Proposal 3: The Right to Collective Bargaining Amendment
This proposal seeks to add a new article to the Vermont Constitution establishing the right for employees to organize and collectively bargain. In simple terms, it would make joining a union and negotiating for wages, hours, and working conditions a constitutionally protected activity. Supporters, including the Vermont State Labor Council, argue this measure is a crucial backstop against potential future laws that could weaken unions. They point out that while Vermont is not a 'right-to-work' state now, this amendment would prevent it from becoming one, thereby protecting the current state of labor law. A 'yes' vote supports enshrining the right to collective bargaining in the state constitution. A 'no' vote opposes this change, leaving the issue
to be governed by existing state and federal laws without the added layer of constitutional protection. Proponents see it as a necessary shield for worker protections, while opponents question the need for the amendment, arguing that these rights are already sufficiently protected under existing laws. The amendment passed through two consecutive legislative sessions with broad, bipartisan support to make it onto the ballot.
Proposal 4: The Equal Protection of Law Amendment
Proposal 4, also known as the Equal Protection of Law Amendment, aims to amend the state constitution to explicitly prohibit the government from denying equal rights based on a person's race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin. Supporters, like Vermont House Speaker Jill Krowinski, frame this as a fundamental rights issue, stating that it culminates decades of advocacy to ensure equal protection is a non-partisan guarantee. The goal is to create a clear and explicit state-level protection against discrimination. A 'yes' vote supports adding this specific language to the constitution. A 'no' vote would leave the constitution's existing equal protection clauses as they are, without these specific enumerated categories. The debate around this measure involves its necessity and specificity. Proponents argue it modernizes the constitution and provides explicit protections for historically marginalized groups. Some opponents, however, express concern over the list of categories and a sentence that allows for measures to help historically disadvantaged groups, arguing it could create different standards of equality rather than one standard for all Vermonters.
How Did We Get Here?
Unlike some states where citizens can gather signatures to place initiatives on the ballot, in Vermont, only the legislature can refer constitutional amendments to voters. The process is deliberately lengthy. To get a proposed amendment on the ballot, it must pass the Vermont State Senate and House of Representatives in two successive two-year legislative sessions, with a general election happening in between. First, it needs a two-thirds vote in the Senate and a simple majority in the House. After an election, it must then pass both chambers again with a simple majority. Both Proposal 3 and Proposal 4 successfully cleared these significant hurdles with overwhelming support before being certified for the November 2026 ballot. This rigorous process is designed to ensure that any proposed changes to the state's foundational document have been thoroughly vetted and command a strong consensus among lawmakers before being presented to the public.
What's the Broader Context?
These two measures reflect ongoing national conversations playing out at the state level. Thirty other states already have some form of equal rights provision in their constitutions, with New York being the most recent to adopt one in 2024. Proposal 4 would place Vermont in this growing group. Similarly, the collective bargaining amendment in Proposal 3 follows a successful effort in Illinois in 2022 to constitutionally ban 'right-to-work' laws. By turning to the ballot box, advocates for both measures are seeking to create durable, long-lasting protections that are insulated from the shifting political winds of future legislative sessions or court decisions. For voters, the choice is not just about the specifics of each proposal but also about whether they believe the Vermont Constitution is the appropriate place to codify these particular rights.
