Vermont ballot measure · November 3, 2026
Vermont Proposal 3, explained
Right to organise and bargain collectively. A ballot measure is a yes-or-no question put directly to voters — no candidate is involved, and the wording on the ballot is the wording that becomes law. This page shows that wording first, then what it actually changes.
The official wordingWhat appears on the ballot. Everything below explains it.
Article 23. [Right to collectively bargain] That employees have a right to organize or join a labor organization for the purpose of collectively bargaining with their employer through an exclusive representative of their choosing for the purpose of negotiating wages, hours, and working conditions and to protect their economic welfare and safety in the workplace. Therefore, no law shall be adopted that interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to collectively bargain with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and workplace safety, or that prohibits the application or execution of an agreement between an employer and a labor organization representing the employer's employees that requires membership in the labor organization as a condition of employment.
What it actually means
Vermont has no right-to-work law, and collective bargaining is governed by federal and state statute. Proposal 3 would write into the state constitution a right for employees to organise or join a union and bargain through a representative they choose. It goes further than a statement of principle: it bars any future Vermont law that would interfere with that bargaining, and bars any law prohibiting union-security agreements — that is, it forecloses a right-to-work law. Five states already have a constitutional right to bargain collectively; Illinois was the most recent, in 2022.
If you vote YES
- A new Article 23 of Chapter I would state that employees have a right to organise or join a labour organisation and bargain collectively through an exclusive representative of their choosing over wages, hours, working conditions and workplace safety.
- No Vermont law could be adopted that "interferes with, negates, or diminishes" that right with respect to wages, hours, other terms and conditions of employment, and workplace safety.
- No Vermont law could prohibit an agreement between an employer and a union that requires union membership as a condition of employment — so a right-to-work law would be unconstitutional in Vermont.
- The protection would cover public and private employees alike, as the text draws no distinction.
- Vermont would join Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Missouri and New York among states with a constitutional right to bargain collectively.
If you vote NO
- Vermont's constitution stays silent on collective bargaining, and the subject remains governed by federal labour law and Vermont statutes.
- Vermont continues to have no right-to-work law, but a future Legislature could enact one, as legislatures in Wisconsin, Michigan and Missouri have done.
- Union-security agreements remain lawful in Vermont under existing law, subject to change by statute.
- Any protection for bargaining rights continues to depend on what the Legislature and Congress do rather than on the state constitution.
The numbers that matter
- States with a constitutional right to bargain collectively
- 5 — Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Missouri and New York
- Most recent comparable vote elsewhere
- Illinois Amendment 1, approved 59%-41% in 2022
- Votes needed to pass
- A simple majority
Ballotpedia's survey; New Jersey's constitution provides the right for private employees only
Official Illinois election results
Chapter II, Section 72, Vermont Constitution
What each side says2 for, 1 against — quoted, not summarised
Why supporters say YES
"At a time when workers are under attack daily from the federal administration, this amendment ensures that workers in Vermont will forever have the option to join a union and bargain for their wages, working conditions, and benefits. We know that when workers are at the table and have a voice with management, workplaces are safer, employees are more productive, and the economy works better for more people."
— Aimee Bertrand, president of the Vermont State Employees Association and vice president of the Vermont AFL-CIO
"The proposed amendment would recognize the fundamental right of employees—including law enforcement officers—to form and join unions and bargain collectively with their employers over wages, hours, and working conditions. … The men and women in our nation's police departments put their lives on the line every day to protect our streets and neighborhoods and they have a right to be involved in the decisions which affect them."
— Patrick Yoes, national president, Fraternal Order of Police
Why opponents say NO
"While this may sound benign at first glance – the First Amendment already guarantees the right to peaceably assemble, often interpreted as freedom of association – this so-called 'right to collectively bargain' effectively strips, in key cases, one's right to individually bargain on one's own behalf. That's not a good thing."
— Rob Roper, former chairman of the Vermont Republican Party
What's genuinely uncertain
- No committee registered in opposition and none reported any spending, which is why one argument appears here against two in favour. The supporting committee, Vote Yes for Workers Rights, had also reported no contributions through September 1, 2026.
- How far "no law shall be adopted that interferes with, negates, or diminishes" the right would reach is untested — for example, whether it would constrain future legislation on public-sector strikes, bargaining units or impasse procedures.
- The amendment does not distinguish public from private employees, and much private-sector bargaining is governed by federal law that a state constitution cannot displace. Where the line falls would be for courts to work out.
- Both Proposal 3 and Proposal 4 are drafted as Article 23. If both pass, the numbering would need to be reconciled; nothing in either text says how.
The bottom line
Whether the right to organise and bargain — and the ban on a Vermont right-to-work law — should be placed beyond the reach of any future Legislature, at the cost of settling a contested labour question in the constitution rather than in statute.
One neutral sentence describing the tradeoff — not a recommendation.
Sources (3)The numbers in the text above link here
- 1Governor Phil Scott Formally Proclaims Constitutional Amendment Proposals 3 and 4 Will Appear on November Ballot — Office of Governor Phil Scott — governor.vermont.gov
- 2Vermont Proposal 3, Right to Collective Bargaining Amendment (2026) — Ballotpedia — ballotpedia.org
- 3Vermonters to decide two state constitutional amendments — WAMC — wamc.org
Checking it against the official text
The Vermont Secretary of State publishes the certified measures and, in most states, an official voter guide with fiscal notes. That is the authoritative version. Everything here is an explanation of it, not a substitute for it.
Confirm this with the official source
Your ballot is determined by your election authority, not by us. Verify your registration, precinct, and sample ballot at Vermont Secretary of State.