Vermonters Will Vote on Two Constitutional Amendments This Fall

On November 3, voters will have the chance to change Vermont’s constitution so that it protects labor-organizing rights and antidiscrimination measures for generations to come. After years of preliminary steps, two questions — confusingly numbered 3 and 4 — are finally going to voters, who have the final say.

Proposal 3 would guarantee employees’ right to join a labor union. Proposal 4 requires the state to treat people equally under the law, regardless of their identity, including race, religion or gender.

Both amendments are meant to safeguard rights that Vermonters currently enjoy by explicitly codifying them in the state’s founding document.

They’ve long been in the works. Constitutional changes are not easy to make in Vermont, and that’s by design; two rounds of lawmakers must sign off. It starts with a two-thirds vote in the Senate to propose an amendment. The House must then endorse the proposal by a simple majority.

Read more in the 2026 Voters’ Guide:

The same process repeats in the subsequent biennium, after a new legislature has been elected. That is to say: Lawmakers in both chambers must again sign off. Only then does an amendment go to a popular vote.

“It’s a very heavy lift,” Rep. Conor Casey (D-Montpelier) said. “It’s a heavier lift than the statutory processes of passing laws in the halls of the Statehouse, and rightfully so.”

A recent University of New Hampshire poll found that about two-thirds of likely voters support both measures.

In a statement announcing the ballot items, Gov. Phil Scott said, “Voting is one of the most important responsibilities we have as Americans. I encourage voters to do their homework before making their voices heard on these issues in November.”

Here is what you need to know about this year’s two ballot questions.

Workers’ Rights

If approved by a majority of voters, Proposal 3, also referred to as Prop 3, would create a new section of the constitution called Article 23.

It would declare that workers have a right to organize and join unions for collective bargaining with employers regarding working conditions. It would bar legislation that “interferes with, negates, or diminishes” those rights.

The amendment would also stop future Vermont legislatures from passing so-called “right-to-work” laws, as has happened in 26 other states. Such laws prohibit union contracts from forcing all employees at a unionized workplace to pay union dues. Those who don’t pay still enjoy the same wages and benefits as those who do. Labor advocates claim that those non-dues-paying workers are getting a free ride.

In a landmark 2018 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal employees could not be required to pay union dues against their will because it would violate their free speech rights.

But so-called “agency shop” agreements that mandate union membership are still allowed for private employers in many states, including Vermont. Proposal 3 seeks to keep it that way.

Full Text of the Proposed Amendment

PROPOSAL 3

To see if the voters will amend the Vermont Constitution by adding Article 23 to read:

Article 23. [Right to collectively bargain] That employees have a right to organize or join a labor organization for the purpose of collectively bargaining with their employer through an exclusive representative of their choosing for the purpose of negotiating wages, hours, and working conditions and to protect their economic welfare and safety in the workplace. Therefore, no law shall be adopted that interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to collectively bargain with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and workplace safety, or that prohibits the application or execution of an agreement between an employer and a labor organization representing the employer’s employees that requires membership in the labor organization as a condition of employment.

“It’s largely a defensive measure against some of these attacks on workers by greedy corporate America,” Casey said.

A nonprofit group called Right for Vermont Foundation, founded by former Vermont GOP chair Deb Billado, opposes the measure. The group argues that the proposed amendment actually removes a right — the freedom of workers in a union shop to decline paying union dues. The foundation’s executive director, Clara Morrison, notes that Vermont workers already have the right to organize.

“What Prop 3 would take away, before legislators could debate it through ordinary lawmaking, is the state’s flexibility to govern its relationship with unions as circumstances demand,” she told Seven Days.

Casey argues that, given the national political climate and rising income inequality, workers’ rights are at risk and Vermont would be wise to batten down the hatches any way it can.

“The storm is coming, but we’re not pulling out our umbrellas fast enough,” he said.

‘Equal Protection’

As President Donald Trump attacks diversity, equity and inclusion programs and the U.S. Supreme Court weakens civil rights protections, supporters say Proposal 4 comes at a critical moment.

This proposal declares that people are guaranteed equal protection under the law regardless of their “race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and national origin.”

“Proposal 4 is meant to ensure that all residents of Vermont are treated with dignity and equal rights, which we seek to promote in our own work within the wider community,” said one supporter, Joanne Crawford of the Indigenous wellness nonprofit Abenaki Health and Heritage.

Advocates for the measure argue that the Vermont Constitution only contains vague protections against unequal treatment. These include Article 4, which states that everyone can freely seek legal recourse “for all injuries or wrongs which one may receive in person, property or character.”

Full Text of the Proposed Amendment

PROPOSAL 4

To see if the voters will amend the Vermont Constitution by adding Article 23 to read:

Article 23. [Equality of rights] That the people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. The State shall not deny equal treatment under the law on account of a person’s race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin. 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.

But such protections, as well as similar ones outlined in the U.S. Constitution, have clearly proven insufficient to prevent historical discrimination such as segregation and denying women the right to vote, Sen. Nader Hashim (D-Windham) told his colleagues earlier this year.

He said he couldn’t imagine modern Vermont lawmakers trying to pass laws seeking to discriminate against the listed groups, but it’s better to be safe than sorry.

“A lot can change, for better or worse, over the course of several decades, or even a few years,” he said.

Sen. Ginny Lyons (D-Chittenden-Southeast) said the need became clear to her when Donald Trump became a candidate for president in 2016. She worried in particular about his treatment of women.

She was part of a group that began brainstorming ways to protect women’s rights in Vermont. Early efforts focused on a constitutional amendment that guaranteed reproductive rights. That passed in 2022.

“It’s taken 10 years to get this thing onto the ballot,” Lyons said of the current proposition. She predicted strong voter support.

“This is so critically important,” she said.

A small group of critics has nevertheless emerged. Renee McGuinness, an Addison County advocate for parental rights, has a website called noprop4vt.org. She takes particular issue with the final clause of the amendment, which says nothing in it would prevent future measures “intended to provide equality of treatment and opportunity for members of groups that have historically been subject to discrimination.”

Big Hartman, executive director and general counsel of the Vermont Human Rights Commission, said the phrase is needed to ensure that future courts don’t shoot down diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

McGuinness counters that Vermont already has robust antidiscrimination laws, and adding such language is effectively a form of reverse discrimination that provides protections for certain groups and not others.

“If you’re white, you’re now lower on the hierarchy of who gets preferential treatment,” she said.

Lyons said that makes no sense.

“It doesn’t mean that,” she said. “It means we have to have a level playing field and equality across the board.” ➆

The original print version of this article was headlined “Prop Drop | Voters will decide this fall whether to enshrine labor rights and antidiscrimination measures in the Vermont Constitution”