Court

House candidate seeks emergency federal court action to stop Proposal 4 ballots

By VDC staff


Vermont House candidate Seth Adam Manley of Essex Junction plans to hold a press conference Thursday afternoon to discuss his federal lawsuit challenging Proposal 4 and an emergency motion seeking to prevent ballots containing the proposed constitutional amendment from being distributed.


Manley, the plaintiff in Manley v. Scott et al., said the press conference will begin at 4:45 PM Sept. 3 outside the federal building at the corner of Pearl and Elm streets in Burlington.


The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Proposal 4, which would add an equal-rights provision as Article 23 of Chapter I of the Vermont Constitution. The proposal cleared the Vermont Senate 29-0 in March and the House 128-14 in May before being delivered to the Secretary of State for submission to voters.


If approved by voters in November, Article 23 would read:
“That the people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. The State shall not deny equal treatment under the law on account of a person’s race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin. Nothing in this Article shall be interpreted or applied to prevent the adoption or implementation of measures intended to provide equality of treatment and opportunity for members of groups that have historically been subject to discrimination.”


Manley’s objection focuses in particular on the amendment’s final sentence, which he contends could permit state government to divide Vermonters into different classes and treat those groups differently under the law.


“Government can not be trusted to create ‘Groups’ of citizens that can be treated differently, no matter how well-intentioned,” Manley said in announcing the press conference.


Manley also draws a comparison between the amendment and Vermont’s history with the eugenics movement, arguing that government classification of groups can lead to discrimination. That comparison represents Manley’s argument against Proposal 4 and has not been established as a finding by a court.

The Legislature, meanwhile, described Proposal 4 differently when advancing the amendment. Its stated purpose says the provision would expand principles of equality and liberty by preventing government from creating or perpetuating the “legal, social, or economic inferiority of any class of people.” Lawmakers also said constitutional protection would help protect historically marginalized populations and address existing inequalities.

Under Vermont law, the Secretary of State is responsible for preparing ballots for votes on proposed constitutional amendments and transmitting ballots to municipal clerks. Manley said his emergency federal court motion seeks to stop that process as it relates to Proposal 4.

Manley said he will make a brief statement about the federal case and emergency motion Thursday before taking questions from reporters.


Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories: Court

8 replies »

  1. If passed, won’t this give ICE the right to stop and question every single person in Vermont? If you want to have rights as illegal immigrants, then be prepared!

  2. “That the people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. The State shall not deny equal treatment under the law on account of a person’s race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin.” This states everything necessary. The wordage after this gives special consideration to certain people and has no place in the Vt Constitution.

    • I agree! That last sentence sounds like an admission or confession and could possibly cause problems in the future. It is entirely unnecessary for implementation of the objective, which is to make sure everyone has equal rights.

  3. I don’t believe we need to mess with our constitution to make it clear everyone has equal protection. Enough with the special allowances.

  4. Amen, Steven.

    The insidiousness of these constitutional amendments is that they really are about advancing evil deceptive agendas masquerading under the guise of a false notion of liberty and civil rights.

    Our founders got the language right two hundred and fifty years ago regarding the unalienable rights with which we are already endowed by our Creator. These faddish constitutional amendments are really about eliminating our Creator and His laws from the equation.

  5. As written anything can be created as a class including those who wear green socks on Tuesdays, wording matters