MD Supreme Court declines to have voters decide ‘Baby Bonus’ on ballot

Baltimore City voters will not get to decide whether the city’s residents will receive a “Baby Bonus”– a one-time payment of at least $1,000 to parents after the birth or adoption of a child — the Maryland Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In a per curiam order, the Maryland Supreme Court determined that the “Baby Bonus” Amendment violates a provision of the Maryland Constitution because it is not proper “charter material” and therefore cannot be presented on the November general election ballot.

The high court’s detailed reasoning for the ruling is expected to follow at a later date.

RELATED: Baltimore property tax cut charter amendment blocked from November ballot

Nate Golden, president of Maryland Child Alliance, said the group is disappointed with the high court’s ruling.

“The purpose of this campaign was to reduce child poverty and help children, and we’re coming up short today,” Golden said in a virtual news conference Thursday.

Golden said Maryland Child Alliance, an anti-poverty group, led the effort to put the fate of the $1,000 bonus in the hands of voters via a proposed amendment to the Baltimore City Charter to ensure children born in Baltimore City have the basic resources needed to thrive.

“I can’t think of any policy issue more important than making sure every child’s brain is able to fully develop,” Golden said.

The Baltimore Mayor’s Office praised the high court’s ruling.

“Today’s decision was the right one,” said Bryan Doherty, spokesperson for the Baltimore Mayor’s Office. “While we’ve said from the beginning that we align with the goal of providing more Baltimore residents with access to guaranteed income, this proposal was not legally sound and should not have been on the ballot. We’re grateful the Maryland Supreme Court agreed.”

On Wednesday, the Baltimore City Board of Elections and Maryland Child Alliance argued before the high court that the Baltimore mayor and Baltimore City Council are not burdened by the amendment because the proposed change leaves the decision-making power in the charter to voters. Further, the Baltimore City Board of Elections argued, the amendment “leaves procedural and implementation details to the [Baltimore] Mayor and City Council.”

But counsel for the Baltimore mayor and council argued the amendment is not broad enough and instead “tells the city exactly how it must spend that money.”

After Maryland Child Alliance secured enough signatures, the Baltimore City Board of Elections in July approved the proposed amendment. The mayor and city council objected, saying the mandate would take power away from the local legislative body. The Baltimore City Circuit Court agreed, and on Aug. 9 ruled the proposal a violation of the Maryland Constitution.

Golden said Maryland Child Alliance never expected the court to rule in the Baltimore mayor and city council’s favor because the group specifically designed the amendment to meet case law. Going forward, Golden said, the group is awaiting the opinion from the high court.

“The full decision from the court is going to impact charter amendments across the state indefinitely,” Golden said, adding the opinion to come will determine what avenues, if any, Maryland Child Alliance has going forward.