Massachusetts voters won’t have the chance to weigh in on a proposed statewide rent control measure this November after the Supreme Judicial Court ruled the ballot question violated constitutional restrictions governing citizen initiatives.
In a decision issued Tuesday, the state’s highest court found that the proposed measure improperly related to religion because it exempted housing units in facilities operated solely for religious purposes. Under the Massachusetts Constitution, ballot initiatives cannot concern certain excluded subjects, including religion and religious institutions.
“The petition … concerns a generally secular subject matter — rent control,” Justice Frank Gaziano wrote for the court. “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.’”
The proposed initiative sought to repeal Massachusetts’ longstanding ban on rent control and replace it with a statewide cap limiting annual rent increases to the Consumer Price Index or 5%, whichever was lower.
The court’s ruling prevents the measure from appearing on the November 2026 ballot.
The decision comes as housing affordability remains a major concern across Massachusetts, including Worcester, where rising rents and a limited housing supply have fueled debate over how best to address the state’s housing shortage. According to rental market data compiled by RentCafe, the average apartment rent in Worcester reached $2,085 this month, up 2.2% from a year ago. The data shows average rents of $1,922 for a one-bedroom apartment and $2,169 for a two-bedroom unit, figures that have fueled ongoing discussions about affordability in one of Massachusetts’ fastest-growing rental markets.
In a statement following the ruling, the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce applauded the outcome and argued that increasing housing production remains the most effective solution.
“The Chamber opposed this rent control ballot measure on multiple fronts because of the significant harm it inflicts on the housing development pipeline across Worcester and Central Mass.,” the organization said.
The Chamber noted that roughly 54% of Worcester residents are renters and cited its own housing research showing demand continues to outpace supply.
According to the Chamber, Worcester experienced a shortfall of approximately 650 rental units between 2010 and 2017. The organization also pointed to more than 1,600 housing units currently under construction in the city and another 3,000 units in the development pipeline.
“Our data proves that prioritizing production works,” the Chamber said. “With over 3,800 rental units created in the past 15 years, rents in Worcester are beginning to flatten due to the recent increase in incoming supply.”
Supporters of the rent control proposal expressed disappointment with the ruling but indicated they intend to continue pursuing tenant protections.
According to State House News Service, Noemi “Mimi” Ramos, executive director of New England Community Project and chair of the Keep Massachusetts Home campaign, said the court’s decision was “a massive disappointment” but argued that the issue identified by the justices could be addressed without changing the proposal’s broader goals.
The rent control question was one of several proposed ballot measures that faced legal scrutiny before reaching voters. Other ballot questions concerning recreational marijuana and election procedures survived legal challenges and remain on track for the November ballot.
For Worcester, the debate highlights a question city leaders, housing advocates and developers continue to wrestle with: whether the region’s affordability challenges are best addressed through new tenant protections, expanded housing construction, or some combination of both.
The Worcester Guardian has reached out for comment from city officials and local housing leaders and will update this story as additional responses are received.
