A proposed ballot question that would pay new parents $1,000 when they have a child is an overreach that violates the authority of voters to amend the city charter, a Baltimore City Circuit Court judge concluded Friday.
Mayor Brandon Scott asked to have the question, dubbed the Baby Bonus, thrown off the November ballot, arguing in court this week that the proposed question exceeds the authority of citizens. Judge John Stanley Nugent sided with the city, granting an injunction.
The Maryland Child Alliance, which petitioned to place the question on the ballot, plans to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Maryland.
“Since July when the city brought this last minute suit to stop the will of the voters, we knew that the Supreme Court of Maryland would make the final determination,” said Nate Golden, president of the Maryland Child Alliance. “We believe a proper reading of the text, legislative history, and case law will result in a decision in our favor. We plan to file an immediate appeal.”
Baltimore’s charter offers two options for amendments. The Baltimore City Council with the approval of the mayor can place questions on the ballot for the consideration of voters. Citizens also have the option of petitioning to place a question on the ballot. Signatures are required from at least 10,000 verified voters to successfully petition.
Organizers behind the Baby Bonus met that threshold when they submitted signatures earlier this year. The Baltimore City Board of Elections verified the signatures and approved the question to appear on the ballot.
However, the city argued the question itself was beyond the scope of the citizen’s right to petition. Attorney Thomas Webb said during arguments Wednesday that citizen charter amendments are designed to propose structural changes to government, not to legislate, which is the job of the City Council.
Webb argued that the city would not have discretion over how much money would be paid by the Baby Bonus, nor who it would be paid to. The Baby Bonus would require the city to pay parents $1,000 upon the arrival of a child.
Attorneys for the Maryland Child Alliance and the Baltimore City Board of Elections, which is a party to the case, argued that the city would have discretion to make decisions about how to implement the Baby Bonus. The proposal would require payments to new parents, but it would allow city officials to determine instances in which a nonbiological parent might be eligible, they argued. The city would also have the discretion to determine where the money to pay for the program would come from, they said.
Nugent sided with the city, stating that the proposed ballot question “removes all meaningful discretion from the city” and implements a policy that falls within the purview of the City Council, not the citizenry.
“It is not enough for the proposed charter amendment to preserve some inconsequential discretion,” he said, arguing there would be little left for city legislators to decide. “That is exactly the situation here.”
Baby Bonus organizers said they modeled the proposal after the city’s Children and Youth Fund, which was created via a referendum in 2016 and guarantees a portion of the city’s tax revenue each year to the fund. That ballot question was placed on the ballot by the City Council, rather than via citizen petition.
Nugent found the Baby Bonus proposal “differs significantly” from the Children and Youth Fund. That fund can be administered at the discretion of the city and does not make direct payments to specified residents, maintaining the city’s “meaningful discretion,” he said.
In a statement, the mayor’s office said the Scott administration supports the goals of the Baby Bonus and other guaranteed income programs. A two-year guaranteed income pilot program for 200 families spearheaded by Scott concluded last month in Baltimore.
“Through our own pilot program, we’ve proven that this policy works and can change lives — helping pilot program participants increase their household incomes, move into more independent living situations, and invest in their education,” Scott’s office said. “However, we’re thankful that the court agreed we cannot legislate and mandate spending by ballot initiative.”
The court fight over the Baby Bonus is one of two being waged this summer in Baltimore. A separate citizen-driven ballot question that would reduce and cap the city’s property tax rate was dismissed by the Baltimore City Board of Elections after the board’s attorney found the proposal would violate state law. Its sponsors, known as Renew Baltimore, challenged the decision. The issue was heard in court Thursday afternoon.
Ballot measures almost always pass in Baltimore. City voters haven’t rejected a ballot question since 2004, when they were asked to lower the age requirement to serve on the City Council.
