> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.newbostonpost.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # SJC Strikes Down Massachusetts Rent Control Ballot Question Over Religious Exemption - URL: https://www.newbostonpost.com/sjc-strikes-down-massachusetts-rent-control-ballot-question/ - Published: 2026-06-23T15:56:50.000Z - Updated: 2026-06-23T21:55:07.000Z - Description: Massachusetts voters will not decide a statewide rent control proposal in November after the Supreme Judicial Court ruled the ballot question is unconstitutional because it exempts housing operated for religious purposes. - Author: State House News Service - Tags: News, Politics, State Government, #lead Colin A. Young State House News Service The state's highest court continued to shape the issues that voters will get to decide on November's ballot, ruling Tuesday morning that the initiative petition to repeal the state's three-decade ban on rent control cannot move forward. The unanimous Supreme Judicial Court determined the proposal to impose statewide rent control "impermissibly" relates to religion and religious institutions, which are among the matters the state Constitution sets as out of bounds from the initiative petition process. The ruling ends, at least for 2026, a high-profile effort to cap annual rent increases across Massachusetts. The initiative petition would have repealed the state's 1994 ban on rent control and limited yearly increases on most residential units to the lower of inflation or 5%. The petition states that it would not apply to housing units in "facilities operated solely for ... religious ... purposes." The plaintiffs claimed the petition should be disqualified because "religion is a factor in the application of the law," citing a legal precedent that is key to the court's ruling. "The petition ... concerns a generally secular subject matter -- rent control. But, by including an express exemption for facilities operated solely for religious purposes, the petition impermissibly makes religion 'a factor in \[the petition's\] application.' And in order to enforce the proposed law, the exemption would require the government to determine if a facility is 'operated solely for ... religious ... purposes,' and then make an enforcement decision based on the facility's religious purpose (or lack thereof)," Justice Frank Gaziano wrote for the court. "Further, the petition would confer preferential treatment on religious institutions by allowing them to increase rent prices, while limiting rent increases for secular facilities." Attorney General Andrea Campbell had certified the question for the ballot, using a process that she has called "stupid" and said needs to be "revamped." Her office had argued that the petition was just a rent control matter. On GBH Radio about an hour after the SJC's decision came down, Campbell acknowledged the court "ruled against us and said we got that wrong." She said her office "went into the hearing understanding" that the court may focus on the relationship between the petition and religion. "But we said to the court at the time, 'The initiative exempts a number of types of housing, including nonprofit housing.' And the exemption for religious uses was a minor one within the broader petition. The court disagreed and said that even a minor reference to religion is not appropriate for a ballot initiative," Campbell said. "I think it was only the second time that the court has reviewed this standard, so it's not like it happens frequently. We were surprised, but of course we will follow the court's ruling and move forward. And this ballot question will not move forward to the ballot." Justice Scott Kafker wrote his own concurring opinion in the case, along with Gaziano's main decision. Kafker agreed that the petition cannot go forward, but wrote that he would not have held that any religious distinction dooms a ballot question. He added that he is "aware of no other State that has such a religion exclusion" in its initiative petition process. Instead, he focused on how the rent control question would require the government to decide whether a unit is run solely for religious purposes, forcing "a deep dive" into a religious institution's finances, motives, and practices — an intrusive inquiry he said the Constitution forbids. "Had the initiative simply stated that it limits rent increases in dwelling units operated by for-profit institutions, but not in dwelling units operated by non-profit institutions, a very different question would have been presented. Distinguishing for-profit from non-profit institutions does not require an analysis that relates to religion or religious institutions," Kafker wrote. Rent control boosters called Tuesday's declaration from the SJC "a massive disappointment" but said also that "it's far from the end of our campaign to protect Massachusetts renters from excessive rent hikes." "While we disagree with the court’s interpretation, the issue raised by the court is easily fixable, and doesn’t affect the substance of our proposal," Noemi "Mimi" Ramos, executive director of