by Renee McGuinness, Vermont Family Alliance Policy Analyst

Remember the good ol’ days back in April 2026 when we had a chuckle over the Executive Director of the Vermont Commission on Women Cary Brown’s claim that women can pitch well enough to play in Major League Baseball? When asked, she refused to define “woman” to House Judiciary after her testimony on Prop 4, yet she had no issues with the constitutionality of the definitions of “gender expression” and  “gender identity” in Prop 4, a proposed equal rights amendment to the Vermont Constitution. Representative Zachary Harvey commented at the time that Brown’s silence was deafening.

Well, you know what, House Republicans? Your silence and poor arguments for voting in favor of Prop 4 “Equality of Rights” on the House floor yesterday spoke volumes. Volumes of fear of losing one’s seat and pandering to Democrats.

As a Prop 4 watchdog since 2024 (See my article, “Lawmakers play fast and loose with Prop 4 equality of rights constitutional amendment”) and a registered voter who expects her legislators to be courageous and transparent, I’m taking you to the woodshed today.

Prop 4 “Equality of Rights” lists finite groups that would be protected, should the proposal pass by the voters in November. Prop 4 does not protect individual rights, as described in Article 1, Chapter 1, of the Vermont Constitution.

Republicans: ya’ll know Prop 4 is poorly worded and that the intent is to pass laws under Prop 4 to provide equity of things, not equality of individual rights. There are 56 of you. Only 14 voted against Prop 4.

The mantra “let the voters decide” whether to adopt a constitutional amendment you KNOW to be flawed is a cop-out. You voted in favor of Prop 4 despite your constitutional oath of office under Chapter II, Section16, not to, “propose, or assent to, any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to you injurious to the people, nor do you consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lesson or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the Constitution of this State; . . .”

Constitutional amendments are not specifically mentioned among the finite list in Section 16, Ch II, so perhaps that’s your loophole for voting in favor of Prop 4. Or perhaps constitutional amendments fall into the category of “whatever”.

You were provided with suggested questions to interrogate the presenter of Prop 4, Barbara Rachelson, Chittenden-14, on the House floor. All of you remained silent.

You were informed that Peter Teachout, Professor, Vermont Law School, and expert witness to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees on Prop 4 in 2024, recommended broader language per the 14th Amendment to Senate Judiciary. When the Senate Judiciary ignored Teachout’s suggestion and passed Prop 4 out of committee with the finite list of groups, Teachout suggested House Judiciary return Prop 4 to the Senate for a “quick fix” by inserting language, “on grounds such as a person’s” [race, ethnicity, gender, etc.], to ensure that courts would understand that Prop 4 is not limited to the finite list of groups.

Teachout further stated, “ . . .it is important to remember we are considering the adoption of a constitutional amendment, a fundamental statement of governance that is supposed to guide us over the long term, so while we are doing it, it is important to try to get it right.”

Interrogation question that you failed to ask: Why was Professor Teachout’s suggestion to clarify the language not taken?    

You were provided evidence that Senator Nadar Hashim, Chair of Senate Judiciary, stated prior to the Senate floor vote that the third sentence of the amendment, “refers to the concept of remedying past discrimination, a doctrine that was first codified in the 1960’s.”

Why didn’t you interrogate Rachelson on what “remedying past discrimination” would look like under Prop 4, and whether there was a price tag associated with legislation passed under Prop 4 that would provide this “remedying”?

The Purpose section of Prop 4, which does not appear on the ballot with the amendment language, states: “(b) Providing for equality of rights as a fundamental principle in the Constitution would serve as a foundation for protecting the rights and dignity of historically marginalized populations and addressing existing inequalities.”

Why did you fail to ask:

What data has been reviewed by House and Senate Judiciary Committees that demonstrates existing inequalities?

What could “addressing existing inequalities” look like under Prop 4?

Ask your Republican Representative why they did not direct one single question to the reporter of Prop 4 on the House floor.

After the reading of the proposal on the House floor, several Democrat House members stood and spoke in favor of Prop 4, offering horrific stories from decades ago as reasons for voting in favor of Prop 4: the dragging death of James Byrd Jr. in 1998, for which two of the perpetrators received a death sentence and the third received life in prison; the assault, beating, and resulting death of gay college student Matthew Shepard in 1998; and a story of a Democrat legislator’s white grandfather being the only one in his area delivering meals to black families despite criticism from his neighbors.

Not included in these limited examples of humans’ violent hatred are the stories of Iryna Zarutska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee, who was fatally stabbed by a mentally ill black man, “I got that white girl”, in North Carolina in August of 2025, and our own travesty of justice for March 11 when violent protestors damaged vehicles and injured law enforcement officers, for which charges were dropped by the Chittenden County States Attorney. Why? Because when violence is perpetrated against law enforcement and white people, it’s justified or not as serious of an offense as crimes against people of color, LGBTQ+-identifying people, criminals, and persons who have entered the country illegally.

We already have a hierarchy of rights in Vermont without Prop 4, and Prop 4 will enshrine that hierarchy into the Vermont Constitution.

The most disappointing “yes” vote explanation came from Representative Rob North, Addison-3, in which he insisted that Prop 4 intends to operate in the present tense regarding “addressing existing inequalities,” totally ignoring statements by Senator Hashim that the third sentence of the amendment is about remedying past discrimination. No one asked for data to prove inequalities exist.

Representative Zachary Harvey, Rutland-3, who serves on House Judiciary, informed Chair Martin LaLonde that he planned to speak against Prop 4 on the House floor, which he did not do.

The most impressive, and only, “no” vote explanation came from Representative Valorie Taylor, Rutland-11, “I believe in my heart that the only words that are going to change Vermont and to change this world – I believe come from the Bible, and I believe that is what’s lacking in the world. True love, peace, how I raised my girls comes from the Bible. I reach them to not judge, and to love first, and to put yourself second. I believe with every ounce of my being in the Bible,” said Taylor. Amen to that, Sister! And thank you for your courage!

Prop 4 passed on the House Floor, 128-14. There are 56 Republicans serving in the Vermont House of Representatives. Only fourteen of you voted against Prop 4. To Republicans that voted “no”, thank you. It would have meant a lot more if you had interrogated the presenter of Prop 4 and explained your reasons for a “no” vote.

Given the lack of interrogation of Prop 4 by Vermont Republicans, I might very well choose to vote “no” on Prop 4 and vote on nothing and for no one else, other than Senator Steven Heffernan, who at least had the courage to walk out of the Senate Chamber prior to the Prop 4 vote.

If the State GOP finds my commentary in violation of party rules, let me say this: you can’t fire me, I quit. I am now an Independent.

Roll call and vote explanations begin on page 4275 of May 13, 2026, House Journal (pg. 5/30 of the PDF), here.

Prop 4 House floor vote video and transcript, here.