Voters next year may have the opportunity to do something that African-American legislators have been unable to accomplish for decades: strike the phrase “and Providence Plantations” from the state’s name.

In actions Thursday and Friday that some described as historic, the House and then the Senate voted overwhelmingly to send to voters in November 2010 a constitutional amendment that would rename the state simply “Rhode Island.”

It’s not quite a done deal yet. Even though two identical bills were passed, one of them must be approved by both sides of the legislature. Senate leaders say they plan to meet again this week, so the Senate will have an opportunity to pass the House bill. House leaders were less specific about when they will meet again saying only that they will come back briefly in July. So that would give them a crack at the Senate bill and provide two possible paths for the question to go to referendum.

The sponsors sounded confident that the voters will finally be able to weigh in on changing the state’s name — a debate that never before even reached the full House, despite years of efforts by several legislators.

Governor Carcieri does not support the name change, according to spokeswoman Amy Kempe. His argument is similar to those voiced by the handful of legislative opponents. When plantations became part of the state’s name in the 1600s, the word referred to the expanse of settled land in the state. It had nothing to do with the farms cultivated by slaves.

But Kempe said the governor believes he is excluded from using his veto power for bills that call for referendums for constitutional amendments, so he plans not to take any action.

The House sponsor, State Rep. Joseph S. Almeida, D- Providence, struggled in an interview Saturday to explain why he won the favorable vote after so many years of failure. The vote was 70 to 3 in the House and 31 to 3 in the Senate.

He and other African-Americans say they find the “plantations’ reference an offensive reminder of slavery. But there are only a handful of minority legislators among the 75 representatives and 38 senators. What changed?

“It’s got nothing to do with Barack Obama,” insisted Almeida. He said he had no certain answers. “I just think it’s the mood of the country. I guess it was the right time.”

The votes do seem to be part of a trend. Earlier this year Brown University decided to atone for the key role its founders played in the slave trade by erecting a monument and starting a fund to benefit Providence schoolchildren. Earlier this month, the U.S. Senate voted to apologize for the nation’s participation in slavery.

But anyone who witnessed the hourlong debate in the House Thursday night could also see that many of the votes were due to the friendship and respect that Almeida has accrued in his 12 years as a representative.

Several legislators said they were not offended by the word “plantations” and they didn’t think it was an issue worthy of much attention. But they said they would support Almeida because it was important to him and to his constituents.

“This is about being sensitive to a segment of society and letting them vote,” said Rep. Charlene M. Lima, D-Cranston.

“This hurts many of the people who live in the community,” said Rep. Thomas C. Slater, D-Providence. “It hurts people who are a different color and who are picked on constantly. If the word plantation hurts them so much, it hurts me.”

Rep. Arthur J. Corvese, D-North Providence, said there are other social issues that he believes are more important than getting rid of the word “plantation.” But he said out of his respect for Almeida, and those he represents, he was giving Almeida his vote.

State Rep. Doug Gablinske, D-Bristol, said that when he spoke out in March in favor of the bill, and said he was not proud of his community’s involvement in the slave trade hundreds of years ago, he got more flack from his constituents than he has on any other issue.

But he said he believes it’s much easier for white men and women to “enjoy this country’s bounty” and people should try walking “in the shoes of a black man.” He said he was backing Almeida.

Possibly the biggest surprise of the night came from Rep. Joseph A. Trillo, R-Warwick, an outspoken curmudgeon who frequently voices conservative concerns. “I came into this room fully expecting to vote against this,” Trillo said. “But I feel if this is important to you and your community, why not put it out to the voters? I think it will be hard to get it passed, but you and your community should have the opportunity to try.”

Rep. Kenneth Carter, D-North Kingstown, may have been the briefest: “Joe, you’ve become a good friend. You’ve got my vote.”

Almeida insisted words can change meaning over time, and they can hurt.

The word “Hope” on the state seal is positive to many, he said. But to others, it is the name of a notorious slave ship.

The word plantation is hurtful to his 83-year-old father, Almeida said. He’s watching now, he said. And why, he asked, are Gablinske’s constituents so upset over his support of the bill? “That should tell you something.”

The strongest opposition came from Rep. Al Gemma, D-Warwick. He said when King Charles II granted a charter in 1663 to the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, the word plantation referred to the state’s towns.

State Rep. Michael A. Rice, D-South Kingstown, made a similar argument, saying the bill would “nullify pre-colonial history.”

But near the end of the debate, Rice rose again and said, “Congratulations, Joe. You’ve won me over.”

After the vote, Almeida was mobbed by his fellow legislators, offering to shake his hand or give him a hug.

When he got home, he said, he found his father happy, and teary.

To reach the Web site and blog of the committee supporting the referendum effort, go to http://wearenotaplantation.blogspot.com.

plord@projo.com