Proposes amendment to New Jersey Constitution to prohibit exclusionary zoning and clarify municipal obligations regarding affordable housing construction.

ACR138

ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. 138

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

222nd LEGISLATURE

�

INTRODUCED MARCH 19, 2026

Sponsored by:

Assemblyman� JOHN DIMAIO

District 23 (Hunterdon, Somerset and Warren)

SYNOPSIS

���� Proposes amendment to New Jersey Constitution to
prohibit exclusionary zoning and clarify municipal obligations regarding
affordable housing construction.

CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT

���� As introduced.

��

A
Concurrent Resolution

proposing to amend
Article IV, Section VI, paragraph 2 of the New Jersey Constitution.

����
Be It
Resolved
by the General Assembly of the State
of New Jersey (the Senate concurring):

���� 1.��� The following proposed
amendment to the Constitution of the State of New Jersey is agreed to:

PROPOSED
AMENDMENT

���� Amend Article IV, Section VI,
paragraph 2 to read as follows:

���� 2.��� The Legislature may
,
except as otherwise provided in this paragraph,
enact general laws under
which municipalities, other than counties, may adopt zoning ordinances limiting
and restricting to specified districts and regulating therein, buildings and
structures, according to their construction, and the nature and extent of their
use, and the nature and extent of the uses of land, and the exercise of such
authority shall be deemed to be within the police power of the State.� Such
laws shall be subject to repeal or alteration by the Legislature.�
The
Legislature shall not enact laws that authorize a municipality to engage in any
exclusionary zoning activity that would prevent the development of housing
options for low and moderate income residents of the State.� The prohibition on
exclusionary zoning shall not create an affirmative obligation on any
municipality to construct, or cause to be constructed, housing options to be
occupied by low and moderate income residents.

���� 2.��� When this proposed
amendment to the Constitution is finally agreed to pursuant to Article IX,
paragraph 1 of the Constitution, it shall be submitted to the people at the
next general election occurring more than three months after the final
agreement and shall be published at least once in at least one newspaper of
each county designated by the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
General Assembly and the Secretary of State, not less than three months prior
to the general election.

���� 3.��� This proposed amendment
to the Constitution shall be submitted to the people at that election in the
following manner and form:

���� There shall be printed on each
official ballot to be used at the general election, the following:

���� a.� In every municipality in
which voting machines are not used, a legend which shall immediately precede
the question as follows:

���� If you favor the proposition
printed below make a cross (X), plus (+), or check (
a
) in the square opposite the word "Yes." If you are
opposed thereto make a cross (X), plus (+) or check (
a
) in the square opposite the
word "No."

���� b.� In
every municipality the following question:

CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY LEGISLATIVE ZONING POWER CONCERNING AFFORDABLE HOUSING

YES

����
Do
you approve amending the Constitution to prohibit exclusionary zoning by
towns in New Jersey?� Exclusionary zoning can prevent the development of low
income housing units and has been declared illegal by federal and State
courts.

����
Pursuant
to the amendment, towns would not have an obligation to actually construct,
or cause to be constructed, affordable housing units.

INTERPRETIVE
STATEMENT

NO

����
This
proposed amendment would prohibit exclusionary zoning by towns in New
Jersey.� Exclusionary zoning can prevent the development of low income
housing units and has been declared illegal by federal and State courts.

����
Pursuant
to the amendment, towns would not have an obligation to actually construct,
or cause to be constructed, affordable housing units.� This would eliminate
lawsuits that result in the forced construction of specific housing projects.

STATEMENT

���� This concurrent resolution
proposes a constitutional amendment to clarify municipal obligations regarding
affordable housing.� The amendment would place language in the State
Constitution to specifically prohibit the practice of exclusionary zoning.� Exclusionary
zoning can prevent the development of low income housing units and has been
declared illegal by federal and State courts.� Pursuant to the amendment, towns
would not have an obligation to actually construct, or cause to be constructed,
affordable housing units.� This would eliminate litigation that results in the
forced construction of specific residential projects.

���� It has been more than 40 years
since the first court case was initiated in New Jersey concerning the
opportunities for poor and minority families to obtain affordable housing. �The
opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court in this case and subsequent decisions
have become known as the
Mount Laurel
doctrine. �Since that time, the
demographics of the State have changed markedly, including increased population
growth and density, wider disparity of income levels among residents, and
perhaps most importantly, tremendous increases in the average cost of housing. �

���� The early judicial decisions
concerning this issue identified certain local government zoning practices as a
bar to increasing the opportunities for housing for low and moderate income households.
�A somewhat melded judicial and statutory scheme was created to impel
municipalities to eliminate these practices voluntarily. �Certain regulatory
measures were implemented requiring municipal financial expenditures if certain
zoning mechanisms were not embraced. �Competing financial concerns for
resources, such as new infrastructure and schools, have played a role in the
complicated interpretation of the
Mount Laurel
mandate.� This amendment
is intended to overturn the
Mount Laurel
mandate regarding the actual
construction of affordable housing units and eliminate the so-called �builder�s
remedy� lawsuit, while reaffirming the State�s commitment to elimination
discriminatory zoning practices.� The courts could remedy constitutional violations
of the prohibition on discriminatory zoning by striking down zoning ordinances,
rather than forcing the specific construction of any particular project.