DREAM Act will likely be put to vote

DREAM Act opponents are one step closer to repealing the legislation that would offer certain undocumented students in-state tuition, now that a circuit court judge has approved putting the legislation on the November ballot and in the hands of voters.

After the DREAM Act — a reference to the federal Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act — was passed in April, opponents immediately began to mobilize against the bill, ultimately netting far more than the 56,000 signatures needed to suspend the statute and put it before a public vote. But supporters of the act challenged the decision in court, arguing the measure was an appropriations bill because it uses state funds; such bills cannot be put to a referendum.

If Judge Ronald Silkworth had ruled against putting it to a referendum, it would have immediately become law. However, Silkworth ruled the legislation did not allocate funds from the state budget, and is therefore eligible to be put to a vote. According to a Gonzales Research poll released last month, voters are virtually split on the DREAM Act referendum, with 49 percent opposed and 48 percent in support — a result within the poll's margin of error.

Joseph Sandler, the supporters' attorney in the case, said he "respectfully disagrees" with Silkworth's ruling and said the case will be appealed.

"It directly results in the allocation of certain publicly funded benefits to a new class of individuals who were not already eligible for them," he said of the statute.

The act would provide undocumented students with in-state tuition if they complete 60 community college credits, graduate from a state high school and prove they or their parents have paid state taxes for at least three years.

Weeks after the law passed, Del. Neil Parrott (R-Washington) and Patrick McDonough (R-Baltimore and Harford) led a petition effort that successfully netted 132,000 signatures — more than twice the number of signatures needed — and put the bill to referendum. Opponents argued the bill used taxpayer money to provide benefits for people who are not in the country legally.

"I had predicted many months ago that we would prevail," McDonough said. "I thought the lawsuit was frivolous and was just a stalling tactic."

The tuition bill is expected to carry a price tag of about $750,000 by 2014, and some have predicted it will cost the state close to $3.5 million by 2016.

Supporters of the legislation brought the issue before the courts hoping to label it as an appropriations bill and keep it off the ballot.

McDonough, however, said he agreed with the court's decision that the bill was a policy measure.

"It's a policy decision; that does not mean policy decisions do not cost taxpayer money," he said, adding he expects the appeal process to fail.

Sen. Victor Ramirez (D-Prince George's) said the opponents' rationale is contradictory to the argument that implementation of the DREAM Act would be a costly state venture.

"If the argument is from the opponents that this is going to cost the state money, then how can it not be [an appropriations bill]?" he said. "You can't have it both ways."

Supporters of the bill will move forward by mounting an "educational campaign" in hopes of swaying voters to vote in favor the measure, Ramirez said. McDonough added that both proponents and opponents have thousands of volunteers in their campaigns.

Silkworth's ruling indicates the legislation's future will lie in the voters' hands in the general election.

"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," he wrote.

bach@umdbk.com