Anne Arundel County is currently examining the role of its Student Member of the Board (SMOB) amid significant challenges within its school system, including overcrowding, redistricting, staffing shortages, and budget constraints. The debate centers on whether a 16- or 17-year-old student should hold a binding vote on crucial issues that affect the entire community, a privilege not extended to most minors across the United States.
The SMOB is elected solely by fellow students and does not participate in general elections. This structure raises questions about accountability, as the student member’s decisions impact taxpayers who fund the educational system. Critics argue that the current voting rights for the SMOB create an imbalance in governance. While student input is essential, having a minor possess equal voting power to elected adult officials is seen as problematic.
National Context of Student Voting Rights
Across the United States, many school systems value student perspectives but limit their voting authority. For instance, California permits only a “preferential vote,” where student opinions are noted but not counted in final decisions. Similarly, New York law explicitly prohibits voting rights for students, especially in executive sessions involving sensitive matters such as personnel and litigation.
Maryland stands out as potentially the only state where student board members are granted full voting rights comparable to their adult counterparts. Within Maryland, however, most districts impose restrictions on student voting power. The situation in Anne Arundel County, which has allowed unrestricted voting for the SMOB since 1975, appears increasingly anomalous in this broader context.
Supporters of the current SMOB voting rights often cite the case of Spiegel v. Board of Education of Howard County, where the court upheld the legality of student voting. The ruling clarified that the SMOB is not recognized as an “elected” official under Article I of the Maryland Constitution, which diminishes concerns regarding potential violations of the “one person, one vote” principle. However, the legal ruling does not endorse the structure as optimal or equitable.
Concerns Regarding Governance and Accountability
The situation raises significant concerns about governance and accountability. The SMOB is not elected by the entire community of Anne Arundel County and does not undergo the same vetting process as other board members. Despite these factors, their vote carries the same weight as those elected by county residents.
Critics contend that while students should have a voice in educational matters, their role should not extend to casting binding votes on critical issues such as multimillion-dollar budgets, staffing decisions, or redistricting that affects community demographics. It is argued that this arrangement places students in a challenging position, as they cannot legally participate in many discussions surrounding these topics due to age restrictions.
Advocates for reform suggest adopting a model similar to California’s preferential voting system, which allows for student input without granting binding authority. This approach would maintain meaningful student representation while ensuring that decision-making remains accountable to the community.
Revising the voting rights of the SMOB is framed not as a diminishment of student influence, but rather as a necessary measure to enhance governance. The goal is to align authority with accountability and restore legitimacy to decisions that significantly impact families throughout the county.
As Anne Arundel County navigates this critical issue, discussions continue about the need for reform. The call is clear: it is time for the General Assembly to take action and reassess the voting structure for student representatives.
