The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) on Tuesday blocked a statewide rent control ballot question slated for the November election, dealing a significant setback to advocates seeking to reinstate rent control measures in the state. The court ruled the initiative unconstitutional because it included an exemption for units owned by religious organizations, which under the state constitution cannot be subjected to popular vote initiatives.

The decision halted ongoing negotiations between rent control proponents, real estate industry representatives, and lawmakers who had been exploring a possible legislative compromise. The ruling dimmed prospects for a resolution to Massachusetts’ housing affordability crisis through rent control this year, as the external pressure of an impending ballot measure had served as a significant leverage point in talks.

State Senator Julian Cyr, chair of the Senate housing committee, noted that with the ballot question removed from consideration, key industry stakeholders appeared less willing to continue negotiating. “With rent control no longer on the ballot, the pressure for proponents and opponents to strike a deal is diminished,” Cyr said, though he added lawmakers remain open to legislative proposals.

The ballot initiative would have capped rent increases at the rate of inflation or 5 percent annually, whichever was lower, and it would have applied statewide, making it the strictest rent control policy proposed in the U.S. Supporters argued the measure was necessary to provide relief to renters amid skyrocketing housing costs that have affected communities across Massachusetts. Opponents contended that the proposal would dampen new housing development and exacerbate municipal budget pressures.

The rent control debate has a long history in Massachusetts. Voters rejected rent control statewide in 1994, and since then, the legislature has been reluctant to enact such measures. However, the initiative’s momentum this year prompted some major real estate groups, including NAIOP Massachusetts, to enter negotiations with advocates for the first time in years. NAIOP’s chief executive, Tamara Small, said that, following the court’s decision, there is currently “nothing on which we would be compromising.”

While some lawmakers expressed skepticism about the likelihood that negotiations would have yielded a workable compromise, others emphasized the complexity of addressing the housing crisis through rent control or alternative policies. Representative Alice Peisch, who helped oversee ballot question reviews, pointed out that meaningful compromise would require inclusive participation from all opposing parties. State Senator Cindy Friedman described housing affordability as a challenging issue with no simple, one-size-fits-all solution.

Advocates like Andrew Farnitano, spokesperson for the pro-rent control coalition Keep Massachusetts Home, maintained that the public’s support for rent control remains strong despite the setback. Carolyn Chou, executive director of Homes for All Massachusetts, pledged to continue pushing for rent control, suggesting the initiative may return to the ballot in a future election.

The court’s decision to invalidate the rental control ballot question is the second recent blow to voter-backed initiatives after the SJC also overturned a proposal to cut the state income tax rate. Critics argue that relying on ballot questions to resolve complex policy matters is an imperfect substitute for responsive legislative action, highlighting concerns about the efficacy of government-by-referendum in addressing nuanced issues like housing.

With ballot questions no longer looming, many observers expect Massachusetts to return to its usual legislative gridlock on rent control, underscoring ongoing frustrations about the state’s approach to housing affordability.