Senate to consider ‘protected’ vs. ‘equal’ rights concerns expressed at hearing
By Michael Bielawski
Lawmakers in the House Judiciary Committee spent much time on Wednesday listening to professionals and the public speak about a state Constitutional amendment known as Proposition 4 or “Prop 4” asserting equal treatment for all Vermonters including historically marginalized groups. It can generally be compared to the 14 Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Upset over hold-ups for Prop 4
One social leader, Executive Director of Justice for All VT Mark Hughes, was visibly frustrated that the proposition isn’t promptly being sent towards passage in its current form. Instead, lawmakers in the Senate will look at it again to ensure equal protections for all Vermonters and not just select groups, among other concerns.
Hughes was not pleased with this development. “Pass the damn Constitutional amendment and let’s get on with it,” he said at over a minute past his allotted speaking time.
Hughes complained that the committee was giving too much consideration to testimony by Peter Teachout, a professor at Vermont Law School. Teachout earlier in the day told the committee that he had some concerns regarding the “closed list” of protected groups suggesting that it essentially implies groups not on the list are not protected.
Teachout also took issue with the proposition, because it does not clarify that all Vermonters deserve protected rights. He had other concerns too.
Hughes, and the chair of the committee Rep. Martin LaLonde, D-South Burlington, each expressed a desire to move it along without further edits.
The bill currently insists for equal protections – on a closed list as Teachout noted – for transgender people meaning people who don’t believe there are more than two genders could be compelled by the state to adhere to that belief nonetheless. The proponents of Prop 4 alleged similar concerns regarding compelled speech after religion was added (after being taken off the list) as a protected group.
Hughes alleged that the reconsiderations over its current status amount to systematic racism.
“This is systemic racism, what we’re dealing with right here,” Hughes said. “I mean come on, we’re talking about now sending it back over to the Senate because one person who happens to be white and privileged came in and told you one thing about some civil liberties that could potentially be taken and you got a black man right here telling you about civil liberties that are currently at risk.”
Hughes could be seen walking around the House floor chamber on his cell phone during the previous testimony, the committee had to wait and then when he passed the 2-minute speaking limit by over a minute that the committee insisted would be enforced, there was no request to continue, and no opposition from committee members. He expressed frustration on numerous other matters to the committee during his testimony beginning at about 19:30 in this video.
Other testimonies
Greg Baylor of Alliance Defending Freedom also testified, he talked about women losing their rights to privacy and fair competition in sports. He said, “Laws forbidding the distinctions based on gender identity and expression have been interpreted in ways that inflict substantial harms, especially on women and girls.”
He continued to explain how having biological males in sports and private spaces for females does cause harm and it forces the acknowledgment of beliefs that not everyone agrees with.
Big Hartman, the Executive Director & General Counsel for the Vermont Human Rights Commission, also testified. She suggested Vermont’s efforts should surpass those at the federal level.
“The Federal Equal Protection Clause as it’s been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court has time and again fallen short of protecting individuals from discrimination or dismantling systemic barriers to equality,” she said.
Renee McGuinness, the Policy Analyst for the Vermont Family Alliance, shared other concerns with the committee. “We’re glad that religion was added back in so that parents can raise their children the way they want to without being you know… [persecuted].”
Another concern she shared was that extra protections for protected groups should not come at the expense of the protected rights of other groups. She said there may be some conflicts with its current language in regard to articles 1 and 7 of the Vermont Constitution.
“So the intention of equity of rights and not equality of rights violates the spirit of the law and the broad principles of personal liberty and equality under Article 1,” she said. The articles can be read here.
In all, around a dozen professional and public speakers addressed the committee throughout the day and evening. The whole public testimony can be seen here.
The author is a writer for the Vermont Daily Chronicle