California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a significant opinion on November 5, 2026, regarding housing development and local referendums under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. This ruling clarifies how local governments can interact with voter referendums that may restrict residential development. It affects urban cities and counties across California, as they navigate the complex landscape of housing shortages and local governance.

The opinion, designated as No. 25-1102, addresses three key questions raised by Assemblymember Tom Lackey about the implications of local referendums that reject housing measures. The ruling is crucial as California continues to grapple with a housing crisis, characterized by high demand and limited supply.

The Housing Crisis Act was enacted to combat California's severe housing supply crisis. It was designed to facilitate the development of new housing by suspending certain local restrictions that hindered construction. The Act specifically limits local authorities from imposing measures that could effectively create moratorium-like restrictions on housing development. The Attorney General's opinion clarifies that a referendum rejecting a legislative measure that allows for increased housing could indeed violate these restrictions.

The opinion outlines the parties involved: the state of California, represented by the Attorney General, and local governments, which may seek to impose their own regulations on housing development. The dispute centers on whether local referendums can reject measures that would facilitate housing growth without violating the Housing Crisis Act. This issue has gained urgency as cities and counties face pressure to increase housing availability.

The Attorney General concluded that a referendum that rejects a legislative enactment allowing for additional housing can constitute a prohibited restriction under Government Code section 66300(b)(1). This section prohibits localities from enacting policies that would have the effect of imposing moratoriums on housing development. Bonta stated, "A referendum rejecting a legislative enactment that would allow additional housing can constitute a prohibited moratorium-like restriction on housing development." This interpretation suggests that local governments must be cautious when considering referendums that could block housing initiatives.

Furthermore, the ruling clarified that local governments cannot unilaterally invalidate a referendum that they believe violates section 66300(b)(1). Instead, any challenge to the validity of a referendum must be resolved by a court. This aspect of the ruling underscores the importance of judicial oversight in maintaining the integrity of the referendum process.

Additionally, the opinion addressed the statute of limitations for actions brought under section 66300(b)(1). A three-year limitations period applies to challenges to referenda, while a 90-day period applies to land use decisions made by local legislative bodies. This distinction aims to provide clarity on how long individuals or entities have to contest these decisions.

The impact of this ruling is significant for local governments and housing advocates alike. It reinforces the state’s commitment to addressing the housing crisis by limiting local authorities' ability to block housing development through referendums. This interpretation could lead to increased housing construction in urban areas, as local governments may be deterred from pursuing referendums that could violate state law.

As California continues to face a housing shortage, the ruling may set a precedent for how local governments approach housing initiatives and the use of referendums. It emphasizes the need for localities to align their policies with state objectives, particularly in light of the ongoing housing emergency.

Looking ahead, local governments may seek to appeal this opinion or challenge its implications in court. However, the Attorney General's ruling provides a clear framework for understanding the relationship between local referendums and state housing law. This clarity may help streamline housing development processes and reduce delays caused by local opposition.

In summary, the Attorney General's opinion on the Housing Crisis Act clarifies the legal landscape surrounding local referendums and housing development in California. It emphasizes the importance of state law in guiding local governance and aims to facilitate the construction of much-needed housing in urban areas.