Appeals Court to Decide if Kids Can Vote for School Board in Howard County

Oral ‌Arguments Begin in Controversial School⁢ Board Voting Case

Excitement filled the air as ⁢oral arguments commenced in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ⁤on Friday. The case at hand​ is a pivotal one, ⁤determining whether a⁤ Maryland county can grant voting rights to children ​attending public ‌schools for​ the purpose of‌ electing school board members.

Filed‍ by the ‍Public Interest ​Legal Foundation (PILF)⁣ in March 2021, the lawsuit asserts that Howard County’s decision to allow 6th-11th graders to vote for a student member of the board of education violates the First and 14th ​Amendments. ‍According to a PILF-produced‌ factsheet summarizing the case, the board consists of eight members, ⁢with one position exclusively reserved for a student elected by their peers in grades‌ 6th ‌through 11th.

However, PILF argues that this system unfairly excludes students attending‍ religious schools or being homeschooled, infringing ​upon their First Amendment rights. The lawsuit was filed ⁤on behalf of Howard ‌County residents⁤ William Holland, Lisa​ Kim, ‌and Kim’s son,‌ who was a‍ 6th-grade student at a religious school when the lawsuit was ‌initiated.

A Violation ‍of ‍Constitutional Rights

The lawsuit claims that the Howard County Board of Education’s election process violates‌ both the ‌Fourteenth and First Amendments. It alleges that by ‍allowing⁣ only public school students to vote, while excluding‍ those attending religious schools, the board is improperly allocating political power and ⁤causing a malapportionment of political influence.

PILF further argues that Howard County’s process‍ violates ⁤the equal protection clause ​of the 14th Amendment, as it would result in ​students who are ​18 years old having more school board members representing​ them than⁣ non-student adults. The lawsuit⁣ also raises concerns about the unfair influence teachers may have in the selection process.

Previously, a district court dismissed PILF’s suit⁣ in November ⁤2022 without allowing discovery or oral arguments. However,​ PILF appealed the decision,⁤ asserting that⁢ the district court had disregarded the‍ allegations in the complaint and the Maryland Code. Their request for oral argument‍ was ultimately granted.

Leading up to​ the hearing, PILF ⁤President⁢ J. Christian ⁤Adams criticized the notion of⁢ granting certain individuals or groups‍ greater representation⁢ than others. He also condemned Howard County’s discriminatory practice of denying students attending religious schools ‍the right to vote.

A Broader Trend

While the case in Howard County is significant,​ it is not an ⁤isolated incident. ⁢Democrat-controlled municipalities in Maryland ⁤and California⁢ have​ passed legislation allowing ​minors as young as 16 to vote in local elections. Similarly,⁣ states like Michigan have changed their laws⁤ to​ enable 16-year-olds to pre-register to vote.

At⁢ the ‌national level,⁣ congressional Democrats have even proposed constitutional amendments to lower the voting age for​ federal elections. These efforts highlight the ongoing⁢ debate surrounding youth voting rights and the potential impact on ​political⁣ outcomes.

It‍ is worth ⁤noting that younger voters have shown a strong preference for Democratic candidates in recent elections. According to ⁤a survey conducted by Edison ‌Research, 63% of youth voted for a ⁢Democrat‌ in the 2022 midterms.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. His work has ‌been featured⁤ in various outlets,‍ including RealClearPolitics ⁤and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood.

What‌ are the arguments ⁢made by proponents⁢ of‌ voting rights for public school students, and how do they ⁢believe this system promotes civic engagement?

D or older being denied the right⁣ to vote based solely ⁢on the fact that they attend a religious school or⁤ are homeschooled.‍ PILF contends that‌ this discriminatory treatment is a ‍clear violation of the equal protection clause, which guarantees that all individuals are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

Proponents of the voting rights for⁤ public school students argue that this system​ promotes civic engagement and gives students a voice in matters that directly affect ⁣them. They maintain that it is essential for students to learn about democracy and‌ participate in the⁤ democratic process from ⁤a young age. Furthermore, they assert that the ‍student member of the board ​of education represents the interests and concerns‌ of all students‌ in the county, regardless ⁤of ⁣the school they attend. Allowing students to vote in the election ensures that the student⁢ representative truly represents the diverse student population.

Opponents ⁢of the policy, on the other‍ hand, argue that it is unfair and undemocratic to grant voting rights to ⁢a ⁣specific group of ‌students⁤ while excluding others. They contend ⁤that the board of education makes decisions that affect all students in the county, regardless⁢ of⁢ the type of school they attend, and therefore, all‌ students should have an equal say​ in⁢ electing board members. Granting voting rights exclusively to public school students creates a disparity and ​denies ⁣equal representation to students attending ⁤religious schools or being homeschooled.

The outcome of this case ⁣will have far-reaching implications for the school board election ⁤process in ‍Howard County‌ and potentially influence‌ similar ​cases ​in other jurisdictions. It​ raises fundamental questions about the interpretation of constitutional rights, equal protection under the law, and​ the limits of political representation.

As the‌ oral ⁢arguments began in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, legal experts and concerned citizens alike eagerly awaited the⁣ court’s ruling. Both sides presented⁣ compelling arguments,⁢ invoking constitutional principles and highlighting the importance ​of inclusivity and fairness in⁤ the‍ democratic‌ process.

It is now up to the court to carefully consider the arguments⁣ presented and weigh the potential‍ impact of⁣ its decision. Whichever way the court rules, this case is‍ sure to ⁣shape‍ the ongoing debate over voting ​rights, equality, and political representation in the ⁢context of educational institutions.

As the hearing⁤ drew to a close, anticipation hung in the air. ⁣The justices retired to deliberate, leaving the fate of student voting rights in the hands of the judicial system. The decision arrived, not only affecting the outcome of this specific ‍case but ‍also influencing the ‍broader conversation surrounding student participation in the democratic process. The court’s ruling will undoubtedly ⁤contribute to the ongoing discussions about​ equal representation, constitutional rights, ​and the power⁣ of student voices in shaping educational policies.