By Bob Katzen
The state’s Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled that an initiative petition to repeal the state’s 31-year ban on rent control does not qualify to go on the November ballot despite the fact that supporters gathered sufficient signatures to place the question on the ballot. The court cited a constitutional amendment that prohibits several types of proposals, including one that relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions, from being the subject of a ballot question.
The ballot question would have limited annual increases on most residential units to the lower of inflation or 5%. It also specified that facilities operated solely for religious purposes would be exempt from the cap. A group of plaintiffs opposed repealing the law brought a suit that claimed the petition should be disqualified because of the religious exemption. The SJC agreed.
Attorney General Andrea Campbell had previously certified the question for the ballot, arguing that the petition was just a rent control matter and dismissing the religious problem. Following the decision, Campbell acknowledged that the SJC “ruled against us and said we got that wrong.” She said her office went into the SJC hearing understanding that the court may focus on the relationship between the petition and religion. “But we said to the court at the time that 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.”
Reaction to the ruling was quick.
“Today’s decision is a major victory for the people of Massachusetts,” said Paul Craney, Executive Director of the Fiscal Alliance Foundation. “The court found this ballot question could not legally proceed and the commonwealth is better off because of it. Rent control has failed wherever it has been tried and this proposal would have brought one of the most damaging versions of that failed policy to every community in Massachusetts. At a time when our state desperately needs more homes, this ballot question would have made it harder to build, harder to maintain rental housing and more expensive to own a home.”
“Today the Supreme Judicial Court confirmed that the nation’s most extreme rent control proposal was unconstitutional,” said Conor Yunits, chair of the Housing for Massachusetts committee that was formed to oppose the ballot question. “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.”
Rent control supporters called Tuesday’s ruling from the SJC “a massive disappointment” but also said that “it’s far from the end of our campaign to protect Massachusetts renters from excessive rent hikes.” They noted that they plan to mount a campaign to get the question on the 2028 ballot.
“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,” said Noemi “Mimi” Ramos, chair of the Keep Massachusetts Home campaign.”