The proposed rent control ballot question for the November 2026 election cycle has been found unconstitutional by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. If passed this initiative would have been the most restrictive rent control policy in the United States. With the SJC’s ruling, it is highly unlikely that any comparable rent control policy will go into effect in Massachusetts in the foreseeable future.

Ballot Initiative Background

The rent control ballot initiative, led by Homes for All Massachusetts and Keep Massachusetts Home initially proposed a stringent statewide cap on rental increases to the lower of (i)  5%, or (ii) CPI with only a few exceptions drawn for certain dwellings and facilities, including those “operated solely for educational, religious, or non-profit purposes.” The initiative received sufficient signatures to go before the state legislature, which chose not to act, thereby allowing the question to appear statewide on the November ballot, pending a second round of signatures.

As supporters gathered signatures, they also devised a compromised plan hoping to get a modified, less extreme proposal through the legislature. On June 15^th, NAIOP Massachusetts stated that it was ready to negotiate with supporters of the initiative, and shared its own compromise, further softening the rent control campaign.

SJC Ruling

On June 23^rd, the SJC invalidated the ballot question on the grounds that it violated Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution which states that “[n]o measure that relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions… shall be proposed by an initiative petition.”  The court found that, because the ballot initiative carved out an express exception for religious facilities, the question inherently “relates to religion,” and thus would go against constitutional limits on ballot initiatives. In light of this ruling, rent control will definitively not be in front of voters this November.

While it is possible that negotiations concerning rent control legislation could continue, this seems highly unlikely given that NAIOP Massachusetts’s primary motivation was to avoid this ballot question going to voters in November. That said, Noemi Ramos, chair of the Yes campaign, has not relented: “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.” While rent control may appear on future ballots, there are currently no clear paths for such an initiative in Massachusetts.