Rent control question tossed from ballot, SJC cites religious exemptions

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.