The City of Baltimore is trying to stop a referendum that would give new parents at least $1,000, saying it violates Maryland law and the city’s charter “despite our sympathies toward the underlying policy.”

On July 1, the Baltimore City Board of Elections certified that the Maryland Child Alliance had more than 10,000 signatures needed to place the Baltimore Baby Bonus Fund on the ballot. The proposed charter amendment, if approved, would provide one-time payments of at least $1,000 to parents upon the birth or adoption of a child.

On Thursday, Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott and the City Council filed a complaint in Baltimore City Circuit Court contesting the board’s certification and seeking to prevent the Baltimore Baby Bonus Fund from appearing on November’s ballot.

“While Mayor Scott is supportive of the proposed amendment’s objectives, charter amendments that effectively commandeer the role of the legislature go against Maryland law and the City’s charter,” the office said in an emailed statement. “Mayor Scott hopes the Baltimore Baby Bonus campaign will join the administration in advocating for universal basic income at the Congressional level.”

In its complaint, the city said citizens cannot “legislate by charter amendment.”

“Because the Baby Bonus Fund Amendment would establish a continuing, non-lapsing fund, to be funded by a mandatory appropriation, it constitutes an exercise of the City Council’s power with respect to the annual budgeting process which is a legislative in nature,” the complaint reads. “By earmarking funds in the City Charter, the voters are usurping those powers.”

In its statement, Scott’s office touted the success of its guaranteed income pilot program but said “at the local level we currently don’t have the resources to make that type of support permanent, which is why we’re advocating for the federal government to look at the success of guaranteed income pilots like ours to make it possible for more Americans.”

Abigail Goldman, the deputy director of the city board of elections, declined to answer questions, citing the litigation.

The Maryland Child Alliance said the charter amendment language received pre-approval from the city elections board.

“When Baby Bonus organizers were drafting our charter amendment, we rigorously studied case law to ensure that our proposal was permissible,” the Maryland Child Alliance said in a statement on social media. “In reality, this is about power and taking away city voters’ opportunity to enact the Baby Bonus Fund. We are fully confident that the courts will reject this attack on democracy.”

Maryland Child Alliance President Nate Golden said in a Friday news conference that his organization “copy and pasted” its charter amendment language from the Baltimore Children & Youth Fund, which receives “an annual appropriation that is at least $0.03 on every $100 of assessed or assessable value of all property” in Baltimore. That fund was approved by voters through a charter amendment proposal in 2016; it appeared on the ballot after City Council unanimously overrode a mayoral veto of the legislation. Scott was on the council at the time.

According to the complaint, the Baby Bonus Fund would pay out at least $7 million per year, not including administrative costs.

Scott’s office did not respond to a follow-up question seeking clarity on the difference between the current proposed amendment and the Baltimore Children & Youth Fund, and the office’s original statement said the city would reserve further comment because of litigation.

Golden said the Alliance previously tried to contact and meet with the mayor and City Council members regarding the ballot initiative but were ignored.

The city’s challenge marks the second major action against a ballot initiative this month. Earlier this week, Baltimore City Board of Elections Director Armstead Jones rejected a proposal from Renew Baltimore that would slash Baltimore’s property tax rate nearly in half over seven years. The decision blocked the proposal from appearing before voters, though proponents of the proposal said they’ll challenge the rejection in court.

Jones cited two 1990s high court rulings that he said make clear that only Baltimore City elected officials can set property tax rates, meaning they can’t be changed from the ballot.

The Maryland Child Alliance plans to contest the city’s complaint, which Golden called an “undemocratic move that takes away the will of the voters,” in Baltimore City Circuit Court.

But Golden said the city shouldn’t be waiting on other entities to secure help for Baltimore families.

“The state and the federal government aren’t doing it. And so what does that mean for the children of Baltimore?” Golden said. “If children are a priority to him [Scott], he needs to show it in the budget, not just with his rhetoric.”

Baltimore Banner reporter Adam Willis contributed to this story.