Giving a student a seat at the school board table with near-full voting privileges is one way of granting schoolchildren a greater voice in their education, but it may not be legal.
The question is now in the hands of a federal appeals court.
The idea was actually implemented several years ago by the Howard County, Maryland, Board of Education. The plan empowers public school students in the sixth through the eleventh grades to vote for the student school board representative of their choice in a student-only systemwide election.
The term of office for a Howard County Schools’ student school board member is one school year. Upon successful completion of the term, the student receives a $5,000 scholarship.
To qualify to run for the position of student school board member, a candidate must be in the eleventh or twelfth grade, reside in Howard County, and attend a public school.
School policy states it is the duty of the student school board member to participate in all regular meetings of the full board, take part in committee work, and exercise the right to vote on all but a few matters, such as the buying and selling of real property, construction, collective bargaining, appointment and compensation of the superintendent, employee discipline, and student suspension or expulsion.
The student board member is privy to all information except closed session items, confidential personnel files, student files, bids, and offers.
Parents Sue to Halt Program
Believing that the school board’s practice violates their constitutional rights to equal representation and uniform election standards and practices, two aggrieved parents sued the school system in the Northern Division of the Federal District Court of Maryland on March 16, 2021.The parents lost that round but have appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
A Conflict of Interest?
According to the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), whose attorneys are representing the plaintiffs in the ongoing case, “The election process of the student member is controlled by the board and school-district administrators and employees, presenting a clear conflict of interest since they are directly impacted by the Board’s actions.”Expecting a teenager to make consequential decisions is worrisome to PILF. As an example, the foundation noted in a statement, “The student member cast a key vote to keep schools closed during COVID.”
PILF attorneys argue that the student member seat is “malapportioned and has diluted” the votes of all voters who are not students in grades six through eleven.
Adult voters who are not students are represented by the board member elected by majority vote of the district in which they reside, as well as two at-large members, while 18-year-old students have these three plus a student member to represent them.
PILF president J. Christian Adams said in a statement to the press just before oral arguments on the appeal began on Friday, “In the United States, you cannot give someone or a group of people greater representation than anyone else.”
The plaintiffs also alleged discrimination against school children from Catholic and other religious schools because the school board limited the right to vote for a student board member to public school students only.
Denial of the right to vote because of religious associations is clearly forbidden by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, the plaintiffs contended.
PILF attorneys successfully fought to establish standing for their Catholic client by claiming that parochial school students are affected by public school board decisions because “they rely on the County for certain services such as transportation and buses.”
The state’s general fund revenues, generated largely through the state income tax, retail sales tax, and the state lottery, are the primary source of funding for Maryland’s public schools.
