Under current Texas law, the government can take your property under eminent domain laws if it benefits the public. It's already illegal to take property for economic gain. This proposition would also make it unconstitutional.

Bryce Moore with the Texas Farm Bureau says, “We feel like that's a right to earn land in this state to own property. We're just very concerned that if property does have to be taken, it's only taken for public use, not someone's private economic gain.”

Moore represents 11 Texoma counties for the Texas Farm Bureau. He says fortunately, eminent domain hasn't been a huge issue here.

“Sometimes they'll be some cases where they have to condemn a little bit of property, but as far as mass taking of land,  we haven't seen that fortunately, we do know that in urban areas it's happening a lot. It's probably more common now than it used to be,” he says.

Moore says the Farm Bureau is not against eminent domain. they just want to make sure the laws involving taking private property are clearly defined.  He says in this economy, it's especially important to protect texoma farmers  who depend on their land to survive.

“Things are probably getting more difficult for farmers and ranchers to survive right now in the state of Texas. So if people lose their land, that's where a lot of them earn their living. We're doing everything we can, to help protect these guys so they're able to keep their land,” he says.

The bill is getting widespread support across the Lone Star State, and Moore says it's not just farmers who would benefit.

“We feel like it's beneficial for every Texan,” he says. “Whether people live in rural areas or urban areas, and especially if you own land or any property at all. We feel like this would be a benefit to any Texan if it's passed.”

Moore says this is just the first step to further protecting Texans' property. He says passing this prop by a wide margin will send a clear message to lawmakers, and show them how important this issue is to voters.

Opponents of  Proposition 11 say since there's already a law protecting property owners, the constitutional amendment is unnecessary.