Correction: Rent Control Ballot Initiative Petition Had Adequate Signatures

By Kimberly Rau, MassLandlords, Inc.

In August 2025, we published an article stating that the petition for a rent control ballot initiative should not be certified because it only contained six out of 10 legally mandated signatures to move forward. We filed a brief in opposition to the petition that did not mention our other objections because we believed the insufficient number of signatures was enough to keep rent control off the November 2026 ballot.

We never would have filed this objection if we were given the information we requested. Now it’s too late to file anything else. (Image: cc BY-SA 4.0 MassLandlords, Inc.)

We have since learned this was incorrect. The petition had 20 signatures. However, our opposition was made in good faith, based on incomplete information. What was, at best, negligence on the part of the attorney general’s office prohibited us from filing other briefs against the petition’s certification.

“A complete copy of the petition exactly as filed.”

After MassLandlords learned of the ballot petition, we reached out to the attorney general’s office via counsel on Aug. 13, 2025. Our request was simple, and repeated word-for-word here:

“Could you send me a complete copy of the petition (25-21) exactly as filed?”

By the end of the day, Phoebe Fischer-Groban at the attorney general’s office had responded, stating: “It’s available on our website here,” with a link to a website that, we know now, had only some of the certified signatures available.

We submitted our brief of opposition based on the publicly available information, which reported only six signatures connected with the petition. The attorney general’s office received our brief and did not tell us we had made a mistake. In fact, they did not say anything to us until we wrote to them again, demanding to know why the petition was moving forward despite incomplete signatures.

Only at that point were we told about the other 14 signatures, and given copies of the remaining documents. By then, it was well past the time when we could have submitted any other brief in opposition to the ballot initiative.

To recap: We asked for “a complete copy of the petition exactly as filed.” The attorney general’s office sent us an incomplete copy different from what was filed.

A “Good-faith” Mistake?

We are not suggesting malice on the part of the attorney general’s office. We don’t have evidence of that, and though she has not made comments since becoming attorney general, Andrea Campbell has previously expressed opposition to rent control. We can’t think of a reason why the attorney general or any of her employees would want to push rent control through, and it wouldn’t be appropriate to speculate whether someone was exerting pressure on the office externally.

But if this was a simple error, why wouldn’t they have reached out when we filed our first brief, apologized for the incomplete information, and then provided the petition as requested?  What we were sent was clearly not a “complete copy” of the petition, nor was it “exactly as filed.”

The signatures appear valid and, according to date stamps, were accepted by the attorney general’s office within the appropriate timeframe. Why were we not provided those?

Worse, by leading us to believe that the information we had was, as requested, complete, we were not able to file any of the other opposition briefs we could have. We didn’t submit them because we believed the lack of signatures should and would stop the petition in its tracks. By the time we got a response from the attorney general’s office, it was past the deadline to file any further opposition.

Finally, when Executive Director Doug Quattrochi emailed Fischer-Groban for comment, she replied: “I’m sorry you feel that you were misled. I remain confident that the AG’s certification decision was appropriate, and that you were given the opportunity to raise any and all certification issues with our office.” We have produced the reply in full as it is a public record.

The petition has been certified, and now advocates are working to get the required 70,000 signatures that will put rent control before the voters once more in 2026.

This is dangerous policy, because rent control doesn’t work. We know that, and so do the people pushing for it. That’s why they have to lie and cheat to get their agenda passed. What do we mean? The ballot as written leaves out important information that voters deserve to know, including the fact that cities and towns already have the option for rent control.

Whether this was a good-faith error on the part of the attorney general’s office, or something worse, we may never know. What we do know is we have our work cut out for us now. Rent control advocates lie and cheat. But with your help, we can stop them. Link to our site, rentcontrolhistory.com, so others will see it. Educate your friends and family about the dangers of rent stabilization. And if you can, donate to help support property rights. We need your support now more than ever.