Top MN Progressives 'Stunned' By Stalled ERA, Call For Special Session

ST. PAUL, MN — Minnesota's leading progressive advocacy group, "Gender Justice," is calling for a special legislative session so lawmakers can pass the state "Equal Rights Amendment" bill.

The measure — which was approved by the House but did not pass the Senate before the session ended Sunday — would ask voters at the ballot box to add new language to the state constitution.

The language is needed to protect minority groups from discrimination, advocates say.

"Amid widespread attacks on reproductive and LGBTQ rights nationwide, we call on Governor Walz to hold an immediate special session for the Legislature to vote on the Equal Rights Amendment," said Megan Peterson, executive director at Gender Justice, in a statement.

"We are stunned and deeply disappointed that, despite having the necessary votes, the pro-LGBTQ and pro-reproductive freedom majority in the Legislature could not get the job done. Tonight, the Legislature missed a crucial opportunity to give Minnesota voters the opportunity to enshrine equal protections for all into law."

The ERA ballot question would be:

"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?”

The ballot question does not mention "gender identity or gender expression," but such language would be added to the constitution, according to the bill:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED.

An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the amendment
is adopted, a section shall be added to article I, to read:

Sec. 18.

All persons shall be guaranteed equal rights under the laws of this state. The
state shall not discriminate against any person in intent or effect on account of one or more
of the following:

(a) race;

(b) color;

(c) national origin;

(d) ancestry;

(e) disability; or

(f) sex, including but not limited to:

(i) making and effectuating decisions about all matters relating to one's own pregnancy
or decision whether to become or remain pregnant;

(ii) gender identity or gender expression; or

(iii) sexual orientation.

The ballot question would be voted on during the 2026 general election and — if passed — implemented into the state constitution in 2027.

Critics of the ERA call the language deceptive and slam it as the "Erosion of Rights Amendment," arguing that it would diminish protections of women in favor of protecting people based on their "gender identity or expression."

Specifically, Republicans say the ERA could spell the end of girls' sports and sex-separated facilities, such as homeless shelters.

Additionally, critics note that the ballot question does not protect religious observers — such as Christians, Muslims, or Jews — from discrimination.