AUGUSTA — Maine farmworkers could soon be covered by the state’s minimum wage law for the first time after lawmakers voted this week to extend the law to the state’s agriculture industry.

The proposal, sponsored by Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross, D-Portland, is similar to one proposed last year by Gov. Janet Mills. That effort fell short after lawmakers passed an amended version of the bill and Mills vetoed it.

The new legislation, LD 589, passed 74-72 in the House of Representatives on Tuesday and 22-12 in the Senate on Monday. The bill got final passage in the House in the afternoon on a 74-73 vote and was enacted in the Senate with no roll call. It is now headed to the governor.

While the governor is expected to sign the bill into law, aides did not respond Tuesday to a question about whether she supports it.

Meanwhile, a separate bill that would provide legal protections to farmworkers who discuss their working conditions and pay with other farmhands was rejected by the House, 75-71. That same bill had been previously approved by the Senate, meaning the bill will die between chambers unless a compromise is reached.

Under existing law, Maine farmhands can earn as little as $7.25 an hour. That is the federal minimum wage, which has not been raised since 2009.

Talbot Ross’ bill, which was supported by a range of agricultural associations, would require farmworkers be paid at least the state minimum wage, which is currently $14.65 an hour and increases automatically with inflation.

Advocates have been trying to persuade lawmakers to require the state minimum wage for farmworkers for years. They came close to succeeding last year after a stakeholder group proposed a compromise that Mills introduced to the Legislature. A version of Mills’ bill was enacted in both chambers, but the governor vetoed it, citing changes made during the committee process, including a provision that would have allowed workers to sue over alleged violations.

During floor debates this week, supporters argued the exclusion of farmworkers from minimum wage laws was a long-standing injustice that needs to be corrected. Many farmers are already paying the state minimum or more, and the others should be required to do the same, they argued.

The version of the bill working its way through the Legislature doesn’t allow workers to sue over violations. It also would allow farmers to continue paying employees based on piecework, or the amount they can harvest or process in a shift, as long as they earn at least the minimum hourly wage.

Opponents said the bill would hurt farmers and put them out of business, and that it would jeopardize piecework positions for some who do it to supplement their incomes but don’t meet the minimum wage standard.

Rep. Gary Drinkwater, R-Milford, said the bill would make it more difficult for seniors or teenagers to be paid by piecework, because they may not be able to harvest enough blueberries to justify their employment.

“Anyone who cannot rake enough blueberries to meet the hourly wage simply won’t be hired,” Drinkwater said. “This bill shuts out the very people who depend on seasonal work.”

Rep. Rafael Macias, D-Topsham, said the bill sends a message to farmworkers that they and their work are valued.

“For too long, agricultural workers, those who plant our food, harvest berries, wrap wreaths, milk cows and work long hours under the sun, have been excluded from basic wage protections most of us take for granted,” Macias said. “These exclusions are rooted in a shameful legacy, and they have no place in the Maine of today. All of our hearts should hurt for this long injustice.”

During a Senate floor debate Monday, Talbot Ross argued that the bill was necessary to correct the historical injustice of underpaying farm hands. She said passing the bill would send the message that Maine would “no longer tolerate a system built on exclusion and inequity.”

After that, the floor debate devolved when Republicans took offense to references to historical discrimination.

“I planned to sit this one out,” said Sen. James Libby, R-Standish. “But I can’t sit in my chair and listen to people talk about, ‘you must support this bill this or else you don’t care about minorities.’ That is not true.”

Sen. Joseph Martin, R-Rumford, said he was offended that “somebody would call it racist for someone to pick blueberries or strawberries.” And Sen. Scott Cyrway, R-Albion, fondly recalled doing piecework as a child, saying such work was not “slave labor” and “we are not second-class citizens.”

Those inferences drew a sharp rebuke from Talbot Ross, who said Republicans twisted her words and that listening to the debate was “some of the hardest moments for me to sit in this chair.” She stressed that she was criticizing systems, not individuals.

“Calling people racist? I work very hard every single solitary day not to do that because I do not believe that’s where the discussion should start,” Talbot Ross said.

“Maybe read United States history, because I am talking about a pattern of discrimination, not individual people who may be of a certain ideology. I’m talking about patterns that history cannot deny. And I will not sit here and have you twist my words to claim otherwise.”

Despite the votes in favor of the minimum wage, a bill that would afford legal protections to farmhands who discuss their working conditions and pay with each other appears doomed.

Those protections are guaranteed to private sector workers through the National Labor Relations Act, but farmworkers are excluded and state lawmakers have made repeated attempts to protect what is known as “concerted activity.”

Opponents of LD 588 argued that it would allow farmworkers to form unions, citing testimony from labor unions advocating for collective bargaining rights for farmers.

Supporters argued that the bill would simply allow workers to talk about wages and working conditions, but would not give them collective bargaining rights.

While previously supported in the Senate, the House voted 75-71 to reject the bill Tuesday. It will likely die between the chambers unless a compromise is reached or enough House members change their votes.