As we enter the final days of the legislative session, there are many omnibus bills that need to be discussed and receive final approval. This week, we celebrated National Police Week. We honor, respect, and remember everyone who works to keep our communities safe. Thank you for choosing this career to serve the people of our district. The work you do every day is appreciated. This appreciation is extended to everyone who answers our 911 calls and agencies such as fire departments and EMS who help those in need.
|
Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)
A federal Equal Rights Amendment was first proposed in the 1920s, but it was not until 1972 that Congress passed and submitted the amendment to the states for ratification. The Constitutional Amendment read, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Congress set a seven-year sunset for ratification. When the required 38 states did not ratify, Congress extended the deadline to 1982. However, by 1982, the required number of states had not ratified the ERA essentially leaving the amendment dormant. Minnesota ratified the ERA in 1973.
The current version of the ERA being considered by the Minnesota House diverges significantly from the original language drafted in 1972. Many residents have voiced serious concerns with this new ERA language. SF 37 proposes a constitutional amendment to be placed on the ballot in 2026.
The proposed ballot question will read, “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?”
Currently, we are all equal under the law. This is not an equal rights amendment when the proposed amendment excludes protection for the elderly, our most vulnerable, and limits religious freedoms. The vague reference to “pregnancy” in the ballot question is misleading and unclear, leaving voters uninformed about the true implications of the amendment. We deserve to know what we will be voting on, and the way the ballot question is written is deceptive and does not tell the story of how expansive this new language would be.
|
Paid Leave
Tensions flared during debate on HF 5363 which makes changes to the Paid Leave program. When the government forces small businesses to do something they cannot afford to do, it does not make them more competitive, it puts them out of business.
The Paid Leave mandate is especially disadvantageous to Main Street. The allowance for up to 20 weeks off per year for every worker for a wide range of reasons, including taking care of anyone with whom an applicant has a “personal” relationship, presents an impossible challenge for small businesses already facing chronic workforce shortages and persistent inflationary pressure.
Equally troubling is Minnesota’s inability to accurately forecast what the costs will be for employers and employees. In 2023, DEED asserted the cost would not rise beyond 0.7% to fund the program. However, it is estimated the payroll tax will rise to 33% higher than last year’s promise. This is a clear sign the program is unsustainable at the new projected tax rate.
Have a great weekend!
|
