FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Abstract, dissertation, book

Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 8 |

«Congressional Research Service 7-5700 R42979 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress The Proposed Equal ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment:

Contemporary Ratification Issues

Thomas H. Neale

Specialist in American National Government

May 9, 2013

Congressional Research Service




CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues


The year 2012 marked the 30th anniversary of the expiration of the proposed Equal Rights

Amendment’s extended ratification deadline. Since that time, new analyses have emerged that bear on the question of whether the amendment proposed in 1972 remains constitutionally viable.

This report examines the legislative history of an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and both identifies and provides an analysis of contemporary factors that may bear on its present and future viability.

An Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress in 1923. After 49 years of effort by supporters, an amendment declaring that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex” was proposed by Congress for ratification by the states in 1972. This amendment will be referred to hereinafter as “the proposed Equal Rights Amendment,” or “the proposed ERA.” Article V of the Constitution requires that three-fourths of the states, 38 at present, must ratify an amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution. In addition to this requirement, Congress has added a seven-year ratification deadline to the 18th, 20th, and all subsequent amendments. In the proposed ERA, the deadline was included in the preamble to the authorizing resolution, rather than in the body of the amendment.

As originally proposed, the amendment would have expired in 1979 if not ratified by 38 states.

Although the proposed ERA was eventually approved by 35 states, controversy and opposition combined with other issues to bring the ratification process to a halt as the deadline approached.

In 1978, Congress voted to extend the deadline until June 30, 1982. Opponents claimed the extension violated the spirit, if not the letter of the amendment process, but supporters insisted the amendment needed more time for state consideration, and that the deadline, as noted previously, was placed not in the amendment, but in the preamble to the authorizing resolution.

Notwithstanding the action of Congress, no further states ratified the proposed Equal Rights Amendment during the extension period, and it was presumed to have expired in 1982. During the same period, the legislatures of five states passed resolutions rescinding their earlier ratifications, a process referred to as rescission. The Supreme Court had agreed to hear cases on the rescission question, but the proposed ERA expired before they could be heard, and the High Court dismissed the cases as moot.

In recent years, proponents of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment have asserted that Congress possesses both the authority to repeal the original ratification time limit and its 1978 extension of that limit, and to restart the clock on ratification at the current level of 35 states, without a time limit. Thus, they contend that only three additional state ratifications would be necessary at any time in the future for the proposed ERA to be adopted as an amendment to the Constitution. This has been referred to as the “three state” approach. Joint resolutions to repeal the deadline and reopen the ratification process were introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives during the 112th Congress. Although no action was taken beyond routine committee referral, new versions of these measures may be introduced in the 113th Congress.

In support of their arguments, ERA proponents claim that Article V of the Constitution gives Congress uniquely broad authority over the amendment process. They also point to Supreme Court decisions, Dillon v. Gloss and Coleman V. Miller, that they claim provide support for this assertion. In addition, they cite the example of the 27th Amendment, also known as the “Madison Amendment,” which was ratified in 1992, after having been pending for 203 years. This, they maintain, further supports their assertion that proposed amendments that do not include time

–  –  –

limits within the body of the amendment text itself, remain viable and eligible for ratification indefinitely.

Opponents of further extension may argue that attempting to revive the amendment would be politically divisive, and that providing the proposed ERA with a “third bite of the apple” would be contrary to the spirit and perhaps the letter of Article V and the intentions of Congress in setting the earlier limits. They would arguably reject the example of the 27th Amendment, which, unlike the proposed ERA, never had a ratification time limit. Further, they might claim that efforts to revive the proposed Equal Rights Amendment ignore the possibility that state ratifications may have expired with the proposed ERA in 1982, and that proponents of the amendment do not address the issue of state rescission, which has never been specifically addressed by any U.S. court, but only dismissed by the Supreme Court because the cases accepted on appeal had become moot.

The “fresh start approach” provides an alternative means to revive the Equal Rights Amendment.

It consists of starting over by introducing a new equal rights amendment, identical to, but distinct from the 1972 proposal. S.J. Res, 10, introduced by Senator Robert Menendez in the 113th Congress, falls into this category.

