Spiegel v. Bd. of Education, Howard Cnty.

Traci Spiegel, et al. v. Board of Education of Howard County, No. 18, September Term, 2021. Opinion by Gould, J. SEPARATION OF POWERS---EDUCATION The General Assembly has the constitutional authority to establish a public school system in the manner it sees fit. That authority includes the creation, modification, and abolishment of local boards of education, as well as the right to determine the qualifications of its members and the manner and methods by which they are selected. The General Assembly exercised this authority in Md. Code Ann. (2008, 2018 Rep.

Vol.), Education Article (“ED”) § 3-701, which establishes the student member position of the Howard County Board of Education. Thus, the student member position is not subject to the Maryland Constitution’s electoral requirements. Circuit Court for Howard County Case No.: C-13-CV-20-000954 Argued: November 9, 2021 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 18 September Term, 2021 ______________________________________ TRACI SPIEGEL, ET AL. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HOWARD COUNTY ______________________________________ _ *McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, Harrell, Jr., Glenn T. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Gould, J. ______________________________________ Filed: August 24, 2022 * McDonald, J., now a Senior Judge, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. being an active member of this Court.

After 2022-08-24 14:48-04:00 being recalled pursuant to Md. Const., Art. IV, § 3A, he also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion. Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk One of the many consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic was the reliance on remote learning for public and private schools in Maryland and elsewhere. The issue of when, and under what circumstances, to resume in-person instruction fueled much debate and disagreement. In November and December of 2020, the Board of Education of Howard County (the “Board” or the “Howard County Board”) held three separate votes on motions to resume in-person instruction.

Each motion failed by a 4 to 4 stalemate vote, with the student member causing the stalemate by voting against resuming in-person instruction. Disappointed with the Board’s decision to continue with remote learning, two parents, Traci Spiegel and Kimberly Ford, personally, and on behalf of their respective minor children (“petitioners”), filed suit against the Board in the Circuit Court for Howard County, seeking an injunction and declaratory relief to enjoin the student member on the Board from exercising any voting power and declaring that the statute creating the student member position on the Board violates the Maryland Constitution and Declaration of Rights. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. Petitioners argued that Section 3- 701(f) of the Education Article of the Maryland Code (2008, 2018 Rep.

Vol.), which provides for the “election” of a student member by the students in Howard County public schools, violates provisions of the Maryland Constitution. Petitioners reasoned that the Maryland Constitution prohibits persons under 18 years old from voting in elections and precludes any person not registered to vote from holding public office. Petitioners also asserted that the election process for the student member violates the one-person, one-vote rule because voters—that is, students who are at least 18 years old—would be entitled to vote in the election of the student member as well as in the general election of the other Board members. Petitioners argued that the one-person, one- vote rule was applicable because the student member position is an elective office on a board that exercises general governmental powers.

Finally, petitioners argued that the election process for the student member violates Article 7 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, which guarantees qualified citizens the right of suffrage, because adults who are not students in the Howard County public schools are not entitled to vote for the student member. The Board countered that the Maryland Constitution requires the General Assembly to establish a public education system, but otherwise leaves it to the General Assembly to determine how best to do so. Thus, it argued, the General Assembly was permitted to structure local boards of education as it saw fit, including the creation of a student member position filled through an election by the students at the county’s public schools. The Board also argued that petitioners’ complaint was time-barred and failed to join necessary parties.

The circuit court issued an 18-page, thorough and well-reasoned memorandum opinion that rejected each of petitioners’ arguments. The court held that the selection method of the student member was not subject to the Maryland Constitution’s requirements for elections because: (1) although the General Assembly has the constitutional duty to establish the public school system, it is not constitutionally required to do so through county boards of education; and (2) the General Assembly intentionally distinguished the criterion, selection process, and voting rights of the seven elected members from the student member, as was its right. The court also rejected petitioners’ one-person, one-vote 2 and general governmental powers arguments on the same grounds: that the student member position is a non-elective position that the General Assembly had the discretion to create. Having resolved petitioners’ claims on the merits, the court did not reach the Board’s defenses based on the timeliness of petitioners’ complaint and their alleged failure to join necessary parties.

