The Equal Rights Amendment: A Relic of the Past or an Ongoing Debate?
Despite a significant portion of the American populace viewing the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as a relic of the past, there remains a dedicated faction striving to revive its potential inclusion in the U.S. Constitution. Initially proposed by Congress in March 1972, the ERA aimed to ensure equality under the law, specifically prohibiting discrimination based on sex. However, the defined ratification deadline elapsed without sufficient state support, leaving many to consider it defunct. The ongoing efforts by ERA supporters suggest a deeper and perhaps misguided belief that the amendment can somehow be made relevant again.
The Origins and Initial Goals of the Equal Rights Amendment
Introduced by Congresswoman Martha Griffith (D-Mich.) in 1971 as House Joint Resolution 208, the ERA declared, “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.” Griffith ambitiously included a seven-year ratification deadline, anticipating that states would rapidly join the cause. However, the reality was starkly different. By March 1979, while 35 states had ratified the ERA, several rescinded their approval, and the extended deadline of June 1982 did not lead to any new adoptions. This left the ERA in a precarious position—effectively expired yet still sparking contention among proponents.
The Post-Deadline Landscape
Following the expiration of the ratification deadline, many supporters, including significant feminist leaders, acknowledged the reality that the 1972 ERA was no longer viable. Gloria Steinem notably stated on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” in January 1986 that the ERA would need to start its journey anew—requiring fresh passage through Congress and subsequent ratification by the states. This pragmatic acknowledgment of the prevailing political landscape contrasts sharply with the current attempts to revive the earlier version of the amendment with little regard for the established deadline and the implications it holds.
Recent Developments and Controversies
In recent years, three states—Nevada (2017), Illinois (2019), and Virginia (2020)—passed resolutions to “ratify” the ERA, despite the previous expiration of the ratification deadline. Supporters argue that this brings the total to 38 states, allowing them to claim that the ERA should be recognized as part of the Constitution. However, such actions disregard the earlier rescissions and challenge the binding nature of the original deadline. This contentious stance has led to lawsuits aiming to compel federal archivists to recognize the 1972 ERA.
Legal Opinions and Judicial Responses
Legal challenges mounted by the aforementioned states have faced considerable hurdles. The Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on the status of the 1972 ERA but has effectively decided against its pending status, dismissing attempts to revive it. Moreover, the Biden Justice Department acknowledged that there are no existing legal frameworks necessitating the certification of the ERA post-deadline. The unified perspective of judges appointed across various administrations reaffirms the notion that the ERA’s timeline has concluded, complicating contemporary assertions of its validity.
The Current Stance of U.S. Archivists
The current U.S. archivist and deputy archivist have stated that the 1972 ERA cannot be recognized as part of the Constitution, solidifying their stance based on legal advice previously sought by their predecessor. In light of this, the continued push from certain lawmakers, such as Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), requesting recognition of the amendment as the 28th Amendment rests on shaky grounds. The claim of a broad support base, including the League of Women Voters, does little to sway the legal consensus against retroactive ratification.
Conclusion
The Equal Rights Amendment, while once a driving force for gender equality legislation, has faced significant systemic barriers since its proposal. The combination of expired deadlines, judicial interpretations, and legislative sentiments suggests that the 1972 ERA is firmly in the realm of historical discussion rather than practical legal framework. Advocates for the amendment are urged to consider alternative pathways towards achieving gender equality goals that do not hinge on the revival of a failed constitutional amendment.
FAQs
What is the Equal Rights Amendment?
The Equal Rights Amendment is a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution aimed at guaranteeing equal legal rights for all American citizens, regardless of sex. It was initially proposed in 1923 and passed by Congress in 1972.
Why did the Equal Rights Amendment fail to be ratified?
The ratification process of the ERA faced challenges, including the expiration of the initial deadline for state ratification, state rescissions of their earlier approvals, and a lack of additional support from states following the extended deadline.
Can the Equal Rights Amendment still be ratified today?
While some states have attempted to ratify the ERA post-deadline, legal experts and courts have generally concluded that the amendment is no longer pending and cannot be ratified as initially intended due to the expired timeline.
What alternatives exist for achieving gender equality if the ERA is not ratified?
Advocates for gender equality may pursue legislative measures, state-level initiatives, and public awareness campaigns to address gender discrimination and promote equality without relying on the amendment.
Have there been recent efforts to revive the ERA?
Yes, there have been attempts by certain lawmakers to push for recognition of the ERA based on recent state resolutions claiming ratification, but these efforts have met with legal and institutional obstacles.