The discussion surrounding the voting rights of the Student Member of the Board (SMOB) in Anne Arundel County has intensified as the school district grapples with significant issues, including overcrowding, redistricting, and budgetary constraints. Currently, the SMOB possesses a full vote on critical decisions, despite being a minor, which raises concerns about governance and accountability within the school system.
The role of the SMOB has been a unique feature of Maryland’s educational landscape, with the position dating back to 1975. Unlike most states, Maryland allows student board members to have voting power equivalent to their adult counterparts. However, this practice has come under scrutiny, particularly as the SMOB is elected solely by students, who themselves cannot participate in general elections. Critics argue that this arrangement undermines the democratic process and accountability to the taxpayer.
National Context and Local Concerns
Nationally, few school systems grant binding voting rights to students. For instance, California permits only a “preferential vote,” where student opinions are recorded but do not influence the final decision. Similarly, New York’s laws explicitly prohibit minors from participating in votes regarding executive matters, especially those involving personnel and litigation. In contrast, Maryland stands almost alone, with many districts opting to limit student voting power, while Anne Arundel County continues to provide unrestricted voting rights.
Supporters of the current SMOB system often reference the Spiegel v. Board of Education of Howard County case, which upheld the legality of student voting. However, this ruling focused narrowly on constitutional questions, indicating that the SMOB is not classified as an “elected” official under Article I of the Maryland Constitution. The court’s decision did not address whether the governance model is equitable or effective.
Despite these legal justifications, the argument for maintaining full voting rights for the SMOB faces increasing opposition. Critics highlight that a 16- or 17-year-old should not have the authority to make decisions on multimillion-dollar budgets, personnel matters, and significant policy changes without the same level of accountability as adult board members.
A Call for Reform
The need for reform is underscored by the reality that students are excluded from many discussions where these critical issues are addressed. They are prohibited from attending closed executive sessions, yet they can vote on the outcomes of these discussions. This situation creates an imbalance and raises questions about the appropriateness of placing minors in such positions of authority.
Advocates for change suggest that student voices should still be integral to the policy-making process, but without the ability to cast binding votes. A model similar to California’s preferential system could maintain student involvement while ensuring that the ultimate decision-making authority lies with elected officials accountable to the community.
The dialogue surrounding the SMOB’s voting rights is not an attempt to diminish the role of students but rather to enhance governance in Anne Arundel County. As the school board confronts pressing challenges, it may be time for state legislators to reconsider the structure of student voting rights to align authority with accountability.
Alex Williams, a parent in Anne Arundel County, articulates this sentiment, emphasizing that the legitimacy of decisions affecting families should reflect a broader democratic process. It is crucial for the General Assembly to act to restore balance and ensure that all voices in the educational community are heard and respected.
