Elections – Initiative petition – Rent control

Where the attorney general has certified an initiative petition that proposes a limit on annual rent increases for residential dwelling units but exempts several categories of units, including those in “facilities operated solely for … religious … purposes,” the petition should not have been certified, as it “relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions,” an excluded matter under Article 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.

“The plaintiffs, a group of registered voters, challenge the Attorney General’s certification of Initiative Petition 25-21, titled ‘An Initiative Petition to Protect Tenants by Limiting Rent Increases.’ The petition proposes a limit on annual rent increases for residential dwelling units but exempts several categories of units, including those in ‘facilities operated solely for … religious … purposes.’ Because of this exemption, we conclude that the petition ‘relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions,’ an excluded matter under art. 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. … Accordingly, art. 48 bars placement of the petition on the November 2026 Statewide election ballot. …

“The petition contains matters ‘relat[ing] to religion, religious practices or religious institutions’ in violation of art. 48. Art. 48, The Initiative, II, §2. We remand the matter to the county court for entry of a judgment declaring that Initiative Petition 25-21 is not in compliance with the excluded matters section of art. 48, and enjoining the Secretary from taking steps to place the measure on the 2026 Statewide election ballot.”

Concurring justice’s comments

Kafker, J. (concurring). “I concur albeit on narrower grounds. …

“Although the essence of the initiative here involves a secular subject, rent control, as drafted it would require an express religious consideration in determining whether an exemption applied. That exemption also would not simply reference a religious exception already well recognized in existing law, which would have presented a more difficult question. Rather the exemption provided would require an analysis whether the dwelling unit of a religious institution was being operated ‘solely for … religious … purposes.’ This is a fraught inquiry. It invites an analysis into the internal affairs of religious organizations and their motivations for providing the dwelling units, and the costs they charge for them. Whether a dwelling unit in a religious institution, including a religious retirement community, university, or sober house, for example, is being operated solely for religious purposes appears to require a deep dive into not only the religious institution’s finances, but also its religious practices and beliefs. For these reasons, I conclude, the religious exemption, as drafted, runs afoul of the prohibition in art. 48.”

Cella, et al. v. Attorney General, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-071-26) (27 pages) (Gaziano, J.) (Kafker, J., concurring) Edmund P. Daley (Elissa Flynn-Poppey and Kadie D. Martin also present) for the plaintiffs; Phoebe Fischer-Groban for the defendants. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Frank J. Bailey, Paul R. Johnson and Gabriela Forero for Pioneer New England Legal Foundation; Laura F. Camara, Courtney Libon, Joseph Michalakes and Mark Martinez for Homes for All Massachusetts; Curtis F. Dowling and Michael A. Bednarz for California Apartment Association; Thaddeus A. Heuer, Andrew M. London and Kevin Y. Chen for MassLandlords, Inc.; Meredith G. Fierro for Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and others; Elaine J. Goldenberg and Samuel H. Allen for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and others; Kevin J. Powers for Millbury National Bank; Dan Ordorica, Eloise Lawrence, Adam Druckman, Joshua Lilly and Richard Lin for Massachusetts Teachers Association and others; J. Nathan Cole and Herling D. Romero for National Electrical Contractors Association of Greater Boston, Inc., and others. Thomas Silverstein, Audrey Lynn Martin, Jane Edmonstone and Alycia M. Kennedy for Poverty & Race Research Action Council (Docket No. SJC-13893) (June 23, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.