Advocates are renewing their push for a Minnesota Equal Rights Amendment, hoping a larger Democratic majority will help send the proposal to voters in 2028. The measure would add broad anti-discrimination protections to the state Constitution, including protections tied to gender identity and pregnancy. Here’s what it could change, why critics have concerns, and what happens next.
Essential Takeaways
- A renewed campaign: Supporters say they’ll push for the amendment during Minnesota’s 2027 legislative session.
- A 2028 decision: If both legislative chambers approve it, voters would decide whether to adopt it.
- A wide scope: The proposal would address discrimination based on race, national origin, disability, gender identity, sex and pregnancy.
- A high bar at the ballot box: It would need a majority of all votes cast, so leaving the question blank would count against it.
- Existing protections remain relevant: Minnesota already has statutory anti-discrimination protections and constitutional rights provisions.
Minnesota’s Equal Rights Amendment is back on the agenda
Supporters are bringing the Minnesota Equal Rights Amendment back to the Capitol, aiming to put broad protections against discrimination into the state Constitution. The proposal would cover characteristics including race, national origin, disability, gender identity, sex and pregnancy, including decisions about whether to become pregnant or end a pregnancy.
The proposal nearly cleared the Legislature in 2024, but disagreements among Democrats over its wording stopped it. Now, with the DFL expected to control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, advocates say they’re more confident about trying again.
Why supporters see a better chance in 2027
The numbers in the Legislature have shifted since the earlier attempt. The League of Minnesota Cities reports that the DFL is projected to hold a 77-57 majority in the House and a 39-28 majority in the Senate, following the 2026 election. The results were still subject to certification and some recounts, but the League said the party’s majorities would remain regardless of the expected recount outcomes.
The 2027 legislative session is scheduled to begin at noon on 12 January, according to the Minnesota House of Representatives. Supporters hope the larger majorities will make it easier to pass the proposal, though approval in both chambers would still be needed before it could go to voters.
What would the amendment add?
Minnesota already has an anti-discrimination framework in the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which is state law rather than part of the Constitution. The Revisor of Statutes’ official chapter covers areas such as employment, real property, public accommodations, public services and education. The proposed amendment would instead place specified protections in the state’s foundational legal document.
That distinction matters. The state Constitution already includes provisions on equality, religious liberty and freedom of conscience, according to the Revisor of Statutes. The amendment would be a change to that existing framework, not a replacement for the Human Rights Act.
A ballot question with a demanding threshold
If the House and Senate approve the amendment, Minnesota voters would decide it in 2028. It would need support from a majority of all votes cast in the election, so not voting on the question would effectively count against adoption.
A governor’s signature isn’t required for a constitutional amendment to reach the ballot. Gov.-elect Amy Klobuchar has expressed openness to the effort, but the legislative process and voter decision are what matter here.
Religious freedom and the courts remain part of the debate
Critics argue that adding protections involving gender identity and abortion could infringe on religious freedom. Others worry that the amendment could give courts too much authority to decide how its protections apply. Those concerns make the final wording especially important, as advocates say they’re still refining it.
Minnesota’s Constitution already addresses religious liberty and the separation of powers, while the Human Rights Act includes provisions relating to exemptions and court actions, the Revisor’s official materials show. The details of any new amendment would matter in how it sits alongside those existing rules.
New York offers a comparison, not a blueprint
Advocates have pointed to New York’s constitutional amendment as a possible model. The Associated Press reported that New York voters approved protections covering areas including gender identity, pregnancy and reproductive healthcare, but also described disagreement over how courts might interpret the measure.
That makes New York a useful point of comparison, not a guarantee of what Minnesota’s amendment would say or how it would work. Minnesota’s wording is still being finalised, and the debate over what belongs in a constitution is likely to continue alongside the campaign for passage.
For Minnesotans, the next key step is whether lawmakers send the proposal to the ballot.
Source Reference Map
Story idea inspired by: [1]
Sources by paragraph: