MD Supreme Court explains decision to keep ‘Baby Bonus’ off Baltimore ballots

The Maryland Supreme Court has issued an opinion explaining why it declined to allow a “Baby Bonus” to be placed on the ballot in Baltimore during the presidential general election last November.

In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Shirley M. Watts and filed Monday, the Maryland Supreme Court ruled the “Baby Bonus” Amendment is not “proper charter material” and therefore violated Maryland’s Constitution.

“Although it is a well-meant effort to combat childhood poverty, the Baby Bonus Amendment is not an amendment that relates to the form and structure of government in any fundamental sense,” Watts wrote. “The Baby Bonus Amendment is akin to a legislative enactment in that it mandates the making of mandatory minimum payments to certain residents of the City and encroaches on the City’s discretion to address matters of public health and welfare concerning children and new parents, which… are areas reserved by the General Assembly for local legislation.”

The amendment to the Baltimore City Charter, the city’s constitution, would have required a one-time payment of at least $1,000 to parents after the birth or adoption of a child.

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 the proposed amendment 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,” said Nate Golden, president of Maryland Child Alliance, during a news conference in August last year.

The Maryland Supreme Court wrote that the proposed mandatory minimum payment “in effect strips the Mayor and City Council of the ‘full power and authority to pass ordinances deemed expedient in maintaining the peace, good government, health, and welfare of the City of Baltimore.’”

The high court went on to note that the “Baby Bonus” does not allow Baltimore discretion or control regarding the making of the payments, and dictates the groups of residents who are to receive payments and the minimum amount the payments must be.

Previously, the Baltimore Mayor’s Office described the high court’s ruling as “the right one,” through spokesperson Bryan Doherty.

“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,” Doherty said. “We’re grateful the Maryland Supreme Court agreed.”