House delegation adopts holiday amendments including Juneteenth but rejects mandatory school-holiday bill

Delegates on the Howard County House delegation on Feb. 3, 2025, adopted an amendment package to HOCO 10-25 that added Juneteenth to a list of recognized school holidays and clarified that the proposed closures would apply to students only. After debate on constitutional questions and on whether the local Board of Education should retain control of the school calendar, the delegation voted on the amended bill and it failed 4–3.

What the amendment package did: The consolidated amendment combined earlier changes and made three principal modifications described during the meeting: (1) clarified that school closures under the bill would apply to students only, not necessarily to staff; (2) removed language that limited a holiday’s observance to when it “begins on a weekday”; and (3) added Juneteenth to the list of holidays.

Legal and constitutional concerns: Delegates discussed an Attorney General’s advice letter (referenced as an earlier letter to then-Delegate Walt Streicher) and a Baltimore County memorandum. Staff and some delegates quoted the advice as saying that designation of holidays can be constitutional when supported by a secular purpose, but that such a designation should be considered carefully. Delegate Courtney Watson urged caution: she said the attorney general’s letter made her uneasy because the constitutional test depends on demonstrating a secular purpose and, in prior cases, courts have looked to absenteeism data. “I read that letter to make this bill not necessarily … clear cut as to whether or not it was constitutional,” Watson said.

Board of Education authority and policy concerns: Several delegates argued that decisions about school calendars fall within the local Board of Education’s authority and should remain at that level. Delegate Watson said the board has historically accommodated religious observances and that state-level mandates were unnecessary. “The school board has accommodated these religious holidays in a manner that they have seen fit, and I don't think we should” supplant that authority, she said.

Votes and outcome: The delegation first voted to adopt the omnibus amendment package; that amendment passed. On a final vote to forward HOCO 10-25 as amended, the delegation voted 4 in favor and 3 opposed, falling short of the five votes needed to report the bill favorably. The chair announced, “With that vote, the bill does not pass. Alright. It's 4 to 3, and you need 5 votes for the vote to pass out of the House delegation.”

Discussion highlights: Delegates who opposed the bill cited constitutional uncertainty, the need for a clear secular purpose, the absence of absenteeism or other operational data, and the view that the local Board of Education is the appropriate body to set the calendar. Delegates who supported the bill cited equity concerns and community interest in formally recognizing certain holidays for students.

Next steps: Because the amendment was adopted but the bill failed to carry, the proposal will not be reported favorably by the House delegation at this time. Delegates discussed reviewing the attorney general’s advice letter in detail, consulting with local Board of Education members, and possible further conversations before reintroducing similar language in future sessions.

Ending note: The meeting’s debate reflected both legal caution and local political considerations about who should set school calendars and how to balance religious, cultural and operational factors.