|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By VDC staff
The 2024 Vermont Senate rushed a proposed amendment to the Vermont Constitution guaranteeing equal protection for ‘race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin,” a parents’ rights advocate told a Senate committee Thursday.
The Vermont Senate Committee on Judiciary continues to hear testimony on Proposal 4 to the Vermont Constitution. Renee McGuinness, a policy analyst with the Vermont Family Alliance testified before the committee on January 29. In her testimony, McGuiness alleged that in 2024 the Senate Committee on Judiciary didn’t spend enough time on Proposal 4 to address legal concerns over the language and passed it from the committee with the knowledge that it may cause judicial interpretation issues, in order to meet a deadline in the legislative process.
Information for In Committee news reports are sourced from GoldenDomeVt.com and the General Assembly website.
Proposal 4 is a proposed amendment to the Vermont Constitution that was inspired by the equal protection clause in the US Constitution and equal protection clauses in other state constitutions. “That the people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. The State shall not deny equal treatment and respect 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”, as stated in Proposal 4.
It does apply specifically to the state, not to private entities or individuals, however, the actions of those entities or individuals may be covered by civil rights statutes elsewhere in the law. McGuinness’s testimony before the Senate Committee on Judiciary was primarily built on the testimony given years prior by Peter Teachout, a constitutional law professor at the Vermont Law School.
His testimony was highly supportive of Prop 4, but with some caveats that can be summarized with the question, “Why this specific list of classes and not others?” McGuiness in her testimony echoed this sentiment of finite lists of classes.
According to Professor Teachout, many other states have equal protection language enshrined in their constitutions but include protected classes that Proposal 4 doesn’t, including age. He also mentioned other examples: body weight or height, genetic makeup, homelessness status, or criminal record. He believed that by having exclusions and a partial list of protected classes, it creates a legal quagmire for interpretation and creates a near-sighted approach to governance. “…since constitutional provisions are supposed to provide rules of governance over the long term, what about protection from unfair discriminatory treatment for members of other classes we cannot even imagine?…Because of the way PR 4 is currently framed, practitioners and courts will consequently be faced with difficult questions: Are members of the classes specifically listed in the amendment in PR 4 the only ones entitled to judicial protection against discrimination? If not, are they entitled to special protections that members of other classes are not entitled to? If neither of those, then what is gained by listing them?”, said Teachout.
The issue question of finite lists was addressed in previous testimony this year on January 15 Legislative Council attorney Colin Fitzpatrick. The attorney explained that the list is not inclusive and is intended to be an initial list of protections that can be changed as needs evolve.
He also explained how other language in Proposal 4 is intended to express a principle of non-exclusivity for the listed classes to be a catch-all for other classes. Fitzpatrick is referencing, “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.”
Fitzpatrick also explained that the process to pass amendments to the Vermont Constitution works in a peculiar way compared to regular legislation. Amendments must go through the legislative process in two separate bienniums of the legislature. In the first of the two, it must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate and then a simple majority in the House.
Prop 4 passed unanimously in the Senate in 2024 and then nearly unanimous in the House. Now two years later, it is up for another set of votes. At this point in the process, the language cannot be changed and votes follow a simple 50%+1 majority in both chambers. Proposal 4 is expected to pass both chambers and end up on the ballot in the 2026 November election. The Secretary of State is required to advertise the text of the amendment, along with a summary, in two newspapers with general statewide circulation once per week for three consecutive weeks. It will also be published on the Secretary of State website.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Legislation, State Government
We already have equal rights for Americans. This is just another antic to go beyond Americans. NO!!!
Prop 4 has nothing to do with equal protection. It is about equal outcomes. Prop 4 states that it will end all privledge in the state. Privledge appears no where in the US Constitution or the Civil Rights Act, so the question is how is privilege defined. Our legislature failed to define the privledge being eliminated. I can tell you without doubt according to the state’s DEI racial equity training that privilege is based on group identities according to the Wheel of Power and Privledge. Privledge in this context means the privledge associated with being an American citizen versus being an illegal alien, with the documented worker falling in the middle. Another privledge is owning a home, while unhoused people are marginalized, with no privledge. Renters fall in the he middle category. Other privledge to be eradicated includes whiteness as a form of power. This is straight up communism/socialism, and a violation of your civil rights. They will use AI to enforce and monitor outcomes.
I agree. All Americans are protected
Under our constitution. We do not need to list certain groups. When you start listing certain classes then others are being discriminated against. Let’s just leave it all Americans.
Oh, it’s much worse than that.
By this amendment, the state has the authority to authorize sex changes to your child, without parental permission. If your 5 year old or your 12 year old son or daughter are a bit confused, or more accurately envious of what the other sex has, then when they are told by Planned Parenthood, they were assigned the wrong sex at birth…bingo…..sex hormone changes can be done without parental permission and if the parents aren’t open and affirming, the state can take away your children to protect their constitutional rights.
This is the true intent of this legislation.
How about the Govs. Made up god-given right to protest?
What about the furries??? Shouldn’t they be included? It must have been an oversight in the rush to meet the deadline. And don’t forget “minor attracted persons”. We shouldn’t be discriminating against them either should we now??? Any job worth doing is worth doing right! Back to the drawing board!
This is what republicans should be pushing to include with this. Demand that furries be included, what are they going to say then? lol…genius.
This is how you “fight them”, use what they say against them, and people can see how amazingly stupid the whole idea is, what a lie they are propagating.
They are furry racists, what did a furry ever do to them.
The Governor should come out immediately and demand equal rights for furies.
The Governor should come out immediately; there is no shame in being a furry.
Let the world know!
Now that would be classic.
Re: Proposed VT constitutional amendment enshrines some civil rights – why not others? Because the Commiecrats want to pick and choose which rights they believe we should have. They certainly don’t believe in Natural Law which is the foundation of our Constitutional rights.
Every perversion of the natural order and common sense is deceptively being inserted to fit into an amendment already in the US Constitution in Prop 4.
And yet how is it that Prop 5/Article 22 ratified into the Vermont Constitution on November 8, 2022, to deceptively enshrine abortion on demand, conspicuously denies and negates equal protection of preborn human babies already guaranteed for them in the Fourteenth Amendment of our US Constitution? The evil and hypocrisy of this is staggering. But it betrays the worldview behind these demonic campaigns
Again like prop5, article 22 in Nov. 2022 you will have too many voters that don’t understand what they are voting on and will just mark yes without know the consequences. It’s what the dems were counting on. I saw it in my own town. It’s sad.
People get the information out there how evil this is and if it’s enshrined into Vermont’s Constitution it takes an act of God to reverse it so vote it down in November.
Exactly, Donna!
This is probably the biggest hurdle and challenge I see these days when proposed legislation or ballot articles are presented to an often times ignorant electorate: truthfully and unbiasedly informing and educating the voters BEFORE they get to the voting booth. Marketing is everything. Unfortunately, the currency of the dark side is deception. It was that way in the Garden, and it has been so ever since.
How can we do better to overcome the slick deceptive advertising? God knows we tried with Prop 5/Article 22, but it wasn’t enough.
You are correct. I did a little research and advocates for these policies demand that the policies are added to state Constitutions because they are harder to get rid of.
Sounds to me like a proposal in search of a problem. I say no to this problematic proposed amendment.