Proposal 4Constitutional amendment · Put on the ballot by lawmakers
Equal Protection Under Law
Explain it like I'm 5
This would add a rule saying the state must treat people fairly under the law, including people of different races, religions, sexes, and identities. It is like adding a fairness rule to the state’s main rulebook while still allowing extra help for groups harmed by past discrimination.
Yes vote
Adding constitutional equal-protection language that bars state discrimination based on the listed traits and allows measures intended to improve equal treatment and opportunity.
No vote
Leaving the Constitution without this explicit equal-protection clause and listed categories, while existing civil-rights laws remain in place.
The question to ask yourself
Is an explicit constitutional equal-protection guarantee worth adding despite existing statutes and the uncertainty of court interpretation?
The case for
- It would make protections harder for future lawmakers to repeal or weaken.
- The text expressly covers sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, and other listed traits.
- Supporters say constitutional protection could provide a stronger safeguard if federal protections narrow.
Backed by: League of Women Voters of Vermont, Vermont Human Rights Commission, Vermont Racial Justice Alliance, ACLU-Vermont
The case against
- Vermont already has statutes prohibiting discrimination, so critics consider the amendment unnecessary.
- Broad language could leave important questions to courts and produce uncertain litigation.
- The exception for remedial measures could permit policies critics view as unequal treatment.
Opposed by: Vermont Family Alliance, No on Proposal 4
- Money
- No direct tax or cost impact is estimated in the sources reviewed.
- Don't be misled
- It is misleading to say a no vote would eliminate all antidiscrimination protection, because existing state and federal laws would remain; the change is mainly constitutional status and wording.