> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://prracperspective.ghost.io/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# (Very) Early Housing Policy Takeaways from the 2026 Elections
- URL: https://prracperspective.ghost.io/very-early-housing-policy-takeaways-from-the-2026-elections/
- Published: 2026-11-05T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-11-05T15:00:00.000Z
- Author: Poverty & Race Research Action Council

*By Thomas Silverstein, President/Executive Director, Poverty & Race Research Action Council* 

Given that a significant number of votes remain to be counted (and in some states even remain to arrive through the mail), a full exegesis on the implications of the [2026 election cycle](https://apnews.com/projects/elections-2026/?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io) for housing policy may not be possible for another month. Still, it is not too early to muse non-partisanly on a few themes relating to the new Congress, to state and local governments, and to ballot measures. 

*Congress* 

As readers undoubtedly know, Democrats will control the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate in the 120th Congress. As of this writing, it appears that the Democrats (including independents who caucus with the Democrats) will hold 54 to 56 seats in the Senate, with calls remaining to be made in Alaska and Mississippi. The Associated Press has called 240 House races for the Democrats, but it is conceivable that they could end up with 260 or more seats. The mere fact of Democratic control of Congress, come January, compels a level of negotiation about appropriations legislation and authorizing legislation (such as a fabled ROAD 2.0 follow-up to the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act) and affords an opportunity for oversight hearings, for which the Trump Administration has given no shortage of motivation. 

The more unique salience of the Senate is with regard to the confirmation process of both executive branch and judicial nominees, a process in which the House has no say. Although nominations to posts within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau undoubtedly matter, President Trump has shown a willingness to leave acting officials in appointed roles even with Republican control of the Senate. Thus, control of the Senate swinging to the Democrats for the last two years of the second Trump Administration may not affect executive branch nominations all that much. 

Different from those executive branch posts, however, are both appointments to the Federal Reserve Board and judicial nominations. These are opportunities that President Trump would not have forgone with a Republican Senate. The Fed’s decisions about interest rates can have a sizeable impact on the housing market, and the federal courts deal with many important cases relating to housing, from Fair Housing Act claims to constitutional challenges to progressive state and local housing policies like rent control, inclusionary zoning, and [prohibitions on source of income discrimination](https://www.prrac.org/pdf/AppendixB.pdf?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io). The judges nominated by President Trump have generally been hostile to the housing justice positions in these kinds of lawsuits. With the Democrats not only controlling the Senate but doing so with room to spare, it is likely that, come January, judicial nominations will slow to a trickle and may be limited to compromise appointees in lower courts that are experiencing extreme workload strain. 

The turnover in the composition of committees that are most influential for housing policy is also an area to watch. On the Senate side, Sens. Tina Smith (D-MN), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) are leaving the body and therefore also leaving the [Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs](https://www.banking.senate.gov/about/membership?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io). As the lead Senate sponsor of the [Homes Act,](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/5078?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io) Sen. Smith has been a champion for social housing. Sen. Tillis was, at least on occasion, a moderating influence. His presence during the outgoing session may also guard against a reconciliation package that further eviscerates the safety net. Turnover will also occur within the [Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (T-HUD) Subcommittee](https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/subcommittees/transportation-housing-and-urban-development-and-related-agencies?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io) of the Senate Appropriations Committee. There, Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Darline Graham (R-SC), and Richard Durbin (D-IL) are all outgoing, and Cindy Hyde Smith (R-MS) may prove to be, as well. 

For these committees, departures – which may be supplemented by members who are not leaving the chamber but who are switching committee assignments – will trigger concomitant incomings. To reflect the broader balance of power in the Senate, it is likely that the Democrats will have additional seats on the Banking Committee and additional seats on the Appropriations Committee. The exact composition of committees will not be known until much closer to the start of the new Congress, but it will be particularly interesting to see if Sen.-elect Sherrod Brown (D-OH) rejoins the Banking Committee, which he formerly led, and, if so, whether he does so with any seniority. 

For the House, it would be unwieldy to list all of the members of the [House Financial Services Committee](https://financialservices.house.gov/about/members.htm?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io) and the [T-HUD Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee](https://appropriations.house.gov/subcommittees/transportation-housing-and-urban-development-and-related-agencies?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io) who may be departing, but it is worth flagging two prominent departures and one race that has yet to be called. Rep. Nydia Velasquez (D-NY) and Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) both opted not to run for reelection. Rep. Velasquez is currently the second most senior Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, following only Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA), and also serves on the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee. Rep. Watson Coleman is a member of the T-HUD Subcommittee and has been a long-time housing justice champion, dating back to her time in the New Jersey Legislature where she fought to fulfill the promise of the [*Mount Laurel* doctrine](https://media.fairsharehousing.org/media/Mount-Laurel-Factsheet.pdf?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io). The housing justice field will miss the leadership and commitment of both of these members. New champions of fair housing, funding for affordable housing programs, and tenants’ rights will have to step up to fill the void they are leaving.   
  