New England Community Project and chair of the Keep Massachusetts Home campaign, said. Rent control supporters plan to gather outside the State House Wednesday to discuss the court decision and urge legislators to pass a bill "that would enable municipalities to adopt local option rent stabilization policies." Supporters of the question saw it as instituting a needed lid on rising tenant costs that are a major contributor to the affordability woes facing residents. Gov. Maura Healey and legislative leaders opposed the proposal, echoing claims by the real estate industry that controls on rent would discourage needed housing production. "Today the Supreme Judicial Court confirmed that the nation’s most extreme rent control proposal was unconstitutional. While we firmly believe that Massachusetts voters were prepared to vote ‘no’ in November, today’s decision puts the issue to rest and protects our housing pipeline and our communities from the proven damage that rent control inflicts," Conor Yunits, chair and spokesman for the Housing for Massachusetts committee formed to oppose the ballot question, said. The Fiscal Alliance Foundation, which has worked to oppose rent control, called Tuesday's SJC ruling "a major victory for the people of Massachusetts." "Today’s ruling gives lawmakers a chance to focus on real housing solutions, including building more homes, reducing barriers to construction, and making Massachusetts a place where families can afford to live," Executive Director Paul Craney said. As a result of legal challenges like the one to the rent control initiative and advisory opinions requested by the Senate, the SJC has had an active hand in shaping the November 2026 ballot. The court has swatted away legal challenges and ruled that petitions that would undo the 2016 legalization of recreational marijuana and switch the state to a single all-party primary election structure can continue their journeys to go before voters on Nov. 4. The justices sided with plaintiffs in another challenge, ruling that a question to cut the state income tax rate could not stay on the ballot as a result of Campbell's faulty summary of the measure. A proposal to overhaul how legislative stipends are dished out and tie them to internal procedural benchmarks was scuttled after the SJC said in an advisory opinion requested by the Senate that the measure crossed a constitutional line. The court did not block, but did not resolve questions regarding the constitutionality of a question to apply the public records law to the Legislature and governor's office. The rent control question was the last of this year's ballot questions still pending with the SJC. GBH Radio co-host Jim Braude asked Campbell on Tuesday morning if she takes any accountability for the striking of the income tax cut question, which was tossed off the ballot as a result of the faulty summary her office wrote. "I always take responsibility. This was a record number of ballot initiatives we received in the office, in the history of the office. It was 47\. We reviewed 47 ballot initiatives. We certified 44\. Six were challenged: three were successful in \[surviving\] those challenges, three were not, including rent control, the stipend issue, and income tax. So now I see it as incumbent upon me and the team to go back and to ensure that we continue to improve our processes, our analysis," Campbell said. "That being said, no one should expect us to get a perfect result. No organization could. But that being said, we take our jobs seriously and we hold ourselves accountable. And those three we got wrong, according to the court, we're going to follow the court's orders and move forward with the rest of the ballot initiatives." In the wake of Thursday's ruling nixing the income tax cut question, as [some petitioners cast blame towards Campbell](https://www.statehousenews.com/news/economy/taxation/reactions-pour-in-to-sjcs-ruling-on-income-tax-cut-ballot-question/article%5Fbb43ddd3-f26f-4a73-95b4-9fce955c4bf9.html?ref=newbostonpost.com), tax cut opponents pointed out that the petitioners either missed Campbell's drafting error or intentionally tried to conceal the full effect of their initiative from petition-signers and voters. As the attorney general's office was drafting the summary last August, it sent a version that included the portion the SJC has since said is problematic to a lawyer for the petitioners. "\[T\]hat summary works well for proponents, thanks so much," the Goodwin Procter lawyer responded. On GBH Radio, Campbell said her office "engaged with every stakeholder" on both sides of the issue, a process she said is not universal across states but done here "because we want to hear all sides." "And when we get it wrong, we say to all sides, 'We got it wrong.' In the context of the income initiative, we said to the proponents and the opponents on both sides – at no point did they challenge that summary that we put out as a draft," she said. "The court said, 'You got it wrong.' We said, 'We got it wrong,' and respectfully will now move forward and do better in improving our process."