4th Circuit upholds constitutionality of Howard County school board student selection process

Listen to this article

A Howard County school board’s process for selecting the board’s student member is constitutional, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled.

In a published opinion written by Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., the 4th Circuit last month rejected the constitutional claims of two parents who argued that allowing public school students to choose the Howard County Board of Education’s student member violated the Equal Protection Clause. The 4th Circuit in its ruling similarly affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of one parent’s Free Exercise Clause claim.

The court’s ruling marks the second victory in less than two years for the Howard County Board of Education over the constitutionality of its student board member selection process, with Maryland’s highest court upholding the process as constitutional in August 2022.

In its opinion, the 4th Circuit distinguished the student board member’s selection process from that of a popular election, noting the process is “basically appointive rather than elective,” and therefore the ‘one-person, one-vote’ principle “has no relevancy.”

In Howard County, a student board member is chosen through a “nomination and election process,” where Howard County public school students in grades six through 11 vote directly for one of two student member candidates who applied for the role and were selected by a committee comprised of the school principal, a student-government advisor or counselor and three students selected by the principal.

The remaining seven board members are adults chosen during general elections who serve four-year, staggered terms. The student board member serves a one-year term, the opinion states.

Lisa Kim and William Holland, parents of children attending school in Howard County, filed suit against the Howard County Board of Education in 2021, claiming the student board member selection process grants certain students greater voting power than adults in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Kim separately argued the selection process violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause by excluding students who choose not to attend public schools for religious reasons.

In rejecting these arguments, the 4th Circuit in its opinion noted that the board “has retained control over who serves as the student member” and the selection process “excludes students who choose not to attend public school for whatever reason,” not because of religious exercise.

“Howard County’s process for allowing its young students to participate in selecting the student member does not prematurely enfranchise them; rather, it provides a real-life civics lesson about the democratic process aimed at preparing the schoolchildren for when they will qualify to vote in elections held in Maryland,” the 4th Circuit wrote.

J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation whose lawyers represented Kim and Holland, said the Foundation is “disappointed” in the court’s ruling.

“In America, you should not give someone or a group of people greater political representation than anyone else,” Adams said in an email. “In Howard County, Maryland that is exactly what is happening. Children voting for school board have greater representation than adults.”

Amy Marshak, counsel for the Howard County Board of Education, said both this court’s decision and the state high court’s 2022 ruling provide a foundation for the constitutionality of student board members in Maryland.

“I think this really gives a very strong legal grounding for these kinds of positions across Maryland, not just in Howard County,” Marshak said.

Marshak, who also represented the Howard County Board of Education before Maryland’s highest court in the 2022 case, said the resolution of this issue under both the state and federal constitution is “valuable” for school boards in Maryland.

“[Student board members] play an important role in the governance of our public schools, and it’s really important that students can have a voice in that process,” Marshak said.