Controversial ‘Equal Rights Amendment’ resurfaces at legislature, unlikely to pass

Legislation that attempts to enshrine abortion access, transgender rights, and other items in the Minnesota Constitution was reviewed in a meeting of the State Government Finance and Policy Committee in the Minnesota House of Representatives April 3.

Sponsored by Rep. Leigh Finke, DFL-St. Paul, HF501 would ask Minnesota voters to decide whether the so-called Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) should be placed in the Minnesota Constitution. Finke is the first transgender member of the Minnesota Legislature.

If passed by the legislature, Minnesota’s 2026 general election ballot would include the following question:

“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to say that all persons shall be guaranteed equal rights under the laws of this state, and shall not be discriminated against on account of race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, or sex, including pregnancy, gender, and sexual orientation?”

Should a majority of Minnesota voters in the 2026 general election answer affirmatively, then language would be added to the state constitution which says “the state shall not discriminate against any person in intent or effect (emphasis added)” on account of one of the above categories.

Absent from the list of categories is protection against religious discrimination.

When introducing the bill, Finke told fellow legislators that not everyone in Minnesota has constitutional protections against discrimination.

“This is not a statement bill,” said Finke. “The ERA as we are proposing makes important and significant changes to how our state defends the rights of all of our neighbors. Currently not all of our friends and neighbors and constituents are afforded the same legal, constitutional protections in the state of Minnesota. It is long past time for that to change.”

During public testimony on the bill, members of the public and those affiliated with certain interest groups were given an opportunity to speak about their thoughts on the bill. Among them was Renee Carlson, general counsel for True North Legal. Carlson argued that the ERA as written creates problems for sex equality that it claims to resolve.

“HF501, the supposed Equal Rights Amendment, expands the definition of sex, creating a problem it purports to resolve—inequality,” stated Carlson. “It undermines long-standing legal protections for preborn children, people of faith, women and girls. New protections based on pregnancy decisions would enshrine unfettered access to abortion on demand into the Minnesota Constitution.”

Carlson went on to explain that enshrining “gender identity” in the constitution would force courts to “ignore real biological differences” and result in women and girls losing legal protections and opportunities.

Furthermore, Carlson also said that failing to include religion among the list of protected categories would give judges the ability to “rewrite the law” and limit protections for people of faith and religious organizations.

Responding to a question about why religion was not included in the bill’s list of protected categories, Finke said the state constitution’s first clause “is the strongest legal protection for religious practice and freedom in the entire country.” Finke said the bill would not limit religious practice and the notion of restricting religious practice is “contrary to me.”

Opposing the bill, Rep. Jim Nash, R-Waconia, told his fellow legislators, “Once again, we’ve had the conversation where religious protection is excluded. I find that to be just the wrong direction, and I think that this is not the direction that the state of Minnesota needs to be going.”

Finke closed discussion of HF 501 by saying that discrimination against certain communities is still legal in many places. The DFL lawmaker also acknowledged that HF 501 would not move forward because of Republican opposition.

HF 501 was subsequently laid over for possible inclusion in a later omnibus bill. Given the 67-67 tie in the House and the GOP opposition, the current version of the ERA likely has no chance of becoming law this legislative session.

Proposals to place a version of the ERA before the voters have existed at the Minnesota State Capitol for years. In 2024, Democrats attempted to pass the ERA through the state legislature but failed despite having majorities in both the House and Minnesota Senate.

The current version of the ERA is the same that was voted on last year.

Sarah Prentice

Sarah Prentice has previously written for Campus Reform and worked as an intern at Media Research Center. While continuing to pursue her degree in political science, she worked full-time in communications and media outreach for a pro-woman, pro-life non-profit. Now a fellow at Alpha News during her senior year of college, she hopes to graduate with her political science degree from SUNY Brockport and combine it with her media and communications experience to pursue political journalism. She has a special interest in reporting on stories related to social issues, education, public health, and religious freedom.