Current House Financial Services Committee Chair French Hill (R-AR) is leading narrowly in his reelection race, which has yet to be called. If he were to lose, the process of selecting a successor to him as lead Republican on the committee and Ranking Member in the 120th Congress will bear watching. If he holds on, the narrowness of his victory may suggest vulnerability in 2028 and therefore the potential for future turnover in Republican leadership on the committee. Rep. Hill played a leading role in negotiations over the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. 

With respect to oversight hearings, the Perspective will likely return to that topic in a future post, but here are a few subjects that PRRAC would like to see addressed: the ways in which HUD has sabotaged its fair housing enforcement grant programs for [nonprofits](https://nationalfairhousing.org/lawsuit-to-halt-hud-fhip-decision/?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io) and [state and local government agencies](https://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/news/story/attorney-general-raoul-secures-victory-in-lawsuit-challenging-trump-administrations-attack-on-fair-housing-protections?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io); the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) [weaponization](https://shelterforce.org/2026/01/30/hud-scolds-boston-and-minneapolis-for-doing-what-it-says-it-wants-done/?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io) of civil rights laws to attack [Boston](https://www.hud.gov/news/hud-no-25-147?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io), [Minneapolis](https://www.hud.gov/news/hud-no-26-007?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io), [the Washington State Housing Finance Commission](https://www.hud.gov/news/hud-no-26-023?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io), and [Wells Fargo](https://www.hud.gov/news/hud-no-26-081?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io) for fundamentally doing the right thing; HUD’s [evidence-free abandonment](https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/five-ways-huds-continuum-of-care-funding-notices-would-undermine-effective?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io) of the Housing First framework; the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) [rollback](https://www.crefc.org/cre/cre/content/News/Items/advocacy-items/FHFA%5FRescinds%5FMultifamily%5FLease%5FPolicies%5F4%5F1.aspx?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io) of tenant protections for multifamily properties with Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-backed mortgages; and, last but not least, the [total evisceration](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/03/16/the-zombie-regulator?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io) of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Incoming Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Robert Garcia (D-CA) issued a two-word statement on election night – “Lawyer up” – that likely captures a zeitgeist that will be felt across other committees, as well. 

Housing justice advocates will have to keep an eye on Congress during the outgoing session. Current House leadership is likely to push for a major reconciliation package as a follow-up to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It is very plausible that what they propose could include austerity provisions relating to housing programs. Although it seems quite unlikely that the Senate would move such a package, there may be pressure from both President Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) on them to do so. Of somewhat less but non-zero concern, it is possible that, rather than passing another continuing resolution that stretches into 2027 and enables congressional Democrats to negotiate an appropriations deal with President Trump, Congress could pass a full Fiscal Year 2027 appropriations package that locks in lower funding levels for HUD (and other) programs than could be negotiated in the new year. The – unfortunately – low-hanging fruit for Republicans during the outgoing session may be judicial nominations, a subject on which outgoing Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) are in closer alignment with the White House than they are regarding substantive legislation. The confirmation of judges (or even one or two Supreme Court justices) hostile to housing justice and civil rights could have long-term negative consequences that would necessitate meaningful court reform as a corrective in the future. 

*Cities and States* 

Some of the most immediate translation of election results into policy change will happen at the local level. Many large cities are holding mayoral elections this year, and, for some like Los Angeles, Providence, and the District of Columbia, housing has been a hugely salient election. Although the outcomes of these elections (except for Los Angeles) have seemed predictable since the primaries, it is still worth reflecting on what policies might be up for debate soon. In Providence, Mayor-Elect David Morales has championed rent stabilization, a policy that [his predecessor vetoed](https://shelterforce.org/2026/11/04/providences-pro-housing-mayor-vetoed-rent-control-then-he-lost-re-election/?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io). It seems quite likely that Providence will pass and implement rent stabilization quite soon. In the District of Columbia, Mayor-Elect Janeese Lewis George may use the bully pulpit to urge the D.C. Council to enact the [Green New Deal for Social Housing Act](https://janeeseward4.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/GND-For-Housing-Draft-with-signatures.pdf?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io), a proposed law that she sponsored as a councilmember. For Los Angeles, the race has not been called, but Councilmember Nithya Raman has a lead over incumbent Mayor Karen Bass that appears to be insurmountable. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, [the next mayor will have big calls to make](https://prracperspective.ghost.io/bridging-the-yimby-tenant-organizing-divide/) – in tandem with the City Council – about social housing, tenant protections, and zoning reform, three essential pillars of any holistic housing policy. 

