Proposal 4’s language is flawed

Dear Editor,

Judy Olinick’s recent letter to VTDigger in response to Renee McGuinness’ commentary on Proposal 4, the so-called equality of rights amendment, contains misleading information.

First, the Vermont Constitution, Chapter II, Section 72, dictates that legislators must put a proposed amendment before voters once both chambers approve it in two successive sessions; their vote is not necessarily an indication of their support of the proposal itself. This is a critical procedural point that is easily misunderstood and is a valid reason to have in-depth public discussion and analysis of the potential consequences of these constitutional amendments.

Second, the negative consequences of Proposal 4’s passage are real. McGuinness pointed to the Senate and House Judiciary committees’ own expert witness, Peter Teachout, a Vermont Law and Graduate School professor whose field is state and federal constitutional law, who said he would vote against Proposal 4 because the language is “flawed” and the purpose section is “ambiguous.” Further, on May 1, 2024, as the House Judiciary Committee members discussed how courts would interpret the language of the proposal, Teachout said it would be up to the Vermont Supreme Court to determine the intent of the language, and joked, “It makes lawyers rich.”

READ MORE

The House Judiciary Committee, the Senate and the House all knew they would be putting an amendment with flawed language before the voters, yet nearly all members voted in favor of putting Proposal 4 forward anyway. This is not good governance.

Robert Fireovid South Hero, Vt.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Proposal 4’s language is flawed.