Vermont Propositions 3 & 4: Pros & Cons

At a glance

What each amendment would add to the Vermont Constitution, and how lawmakers voted.

	Proposition 3	Proposition 4
Topic	Right to collective bargaining	Equal protection under the law
What it does	Guarantees the right to organize, join a union and bargain over wages, hours and working conditions; bars laws that weaken that right, including right-to-work laws	Guarantees equal protection; bars unequal treatment based on race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or national origin
Senate vote	29–0 in both rounds	29–0
House vote	129–8, then 125–15	128–14 (32 Republicans voted yes)
Already in law?	Yes, in state and federal law	Yes, in state and federal law
Other states	Illinois, Hawaii, Missouri and New York have similar provisions	Vermont would be the 39th state with such protections in its constitution

How it works: Amendments must pass two successive Legislatures before going to voters. The governor's signature isn't required. Vermont voters haven't rejected a constitutional amendment since 1986.

The propositions

The strongest arguments on each side, as reflected in coverage and campaign statements.

Proposition 3

Right to collective bargaining

Gives employees a constitutional right to organize, join a union and bargain collectively. It also bars any law that would weaken that right, including "right-to-work" laws, which stop union contracts from requiring workers to join or pay the union. Vermont has no such law today.

Pros

Locks in existing rightsUnion rights are now protected only by state and federal law, which lawmakers can change. Supporters say a constitutional right protects Vermont workers if federal labor law weakens.
Pay and bargaining powerRep. Conor Casey says about 13% of Vermont workers are unionized and members earn over 10% more on average. He argues unions raise wages for non-members too.
Permanently blocks right-to-work lawsSupporters see this as protection against out-of-state campaigns to limit unions.
Not new groundFour states have similar provisions. Illinois voters approved theirs in 2022 with 58.7%.

Cons

Possibly unnecessaryGov. Scott, neither for nor against it, says he doesn't think it's necessary but doesn't think it does any harm. Opponents add that existing law already protects the right to organize.
Business climateThe right-leaning Fiscal Alliance Foundation argues union pressure on wages could drive businesses away and slow private-sector job growth.
Individual choiceFormer Vermont GOP chair Rob Roper argues it can take away workers' right to bargain for themselves, since union contracts could still require membership or fees.
Hard to undoBanning right-to-work laws in the constitution takes that option away from future Legislatures. Supporters see this as the point; critics see it as too rigid.

Proposition 4

Equal protection under the law

Guarantees equal protection under the law and bars the state from treating people unequally based on race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or national origin.

Pros

A permanent state guaranteeSupporters say it gives a lasting legal basis for fighting discrimination that doesn't depend on federal courts or Congress.
Broad supportHouse Speaker Jill Krowinski calls equal protection a fundamental right, not a partisan issue. Racial justice and interfaith groups are campaigning for it.
Ends a long effortVermont voters narrowly rejected a sex-only Equal Rights Amendment in 1986, 52% to 48%. This version is broader.

Cons

Listing groups may cause problemsThe No on Proposal 4 PAC cites law professor Peter Teachout, who argues that naming specific groups implies anyone not listed is excluded, and that the language is poorly drafted.
Lawsuits and costOpponents predict more litigation, bureaucracy and government spending.
Equity programsThe amendment's purpose section is meant to protect diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Critics say that favors certain groups over equal treatment of individuals.
Gender identityGroups such as the Vermont Family Alliance argue it would affect who can use women's restrooms, locker rooms and sports teams, and could conflict with religious liberty. Supporters note Vermont law already bans gender identity discrimination.
Mostly symbolic?Equal protection already exists in state and federal law, so some skeptics question its practical effect.

Bottom line

Both measures ask the same basic question: should rights already in Vermont law go into the constitution, where they're much harder to change? A yes vote is mostly a hedge against future changes in Washington.

A no vote reflects concern about side effects. For Prop 3, that's the permanent right-to-work ban and the business climate. For Prop 4, it's the gender identity questions, the closed list of groups and possible lawsuits. Neither faces much organized opposition.

Vermont Propositions 3 & 4: Pros & Cons

At a glance

The propositions

Right to collective bargaining

Pros

Cons

Equal protection under the law

Pros

Cons

Bottom line

Sources

More from the 2026 guide

Scott vs. Janoo

Rodgers vs. Gray

Balint vs. Malloy

Pieciak vs. LaFleur

Copeland Hanzas vs. Paige