Advancing Life and Liberty Through Action

Feb 8, 2026


Vermont “Equal Rights” Constitutional Amendment

Text of Proposed Constitutional Language

Per the Vermont legislature, the ballot initiative would amend the Vermont Constitution 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.

Sec. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

The amendment set forth in Sec. 2 shall become a part of the Constitution of the State of Vermont on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November 2026 when ratified and adopted by the people of this State in accordance with the provisions of 17 V.S.A. chapter 32.
For the full text of the proposal, see here.

What It Does: Decoding the Text

The Vermont “Equal Protection of Law Amendment” would amend the state constitution to enshrine radical LGBT ideology in state law. While the language sounds benign, in reality, it advances the LGBT agenda by:
  • (Further) enshrining same-sex marriage in the Constitution (the language states “equal treatment under the law” cannot be denied on account of a person’s “sexual orientation, gender identity,” or “gender expression;” “equal treatment” in regard to marriage could require allowing same-sex couples to marry, reinforcing the current constitutional interpretation requiring same-sex couples be provided equal treatment.)*
  • Doubling down on current constitutional language that opened the door to creating a right to transgender affirming “care,” including for minors.
    • Current constitutional language states: “That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy . . . shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” Use of the word “individual” means minors may be included, and given “reproductive autonomy” is not defined, it likely includes sex-rejecting surgeries and “treatments.”
    • Proposed language states “equal treatment under the law” cannot be denied on account of a “person’s” “gender identity” or “expression.” Use of the word “persons” (like “individuals”) means the provision may apply to minors, given there are no age limitations specified, and “equal treatment” could require transgender identifying individuals to receive the same level of “affirming care” and health care coverage that heterosexuals receive.
  • Threatening parental rights, given it may:
    • Double down on current constitutional language that may prohibit parental consent or notification requirements for minors seeking transgender mutilating “care” (again, language of “person’s” likely includes minors as age is not referenced).
    • Place parents at greater risk of losing custody of their minor child if they do not agree with their child's decision to socially and/or medically reject their sex (“transition genders”).

(Again, the broad nature of the current constitutional language may already encompass the above two points. For example, a parent seeking to protect their child from mutilating surgery could be considered and “infringement” or “denial” of that individual’s (minors) “right” to freely choose to change their reproductive organs.)

  • Allowing biological males identifying as female the “right” to play on female sports teams and access female-only private spaces and female-only public accommodations, including bathrooms, locker rooms, women’s shelters, and more. (“Equal treatment under the law” based on gender identity would allow transgender individuals to access the private facilities of the gender they “identify” with.)
  • Doubling down on current constitutional language that essentially made assisted reproductive technologies (ART), like in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy, “rights,” including for LGBT-identifying individuals.
    • Current constitutional language stating, “an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy . . . shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means,” opens the door to making ART a “right” as said technologies are related to reproduction.
    • New language outlining “Equal treatment under the law on account of . . . sexual orientation, gender identity,” or “gender expression” could be interpreted to allow any LGBT individual/couple receive the same treatment(s) as a heterosexual individual/couple, and therefore they could claim they have a right to access assisted reproductive technologies/reproduce.
  • Infringing on the freedoms of religion and speech, given that there are no conscience protections outlined. For example, as gender “transitions” and same sex marriage would be constitutional “rights”:
    • A clergyman may be required to perform a same-sex marriage or prohibited from counselling gender-confused individuals.
    • Medical professionals may be compelled to prescribe puberty-blockers or refer for gender-transition surgeries against sincerely held religious beliefs.
Of note, while “neither legal experts nor advocates think the amendment would have any significant impact immediately upon ratification,” they do think “it could inform and influence court decisions over time.”

Also of note, while Vermont’s ERA language does not explicitly address abortion, the Vermont Constitution already includes language permitting abortion to birth for any reason.

*A 1999 Vermont Supreme Court ruling held that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as opposite-sex married couples. The ruling specifically references Vt. Const., Ch. I, art 7, which states: “That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community,” and outlines that “plaintiffs may not be deprived of the statutory benefits and protections afforded persons of the opposite sex who choose to marry.” Therefore, “the State is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law.” However, it was determined that the form it takes, e.g., “inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel 'domestic partnership' system,” rests with the Legislature.

Fiscal Impact

There is no official fiscal impact statement; however, given that most of the changes to the Constitution are simply enshrining state laws, the costs are expected to be minimal. Some costs may be incurred based on administrative changes or lawsuits challenging the language.

Current Status & Next Steps
  • Passed the Vermont legislature as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in 2024.
  • Required a simple majority vote in the VT House and Senate in the second legislative session. It passed the Senate unanimously and passed the Houe 128 to 14. It now goes directly to voters.
  • It will become law via a simple majority vote.
HOW TO TAKE ACTION
 
Get involved with the Vermont Family Alliance!
TAKE ACTION