'Dream Act' Referendum Survives Legal Challenge
Anne Arundel judge rules that voters should be allowed to decide the fate of in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants.
Photos
Pdfs
The referendum on the Maryland "Dream Act" cleared its first legal hurdle on Friday after an Anne Arundel judge upheld the Maryland Board of Elections's ruling that the legislation can appear on ballots this November.
Anne Arundel Circuit Court Judge Ronald A. Silkworth ruled on Friday that the Dream Act—which would allow certain illegal immigrants to pay in-state rates at Maryland colleges—meets the state constitution’s standards for legislation that is subject to referendum.
The Maryland legislature passed the Dream Act in the final moments of the 2011 legislative session. Opponents immediately launched a statewide petition aiming to put the issue on the ballot this November. They collected nearly twice the minimum 55,736 signatures within two months, blocking the Dream Act’s July 1 start date.
In August, a coalition of immigrant advocates and labor and teachers’ unions challenged the Maryland Board of Elections’s decision to allow a referendum.
Dream Act supporters based their courtroom challenge on one of the legislation's primary critiques: that it will add to the state's financial burden. The Maryland Constitution bars fiscal appropriations from being subject to referendum.
Attorneys hired by Dream Act supporters—the D.C.-based law firm Sandler, Reiff & Young & Lamb—argued that the Dream Act is not subject to referendum because the increase in students paying in-state rates will require the state to allocate funds to cover the difference. (According to legislative researchers, Maryland taxpayers will pay an additional $788,000 in fiscal 2014 and up to $3.5 million in fiscal 2016 for the hundreds of illegal immigrants projected to enroll as in-state students thanks to the Dream Act.)
In his 13-page opinion, Silkworth opined that those costs are "incidental" to the Dream Act, not its main intent.
"The primary object of the Maryland Dream Act is to change the policy for in-state tuition rates, not to make an appropriation," Silkworth wrote. "If merely affecting an appropriation became the test for determining if a law actually makes an appropriation, the result would deprive voters of the important constitutional right of referendum."
jnrentz1
9:01 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
This referendum is as much a vote on the acceptance or rejection of illegal aliens as it is on in-state tuition.
Corbin Dallas Multipass
11:44 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
No. All that happens if it is voted down is undocumented students have to pay out of state rates for education, and then we just have a larger population of people who aren't excelling.
jnrentz1
11:20 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Should there be a nationwide referendum on the acceptance or rejection of illegal aliens?
Jeff Hawkins
11:34 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
@JNR
If a referendum is wanted, I think it should only be on a state by state basis. So no.....I don't think there should be a nationwide referendum.
Frank
8:07 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Jnrentz, surely an esteemed constitutional scholar such as you knows that there is no provision for referendum (or initiative) at the federal level?
Corbin Dallas Multipass
11:53 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
No, as Frank pointed out the entire premise to that question is silly because it isn't possible.
jnrentz1
11:36 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Mr. Hawkins,
Thank you for your courteous reply.
MD
5:36 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Why do we need a referendum on a federal law? That’s why we have congress, and so far, its law. Back to the story at hand, Can’t wait to vote NO for this. States shouldn’t be aiding and abating illegal activity, no matter what it is!
Corbin Dallas Multipass
11:55 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Didn't realize going to school and attaining sufficient grades to continue enrollment was an illegal activity.
Carol Ramirez
4:29 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Vote yes if you are for education and fairness. Vote for the Dream Act!
jnrentz1
5:24 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
Vote "NO" if you are for education and fairness. Vote against the Dream Act.
Will
6:17 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
This law makes sense to me. How about free cheeseburgers for those who do not pay their parking tickets as well? What this country needs is more rewards for those who break the law.
Corbin Dallas Multipass
8:27 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
Ugh, really. So being lazy and not paying your parking ticket is equivalent to being ambitious and:
- Paying Taxes for Three Years as a Student
- Proving your Parents Paid Taxes for Three Years
- Getting into a Community College and Successfully obtaining an Associates Degree
- Maintaining an academic record sufficient enough to get into a Maryland University.
Your analogy makes zero sense.
Jeff Hawkins
8:46 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
@Corbin
"Your analogy makes zero sense."
Depends on your point of view.
Corbin Dallas Multipass
9:45 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
So the various things I listed are equivalent to not paying a parking ticket?
What point of view makes that claim?
Jeff Hawkins
10:11 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
@Corbin
No...you stated Will's analogy made zero sense. My comment concerned that and nothing else. Now if you want to add some "fluff" and your personal opinions, then remember......that's all they are....
Sharon Adams
10:24 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
To Jeff: Amen to that!
Corbin Dallas Multipass
10:26 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
I stated Will's analogy made zero sense in the context of the facts of the MD Dream Act *because* Will's analogy was made in the context of a discussion about the MD Dream Act. If you want to take Will's analogy out of context, that's your right, but then you're not talking about the Dream Act any longer.
Th MD Dream Act law which has the provisions I specified. If his analogy makes sense to someone then they're being willfully ignorant of the actual law. If you choose to be ignorant of the actual law while having an opinion on it you should be called out for doing so and your opinions should be judged accordingly.
Erick
5:17 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
It made zero sense. And, this is a second opinion. Some of these kids have permission to be in this country already and are waiting for their green cards. Do some research.
Jeff Hawkins
10:36 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
@Corbin
You appear to be unable to understand the concept and meaning of the word "viewpoint".
If you wish to inject your own "viewpoint" supported by your own opinions based on only half the issue, then so be it. The provisions you site are fine, but you omit much. Your opinions will be judged accordingly...........by whom you ask.....maybe 5 or 6 people.
Corbin Dallas Multipass
10:41 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
What am I omitting?
Jeff Hawkins
10:53 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
@Corbin
You figure it out......
Corbin Dallas Multipass
10:58 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
Good job using ellipsis and being vague...... ;-)
Jeff Hawkins
11:19 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
@Corbin
Thank you! As for being vague, not sure if directive could be any clearer.....
Erick
5:20 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
I don't know who made it illegal for undocumented students to pay in-state tuition after all the things they give back to society like volunteer work while in high school such community service. Go figure it.
jnrentz1
6:11 am on Saturday, February 25, 2012
Erick,
If by "undocumented" student you mean, illegal alien, the fact is the illegal alien is not supposed to be here in the first place.