At the state level, there may not be as many obviously predictable substantive policy reforms in the offing, but the potential for these elections to change the funding landscape for affordable housing is quite real. Both control of state legislative chambers and ideological shifts within the same party can alter horizons. The existence of trifectas, where one party controls both houses of the legislature and the governorship, can open the legislative floodgates after a period of inertia. This can manifest in both positive and negative ways. On the positive side, states may consider bans on source of income discrimination, the codification of the disparate impact framework under their fair housing laws, repeal of the [preemption of local tenant protections](https://www.supportdemocracy.org/equitablehousing?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io), the creation or expansion of state-funded rental assistance, and the institution of a social housing development authority. On the negative side, new preemption bills, including with regard to source of income protections, are a threat as is the elimination of or reduced funding for affordable housing programs. 

Consistent with the broader nationwide trend of success for Democratic candidates, there will be new trifectas in Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, respectively. It is worth noting that, of these states, only Michigan currently has a source of income discrimination law that effectively prohibits bias against households with housing vouchers. Additionally, Arizona currently preempts local inclusionary zoning ordinances. States where the changing ideological composition of legislatures but not shifting partisan control could affect housing policy horizons include the likes of Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York. The former three states are all ones where there have been active pushes to repeal longstanding rent control preemption, while, in New York, the potential to create a state social housing development agency exists. Whether this week’s elections have changed the viability of reform regarding either of those two issues is not immediately clear. 

*Ballot Measures* 

In the face of cautious policymakers or legal requirements that certain matters be put before the voters, ballot initiatives and referenda often play a crucial role in advancing housing justice. The nonprofit newsroom [Bolts](https://boltsmag.org/?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io) is a great resource for coverage of ballot measures, in particular. This election witnessed several notable successes as well as a couple of setbacks. With respect to rent control, that policy appears to be [well on the way to passage in San Pablo, California](https://ballotpedia.org/San%5FPablo,%5FCalifornia,%5FMeasure%5FS,%5FRent%5FControl%5FMeasure%5F%28November%5F2026%29?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io) while it [trails across the Bay in Redwood City](https://ballotpedia.org/Redwood%5FCity,%5FCalifornia,%5FMeasure%5FE,%5FExtend%5FRent%5FControl%5Fand%5FChange%5FEviction%5FRequirements%5FInitiative%5F%28November%5F2026%29?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io). Sadly, Massachusetts voters did not have the opportunity to vote on rent control due to [a Supreme Judicial Court ruling that kept it off the ballot](https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2026-06-23/rent-control-question-disqualified-due-to-religious-exemption?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io). Also in Massachusetts, a [measure to require the legalization of single-family homes on small lots with street frontage that are served by water and sewer](https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts%5FQuestion%5F7,%5FLimit%5Fon%5FRequired%5FLot%5FSize%5Ffor%5FSingle-Family%5FHomes%5FInitiative%5F%282026%29?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io) trails narrowly. Although liberalizing the rules around single-family homes on small lots is far from the most important fight in the struggle to end exclusionary zoning, it is certainly true that large lot size requirements facilitate opportunity hoarding and racial and socioeconomic segregation. Bond issues to fund affordable housing fared well from coast-to-coast. In North Carolina, Charlotte voters [approved a $125 million bond issue](https://ballotpedia.org/Charlotte,%5FNorth%5FCarolina,%5FHousing%5FBond%5FMeasure%5F%28November%5F2026%29?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io) to fund housing while [Raleigh voters passed $101.5 million for housing](https://ballotpedia.org/Raleigh,%5FNorth%5FCarolina,%5FHousing%5FBond%5FMeasure%5F%28November%5F2026%29?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io). [California voters authorized over $11 billion in bond proceeds at the state level](https://ballotpedia.org/California%5FProposition%5F1,%5FVeteran%5Fand%5FHousing%5FAssistance%5FPrograms%5FBond%5FMeasure%5F%282026%29?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io) while [Rhode Island voters approved $120 million](https://ballotpedia.org/Rhode%5FIsland%5FQuestion%5F2,%5FHousing%5FDevelopment%5FBond%5FMeasure%5F%282026%29?ref=prracperspective.ghost.io). This overview likely just scratches the surface of ballot measure landscape. Still, it is clear that voters have an appetite for solutions to the housing affordability crisis. 

\*\*\* 

The 2026 midterm elections have reshaped the housing policy landscape for at least the next two years at multiple levels of government and may have ramifications beyond that period. PRRAC will continue to keep an eye on housing policy developments. If the repeal of bad preemption laws is on the table in some states next spring and if transformative federal legislation is finally getting a full and proper hearing in Congress, the Perspective will bring that to light. For now, it is critical that advocates for racial, economic, and housing justice stay engaged during the outgoing session of Congress to try to prevent further harms from being piled on top of those already imposed by the Trump Administration.