by Renee McGuinness

Vermonters may face another Constitutional Amendment vote in 2026. Proposition 4 “would expand upon the principles of equality and liberty by ensuring that the government does not create or perpetuate the legal, social, or economic inferiority of any class of people,” and “would serve as a foundation for protecting the rights and dignity of historically marginalized populations and addressing existing inequalities.”

Under Section 2, Proposition 4 proposes to amend Article 7, Chapter 1 of the Vermont Constitution by adding the underlined portion:

Article 7. [Government for the people; they may change it]

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community; that the government shall not deny equal treatment and respect under the law on account of a person’s race, ethnicity, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin; and that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right; to reform or alter government, in such manner as shall be, by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal.

A previous version of Proposition 4 from 2019 included “religion” between “sex” and “disability.”

Twenty-three out of thirty State Senators have sponsored Proposition 4, with three primary sponsors: Senate Judiciary Chairwoman Virginia Lyons, Vice-chair Nadar Hashim, and Kesha Ram Hinsdale.

All senators who sponsored Proposition 4 were asked to answer a set of sixteen questions within five days. Only Senator Andrew  Perchlik, a sponsor, responded, “These are fair questions and I will talk with the lead sponsors and the others you have sent them to about getting you a response.”

No answers were received as to:

1) Why sponsors think that the “broad principles of personal liberty and equality reflected in the Constitution of the State of Vermont” need to be reasserted or lack authoritative force.

2) Who the State-sanctioned historically marginalized groups are, and evidence of the ways in which they are currently being denied equal protections and common benefits under our State Constitution.

3) Whether the legislature can add to the list of marginalized groups.

4) Future intentions for legislation under Proposition 4 that would serve the purpose of “protecting the rights and dignity of historically marginalized populations and addressing existing inequalities” under Section 1 (b), Purpose, and how  much this legislation might cost The People.

5) Whether all individuals and groups would have equal “common protections and benefits” if some individuals and groups are required to fund the correction of “existing inequalities” of state-sanctioned marginalized groups.

6) Current benefits and protections that fall under the umbrella of “benefits and protections bestowed by government” under Section 1, Purpose, of Proposition 4, and what future legislative intentions might be to expand benefits and protections, should Proposition 4 become a Constitutional Amendment.

7) The delineation of “unalienable rights” under Chapter 1, Article 7 of the Vermont State Constitution and “benefits and protections bestowed by government” under Section 1, Purpose, of Proposition 4.

8) The definition of “religion” as used in the Constitution of the State of Vermont under Chapter 1, Article 3.

9) Why “religion” has been removed from the 2023 version.

10) How the removal of “religion” will impact the civil rights of religious individuals and groups under Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Constitution of the State of Vermont, which states, “nor can any person be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments.”

11) Whether Proposition 4 would affect the civil rights of religious individuals to speak, write, and act freely and publicly and without censorship regarding their beliefs,  and likewise for parents to educate their children according to their religious beliefs, and to also speak, write, and act freely and publicly regarding their beliefs without violating a “common benefit and protection” of a state-sanctioned marginalized group.

12) Whether common benefits and protections for religious individuals and groups would be considered secondary to state-sanctioned marginalized groups.

Nationally, there is a battle not only over our individual civil rights, but also over who has authority over our children – parents or the State . In Michigan, parents are suing the Rockford School district for socially transitioning their child without parental knowledge and consent, a violation of both Articles 1 and 14 of the Bill of Rights under the U.S. Constitution; the supreme law of the land. Vermont’s Proposition 4 presents the same usurpations, as well as violating Chapter 1, Article 3; and Chapter 2, Sections 16 and 17 of the Constitution of the State of Vermont.

It has never been intended for the Constitutions to be frequently amended, yet there are five constitutional amendment proposals in the 2023-2024 Vermont legislative session; there were nine in 2021-2022.

Proposition 4 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The method of response from The People that carries the most weight would be to write a public comment in PDF format and submit it to the Senate Judiciary Committee Assistant, Benjamin Donsbach. Ask Mr. Donsbach to upload your public comment under witness testimony, which would create a public record under “Committee Activity”. Make sure to include your name, date, town, and title, “Proposition 4, 2023 public comment” on your document. Please call them out for violating the  State and U.S. Constitutions. In addition, you could send your comments to  every member of the Judiciary Committee, all of whom are sponsors of Proposition 4, except Senator Robert Norris, and to your district Senators and Representatives, found here.

Renee McGuinness is an Addison County GOP Committeewoman.