Adding an ERA to Our Minnesota Constitution
Our goal is to get an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) on the Minnesota ballot for the November 3, 2020 state wide election.
It passed through all 5 House Committees (see below) and a floor vote by March 7, 2019. Yay!! This will be good up until the 2020 elections. The Senate has yet to hear any ERA Bill -- it needs to be heard in 2020, and passed, to go on the MN Ballot. If this does not happen we start over in 2021. [Looking for Federal ERA? Check HERE]
The amendment simply reads:
"Equality under the law shall not be abridged or denied on account of gender."
It passed through all 5 House Committees (see below) and a floor vote by March 7, 2019. Yay!! This will be good up until the 2020 elections. The Senate has yet to hear any ERA Bill -- it needs to be heard in 2020, and passed, to go on the MN Ballot. If this does not happen we start over in 2021. [Looking for Federal ERA? Check HERE]
The amendment simply reads:
"Equality under the law shall not be abridged or denied on account of gender."
|
ERA Minnesota Campaign
|
|
How to Amend the State Constitution - Simplified:
*Committees for MN Equal Rights Amendment:
House:
Senate:
Members: See below. ^ Simple Majority vs Majority
Scroll down to the end to learn more about amending the constitution.
|
The 2019-2020 Legislation
2021-2022 Coming Soon 2020: New Senate File introduced - SF3106. This has new language saying "sex" instead of "gender," (like the US proposed ERA) but has bipartisan support. Main author is Sen. Carla Nelson (R, SD26)
Status: Yet to be heard in Judiciary & Public Safety
2019: Senate File 200 (SF200) & House File 13 (HF13) - A state constitutional amendment providing gender equality under the law with chief author State Senator Dick Cohen and the companion bill with chief author State Representative Mary Kunesh-Podein.
Status: Yet to be heard in Judiciary & Public Safety
Status: Gov. Ops - Passed, Gov Finance - Passed, Judiciary - Passed, Ways & Means - Passed, Rules - Passed, Floor - Passed (72-55) | ||||||
Committees & Their Members
We must sit in on these committees to show there is citizen support for the ERA bills.
House Committees
|
Judiciary Finance & Civil Law Division
Members 18 (PASSED! 2/20/18) Office: 563 State Office Building Meets: Tues, Wed. & Thurs @ 9:45 Basement hearing room #10 Chair: Lesch-DFL Vice Chair: Moller-DFL Republican lead: Scott-R
|
House Committees, Continued
|
Ways & Means
Members 29 (PASSED! 2/25/19) 479 State Office Building Meets: Monday @ 9:45 am Room 200 Chair: Carlson, L.-DFL Vice Chair: Olson-DFL Republican lead: Garofalo-R
|
Rules & Legislative Admin
Members: 19 (PASSED! 3/4/19)) Office: 459 State Office Building Meets: Call of the Chair Chair: Winkler-DFL Vice Chair: Her-DFL Republican lead: Daudt-R
|
Floor Vote
Members: 134 Where: MN State Capitol - House Chambers Meets: Thursday, March 7 @ 3:30 pm PASSED!!! 3/7/19 - 72 For / 55 Against Since it passed all 5 committees it went to the floor of the House for a vote of all members. Since it passed it means the House has given it's okay to be on the ballot in 2020. Arguments = "gender". But it can't happen without the Senate also passing it. Contact/ Lobby your Senator now! |
Senate Committees
|
Senate Judiciary & Public Safety
Members: 9 Office: MN Sen. Bldg (MSB), #3221, Meets Mon, Tues, Wed @ 1:00 -2:30 MSB Room 1100 Phone: (651) 29x-xxx
|
Senate Rules & Administration
Members: 11 Office: MN Sen. Bldg (MSB), #3113, Meets: Call of the Chair Phone: (651) 29x-xxxx
|
FAQs
To learn more about issues and concerns about the ERA click on a question below.
|
Q: What is the complete text of the MinNesota ERA? What are the bill numbers?
Q: What is the History of the ERA?
A: The Equal Rights Amendment was written by Alice Paul in 1921 and first introduced by the Republican Party in 1923. It remained in the party platform until 1980. Presidents Ford and Nixon and their spouses vigorously supported ratifying the ERA. Alice Paul was a Republican. The 19th amendment & the ERA - both written by Alice Paul and friends - have almost identical wording, with the substitution of only four words in the text. 19th Amendment reads: The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex; the ERA reads: Equality of rights shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on of account sex. The Equal Rights Amendment was intended to follow the 19th amendment, not languish for 93 years. Over the years, resistance to constitutional gender equality has changed but has continued to mirror its generation’s perceptions:
Q: Will ERA affect Women in the Military?
