New Jersey Assembly Bill ACR138

New Jersey 2026-2027 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/19/26
• Refer: 3/19/26

Caption

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

Summary

ACR138 proposes a constitutional amendment to bar exclusionary zoning in New Jersey and to clarify what municipalities are, and are not, required to do regarding affordable housing. The resolution would add language to Article IV, Section VI, paragraph 2 of the State Constitution stating that the Legislature may not authorize municipalities to engage in exclusionary zoning practices that prevent the development of housing options for low- and moderate-income residents. At the same time, the amendment expressly says that this prohibition would not create an affirmative duty for any municipality to construct, or cause to be constructed, affordable housing. The ballot question and interpretive statement frame the proposal as a way to stop exclusionary zoning while also limiting litigation and the use of court-ordered housing construction remedies, including the so-called "builder’s remedy."

Impact

If adopted by voters, the amendment would change the State Constitution and constrain future legislation by preventing laws that authorize exclusionary zoning. It would reinforce the legal prohibition on zoning practices that block affordable housing, while also making clear that municipalities would not be constitutionally required to build affordable units themselves. The practical effect would be to shift the focus from compelled construction of specific housing projects toward invalidating discriminatory zoning ordinances, and it could affect municipal zoning authority, affordable housing litigation, and the application of the Mount Laurel doctrine.

Sentiment

The bill text reflects a generally supportive posture toward affordable housing access and anti-discrimination in zoning, while also emphasizing municipal autonomy and relief from court-imposed construction mandates. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of broader legislative debate or opposition in the available context. The framing suggests the sponsor views the proposal as a compromise: preserving the ban on exclusionary zoning while reducing litigation and mandatory development obligations.

Contention

The main point of contention is the balance between preventing exclusionary zoning and avoiding affirmative municipal obligations to produce affordable housing. Supporters of the amendment appear to favor eliminating discriminatory zoning and limiting builder’s remedy lawsuits, while potential critics would likely focus on whether removing construction obligations weakens enforceable affordable housing remedies. The resolution also implicitly engages long-running disputes over the Mount Laurel doctrine, local zoning control, and whether courts should be able to require specific housing projects as a remedy for constitutional violations.