These are some of the issues that could come before Congress should legislation repealing the earlier deadlines assigned to the proposed Equal Rights Amendment be given active consideration in the future, or should Congress seek to accede to additional ratifications without consideration of the expired deadlines in the congressional resolutions.

Congressional Research Service The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues Contents Introduction

An Equal Rights Amendment: Legislative and Ratification History

Five Decades of Effort: Building Support for an Equal Rights Amendment in Congress, 1923-1970

Congress Approves and Proposes the Equal Rights Amendment, 1970-1972

First Vote in the House, 91st Congress—1970

Passage and Proposal by Congress, 92nd Congress—1971-1972

Congress Sets a Seven-Year Ratification Deadline

Ratification Efforts in the States

Ratification Is Extended in 1978, but Expires in 1982

Rescission: A Legal Challenge to the Ratification Process

Renewed Legislative and Constitutional Proposals, 1982 to the Present

“Fresh Start” Proposals

112th and 113th Congresses: Proposed “Fresh Start” Amendments

“Three-State” Proposals

112th and 113th Congresses: “Three-State” and Related Legislative Proposals................. 12 Contemporary Viability of the Equal Rights Amendment

Article V: Congressional Authority over the Amendment Process

The Madison Amendment (the 27th Amendment): A Dormant Proposal Revived and Ratified

Ratification of the Madison Amendment: A Model for the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment?

The Role of the Supreme Court Decisions in Dillon v. Gloss and Coleman v. Miller............. 20 Ancillary Issues

Origins of the Seven-Year Ratification Deadline


Congressional Promulgation of Amendments

The Proposed District of Columbia Voting Rights (Congressional Representation) Amendment—Congress Places a Ratification Deadline in the Body of the Amendment

Concluding Observations

Contacts Author Contact Information

–  –  –

Introduction In July 1923, at a conference held to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the historic Seneca Falls Convention, women’s suffrage leader and feminist Alice Paul announced her intention to develop and promote a new constitutional amendment. Originally named the Mott Amendment for Lucretia Mott, the prominent 19th century abolitionist, women’s rights activist, and social reformer, it was intended to guarantee equality under the law for men and women. It was proposed in the context of the 1920 ratification of the 19th Amendment, which established the right of women to vote: Paul, a prominent suffragist and member of the National Women’s Party, characterized the amendment as the next logical step for the women’s movement.1 The proposed “Mott Amendment” originally stated that “men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.” The proposed amendment was first introduced six months later, in December 1923, in the 68th Congress.

Nearly half a century passed before the Mott Amendment, later named the Paul Amendment, and ultimately modified to become the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), was approved by Congress and proposed to the states for ratification in 1972. In common with the 18th and 20th through 26th Amendments, the proposed ERA included a seven-year deadline for ratification; in this case the deadline was included in the proposing clause that preceded the text of the amendment. After considerable early progress in the states, ratifications slowed, and the process ultimately stalled at 35 states, three short of the 38 approvals (three-fourths of the states) required by the Constitution. As the 1979 deadline approached, however, ERA supporters capitalized on the fact that the seven-year time limit was incorporated in the amendment’s proposing clause (also known as the preamble to the joint resolution authorizing the amendment) rather than in the body of the amendment. Concluding that the amendment was not time-limited, Congress extended the ratification period by 38 months, through 1982. No further states added their approval during the extension, however, and the proposed ERA appeared to expire in 1982.

Since the proposed ERA’s extended ratification period expired in 1982, new analyses have emerged that have led ERA supporters to assert that the amendment remains viable, and that the period for its ratification could be extended indefinitely by congressional action.

This report examines the legislative history of the various proposals that ultimately emerged as the proposed Equal Rights Amendment and both identifies and provides an analysis of contemporary factors that may bear on its present and future viability.

An Equal Rights Amendment: Legislative and Ratification History Despite the efforts of women’s rights advocates in every Congress, nearly 50 years passed between the time when the Mott Amendment was first introduced in 1923 and approval of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment by Congress as submitted to the states in 1972.

“Alice Paul, Feminist, Suffragist, and Political Strategist,” The Alice Paul Institute, at http://www.alicepaul.org/ alicepaul.htm.

