Will this be the year for Minnesota's long-stalled Equal Rights Amendment?

This is the year. They have said it many times before, and they hope they won't say it again.

Equal Rights Amendment supporters, whose green shirts and "ERA Yes" buttons have been a fixture at the Capitol for decades, heralded "historic" votes this week.

The Senate agreed to put an amendment before voters asking to change the state Constitution to guarantee equal rights regardless of gender. Both the House and Senate also approved a resolution urging Congress to allow the Equal Rights Amendment to be enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Advocates have hoped DFL control of the Legislature this year would result in the long-awaited passage of those priorities. They are now waiting to see if the House will vote on the proposed constitutional amendment amid the end-of-session flurry of budget deals.

"A hundred years of people fighting for the Equal Rights Amendment is not a silly symbol. It is a moral imperative," said Betty Folliard, who has spent years pushing for the state and federal amendments. "It is a moral imperative that we have equality of rights for all people, and all means all."

The proposed amendment to the Minnesota Constitution states that, "Equality under the law shall not be abridged or denied by this state or any of its cities, counties, or other political subdivisions on account of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry, or national origin."

The other measure, a resolution calling on Congress to act, is on its way to Gov. Tim Walz for his signature. It comes about one month after the U.S. Senate attempted to advance the Equal Rights Amendment on the anniversary of when it was first proposed in Congress a century ago.

Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972 and sent it to the states to ratify. Not enough states did so before a 1982 deadline, but the required three-quarters threshold has since been met. Last month Republicans in the U.S. Senate blocked the effort to remove that deadline.

Minnesota legislators are calling on Congress to determine the requirements have been met to ratify the amendment.

"As more and more of our states pass these pieces of legislation at the state level, it really bolsters and informs them that this is really important. So I'm really hopeful that that's a signal that they need to get going on it as well," said Sen. Mary Kunesh, DFL-New Brighton.

While some Republicans legislators joined Democrats in voting for the measures, they also raised concerns about the language.

"Minnesota currently has considerable legal protections for those who may face discrimination in their lives," said Sen. Carla Nelson, R-Rochester. "And the use of terms like gender expression or identity, in addition to sex, could actually undermine efforts to have women-specific programs or services, including women's shelters, business development programs."

Supporters contend other constitutional amendments are insufficient to protect against gender discrimination, and the change would bolster legal support for equality. Many of the bill backers have said the need for stronger protections hits close to home.

"It's very personal for me, when I think of all the women that I know that have lost thousands of dollars, sometimes millions of dollars, in the lack of equal pay," Kunesh said. "The discrepancy and the discrimination against women for how they believe, how they dress, and our LGBTQ community. So this is an incredible victory for Minnesota."

But when it comes to the amending the state's Constitution, voters ultimately decide whether to make the change. If the House passes the bill, it would go on the 2024 ballot, said Sen. Sandra Pappas, DFL-St. Paul.

She noted supporters' work isn't over after legislative votes. Their next effort would be outreach and fundraising to educate Minnesotans about the amendment.

If legislators wait until next year to pass the proposal, Folliard, a former legislator, said they wouldn't have sufficient time to educate voters.

"We need time to go around the state to have the conversations about why the Equal Rights Amendment needs to be in our founding document, our Constitution," she said. "We need 18 months, not five months."