By Greg Thayer, MBA
Vermont cannot afford more political experiments, more government overreach, or constitutional amendments that create legal uncertainty without demonstrating a compelling need. Our state is already struggling with high taxes, unaffordable housing, rising energy costs, expensive healthcare, and an increasingly difficult environment for businesses and working families. The last thing Vermonters need is to place unnecessary, potentially divisive provisions into our state Constitution.
Proposals 3 and 4 deserve a decisive NO vote. These are not minor policy adjustments. They would place constitutional language beyond the reach of ordinary legislative changes, potentially creating years of legal disputes and consequences that voters may not fully understand until it is too late.
We must protect the Vermont Constitution—not turn it into a political battleground for special interests.
Prop 3: Protect Workers, Jobs, and Economic Freedom Vermonters should ask one simple question: If workers already have legal protections to organize and bargain collectively, why do union leaders need a constitutional amendment?
The right to organize is already protected under existing law. Prop 3 would elevate union-related rights to constitutional status, potentially restricting the ability of future legislatures to balance collective bargaining with other important public interests. That is a major change, and voters deserve clear answers about its consequences before approving it.
This proposal raises serious concerns about individual worker freedom, Vermont’s economic competitiveness, and the power it could give organized labor in future policy disputes. Workers are individuals with different needs, priorities, and opinions. Some choose union representation; others prefer to negotiate directly with an employer. Their choices and interests deserve consideration, too.
Vermonters should not be asked to approve a constitutional amendment without understanding whether it could limit future policy options, increase legal conflicts, or create new barriers for employers and workers who do not share the priorities of union leadership.
What happens when a small business wants to expand, a manufacturer considers investing in Vermont, or a new employer compares our state with states offering a more predictable business climate? The cost of uncertainty matters. Vermont needs investment, competitive employers, and good-paying jobs—not constitutional disputes that could make economic development more difficult.
Prop 3 also raises concerns about Vermont’s ability to maintain flexibility in labor policy. The exact effect on right-to-work options, employer obligations, and future legislation would depend on the amendment’s wording and how courts interpret it. But those questions are precisely why voters should demand answers before making a permanent constitutional change.
A state Constitution should not become a vehicle for expanding the power of union organizations at the expense of individual choice, economic flexibility, and the public interest.
Vermont needs more opportunities for young people to build careers, more businesses willing to invest, and more reasons for working families to stay. We cannot afford to discourage employers or make our economic future more uncertain through a constitutional amendment whose necessity has not been convincingly established.
Workers deserve fair treatment. Employers deserve clear rules. Taxpayers deserve responsible government. We can support those principles without automatically elevating union policy into our Constitution.
Prop 4: Equal Rights Are Already Part of Vermont’s Constitution
Prop 4 presents a different but equally important concern: Why amend the Constitution when Chapter I already establishes fundamental protections for individual liberty and equality?
Supporters must explain precisely what existing protections fail to accomplish, what the proposed language would change, and how its provisions could be interpreted in future legal disputes.
Vermont Law School Professor Peter Teachout has been cited as raising concerns about Prop 4’s wording and the need to reconsider and rewrite it. His exact statement and context should be verified before publication. Nevertheless, when serious questions are raised about constitutional language, legislators should insist on clarity rather than rush forward.
Constitutional amendments must be carefully drafted. Unclear language can produce years of litigation, competing interpretations, and costly disputes. Equal protection is important, but that does not mean every proposed amendment is necessary or properly written.
We should never confuse the importance of equality with an obligation to approve every constitutional proposal presented to voters.
Vote NO and Protect Vermont’s Future
Both proposals could face legal challenges, and litigation is never guaranteed to produce a predictable outcome. Illinois has also experienced litigation over a constitutional amendment concerning collective bargaining. Vermonters should examine the legal questions carefully rather than assume these proposals will be free of controversy or expense.
Taxpayers should not have to bear avoidable costs because lawmakers failed to establish a clear need or resolve serious drafting concerns before asking voters to amend our Constitution.
Our Constitution belongs to We the People. It is not a tool for political leaders, special interests, or temporary majorities to use without careful consideration of the long-term consequences.
Vermont needs affordability, economic growth, individual freedom, responsible spending, and a government that listens to its citizens.
On Election Day, stand up for Vermont. Vote NO on Prop 3. Vote NO on Prop 4.
Protect our Constitution. Protect our jobs. Protect our taxpayers.
We the People must come first—not special interests.