A: Constitutionally protected gender equality would provide equal opportunity and redress to women bravely serving in the military. Currently women serve in combat positions – even without an equal rights clause in our constitution. Women can fight and die for their country but they do not have equal rights. One of the primary reasons for the ERA's failure in the 70's and early 80’s was never a legitimate concern - that women would be drafted. Selective Service for women (The Draft): Congress has always had the right to draft women; passage of the ERA would not affect the draft. Q: Would the ERA force religions to ordain women?
A: No. Passage of the ERA would not require religions to ordain women, as the constitution provides for the separation of church and state. Religious freedom would be unaffected by the ratification of the ERA religious hierarchies would continue to be able to exercise their authority over religious matters. Religious liberty falls under separation of church and state; for example: some churches reserve the right to not marry divorced persons or couples who don't complete premarital counseling etc. These decisions of churches will remain unaffected by constitutional gender equality. Q: Will women lose social security benefits?
A: No. The Widow benefit was converted to a survivor or spousal benefit (male or female) in the 1970s in anticipation of passage of the ERA, and it continues to be the standard to this day. Q: Will the ERA cause unisex bathrooms?
A: Unisex bathrooms already exist at stores like Trader Joes, on airplanes, in many public buildings, restaurants, theatres, shopping centers, trains and bus stations - where single stall & family bathrooms are the norm. The ERA did not cause unisex bathrooms; they evolved over time as society found the necessity to provide them. This would not change with the passage of the ERA and is not a valid reason to deny constitutionally protected gender equality to the majority sex, as women are 52% of the U.S. population. |
Q: HOW WOULD the ERA AFFECT Reproductive rights?
A: Women’s equality necessarily requires reproductive and bodily autonomy, and without control over our bodies, women cannot participate as full and equal citizens in this country. The concerns raised of expanding access to public funding of reproductive health care or abortion in Minnesota was settled in 1995 by the Supreme Court's constitutional ruling in Doe v. Gomez. Q: THE 14TH AMENDMENT, THE EQUAL protection clause, ALREADY PROVIDES EQUALITY, isn't that enough?
A: Section 2 of the 14th Amendment specifically includes the word male citizen and male inhabitant three times and is very gender specific in its applicability to males. Female citizens and female inhabitants are not mentioned. A constitutional amendment (the Equal Rights Amendment) is needed to provide constitutionally protected gender equality for women. FYI: If women had been protected under Article XIV of the U.S. Constitution, then Article XIX - the 19th Amendment - providing women the right to vote – would not have been necessary. Q: DON’T WE ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH LAWS FOR WOMEN?
A: We have laws that can be changed by a simple majority in either our legislatures, Congress or the courts. Women and men do not have guaranteed protection against gender discrimination in our constitution -- and thus our country. The Equal Rights Amendment would add strict judicial protection and enforcement to existing legislation. Those elements named in the constitution, i.e. race, religion, and national origin, receive “strict scrutiny” in courts of law; but protection of gender against discrimination is not specified in the constitution, and thereby only receives “intermediate scrutiny”; resulting in unequal justice for women and men. Sen. Kelly Ayotte once stated when explaining why she voted against The Equal Pay Act, "The reason that I voted against that specific bill is that, I looked at it, and there were already existing laws that need to be enforced". Yet without the clear legal guidance provided by a Constitutional amendment, the incremental patchwork of laws addressing women, equal opportunity, and pay equity are "nails without a hammer". Justice Scalia when asked why he voted against The Lilly Ledbetter Petition stated, "The Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on sex, thus I was under no constitutional obligation to do so". Q: Does having an ERA benefit Taxpapers?
A: Yes. Constitutionally guaranteed equality would reinforce existing laws and clarify women’s legal rights to economic and employment parity with men. When women are paid less for the same job as men, or are denied equal opportunities for advancement, it damages our economy and our community. For too long women have been treated as ‘cheap labor’, underpaid for equal work. When women’s salaries have neither parity with men’s salaries nor opportunity for advancement, government safety net programs such as SNAP (food stamps) and reduced-cost lunch programs are needed to make up the slack in wages. Better pay would help reduce the need (costs) of these programs. Women deserve the same dignity as men when providing for their families - without having to rely on government assistance to backfill the wage gap. Q: IS THE ERA PARTISAN?
A: The ERA should not be partisan. The fight for equality has a long bipartisan history and bipartisanship must be the key to success of its final ratification.
|
Learn more about Amending the Constitution:
Want to know even more? Check out "Minnesota Constitutional Amendments: History and Legal Principals"
