by Renee McGuinness

One would think legislators would have learned a lesson on engaging constituents from the response by rural Vermonters to their lack of receipt of input – and resistance to that input – from rural Vermont home- and landowners regarding Act 181 land use restrictions, but they have not. Instead, legislators continue to evade public scrutiny by neglecting – or perhaps refusing – to hold public debates on proposed constitutional amendments.

In 2026, Vermonters will vote on two proposed constitutional amendments. One is Prop 4 “Equality of Rights” amendment, which will appear on the ballot in November as Article 23. The other, Prop 3, “Right to Collective Bargaining”, would prevent the legislature from adopting “right to work” laws and imposing limits on union negotiations, such as with the Vermont-National Education Association (VT-NEA) and Vermont State Employee’s Union (VSEA). See FYIVT coverage on Prop 3, here.

Representative Kevin “Coach” Christie, member of House Judiciary Committee, stated prior to the Committee vote on Prop 4 on May 5, 2026 that there would be forums and roundtables on Article 23 (Prop 4). Where are they??? People deserve full disclosure on intent, and full debate, which should have taken place prior to 2024, when Article 23 (Prop 4) was introduced for its first round in the constitutionally required two-biennia process, see Chapter II, Section 72 of the Vermont Constitution.

Vermont’s major media outlets – Vermont Digger and Vermont Public – have failed to analyze and report on the language of Article 23 (Prop 4), and both place emphasis on statements from proponents, with little to no coverage on statements from opponents.

Judiciary Committees’ Constitutional Law Expert would vote “No” on Prop 4

Neither media outlet reported on the fact that the Senate and House Judiciary Committees’ own expert witness, Professor Peter Teachout, whose field is in State and Federal Constitutional law, stated that he would postpone placing Article 23 (Prop 4) before the voters by voting against it.

Teachout had recommended broader language based upon the 14^th Amendment to Senate Judiciary in January of 2024, which was not taken up. See his testimony, page 6, here. When Prop 4 crossed over to the House Judiciary Committee, in May of 2024, Teachout described the language of Prop 4 as “flawed” and the Purpose Section, which would be used by Vermont Courts to determine the intent, as “ambiguous”. Listen to Teachout’s testimony beginning @ 1:55:45, here.

Teachout recommended a slight language addition to present to the Senate that would change the list of finite groups in the second sentence of the amendment to and inclusive list, and that the change would, take “not any longer to fix than it does to change a flat tire.” House Judiciary opted to pass Prop 4 without any changes due to time, as the General Assembly was about two weeks away from adjourning its legislative session.

Why are legislators reticent to host public forums on Article 23/Prop 4?

Perhaps the Democrat majority doesn’t want you to find out that Prop 4 is actually an UNequal rights amendment that intends to provide the legal framework to defend Vermont’s existing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and implement even more DEI programs, all at taxpayer expense.

Other expert witnesses commended the House Judiciary on the inclusion of the third sentence of the three-sentence proposed “equal rights” amendment, which exposes the true intent of Prop 4.

Big Hartman, Executive Director and general council, Vermont Human Rights Commission, stated to House Judiciary Committee on May 1, 2024, that,“The last sentence in Article 23 really is important guidance for the Vermont Supreme Court to ensure that this Clause is not misinterpreted and used to strike down DEI initiatives that the state already has in place and that it may implement in the future.” You can listen to Big Hartman’s testimony beginning @1:48:20, here.

Jay Greene, Office of Racial Equity, submitted written testimony to House Judiciary dated April 28, 2024, which states,“The office further appreciates the addition of language intended to guide the Vermont Supreme Court to interpret the Article as follows: ‘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.’ We are concerned that without this additional guidance [third sentence of Prop 4], the Equal Rights Amendment could be misinterpreted to claim that socially dominant groups are harmed by the pursuit of equity, diversity, justice, and inclusion.” [Emphasis added.]

Who are the “socially dominant groups” that are unworthy of equal protection under the law?

Isn’t our state government supposed to protect every Vermonter’s rights equally under Article 1, Chapter 1 of the Vermont Constitution?

Cary Brown, Executive Director, Vermont Commission on Women, who refused to define “woman”, told House Judiciary on April 21, 2026, that the third sentence is “really important.”And concluded that,“In order to get people on equal footing (referring to centuries of discrimination against women and other groups), sometimes something along the lines of affirmative action is called for.” Brown also told House Judiciary that she liked the idea of financial reparations for women, but that, “I can’t imagine a lot of people would be supportive of that.”

The People must demand public debate on State Constitutional amendments

I have reached out to Vermont Public asking them to host a forum. Twice. I have not received a response. Please contact Vermont Public and ask them to host forums on Prop 4 and Prop 3.

Also, please join me in encouraging the Senate and House Judiciary members in organizing forums across the state to debate Article 23 (Prop 4) “Equality of Rights Amendment.” I have reached out to them offering to debate on the side of opposition of Prop 4.

Senate Judiciary Committee

House Judiciary Committee

If Prop 4 and Prop 3 are approved by voters, it will be two of four changes to the state constitution since 2022, with little to no public engagement and investigative reporting. Senator Ruth Hardy dropped out of a debate with Representative Anne Donahue on Article 22 (Prop 5) so-called “Reproductive Liberty Amendment” in 2022, which was never rescheduled. In 2024, Vermont State Treasurer Mike Pieciak’s promotional piece on Prop 3 appeared in Vermont Business Magazine, while Vermont Business Magazine also published what appears to be a press release promoting a “Yes” vote on Prop 3 in May 2025. I could not find any coverage on Prop 3 in Vermont Digger’s “nonpartisan” “news in pursuit of truth,” since 2024.

 Prop 2, which clarified the ban on slavery in Article 1 of the Vermont Constitution, also lacked public debate.

Is this adequate public engagement for you?