House Judiciary hears split public testimony on Proposal 4 equal‑protection amendment

Representative Martin Malone, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, opened a public hearing April 21 on Proposal 4, a proposed amendment to the Vermont Constitution that would bar government from denying equal treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or national origin.

The committee set ground rules at the start: each witness had three minutes to testify, remote witnesses would be asked to unmute or turn on video when called, and a visible timer would signal 30 seconds and then zero. Malone said the committee would listen but not ask questions during the public hearing.

Speakers who supported the amendment emphasized gaps in current protections and the real‑world harms they said those gaps cause. Susan Areronov, who identified herself as policy staff for the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council, told the committee that disability discrimination is the most frequently cited category of complaints to the Vermont Human Rights Commission and urged the amendment so people with disabilities would have clear constitutional protection. "Disability discrimination is the most frequently cited type of discrimination in complaints received by HRC," she said, and added that amendments to the constitution would help ensure Vermonters can be included "where people live, work, learn and thrive."

Alita Sprag, a commissioner on the Vermont Commission on Women and director of legal analysis at the World Policy Analysis Center, summarized comparative research showing the majority of U.S. states and a large share of countries explicitly guarantee equal‑rights protections on sex, race and other bases. She told the committee that enshrining a comprehensive equal‑rights provision "would both bring our Constitution into better alignment with national and global standards and send an important message about the equal dignity and worth of everyone living in our state."

Several witnesses described the amendment as urgently needed to protect specific groups. Zoe Striker, a transgender woman and data analyst with the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance, said state constitutional language would offer a bulwark if federal or out‑of‑state ballot measures erode protections: "If we have a federal government that is unwilling to protect our most vulnerable, who are we supposed to turn to?" Ed Baker, who described long personal and professional experience supporting people with substance‑use disorder, argued the amendment should explicitly include people with substance‑use disorders within disability protections.

Other testimony urged caution or urged the committee not to advance the amendment. A witness who identified her name in the record as "Monton" (the transcript is unclear) framed opposition in explicitly religious terms, arguing the amendment's language is "divisive, not unifying" and warning it would enable coerced equity programs and new costs to taxpayers. Sharon Toworg of Barre said the amendment could be used to justify measures she described as discriminatory responses — including quotas, financial reparations or other state actions — and cited past litigation and licensing disputes as reasons for concern.

Karen Sa, identifying herself by a community title, and Carrie Brown, who said she had testified earlier in a professional capacity but was speaking this hearing as a citizen, also urged the committee to advance the amendment so Vermonters can decide the question at the ballot box.

No committee vote or formal action on Proposal 4 was recorded in this transcript. The hearing was adjourned until the following day.

The hearing record includes a mix of faith‑based objections, disability and transgender advocates' appeals, comparative constitutional research, and personal testimony — providing the committee with a cross‑section of arguments the authors said should inform whether the amendment should be advanced to voters.