Two proposed ballot questions, one that would reduce Baltimore’s taxes and another that would offer payments to new city parents, were struck down Thursday by Maryland’s highest court, which found in separate rulings that both violated the state constitution.

The Supreme Court of Maryland took up the two cases after separate Baltimore Circuit Court judges found that each question should not appear on ballots for city voters to consider this fall. Each judge ruled that their respective question was outside the scope of changes that citizens are able to make to the city’s charter.

The high court concurred, finding that the questions impeded upon powers set aside for legislative bodies, like the Baltimore City Council.

In Baltimore, citizens have the right to petition to place a question on the ballot by collecting 10,000 signatures from qualified city voters. Past court decisions have found that those ballot questions must be proper charter material — amendments that change the form of city government rather than set policy.

The court heard arguments Wednesday from both Renew Baltimore, the group backing the tax proposal, and the Maryland Child Alliance, which sponsored the proposed payments for parents, better known as the Baby Bonus. The ruling came on an expedited schedule because of the upcoming election. The Maryland State Board of Elections is due to begin printing ballots on Sept. 6.

Renew Baltimore, a coalition of economists and former city officials, collected more than 23,000 signatures in support of its proposal, which would have nearly halved the city’s property tax rate over seven years, from 2.248% to 1.2%. The Baltimore City Board of Elections notified the group in July that the measure would be stricken from the ballot, arguing that only the mayor and City Council have the power to set the property tax rate.

Circuit Judge Althea M. Handy sided with the board, finding that the ballot question “would take all power and discretion from the City Council and their ability to legislate and determine the tax rate.”

Attorneys for Renew Baltimore argued the proposal is legal because courts have determined that residents can place reasonable limitations on their government’s power to tax by way of charter amendments. The group postulates the tax break would boost the city’s population, thus increasing the number of taxpayers and making up for a projected multimillion-dollar reduction in city revenue.

Justices expressed concern that the cap would act as an effective tax reduction that would hamstring the city’s ability to meet budgetary needs.

In fiscal year 2023, Baltimore brought in roughly $3.6 billion of revenue, almost 30% of which — about $1 billion — came from the property tax, according to the city’s annual audited report. Renew Baltimore’s critics argue its proposal would cut city revenue by one-quarter and require dramatically slashing city services.

A 1990 appellate decision at the center of the election board’s argument distinguished between voters placing a cap on a legislature’s ability to set a tax rate and rolling back the tax rate. In that case, appeals judges determined that a charter amendment could be used to set a cap, but not to roll back the rate, according to court filings.

In its order Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled the proposed ballot measure violates a provision of Maryland property tax law that says it’s solely the duty of a county’s “governing body” to set a property tax rate each year. The high court upheld an Aug. 9 ruling by Baltimore Circuit Judge Althea M. Handy.

“The circuit court correctly determined that the proposed charter amendment impermissibly sets the property tax rate … and, therefore, cannot be presented on the November 2024 general election ballot,” read the order, signed by Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader.

The ruling marked the end of the road for Renew Baltimore, which tried once before in 2022 to place the tax cut question on the ballot, but gathered too few signatures.

Leaders of Renew Baltimore decried the court’s ruling in a statement, calling on Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, a Democrat, and the City Council to reduce the city’s property tax rate.

“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,” wrote Ben Frederick and Matthew Wyskiel. “It is unfortunate that the Court decided to ignore the demands of the tens of thousands of residents who have called for responsible property tax reform, denying them the opportunity to control their financial future and improve the prospects of the City they love.”

In a statement, Scott’s office called Renew Baltimore’s proposal “illegal and downright terrible policy.”

“We’re glad the Supreme Court saw through their inaccurate spin, fuzzy math, and weak legal arguments,” the mayor’s office said. “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 about the business of pursuing property tax relief in a responsible way.”

Courtney Jenkins, President, Metropolitan Baltimore Council Of AFL-CIO Unions, applauded the Supreme Court’s ruling in a statement Thursday, arguing that Renew Baltimore sought to “subvert the democratic process” to benefit the wealthy.

“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,” said Jenkins, on behalf of the group Baltimore City Not For Sale Coalition, which represented community groups, city workers, teachers and residents in opposition to the ballot measure.

Judges also heard arguments for and against the Baby Bonus which would have paid city parents $1,000 upon the arrival of a new child. The question, sponsored by a coalition of city teachers, was intended to alleviate childhood poverty.

In the case of the Baby Bonus, it was the city that sued to have the question removed from the ballot, arguing that it exceeds the authority of citizens. The Baltimore City Board of Elections had previously approved the question to appear on ballots. Baltimore Circuit Judge John Stanley Nugent sided with the city earlier this month, granting an injunction.

Attorneys for the Maryland Child Alliance and the Baltimore City Board of Elections, which is a party to the case, argued that the city would maintain discretion to make decisions about how to implement the Baby Bonus. Legislators would still have the power to decide how the payments would be distributed and whether adoptive parents would be included.

The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the proposed Baby Bonus ballot measure violated an article of the state constitution that gives county legislative bodies “law-making power.” The high court’s order affirmed Nugent’s Aug. 9 ruling.

“The circuit court correctly determined that the Baby Bonus Amendment violates … the Constitution of Maryland because it is not proper ‘charter material,'” read the order, also signed by Fader. “Accordingly, it cannot be presented on the November 2024 general election ballot.”

Organizers of the Baby Bonus initiative said they were “deeply disappointed” by the Supreme Court’s ruling, in a statement posted on the social media platform X, saying the decision “denies Baltimore voters the opportunity to decide on a policy that could have supported families welcoming new children.”

“While this is a significant setback,” the statement added, “we remain committed to finding ways to reduce child poverty and support Baltimore families. Once we receive the full court decision, we will carefully review it to determine potential next steps, including possibly revising the amendment language for a future ballot initiative.”

Scott’s office called the high court’s decision “the right one” in a statement.

“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,” the mayor’s office said. “We’re grateful the Maryland Supreme Court agreed. 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.”

Calling the ruling a “major loss” for Baltimore, Nate Golden, president of Maryland Child Alliance, the organization behind the Baby Bonus campaign, criticized Scott and other elected officials for what he described as inaction in fighting child poverty.

“We hear a lot of rhetoric about child poverty,” said Golden, a math teacher at Forest Park High School. “But I’m still teaching a classroom full of kids experiencing it year after year after year.”