its use.
November 8 will bring a lot more news than just who controls Congress and whether Virginia marriage law becomes incontrovertibly confused.
On an unrelated topic, Steve also has an informative post about a Seventh Circuit oral argument about Indiana's requirement for voters to have a photo ID in order to vote. My own feeling on this subject is that it is not particularly burdensome, in the 21st century, to expect adults to have a photo ID. Perhaps requiring it for voting will provide an impetus for them to acquire the means to cash a check, travel by airplane, and get into an R-rated movie.