On March 26, 2021, petitioners noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, but before briefs were filed in that Court, they petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari, which we granted. Spiegel v. Bd. of Educ. of Howard Cnty., 474 Md. 721 (2021). Petitioners present two questions for our review, which we have consolidated and rephrased as follows:1 Do the qualifications for, and selection process of, the student member of the Howard County Board of Education violate Article I, Sections 1, 5, 7, or 12 of the Maryland Constitution or Article 7 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? For the following reasons, which largely track the reasoning of the circuit court, we answer the question in the negative, and therefore affirm the judgment of the circuit court. 1 Petitioners framed their questions as follows: Does the Maryland Constitution prohibit minors eleven years of age and older from selecting a member who will hold a binding voting position on the Howard County Board of Education, whether by election, appointment or any other means?

Does the Maryland Constitution prohibit minors from holding the office of a binding voting position on the Board of Education of Howard County, a board which possesses general governmental power? 3 DISCUSSION Under ED § 3-701, the student member of the Board must be a Howard County resident and either a junior or senior student in one of its public schools. ED § 3-701 (f)(1).2 The student member serves a one-year term beginning on July 1. ED § 3-701 (f)(2).3 In a nomination and election process that must be approved by the Board, the student member is elected by the County’s students in grades 6 through 11. ED § 3- 701(f)(3)(iii).4 The runner up stands ready as “an alternate student member” in the event the elected student member fails to complete the one-year term.

ED § 3-701(f)(4).5 With certain enumerated exceptions, “the student member has the same rights and privileges as an elected member.” ED § 3-701(f)(5) (emphasis added). To pass, a motion “requires an affirmative vote of [f]ive members if the student member is authorized to vote[,]” and “[f]our members if the student member is not authorized to vote.” ED § 3- ED § 3-701(f)(1) provides: “The student member shall be a bona fide resident of 2 Howard County and a regularly enrolled junior or senior year student from a Howard County public high school.” 3 ED § 3-701(f)(2) provides: “The student member shall serve for a term of 1 year beginning on July 1 after the member’s election, subject to confirmation of the election results by the county board.” 4 ED § 3-701(f)(3)(iii) provides: “The nomination and election process for the student member [] [s]hall allow for any student in grades 6 through 11 enrolled in a Howard County public school to vote directly for one of the two student member candidates.” 5 ED §§ 3-701(f)(4)(i) and (ii) provide: The student member candidate who receives the second highest number of votes in the direct election . . . [s]hall become the alternate student member; and . . . [s]hall serve if the student member who is elected is unable, ineligible, or disqualified to complete the student member’s term of office. 4 701(g). The parties agree that if the student member is an elected position subject to the Maryland Constitution’s electoral requirements, then section 3-701 would violate the Maryland Constitution in three respects. First, ED § 3-701(f)(3)—which permits students under the age of 18 to vote—would violate both Article I, Section 16 and Article 7 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.7 Second, ED § 3-701(f)(3)—which denies adults the right to vote for the student member—would violate Article I, Section 7.8 Third, ED § 3- 701(f)(1)—which permits students who are unregistered voters to hold elective office— would violate Article I, Section 12.9 6 Md. Const. art.

I, § 1 provides: Except as provided in Section 2A or Section 3 of this article, every citizen of the United States, of the age of 18 years or upwards, who is a resident of the State as of the time for the closing of registration next preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote in the ward or election district in which the citizen resides at all elections to be held in this State. 7 Md. Const. Decl. of Rts. art. 7. provides: “[E]very citizen having the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution, ought to have the right of suffrage.” 8 “The General Assembly shall pass Laws necessary for the preservation of the purity of Elections.” Md. Const. art. I, § 7. 9 Md. Const. art. I, § 12 provides: Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, a person is ineligible to enter upon the duties of, or to continue to serve in, an elective office created by or pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution if the person was not a registered voter in this State on the date of the person's election or appointment to that term or if, at any time thereafter and prior to completion of the term, the person ceases to be a registered voter 5 The dispositive issue is whether the selection process for the student member is subject to these constitutional provisions.

Petitioners advance two bases for their position that the Maryland Constitution applies. First, they contend that the plain language of the relevant provisions of the Education Article reflects the General Assembly’s intention to make the selection of the student member an “elected office” subject to such requirements. Second, they argue that the student member position is a position of general governmental power, and therefore, the election for that position must comport with the Maryland Constitution. The Board counters that the constitutional voting and election requirements do not apply to the student position because the General Assembly has wide discretion to determine the composition, qualifications, and selection process for local boards of education.

