The Maryland Supreme Court ruled Thursday that neither a huge property tax cut nor cash payments to new parents in Baltimore will appear on city ballots this fall, ending two ambitious campaigns to shape city government.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the property tax proposal comes as great relief to City Hall, where the proposal — backed by commercial developers and real estate groups under the moniker Renew Baltimore — had stoked fears of catastrophic financial losses. Mayor Brandon Scott even predicted the measure had the potential to bankrupt the city.

The Supreme Court did not immediately publish opinions Thursday explaining their decisions on the two measures, but released its orders in the two cases to beat a Sept. 2 deadline for the certification of ballots.

Together, the court’s decisions about the two proposals showcased the limits of Maryland’s ballot initiative process and affirmed the sole power of legislative branches to make specific policy, a hallmark of representative democracies.

Had the proposals made it to the November ballot, they likely would have been approved by voters, who have greenlit all but one ballot question in the past 25 years.

In a statement, Renew advisory committee members Ben Frederick and Matthew Wyskiel expressed their disappointment with the ruling, calling it an “affront” to the thousands of Baltimore residents who signed petitions to get their measure on the ballot. The group called on Scott and city leaders to heed the warnings of their effort and lower Baltimore’s property tax rate to counteract population losses and make the city competitive with other Maryland counties.

“Maintaining the status quo is not only unsustainable but a clear dereliction of their duty to pursue the best interests of all Baltimoreans and a more promising future for our great City,” Frederick and Wyskiel said.

The mayor’s office, in a statement, called the tax cut “downright terrible policy” and thanked the Supreme Court for its ruling.

“Today’s decision ensures that the City can move forward without the threat of bankruptcy that would disrupt essential city services, and we can continue about the business of pursuing property tax relief in a responsible way,” Scott’s office said.

The other measure, known as the “Baltimore Baby Bonus,” would have mandated one-time, $1,000 payments to new city parents, backed by the teacher-led Maryland Child Alliance. Unlike the tax cut, city officials were sympathetic to the Baby Bonus but were hesitant to see City Hall’s legislative authority eroded through a version of direct democracy.

“Our city had a chance to ensure that every newborn’s basic needs would be met,” supporters wrote in a social media post. “We are heartbroken for the families that were counting on the Baby Bonus payment, and who will now struggle that much more to provide for their children.”

Despite challenging the bonus proposal in court on legal grounds, Scott’s office expressed sympathy for the movement, calling for Baby Bonus supporters to join the mayor in advocating for guaranteed income programs on a national level.

Tax cut would limit City Council

At the center of the legal battle over Renew Baltimore was the question of whether the proposal would allow voters, and not elected officials, to set property tax rates — a power the Maryland Constitution reserves for legislative bodies.

Supreme Court justices grilled Renew attorney Constantine ‘Gus’ Themelis on virtually all aspects of his argument Wednesday, pressing him about predictions that the property tax plan would boost — not decimate — city revenues, and questioning how the proposed charter amendment wouldn’t illegally strip Baltimore’s elected leaders of their authority over tax rates.

Themelis said Renew’s proposal wouldn’t set a tax rate rate, only cap it. In theory, Themelis said, the city could cut taxes below the prescribed yearly maximums.

“Doesn’t that tie the city’s hands?” asked Justice Angela M. Eaves, who questioned how the city could meet its many financial obligations if the cut is enacted.

Attorneys for both the Baltimore City Board of Elections and the city, meanwhile, argued that Maryland’s case law is clear: a ballot measure can’t forcibly “roll back” a tax, effectively determining a jurisdiction’s rate.

Such a cut would have been “catastrophic” for Baltimore’s finances, with a revenue reduction of nearly 25%, city attorney Michael Redmond said. A report released by the city finance department forecasts that within a decade Renew’s measure would result in an annual structural deficit of nearly $900 million, while counteracting those losses would require making up for half a century of population decline in just seven years.

“The purpose of this — and the hope of this petition — is that revenue in Baltimore City grows, and that this improves Baltimore City,” Themelis told the justices, arguing that in his view the petition will leave the city with “more discretion” over its budget.

Chief Justice Matthew Fader said if Renew Baltimore’s projections were wrong, the resulting revenue losses would leave the city with “significantly reduced discretion” over its spending and a council unable to legally raise taxes.

Baby Bonus too specific

Unlike Renew Baltimore’s proposal, the Baby Bonus was supposed to be on November’s ballot: The Baltimore City Board of Elections approved the measure, but Scott’s administration challenged it in court.

Mark Stichel, the attorney for the Maryland Child Alliance, argued that their proposal closely matched the existing Baltimore Children & Youth Fund, which was approved by voters through a charter amendment proposal in 2016. But some justices, like the city, took issue with the specificity of the Baby Bonus.

“The city really has broad discretion in how to administer the Youth Fund that’s absent in the Baby Bonus amendment,” Justice Shirley Watts said.

To address those concerns, Stichel proposed cutting the $1,000 minimum payment mandate from the proposal and leaving everything else intact.

But the Supreme Court instead sided with Scott and the City Council, whose attorneys argued the proposal was legislative in nature. The appellants attorneys’ pushed back, saying that reallocating money was “bedrock charter material.”

“The amendment itself provides all the specifics of the policy, leaving no meaningful discretion to the legislature,” the city said in a court filing, arguing that the measure exercises powers “exclusive” to the mayor and City Council. “While the City appreciates the public spirit of the Child Alliance, their proposed Amendment may only be implemented through the elected representatives of Baltimore City.”

Lawyers for both the Baltimore City Board of Elections and the Maryland Child Alliance argued that the amendment left a significant portion of implementation details up to the City Council, such as when caretakers beyond biological parents would be eligible for the payments, how residency would be determined and how funds would be dispersed to recipients.

“These aren’t just minor details,” Assistant Attorney General Thomas Chapman said. “These are important in the sense that they could ... affect how well the policy functions.”

In an interview after oral arguments, Maryland Child Alliance President Nate Golden said he had been looking forward to presenting voters with the option to give “every child born in this city ... access to its most fundamental resources.”

“The voters have already been excited about it,” Golden said. “We collected 10,000 signatures. While other organizations have relied on hundreds of thousands of dollars, we did it on a couple thousand.”

The Renew effort, on the other hand, attracted financial support from influential Baltimore circles. Even with the measure in limbo, the ballot committee continued to rake in large donations as part of the concerted push to reshape Baltimore’s tax code.

Former candidate for mayor and U.S. Treasury official Mary Miller donated $10,000 earlier this month, real estate broker and Renew advisory committee member Ben Frederick contributed $5,000, and the Maryland Multi-Housing Association PAC chipped in another $6,000.