The good news first: Contrary to what I wrote in my last post, legislative leadership appears to be fully committed to approving PR.4 and giving it a spot on the statewide ballot this November. The measure would add an equal protection clause to the state constitution, mandating “equal treatment under the law” for nine protected classes, including race, sex, disability, gender identity and sexual orientation.

This is great news given efforts by the Heritage Foundation, the Trump administration, and red-state legislatures to make life as difficult as possible for transgender Americans. Vermont cannot depend on mere tradition to preserve trans rights within its borders. They must be enshrined in our constitution.

Now, I should explain how I came to write. incorrectly, that PR.4 seemed to be sinking without a trace this year after winning overwhelming approval in 2024.

After I read that the Heritage Foundation aims to eventually prohibit gender-affirming care for all ages, I remembered Vermont’s PR.4, tried to determine its status, and came up against a blank wall. Web searches produced references to PR.4 in the 2023-24 biennium and contemporary media reports on its progress. There were no mentions of anything more recent in the legislative record or the news media.

When I went to the Vermont Legislature’s website and used its normally reliable “Bill Search” function for the current biennium, it reported no matches for PR.4 or related keywords. There were also no media reports about PR.4 more recent than 2024.

Which made me conclude that nothing had been done about it since then. I wrote and posted my piece late Thursday night, feeling a sense of urgency.

Hours later, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Nader Hashim posted a comment on my site saying that PR.4 was, in fact, moving forward. He wrote that his committee had approved it two days earlier, sending it to the full Senate. I wrote a quick update to my post, and asked Sen. Hashim to give me a call when he could.

I also tried, again, to find any trace of PR.4 through the Legislature’s search function. And again I got nothing. (Well, I got things like the screenshot at the top of this column — no trace of PR.4 in the current biennium as far as the search function could tell.)

Hashim called me back later in the day. He thinks the search problem is due to the fact that constitutional amendments are a separate class of legislation, and are subject to their own processes. For instance, when Hashim’s committee took its vote this week, it wasn’t actually voting on PR.4 itself. Technically, PR.4 was before the Senate Rules Committee. Judiciary was voting to request that Senate Rules discharge the bill and move it to the full Senate. This separate process for constitutional amendments seems to have rendered PR.4 invisible to the Legislature’s “Bill Search” function.

(For those keeping score, the first and only media report I’ve seen about PR.4 this year was a brief note at the end of VTDigger’s “Final Reading” column on Friday, three days after the Senate Judiciary vote. You’d think a constitutional amendment would warrant wider coverage, but I’m not an assignment editor nor do I play one on TV.)

Hashim went on to give a forceful endorsement of the bill.

“This is an incredibly important amendment,” he said. “I am adamant that it pass with strong margins. I will report to the full Senate in the next few weeks; I want to allow time for all senators to explore and understand the amendment.”

Hashim characterized his committee’s vote as “informal” but unanimous, meaning that its two Republican members (Robert Norris and Chris Mattos) raised no objection. He also indicated that Senate leadership is fully behind PR.4.

As for its prospects in the House, Hashim declined to speculate. “My job is to coordinate with my chamber’s leadership and the chair of House Judiciary (Rep. Martin LaLonde). He is aware it’s coming his way.”

Which kinda presumes a positive Senate vote, but that isn’t much of a stretch. The Senate’s vote in 2024 was unanimous in favor of PR.4. And presumably, Senate leadership has done some informal nose-counting.

It’s also safe to assume that Senate and House leadership have been in contact about PR.4, and I doubt it would be moving if it didn’t have a clear path through both chambers.

What will be interesting is whether there will be significant Republican opposition. Only four Republican lawmakers voted against PR.4 in 2024, but quite a few ultraconservatives were swept into office in the 2024 election. We look forward to tracking the votes on PR.4 and reporting all the Republicans who vote “No,” along with any remarks they choose to make about their opposition. Might help us identify the true nutcases within the minority caucuses.

Oh, maybe “nutcases” is a bit strong. Let’s say “bigots” instead.