You're way off. A state cannot decide that its women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and a state cannot decide to confiscate my property and hand it over to another private citizen. Both acts violate the Constitution.
A state cannot create a standard that purports to supercede the U.S. Constitution. Thus, your analogy is absurd. However, so long as a state specific definition of an ambiguous term like "public purpose" is not inconsistent with due process or any other established constitutional doctrine, such a definition is permissible. Example, a state could legitimately define that term to exclude a judicial taking for the exact purpose that underlay the Kelo facts. More than 25 states have already done exactly that.