A proposed charter amendment that would give Baltimore parents a $1,000 cash payment after adopting or giving birth may not appear on the November ballot, after a circuit court ruling Friday called it unconstitutional.
Judge John S. Nugent ruled in favor of Mayor Brandon Scott and the city council, who filed a legal complaint against the Baltimore Baby Bonus Fund on July 11 — the week after the city board of elections approved it for the ballot with over 14,000 collected signatures.
“This is about the Baby Bonus,” said Nate Golden, one of the measure’s creators and a math teacher at Forest Park High School. “But I'm also worried for a future where our elected officials are continuing to not be up to the task of taking care of the most vulnerable people in our state, and they also stripped the power of us to do anything about it.”
Two previous Maryland cases lie at the center of Friday’s decision: Atkinson v. Anne Arundel County, a 2012 case that found charter amendments which mandate appropriations could be constitutional if enough power is left to local government, and Cheeks v. Cedlair Corps, a 1980 state case that rejected a proposed charter amendment because it was “essentially legislative in character.”
Golden says the Baby Bonus is most similar to the amendment in the Atkinson case.
“You can see it explicitly in our amendments, it says all the details of implementation, administration and governance are left to the mayor and the city council,” he said.
But Judge Nugent writes that the Baby Bonus more closely resembles the Cheeks case – because it “removes all meaningful discretion from the City” in outlining who is eligible for the one-time cash payment, the minimum amount of the bonus, and how it will be financed.
A statement from the mayor’s office praises the circuit court’s decision, saying people “cannot legislate and mandate spending by ballot initiative.”
“As we’ve said from the beginning, we appreciate and support the goals of this initiative and the value of guaranteed income programs,” the emailed statement said.
But Golden says that argument is “phony.”
“Being in favor of the spirit of this doesn't help kids at all,” he said. “If they really believe this is an impermissible charter amendment, but it's good policy, Brandon Scott could put it in the budget, but he doesn't. He actively chooses not to.”
Golden also added that the Baby Bonus funding model is copied exactly from the Child and Youth Fund – which then-city council member Scott signed into law along other city leaders in 2016.
“It's just incredibly frustrating because we spent two years trying to get elected officials to do stuff through legislation, and they wouldn't,” Golden said. “And so we found a legally permissible way to take our message directly to the voters, and then we're facing this lawsuit. And so it just feels like what can possibly be done to help our kids? Because they're not doing anything.”
Golden said the Maryland Child Alliance, a group of Baltimore City teachers leading the Baby Bonus push to combat child poverty, will be appealing to the Maryland Supreme Court – and he’s confident they will win.
“The circuit court, they can't look at any kind of textual argument of what the state constitution says; they just have to do their pure reading of the case law,” Golden said. The Maryland constitution, he says, doesn’t have the same charter amendment restrictions as the 1980 Cheeks case.
But Golden says even if the Baby Bonus doesn’t make it to the charter, the “powerful organizing force” of the Maryland Child Alliance isn’t going away.
“This goes for Brandon Scott, this goes for members on the city council – but it also goes to our state delegation,” he said. “People who are not going to fight for kids, we're going to use our organizing power to help you find a new job.”
