Ballotpedia Preferred Source

St. Paul, Minnesota, tenant repair and rent-deduction ballot initiative will be on Nov. ballot


Voters in St. Paul, Minnesota, will decide on an initiated measure on Nov. 3 that would allow tenants to arrange certain repairs to their residences when their landlords do not complete the repairs after receiving written notice.

The initiative, described as establishing a tenant right to repair, would apply when a landlord does not make reasonable repairs within at least 14 days after receiving written notice from the tenant. The landlord would then be required to either reimburse the tenant for the repair costs or allow the tenant to deduct those costs from a monthly rental payment. The amount would be limited to $500 or one-half of one month’s rent, whichever is less.

Support for the initiative

St. Paul City Council President Rebecca Noecker and State Reps. Athena Hollins (D-66B) and Maria Isa Pérez-Vega (D-65B) have announced their support for the initiative. Safe Homes Saint Paul is leading the campaign. A statement on its website says the initiative is necessary to protect tenants, particularly because of the age of the city’s housing.

It says, “Fifty-seven percent of our single-family, duplex, and triplexes were built before 1930. In face of housing shortage, we need to maintain the housing that St. Paul already has — and that means timely repairs!” The organization also says the measure would be “especially helpful for the everyday problems that landlords often ignore, like broken cabinets, faulty heaters, damaged windows, or persistent plumbing issues, before they turn into major safety hazards.”

Opposition to the initiative

The Minnesota Multi-Housing Association opposes the measure. Cecil Smith, president of the association, said the measure places too much liability into the “hands of renters who never signed up for it.” Nate Hood, a member of the St. Paul Planning Commission, says the measure “feels like one more thing that could make future investors more hesitant to put money into the city.” Axios reported that Hood would prefer stronger enforcement against the actions of bad landlords.

Litigation surrounding the measure

Safe Homes St. Paul submitted 5,440 valid signatures from St. Paul residents who support the measure, more than the required number to place the measure on the ballot. However, a lawsuit could remove the measure from the Nov. 3 ballot.

In July 2026, the St. Paul City Council voted 5-2 to block the initiative from the ballot. After the vote, the city council released a statement saying the decision was based on legal concerns about the measure’s wording.

The statement from the city council said, “The decision was based on legal concerns that the proposed right-to-repair ordinance regulates Building Code provisions established by the State. The City Council has a responsibility to ensure that ballot questions comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws, ultimately working toward solutions that enhance the lives of Saint Paul residents. The proposed right-to-repair language if passed by the Council in ordinance form, or approved by the voters, could not be amended or repealed within one year, raising concerns about how potential legal issues would affect implementation.”

After the city council decision, Safe Homes St. Paul filed a lawsuit, arguing the city lacked the authority to keep the measure off the ballot. On Aug. 10, 2026, a Ramsey County judge ruled that the measure must be placed on the November ballot, despite the city council’s concerns about the legality of the measure.

On August 11, 2026, the city appealed the court’s decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court and requested that they block the measure from the ballot. The Minnesota Supreme Court denied the request, stating that the city needed to file any appeal with the Minnesota Court of Appeals instead. The Saint Paul city attorney then appealed to the Court of Appeals. Oral arguments are scheduled for October.

Absentee and mail-in voting for the Nov. 3 election begins on Sept. 18 in Minnesota. Despite the Court of Appeals' decision in the case, at least some ballots will include the initiative, though the votes may not be counted.