Bill aims to amend state constitution with explicit equal rights guarantees

In the 2026 general election, state voters will pick the state’s constitutional officers, senators and representatives.

They may also decide if the state constitution should be amended to codify the right to equality.

Sponsored by Rep. Leigh Finke (DFL-St. Paul), HF501 would put the following question before voters: “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?”

“We are trying to protect communities that we believe need to be protected,” said Finke, the first openly transgender member of the Legislature. “… My community is being crushed — crushed — right now by a federal government that is actively trying to eradicate our very existence.”

Heard Thursday by the House State Government Finance and Policy Committee, the proposal was held over for possible omnibus bill inclusion.

Finke said it is the same bill passed 68-62 by the House late in the 2024 session, but did not receive a Senate vote.

Getting this proposed amendment on the ballot would not require action by Gov. Tim Walz because, per the state constitution, if approved by the House and Senate the question will be before voters.

Supporters say the change would ensure such protections cannot be taken away, no matter which political party is in charge or which judges are serving on the bench.

“It is really about having an equal opportunity, an opportunity to prove yourself, to be who you are,” said Rep. Kristin Bahner (DFL-Maple Grove).

“If we are to be discriminated against, any one of the folks listed in this bill, and go to a court of law, it would literally be a 50-50 roll of the dice on whether or not the law of the land would be enforced and whether or not our rights would be upheld. … I don’t feel comfortable having my rights be a roll of the dice.”

Among arguments by opponents are abortion access and a lack of protection for religious views.

“The supposed-Equal Rights Amendment expands the definition of sex, creating a problem it purports to resolve: inequality,” said Renee Carlson, general counsel for True North Legal. “It undermines long-standing legal protections for pre-born 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," she continued. "HF501 also adds protections based on gender identity and expression but not religion, giving judges a blank check to rewrite the law and interpret the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to narrow protections for religious organizations and people of faith. Including gender identity and expression would also require courts to ignore real biological differences stripping women and girls of many long-standing legal protections.”

Finke said the first clause of the state constitution already offers the “strongest legal protection” for religious freedom in the country.

“When you hear that reproductive rights are human rights, what about the human rights of preborn children?” said Rep. Ben Davis (R-Merrifield).

Answered Finke: “This bill does not take a stand on that. This bill ask Minnesotans to be able to take a vote on what they want their Minnesota Constitution to reflect.”

Rep. Jim Nash (R-Waconia) urged people not to be fooled that this is the ERA many people think it is. “There is a codification of many things that are not in the other ERA, and that is the sticking point of our objections to this.”