This commentary is by Renee McGuinness, the spokesperson for No on Proposal 4 PAC and the policy analyst for the Vermont Family Alliance. Think your taxes are high now? If a majority of Vermonters vote to adopt Proposal 4 on the Nov. 3 general election ballot, get ready for them to go even highe r.  Proposal 4 is being sold as an equal rights amendment. It is the opposite. The impact of Proposal 4 would be to provide the legal framework to sustain Vermont’s existing discriminatory laws and bureaucracy and implement more discriminatory laws, all at taxpayer expense. Adoption could increase government spending by expanding bureaucracy to uphold rights for a closed list of specified groups. It would result in endless lawsuits by plaintiffs claiming their rights have been violated — either under Proposal 4 or under the 14th Amendment, which would also burden taxpayers. The Senate and House Judiciary committees’ own expert witness, Peter Teachout, a professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School whose field is state and federal constitutional law, pointed out several problems with the language of Proposal 4, describing the three-sentence amendment as “flawed” and the purpose section — which does not appear on the ballot — as “ambiguous” for courts. The second sentence of Proposal 4 presents a closed list of groups that would be protected. Teachout told the House Judiciary Committee on May 1, 2024, that, legally, “if you include certain classes in a closed list, you mean to exclude others.”  “I would just rather go to the mat with a constitutional amendment that is clear about who’s entitled to the protections and whether all people in Vermont are entitled to the same level of protection or whether some groups are entitled to greater levels than others,” Teachout told the House Judiciary Committee. He added that he would vote “no” on Proposal 4 and wait another four years for the Legislature to get the language right.  Big Hartman, the executive director and general counsel of the Vermont Human Rights Commission, told the House Judiciary Committee on May 1, 2024, “The last (third) sentence in Article 23 really is important guidance for the Vermont Supreme Court to ensure that this clause is not misinterpreted and used to strike down DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) initiatives that the state already has in place and that it may implement in the future.” Jay Greene, from the Office of Racial Equity, wrote in support of Proposal 4 in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee dated April 28, 2024, stating: “The office further appreciates the addition of language (the third sentence of Proposal 4) intended to guide the Vermont Supreme Court to interpret the Article as follows: ‘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.’ We are concerned that without this additional guidance (third sentence of Proposal 4), the Equal Rights Amendment could be misinterpreted to claim that socially dominant groups are harmed by the pursuit of equity, diversity, justice, and inclusion.” Who are the members of “socially dominant groups” to which Greene refers? Do they not deserve equal protection under the law? Isn’t the original intent of our U.S. and Vermont constitutions to protect individual rights, not group rights? READ MORE Voting “no” on Proposal 4 will not end equal rights in Vermont. Voting “yes” would actually enshrine unequal rights into the Vermont Constitution. If Proposal 4 passes, it will worsen Vermont’s existing affordability issues through discriminatory laws and expanded bureaucracy to uphold those discriminatory laws. And lawsuits will be endless since Proposal 4 creates a hierarchy of rights rather than protecting equal rights. Any chance of salvaging Vermont’s equal protection under the law and affordability would end if Proposal 4 is adopted. Read the story on VTDigger here: Proposal 4 would enshrine unequal rights, not equal ones. ...read more read less