–  –  –

Five Decades of Effort: Building Support for an Equal Rights Amendment in Congress, 1923-1970 The first proposal for an equal rights amendment, drafted by Alice Paul, was introduced in the 68th Congress in 1923.2 In its original form, the text of the amendment read as follows:

Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.3 Although Alice Paul characterized the then-Lucretia Mott Amendment as a logical and necessary next step in the campaign for women’s rights following the 19th Amendment, the proposal made little progress in Congress over the course of more than two decades. During the years following its first introduction, an equal rights amendment was the subject of hearings in either the House or Senate in almost every Congress. According to one study, the proposal was the subject of committee action, primarily hearings, on 32 occasions between 1923 and 1946, but it came to the floor for the first time, in the Senate, only in the latter year.4 During this period, however, the proposal continued to evolve. In 1943, for instance, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported a version of an equal rights amendment incorporating revised language that remained unchanged

until 1971:

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 and the several states shall have power, within their respective jurisdictions, to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.5 Throughout this period, amendment proponents faced opposition from traditionalists, organized labor, and some leaders of the women’s movement. According to one study of the amendment’s long pendency in Congress, “[t]he most persistent and most compelling trouble that crippled prospects for an ERA from its introduction in 1923 until a year after Congress initially passed it on to the states was opposition from most of organized labor during a period of ascending labor strength.”6 A principal objection raised by organized labor and women’s organizations that opposed the amendment was concern that the ERA might lead to the loss of protective legislation for women, particularly with respect to wages, hours, and working conditions.7 One historian

notes that:

S.J.Res. 21, 68th Congress, 1st session, introduced on December 10, 1923, by Senator Charles Curtis of Kansas, and H.J. Res. 75, introduced on December 13 by Representative Daniel Read Anthony, also of Kansas. Representative Anthony was a nephew of women’s rights pioneer Susan B. Anthony.


Amelia Fry, “Alice Paul and the ERA,” in Joan Hoff Wilson, ed., Rights of Passage, The Past and Future of the ERA (Bloomington, IN: Indiana U. Press, 1986), pp. 13-16.

S.J. Res. 25, 78th Congress, introduced by Senator Guy Gillette of Iowa.

Gilbert Y. Steiner, Constitutional Inequality: The Political Fortunes of the Equal Rights Amendment (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1985), p. 7.

Kathryn Kish Sklar, “Why Were Most Politically Active Women Opposed to the ERA in the 1920s?” in Rights of Passage, pp. 25-28. Opponents included the League of Women Voters and the General Federation of Women’s Clubs.

Steiner, Constitutional Inequality, pp. 7-10.

–  –  –

Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 8 |

Similar works:

«Civic Education and Charter Schools: Current Knowledge and Future Research Issues Summary of Findings Preparing young people to be good citizens has been a mission of public education since the early days of the nation. In recent years, as schools have shifted more attention to English language arts and mathematics, several groups have made a plea for renewed attention to civic education for all students. One such group is the Spencer Foundation, which promotes research to improve students’...»

«PEACEFUL TIDINGS! From Fredsville Evangelical Lutheran Church Serving in Jesus’ name since March 1871 Blessed with heritage, vision for the future and peace in the present. Monthly Newsletter of Fredsville May 2015 A message from Pastor Lisa, Somebody blinked. I looked at my husband the other day across the breakfast table and realized somewhere along the way, somebody blinked. It didn’t take them long, only a split second of time, and then you look up from your bowl of cereal and realize...»

«Regular Board Meeting January 3, 2012 7:00pm Present – Mayor John King, Trustees James Howell, Ellen Mathers, James Ryan. Absent Trustee Phil Joe Smith. Also present Clerk-Treasurer Suzanne Casselberry, DPW Supt. Dean Hillyard, Mike & Christina Hughey. Mayor King called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m. The minutes of the December 8, 2011 meeting were presented. Trustee Howell offered a resolution, seconded by Trustee Ryan to approve the minutes of the December 8, 2011 regular board meeting as...»

«Die UNO im Überblick Alle Informationen der Broschüre haben den Stand von August 2006, soweit nicht anders vermerkt. Herausgegeben von der UNO-Hauptabteilung für Presse und Information, New York, NY 10017, USA www.un.org Editorial Unit, Press Service, News and Media Division Room S-900F, Fax: +1 212 963-1334 Deutsche Übersetzung und Aktualisierung durch das Regionale Informationszentrum der Vereinten Nationen für Westeuropa (UNRIC), Verbindungsbüro in Deutschland, UN Campus,...»

