Massachusetts voters will not have the opportunity to decide whether to end a decades-long ban on rent control after the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled Tuesday that it must not appear on the November ballot, citing the exemptions for religious organizations included in the question.

The SJC ruled that the initiative petition “impermissibly” relates to religion and religious institutions – something the Massachusetts Constitution states cannot be involved in the initiative petition process.

It’s the second ballot initiative struck down by the SJC in less than a week where the high court cited errors made by Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office, with justices issuing an opinion in May on a third ballot initiative regarding legislative stipends they said should not have been certified the AG’s office.

Last week, the SJC struck from the ballot a measure that would have gradually lowered the state income tax, citing a “misleading summary” authored by Campbell’s office. The SJC sided with Campbell on three other challenges to ballot initiatives certified by her office.

But even with the Attorney General’s office committing errors on three of six ballot initiative certifications, Campbell is defending her staff, and even calls it a “great record.”

“We have 47 (ballot initiatives) that we approved, we have 44 we certified. We had six challenges, and we got three wrong. I think that’s a great record,” Campbell said when asked by the Herald if the her qualifications, as well as those of her staff, should be called into question.

“That just tells me we have more to do to be better. Any institution, whether it’s media outlets or any industry, if they can get it 100% right every time…that doesn’t happen. We own these mistakes, I own these mistake, and now we’ll move forward to improve our process to get it right the next time,” she said.

When it comes to the rent control decision, Campbell had certified the question for the ballot. She reacted to the court’s ruling to block it shortly after it was posted by the SJC .

“We got the rent control initiative, we certified it. But we, of course, have to respect the court’s decision which was against us, and we got that wrong,” Campbell admitted during her monthly appearance on GBH radio Tuesday morning.

Campbell went on to say that her office attempted to explain in its summary, which appeared on the petition used to gather required signatures to qualify for the ballot, that religious institutions would be exempt from the law, if it were to pass.

The exemption for religious organizations controlling rental units was part of the language of the original petition.

“The court disagreed and said that even a minor reference to religion was not appropriate for a valid initiative, and we were just reviewing this. Obviously the decision just came out, and I think it was only the second time that the court has broken this standard, so it’s not like it happens frequently,” she said.

The plaintiffs, whom the SJC sided with in its ruling, 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 in the SJC decision. “Further, the petition would confer preferential treatment on religious institutions by allowing them to increase rent prices, while limiting rent increases for secular facilities.”

The AG’s summary of the proposal stated that the rent control measure “would not apply to … units operated for educational, religious, or non-profit purposes.” Campbell had certified the question for the ballot, using a process that she has called “stupid” and said needs to be “revamped.”

Several other organizations involved in the fight for and against rent control are weighed in on the ruling, with rent control proponents calling it  “disappointing,” and opponents celebrate.

“This decision is a massive disappointment after all the work that thousands of volunteers and advocates in every corner of the state put into qualifying our rent control initiative for the ballot, but it’s far from the end of our campaign to protect Massachusetts renters from excessive rent hikes,” said New England Community Project Executive Director, who also chairs the Keep Massachusetts Home campaign, adding that the plaintiffs were financed by  “equity-backed real estate investment corporations.”

Housing for Massachusetts – a nonprofit organization against the rent control initiative, called it “the nation’s most extreme” rent control proposal in a statement celebrating the ruling.

“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,” the organization said. “We are incredibly grateful to the countless small property owners, real estate professionals, elected officials, and community leaders who supported our coalition, and we look forward to working together to create more homes and tackle affordability through real policy solutions.”

The rent control question was the last of this year’s ballot questions still pending with the SJC.

Meanwhile, the SJC also ruled this week to allow a question to move forward that would switch the state’s primary election system to an all-party primary, proving to be a significant influence on what voters will decide on in the November election.

WESTBORO, MASS. (WHDH) – A Westboro police officer became the first officer to ever be crowned Miss Massachusetts over the weekend.

Ashlyn Mercier, who is from Worcester, highlighted her community service initative “Nick’s Courage: One Smile Goes A Mile.” It’s named after her younger brother Nick, who is a two-time pediatric cancer survivor.

“I created this initiative really just to give back to the community, and to provide hope for children who are battling critcal illnesses,” Mercier said.

Mercier said her fellow officers at the Westboro Police Department have been nothing but supportive of her win. She said she’s proud to represent police officers on a national stage.

“The department has been so supportive, and it’s just really filled my heart with so much pride, and and so much joy on the Miss America stage, and also to represent law enforcement officers across the country,” she said. “I’m super thrilled and just honored to represent Miss Massachusetts 2026.”

She said pageantry and policing skills have crossover.