The Board contends that the General Assembly acted well within such discretion in creating the student member position and determining the selection process for same. We will address these contentions below. A The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review without deference. See SVF Riva Annapolis LLC v. Gilroy, 459 Md. 632, 639 (2018).

Our objective in interpreting statutes is to understand and implement the General Assembly’s intent. See Stoddard v. State, 395 Md. 653, 661 (2006). We start with the statute’s plain language which, if clear and unambiguous, will be enforced as written. Id.

In doing so, we pay attention to the statute’s grammar and sentence structure. See Mazor v. State Dep’t 6 of Corr., 279 Md. 355, 362 (1977). Further, “we seek to avoid constructions that are illogical, unreasonable, or inconsistent with common sense.” Beyer v. Morgan State Univ., 139 Md. App. 609, 631 (2001) (quotations omitted). We do not read a statutory provision in isolation.

Instead, we consider its purpose, goal, and context as a whole. Papillo v. Pockets, Inc., 119 Md. App. 78, 84 (1997). If the words of the statute are ambiguous, we look at its structure, context, relationship with other laws, and legislative history, among other indicia of intent. Stoddard, 395 Md. at 662 .

Even if the words are unambiguous, a review of the legislative history may, in certain contexts, be useful to confirm its interpretation or to rule out “another version of legislative intent alleged to be latent in the language.” Blackstone v. Sharma, 461 Md. 87, 113 (2018) (quotations omitted). Petitioners argue that the General Assembly determined that members of local boards of education must either be elected or appointed, and that the Howard County Board would be the former. And because its members are elected, petitioners contend, the election of the Howard County Board student member must comply with the above- mentioned sections of the Maryland Constitution. In support of this argument, petitioners offer a plain language interpretation of ED §§ 3-114 and 3-701.

Petitioners first point to “the title” of ED § 3-114—“County board elections and appointment of members”—as evidence of the “clear import of th[e] statutory scheme[.]” Petitioners then focus on ED § 3-114(a), which identifies 19 counties, including Howard County, as having elected members, and contrasts that with subsections (b) through (f), which identify Baltimore City and the remaining four counties with boards comprised of a 7 combination of elected and appointed members. Petitioners see these provisions as evidence that the “General Assembly understood the difference between board members being selected through an election as opposed to those being appointed.” And because the members of the Howard County Board are elected, then, according to petitioners, it naturally follows that the selection of such members, including the student member, is subject to the election and voting provisions of the Maryland Constitution. Petitioners then apply their plain language analysis to ED § 3-701. Petitioners explain that ED § 3-701 uses the term “election” four times in describing the student member position.

Specifically, this section specifies that the student member serves a one- year term “after the member’s election, subject to confirmation of the election results by the county board.” ED § 3-701(f)(2) (emphasis added). Further, subsection (f)(3) sets forth the “nomination and election process for the student member” and the replacement mechanism for a member who is “unable, ineligible, or disqualified to proceed in the election[.]” ED § 3-701(f)(3) (emphasis added). According to petitioners, this further shows the General Assembly knew how to differentiate between elected and appointed board members. Thus, its designation of the Howard County Board as an elected one and its repeated use of “election” in the student member provisions of ED § 3-701, must be credited as intentional.

Petitioners then attempt to draw a connection between the use of the word “election” in ED § 3-701 and sections 1-101(v)(1) and (2) of the Election Law Article (“EL”) of the Maryland Annotated Code (2003, 2017 Rep. Vol.). The latter defines “election” as “the process by which voters cast votes on one or more contests under the laws of this State or 8 the United States[,]” and which “includes, unless otherwise specifically provided in this article, all general elections, primary elections, and special elections.” EL § 1-101(v)(1)- (2). Petitioners perceive a consistency with this definition of a general election and the election of the Howard County student board member “because the election [of the student board member] results in the placement in office of an actual elected official.” According to petitioners, under the “language of the Education Article, the Election Article, and the Maryland Constitution, it is clear the student member position is ‘elected’ and not appointed.” Petitioners’ argument has this in its favor: ED § 3-114 does say that the members of the Board are elected, and ED § 3-701 does use “election” four times in setting forth the process for selecting the student member.

And if there wasn’t more to both sections, petitioners might have a valid point. But there is more. Having considered these sections in their entirety, we conclude that the election by students, including minor students, of a student member is not subject to the election and voting provisions of the Maryland Constitution. The General Assembly first established local county boards of education in 1916.

See 1916 Md. Laws, ch. 506. At first,