The Maryland Supreme Court upheld lower court decisions on Thursday by ruling that two proposed city charter amendments are inconsistent with state law.
The first, dubbed “the Baby Bonus” would have paid out at least $1,000 in cash payments to new city parents. The other would have instituted a property tax rate cut reducing the Baltimore City property tax rate down from 2.248% (the highest in Maryland) down to 1.2% over the course of seven years.
Both measures had been heard and ruled unconstitutional by the Baltimore City Circuit Court earlier this summer.
“We are deeply disappointed in today’s ruling by the members of the Maryland Supreme Court, which denies the will of 23,542 Baltimore City residents who signed a petition to at last bring about fair and equitable property taxes,” said Ben Frederick & Matthew Wyskiel on behalf of Renew Baltimore, the group behind the proposed charter amendment, in a Thursday statement.
Mayor Brandon Scott has voiced strong opposition to the measure, saying that it would severely inhibit the city’s ability to provide “essential” city services and that it was “downright terrible policy”.
“We’re glad the Maryland Supreme Court saw through their inaccurate spin, fuzzy math, and weak legal arguments. Today’s decision ensures that the City can move forward without the threat of bankruptcy that would disrupt essential city services, and we can continue the business of pursuing property tax relief in a responsible way,” said Mayor Scott in a statement.
While “aligned with” the Baby Bonus cause, the mayor’s office called the supreme court’s decision to remove the measure from the ballot “the right one.”
“This proposal was not legally sound and should not have been on the ballot,” an emailed statement Thursday read. “It is our sincere hope that everyone supportive of this effort joins us in advocating for more guaranteed income programs, particularly at the national level.”
The Maryland Child Alliance created and campaigned for the Baby Bonus as a way to combat the effects of child poverty – which affects nearly one-third of Baltimore school-aged children, according to census data.
In a virtual press conference Thursday evening, president Nate Golden called the city leaders’ actions an act of cowardice.
“The motto of our group has always been that poverty is a policy failure, that every child that comes into our classroom living in poverty – we could collectively decide to solve this,” he said. “But our legislators are not.”
Golden said he and other teachers are “devastated for this loss for the children of the city” – but they will fight to put the Baby Bonus back on the ballot in 2026 if they can amend the measure to fit the state court’s standards.
“But if that door closes from the court's decision, we've tried lobbying our current legislators. That didn't work,” he said. “We tried direct democracy. They made sure that didn't work. And so our only other option will be to change who our elected leaders are.”
The Baby Bonus details
In early July, the city board of elections approved the Baby Bonus for the November ballot with over 14,000 signatures collected in support.
The measure would have allowed parents to spend the money on anything they need, from strollers to groceries – a move Mayor Brandon Scott and other city officials pushed back on in court for taking away too much lawmaker power.
In Wednesday’s supreme court hearing, lawyers debated whether charter amendments are allowed to mandate government spending based on precedent set by two previous state cases.
Baby Bonus supporters argued the measure left key decisions up to local leaders, like how to distribute the funds and whether adoptive parents qualify.
“And these aren't just minor details,” said Thomas Chapman, who represented the city board of elections. “These are important in the sense that they can affect how well the policy functions.”
But the city side said the language crossed the line into resembling legislation.
“What we have here is a very specific appropriation, a mandatory appropriation tells the city exactly how much it must appropriate, and it tells the city exactly how it must spend that money,” said Tom Webb, legal counsel for the city leaders.
The Maryland Child Alliance offered Wednesday to nix the $1,000 minimum requirement from the Baby Bonus language in order to keep the universal payment on the ballot – but Webb still said that wouldn’t be enough.
Renew Baltimore Property Tax Cut
Earlier this summer, a group called Renew Baltimore, a coalition of mostly economists and former city electeds, submitted more than 24,000 signatures to the Baltimore City Board of Elections with the proposed tax cut. In July, Elections Director Armstead Jones halted the measure by saying it violated Maryland law– eventually sending the matter to the courts.
An opinion published Thursday by Supreme Court Judge Matthew J. Fader stated that the proposed amendment “sets the property tax rate in a manner inconsistent” with the state’s tax § 6-302(a) of the Tax Property Article.”
Essentially, the heart of the legal question is who has the power to set the tax rate: the legislators or taxpayers? Judges have consistently argued that Maryland state law gives that power to the Mayor and Baltimore City Council.
During oral arguments before the state supreme court on Wednesday, Constantine Themelis, representing Renew Baltimore, continued the group’s argument that the petition does not set the rate but rather a rate cap; Baltimore City could set an even lower rate if so wanted. The group also argues that it is not limiting the city’s ability to collect revenue- a claim judges interrogated.
With a lower rate, home ownership and development would flock to the city thereby counteracting any lost revenue, proponents of the measure argue.
“If that prediction is incorrect and revenue goes down, then you will have significantly reduced the discretion of the council, because they won't be able to raise the tax rates,” said Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader.
Justice Angela Eaves asked simply, “Doesn’t this tie the city’s hands?”
Baltimore City’s finance department estimated in a report that lost revenue from the cut could result in an annual structural deficit of around $900 million over the course of a decade.
An opposition group made up of city unions and social justice advocacy groups praised the decision made by the state’s highest court.
“Today’s decision from the Maryland Supreme Court affirms that the true intent of the so-called Renew Baltimore proposal was to subvert the democratic process in order to benefit the wealthy few at the expense of the rest of us,” the group Baltimore City Not For Sale wrote in a statement.” City leaders, workers, and everyday Baltimoreans know that halving city property taxes would have decimated city services and made Baltimore a less healthy community where basic human needs would be left unmet due to a lack of funding.”
In an interview, Frederick, a local real estate broker and Renew Baltimore member, said the challenge and subsequent court decision were about "power" as he pointed out that the mayor gives "cuts" taxes for property developers in the form of TIFFS and tax credits.
"We wanted to give low property taxes to everybody. Our saying is that if low property taxes are good for the large developers, why aren't they good for every Baltimore City resident?” asked Frederick.
As they decried the court’s decision, Frederick and Wyskiel pointed out that Baltimore City continues to lose its population as they called for next steps in tax policy.
“We call on Baltimore City Mayor Brandon Scott and the City Council to heed the demands of the tens of thousands of residents who support meaningful and responsible property tax reduction. Maintaining the status quo is not only unsustainable but a clear dereliction of their duty to pursue the best interests of all Baltimoreans and a more promising future for our great City,” the duo said in their statement.