“The ability to perform on the spot as you are in pageantry, and in my job, responding to calls that require me to act quickly and respond with a calm, cool level-minded head,
these are all things I do in my role as Miss Massaschusetts, and my role as Officer Mercier,” she said.

Mercier is also set to compete in the Miss America pageant in September.

(Copyright (c) 2026 Sunbeam Television. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

• The Massachusetts Parole Board has denied parole for Jose Colon, who was convicted of killing State Trooper George Hanna in 1983.
• Colon became eligible for parole after a 2024 court ruling regarding offenders who were under 21 at the time of their crimes.
• Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey expressed support for the board’s decision to deny parole.

The Massachusetts Parole Board has denied parole for a man who was convicted in the slaying of Massachusetts State Trooper George Hanna in 1983, saying he has failed to take full responsibility for his actions.

Jose Colon, now 64, killed Hanna, of Holliston and originally of Natick, on Feb. 26, 1983, outside an Auburn liquor store.

In its ruling, the Parole Board cited several reasons in its decision to deny parole. Those included that Colon testified during his parole hearing that he had been sober for 30 years, contradicting evidence of drug use during that time while in prison. It also cited the fact that he denied committing an armed robbery two days prior to killing Hanna, despite pleading guilty to the crime.

The Board also wrote that Colon hasn’t taken full responsibility for killing Hanna.

“Although he accepts responsibility, Mr. Colon maintains that he closed his eyes and fired his gun six times, hitting Trooper Hanna all six times,” the Board wrote. “He insists he had no intention of harming or killing Trooper Hanna. (However) Mr. Colon did appear to be remorseful that his actions led to the death of Trooper Hanna.”

‘What I did was wrong’: Opponents say state trooper’s killer should not get parole

Although Colon was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, a Supreme Judicial Court decision in 2024 ruled that those younger than 21 at the time a crime is committed can’t be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Colon was 20 when he killed Hanna.

Worcester District Attorney Joseph Early applauded the Parole Board’s decision.

“We are pleased with the Parole Board’s decision and grateful that it carefully considered the seriousness of this crime and its lasting impact on the Hanna family and our community,” Early said in a statement. “Our thoughts remain with the Hanna family, whose strength and perseverance throughout this process have been remarkable.”

State trooper intervened on armed robbery attempt

Hanna was killed on Feb. 26, 1983. According to published reports, that night Hanna pulled over a red Chevy Vega in the parking lot of J&S Liquors on Southbridge Street in Auburn. He did not know that the three men in the car were there to rob the store. All three were armed with handguns.

Hanna frisked one of the men and a struggle ensued. During the struggle, Colon shot Hanna six times. Hanna was shot a total of seven times.

Colon, Emilio Otero and Miguel Rosado, were all convicted of first-degree murder. Colon was the only one younger than 20 at the time, so the SJC ruling only affected him.

In a statement, Gov. Maura Healey celebrated the Parole Board’s decision.

“I strongly opposed Jose Colon’s parole and am grateful that the Parole Board denied his request,” she said in a statement released by her office on Monday, June 22. “More than four decades after Trooper George Hanna was brutally murdered while serving and protecting the people of Massachusetts, his loss continues to be felt by his family, fellow law enforcement officers and communities across our state. Today’s decision recognizes the magnitude of that loss and provides some measure of relief to those who have fought to ensure his memory is never forgotten.”

Hanna grew up in Natick, the son of longtime Natick Police Officer George Hanna Sr., and became a state trooper in 1974. He was married and had three children, and was living in Holliston at the time of his death.

A series of awards in his name, The Hanna Memorial Awards for Bravery, are the highest the state presents to police officers who exhibit exceptional bravery while in the line of duty.

Colon admitted to wrongdoing at parole hearing

During his parole hearing on Jan. 15, Colon admitted what he did was wrong.

“What I did was wrong and inexcusable,” he said during the five-hour hearing in Natick. “I will have to live with that for the rest of my life. I have asked God for forgiveness. I hope that one day the Hanna family will forgive me for the suffering I’ve brought into their life.”

The Board wrote in its decision that it realized Colon was not eligible to participate in several programs that most people seeking parole could because he was serving a life sentence with no chance at parole, until the court’s ruling.

However, the board also wrote that it felt Colon needs to seek treatment regarding his history of trauma and other issues that were contributing factors to the shooting.

“The Board recommends that Mr. Colon address the concerns of the Board, specifically related to accountability and treatment needs,” according to the decision. “The Board concludes Jose Colon has not demonstrated a level of rehabilitation that would make his release compatible with the welfare of society.”

Colon is eligible to seek parole again in 2029.

Norman Miller can be reached at 508-626-3823 or nmiller@wickedlocal.com. For up-to-date public safety news, follow him on X @Norman_MillerMW or on Facebook at Facebook.com/NormanMillerJournalist.