Equal Rights Amendment

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would have guaranteed equal rights under law for Americans regardless of gender.

"Three-state strategy"

Some ERA supporters argue that the earlier 35 ratifications are still valid, and that only three more ratifications are necessary without Congress having to even resubmit the ERA anew to the nation's state lawmakers. According to this theory, three additional states could belatedly ratify the ERA, arguing that the history of the 27th Amendment—which was ratified more than 200 years after it was first proposed—supports the thinking behind this approach. The theory postulates that, under the 1939 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Coleman v. Miller, Congress would then—in such a scenario—be in a position to decide whether or not the ERA had been validly ratified under the Court's "political question" doctrine which reserves to Congress the power to pass judgment on the validity of a ratification.

Related Topics:
27th Amendment - Coleman v. Miller

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In 1997, an article published in the William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, entitled "Why the ERA Remains Legally Viable and Properly Before the States"http://www.4ERA.org/threestate.html presents the legal rationale for what has come to be known as the "Three State Strategy." It argues, based on earlier precedents, that:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(1) the 35 ratifications from state legislatures during the 1970s remain valid;

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(2) rescissions of prior ratifications are not constitutional;

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(3) the 1978 extension of the ERA's deadline demonstrates that Congress can amend previously-established deadlines; and

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(4) the 27th Amendment's abnormally long ratification period set a standard of "sufficiently contemporaneous"—a term used during the Supreme Court's 1921 ruling in Dillon v. Gloss, giving Congress the power to set time limits on constitutional amendments that it wishes to set such deadlines on.

Related Topics:
1921 - Dillon v. Gloss

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The article in the William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law further reasons that because the Constitution gives Congress the power to amend the Constitution—and indeed the power to alter aspects of the ratification process itself—that if and when three additional states ratify the ERA, Congress has the power to deem the Amendment properly ratified and added to the Constitution. The Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service http://www.4ERA.org/threestate.html has issued a report suggesting that this theory is at least worthy of serious consideration.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pursuant to this legal rationale, ratification efforts have increased dramatically during the last few years. The Illinois House of Representatives as late as May 21, 2003, adopted a resolution ratifying the ERA—proposed in 1972—but the Illinois Senate did not follow the House's lead and that particular resolution died in the General Assembly's upper chamber by the end of 2004. On April 5, 2005, the Arkansas Senate voted 16 yeas, 15 nays and 4 "not voting" on a resolution to approve the ERA, and while that number would ordinarily be sufficient for adoption in many state legislative bodies, under the parliamentary rules of the Arkansas Senate, a resolution of this type requires a majority vote of the total membership—which would have been at least 18 yeas. ERA ratification resolutions have likewise been introduced in Florida and Illinois during 2005.

Related Topics:
May 21 - 2003 - 2004 - April 5 - 2005 - Arkansas

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

To clarify, unlike the aforementioned House Joint Resolution No. 208 of the 92nd Congress and unlike the aforementioned House Joint Resolution No. 638 of the 95th Congress, the 1789 resolution of the 1st Congress, proposing what is today the 27th Amendment did not set any deadline on that measure's ratification by the state legislatures. Furthermore, neither the Supreme Court—nor any lower Federal court—has ruled on whether the 27th Amendment is actually a valid part of the Federal Constitution.

Related Topics:
1789 - 1st Congress

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~