Prop 4 so-called "Equality of Rights" Constitutional Amendment: Four Reasons for voting “NO”
Updated: Aug 7
By: Renee McGuinness, VFRW Member and legislative investigator
In the 2026 general election, Vermonters will vote to approve or reject Prop 4 “Equality of Rights”, which would add a new Article to Chapter 1 of Vermont’s Constitution. A cursory reading of the three-sentence amendment might give the impression that Prop 4 would be a good addition to our state’s founding document. However, the legislative intent of Prop 4 is to provide the legal framework to sustain Vermont’s existing discriminatory practices and implement even more discriminatory practices, all at taxpayer expense.
Here are four key points you should know before casting your vote on Prop 4 on the 2026 general election ballot:
1. Voting “Yes” on Prop 4 will enshrine UN-equal rights into the Vermont Constitution.
2. Voting “Yes” on Prop 4 will exacerbate Vermont’s affordability issues.
3. Voting “No” on Prop 4 will NOT end equal rights in Vermont.
4. Voting “No” on Prop 4 will send the Vermont Legislature back to the drawing board to draft a REAL equal rights amendment.
For detailed information, continue reading:
1. Voting “Yes” on Prop 4 would enshrine UN-equal rights into the Vermont Constitution.
Witnesses employed by the State commended the House Judiciary Committee for the third sentence of Article (Prop 4), which provides the legal framework to ensure that the Vermont Supreme Court interprets Prop 4 to uphold Vermont’s existing DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs and provides the legislature with the legal framework to implement more DEI affirmative action programs, all at taxpayer expense.
“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.”
-Jay Greene, Office of Racial Equity, to House Judiciary Committee, - April 28, 2024Jaye Greene, Vermont Office of Racial Equity, PR4~Jay Greene~ORE Letter in Support~5-1-2024 (1).pdf
“The last [third] sentence in Prop 4 really is important guidance for the Vermont Supreme Court to ensure that this Clause is not misinterpreted and used to strike down DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] initiatives that the state already has in place and that it may implement in the future.”
- Big Hartman executive director and general counsel, Vermont Human Rights Commission, to House Judiciary Committee on May 1, 2024
You can listen to Big Hartman’s testimony beginning @1:48:20, here.
Cary Brown, Executive Director of the Vermont Commission on Women, who refused to define “woman”, told House Judiciary on April 21, 2026, that the third sentence of Prop 4 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.” - Goldendomevt.com House Judiciary April 21, 2026, video and transcript.
2. Voting “Yes” on Prop 4 would exacerbate Vermont’s affordability issues.
a. Providing equity programs (aka DEI, aka affirmative action) to state-sanctioned “historically marginalized groups” would sustain existing bureaucracy and create new bureaucracy, at taxpayer expense.
b. $1.2 billion of the State Fiscal Year 2027 budget is allocated to Human Services, representing the largest single expenditure category. See page 8: https://finance.vermont.gov/sites/finance/files/documents/Budget%20Presentation%20FY27.pdf
c. Prop 4 would place a financial burden on individuals and private industries, would drive businesses and young adults out of Vermont, and would prevent Vermont from attracting new businesses.
3. Voting “No” on Prop 4 would NOT end equal rights in Vermont.
a. Article 1, Chapter 1 of the Vermont Constitution and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution enshrine the principle that EACH individual is protected EQUALLY under the law.
b. Vermont has robust anti-discrimination laws regarding employment and housing. Some legislators and proponents claim Prop 4 is needed to ensure that future legislatures will not roll back equal rights. This is a preposterous claim.
No legislator is going to vote to repeal Vermont’s existing anti-discrimination employment and housing laws that protect people’s rights equally. No legislature is going to roll back a woman’s right to vote or make it okay to pay a woman less for a job than a man. No legislature is going to pass laws to discriminate against people because of the color of their skin, race, ethnicity, sex, disability, etc.
[1] Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act is found in 21 V.S.A. Chapter 5, Subchapter 6 (§§ 495–495h). It prohibits discrimination by employers with one or more employees. https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/21/005/00495
[1] Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act is located in 9 V.S.A. Chapter 139 (§§ 4501–4503). It covers discrimination in housing, public accommodations, and credit. https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/09/139/04501
c. Vermont already has laws that provide preferential treatment by government to persons based upon their group identity. This is discriminatory.
4. A “NO” vote on Prop 4 will send the legislature back to the drawing board to draft a REAL equal rights amendment.
A “NO” vote on Prop 4 will send the message to the legislature that Vermonters want a REAL equal rights amendment that protects each individual equally. Peter Teachout’s recommended language based upon the 14th Amendment would be an acceptable amendment to Vermont’s Constitution.
a. Expert witness Peter Teachout, Professor, Vermont Law School, whose field is state and constitutional law, offered the Senate Judiciary Committee broad language based on the 14th Amendment as Vermont’s Equal Rights Amendment in January of 2024. Senate Judiciary did not take up Teachout’s recommended language. See Teachout’s testimony, page 6, here.
b. Teachout also told the House Judiciary Committee in May 2024 that the closed list of groups in the second sentence of the amendment means, legally, you intend to exclude other groups. He also offered language that would turn the exclusive list into an inclusive list, but House Judiciary did not take up his advice. Listen to Teachout’s testimony beginning @1:55:45, here.
c. Peter Teachout’s written and spoken testimony:
“If I had a free hand in drafting an equal protection amendment to the Vermont constitution, I would propose adding a provision along the following lines as a free-standing article at the end of Chapter I, a new Article 23: ‘Every person is entitled to be treated with equal respect and dignity under the law, therefore government, acting either alone or in conjunction with private actors, shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or deny any person the equal protection of the laws. The legislature shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this article with appropriate legislation.’ As you can see, this is not entirely original. Essentially it is a simplified Vermont version of the 14th Amendment Clause.”
-Peter Teachout, Vermont Law School Professor, testimony to Senate Judiciary January 30, 2024
“I would just rather to go to the mat with a constitutional amendment that is clear about who's entitled to the protections and whether all people in Vermont are entitled to the same level of protection or whether some groups are entitled to greater levels than others.” - Peter Teachout, House Judiciary, May 1, 2024
“I think this is so extremely important as a matter of State constitutional law that if I were faced with the choice of passing an amendment that is flawed in some important respects or putting it off until four years from now, I'd probably vote in favor of putting it off.” -Peter Teachout to House Judiciary Committee on May 1, 2024
“ . . . it is important to remember we are considering the adoption of a constitutional amendment, a fundamental statement of governance that is supposed to guide us over the long term, so while we are doing it, it is important to try to get it right.” - Peter Teachout, House Judiciary, May 1, 2024
The House Judiciary Committee voted to pass the flawed and ambiguous language of Prop 4 “Equality of Rights” amendment to place before the voters in the 2026 general election rather than get the language right due to time constraints in the 2024 legislative session. This is not good governance.
Prop 4 is being "sold" as an equal rights amendment: it is not. Send the Vermont legislature back to the drawing board to draft a REAL equal rights amendment by voting "No" on Prop 4.
Comments