«научная жизнь Кузнецов А.М., Золотухин И.Н. Kuznetsov A.M., Zolotukhin I.N. Идентичность versus государство. Международная конференция «Политика коренной идентичности: национальные и глобальные перспективы». Сидней, 11-14 июля 2013 г. Identity versus State. International Conference...»

«Index of Songs Ain’t Gonna Rain No More Kiss Me Quick Ain’t That Skipping And Flyin Left Alone Blues Alabama Gals Little Birdie All Gone Now Little Brown Hand Angeline Baker Little Brown Jug Baltimore Fire Little Sadie Been To The East Been To The West Little Satchel Beware Oh Take Care Long Steel Rail Big Ball In Memphis Look Before You Leap Big Eyed Rabbit Lookin For The Bully Of The Town Bill Mason Lovesick Blues Birmingham Make Me A Pallet On Your Floor Black Eyed Susie Midnight Special...»

«Travel Resources When you're ready to hit the road, the trails, the skies—or the high seas, get in the know first. View our disability-related travel resources in following categories: General Travel Resources Disability-Specific Travel Resources Air Travel Bus Travel Parks and Trails, Accessible Camping, RVing, and Outdoor Adventures Road Travel Train Travel Travel Agencies Travel Insurance Vacation Rentals General Travel Resources Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – Travelers’...»

«Lewis Henry MORGAN [1818-1881] Member of the National Academy of Sciences (1877) Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization First Indian Edition: Bharti Library, Booksellers and Publishers, 1944. Un document produit en version numérique par Ibne Hasan, bénévole, mars 2004 Marxists Internet Archive. Dans le cadre de: Les classiques des sciences sociales Une bibliothèque numérique fondée et dirigée par Jean-Marie Tremblay,...»

«FAMOUS American Statesmen BY SARAH K. BOLTON AUTHOR OF “POOR BOYS WHO BECAME FAMOUS,” “GIRLS WHO BECAME FAMOUS,” “FAMOUS AMERICAN AUTHORS,” “STORIES FROM LIFE,” “FROM HEART, AND NATURE,” ETC. “A nation has no possessions so valuable as its great men, living or dead.”—Hon. John Bigelow.NEW YORK THOMAS Y. CROWELL & CO. No. 13 Astor Place Copyright, 1888, by Thomas Y. Crowell & Co. Electrotyped By C. J. Peters and Son, Boston. Presswork by Berwick & Smith, Boston. To...»

«TEXTE 10/2010 Modellierung und Kartierung räumlich differenzierter Wirkungen von Stickstoffeinträgen in Ökosysteme im Rahmen der UNECE-Luftreinhaltekonvention Teilbericht IV: Der Einfluss anthropogener Stickstoffeinträge auf die Diversität und Funktion von Bodenorganismen | TEXTE | 10/2010 UMWELTFORSCHUNGSPLAN DES BUNDESMINISTERIUMS FÜR UMWELT, NATURSCHUTZ UND REAKTORSICHERHEIT Förderkennzeichen 205 85 239 UBA-FB 001341 Modellierung und Kartierung räumlich differenzierter Wirkungen von...»

«Elyssa Warkentin Building our own Homes: Frustrated Stereotyping AMERICAN@ ISSN:1695-7814 Vol. II. Issue 1 Building our own Homes: Frustrated Stereotyping in Leslie Feinberg’s Stone Butch Blues Elyssa Warkentin University of Alberta, Canada. Strange to be exiled from your own sex to borders that will never be home. – Leslie Feinberg (Stone Butch Blues 11) Abstract Resumen Key Words: Leslie Feinberg, Stone Butch Blues, transgender subjectivity, transgender-rights movement, androgyny....»

«Investigation of Fundamental Elements for Active Nanooptics DISSERTATION zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades doctor rerum naturalium (Dr. rer. nat.) im Fach Physik eingereicht an der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin von Diplom Physiker Günter Kewes geboren am 13.11.1978 in Prüm Präsident der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin: Prof. Dr. Jan-Hendrik Olbertz Dekan der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät I: Prof. Dr. Elmar Kulke...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.abstract.xlibx.info - Free e-library - Abstract, dissertation, book

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.