Based on separate rulings from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), three “unexpected” errors made by the Massachusetts Attorney General have robbed you and me of the chance to vote this Nov. 3 on three major policy changes:
1. A rent control ballot initiative. The SJC ruled that by exempting housing units operated by religious institutions from rent control, the proposed ballot measure violated the state Constitution’s prohibition on ballot questions that relate to religion. Amendment Article 48 of the Massachusetts State Constitution excludes certain topics from initiative petitions, including petitions which relate to religion, religious practices or religious institutions. The irony of the “religious exemption” crippling the rent control initiative, is that the state for decades, under the so-called Dover Amendment (Chapter 40A, section 3), has “exempted” housing operated by religious owners from local zoning codes. Our Constitution and state law are at odds.
2. A ballot question regarding stipends for state legislators. The SJC issued an “advisory opinion” saying the stipend question constituted a “rule change,” seeking to impose reforms to the Legislature’s internal proceedings — stepping over a constitutional line of what ballot questions are legally allowed to address. The AG decided not to go forward with the legislative stipend question in light of the SJC opinion. “Certification was proper only to the extent the petition proposed a ‘law,’ rather than a ‘legislative rule,’” the AG explained. The State Senate, which opposed the stipend question, asked the SJC for an advisory opinion. When the AG gave up the option to put legislative stipends on the ballot, a spokesman for the Secretary of State’s office refused to allow supporters to continue to circulate petitions. Supporters said the measure was “pro-democracy reform” that would rebalance power that currently rewards loyalty to Democratic leadership.
3. A ballot initiative allowing voters to lower the state’s income tax from 5% to 4% over three years. The SJC found the AG’s summary of the proposed income tax rollback question was misleading because the AG did not provide a “fair, concise summary” of the proposal. The AG falsely stated in her summary that the proposed law would not lower the tax rate on long-term capital gains, when it actually would lower it. “This is a disgraceful outcome for Massachusetts taxpayers and a direct result of the Attorney General’s failure to do her job properly,” said the group MassFiscal. “More than 100,000 residents signed petitions to put tax relief before the voters. They followed the process, did the work, and earned a place on the ballot.” The AG’s office responded to the SJC ruling on the income tax measure by admitting: “We respect the SJC’s decision and will continue to work diligently to ensure that ballot initiatives are summarized fairly and transparently.” Asked on WGBH’s Boston Public Radio if she was responsible for removal of the income tax question, the AG replied: “I always take responsibility. It’s a flawed summary. The court pointed that out. We made a mistake, right? We are now reviewing how we do better, and we will do better going forward.” The AG reviewed 47 ballot petitions this year. “No one should expect us to get a perfect result,” she told WGBH. “No organization could.” She admitted the rent control error was “unexpected.”
Initiative petitioners begin by collecting 74,574 signatures. If the Legislature does not pass the proposed initiative before the first Wednesday in May, the petitioners must collect another 12,429 signatures certified by local election officials. Rent control advocates gathered over 124,000 signatures, and raised $57,721 by January 2026. Anti-rent control landlord groups raised $431,600.
The state Legislature has been reviewing a bill “to stabilize rents and protect tenants” (S.1447) for 17 months. Senators Jo Comerford and Paul Mark are cosponsors of S.1447. The bill creates local option rent control, “just cause” eviction protections, and sanctions for unfair and deceptive acts by landlords. The governor and the House Speaker have opposed the rent control ballot measure. They should be lobbied now to support S.1447 to empower home rule communities to adopt local rent stabilization and tenant protection ordinances.
Voters should demand the AG and the General Court “do better going forward,” and take a vote on important economic issues like rent control and tax rates. More than 124,000 voters, including me, signed the rent control petition. The AG claims we have an “open review process” for ballot questions, which “makes sure that any issues are identified and all views are thoroughly considered before a certification decision is made.” Unless the AG makes errors.
Al Norman’s Pushback column is published in the Recorder every first and third Wednesday of the month.