The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment

Report No. 82-51 GOV THE PROPOSED EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT Leslie W. Gladstone Analyst in American National Government Government Division March 25, 1982 T h e Congressional Research Service works exclusi.i~el\for the Congress. conducting research. analvzing legslation, and providing information at the request of committees. Members, and their staffs. T h e Senice makes such research available, without partisan bias, in many forms including studies. reports, compilations. digests. and background briefings. Upon request. CRS assists committees in anal:-zing legislative proposals and issues. and in assessing the possible effects of these proposals and their alternatives. T h e Service's senior specialists and subject analysts are also available for personal consultations in their respective fields of expertise. ABSTRACT T h i s CRS R e p o r t p r o v i d e s a b r i e f l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f t h e p r o p o s e d E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment and a d e s c r i p t i o n o f i t s c u r r e n t s t a t u s . The r e p o r t a l s o c o n t a i n s p r o and con a n a l y s e s o f t h e p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s o f ERA, v e r e i t t o b e r a t i f i e d , and a d i s c u s s i o n of q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d by t h e a c t i o n of C o n g r e s s i n e x t e n d i n g t h e d e a d l i n e f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n and b y t h e a c t i o n o f S t a t e s t h a t h a v e v o t e d t o r e s c i n d t h e i r a p p r o v a l of t h e m e a s u r e . T h i s r e p o r t i s b a s e d i n p a r t o n a n e a r l i e r CRS r e p o r t by M o r r i g e n e Holcomb a n d Karen K e e s l i n g . .............................. 1 bR1EF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY ................................................ 5 THE. LQUAL RIGHTS A .IiDMEKT: PRO AND CON ................................. 1 3 EFFECTS OF THE E M .................................................... 1 4 R i g h t o f P r i v a c y .................................................... 1 4 M i l i t a r y S e r v i c e .................................................... 1 6 M a r r i a g e and t h e Family ............................................. 1 9 P r o t e c t i v e L a b o r Laws ............................................... 2 1 C r i m i n a l Laws R e l a t i n g t o S e x u a l O f f e n s e s ........................... 22 SHOULD TWRE B E ABSOLUTE EQUALITY? ................................. 22 StiOLZD THERE BE A CONSTITUTIONAL ACNDMENT? ............................ 2 3 THE ENFORCEMEivT CUUSE.. .............................................. 25 EXTENSION OF THE DZADLINE FOR RATIFICATION: PRO AND CON ................. 27 Does C o n g r e s s Have t h e A u t h o r i t y t o E x t e n d t h e D e a d l i n e ? ............ 27 Was a R e a s o n a b l e P e r i o d of Time I n i t i a l l y Given t o R a t i f i c a t l o n ? S h o u l d C o n g r e s s Have E x t e n d e d t h e D e a d l i n e ? ....................... 29 What L e g i s l a t i v e Methods f o r E x t e n s i o n Were A v a i l a b l e ? .............. 31 t l u s t C o n g r e s s R e c o g n i z e R e c i s s i o n o f P r i o r R a t i f i c a t i o n ............. 32 APPENDIX I : STATES THAT HAVE RATIFIED THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT ........ 35 APPENDIX 2 : ADDITIONAL SOURCES .......................................... 37 CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDNEIUT THE PROPOSED EQUAL RIGHTS AHENDmhT CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT The proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution, vhich passed Congress on March 22, 1972, is pending before the State legislatures. As of February 1982, thirty-five States had ratified the amendment, although five had rescinded their approval. L/ If ratified by 38 States before June 30, 1982, 2 1 the measure would become the 27th amendment to the Constitution and would take effect two years after ratification. The first State to ratify the ERA vas Hawaii, vhich voted within hours after final passage by the Senate. During the first year after passage by the Congress, 30 States had ratified the Amendment. Then ratification slowed as opposition to the Amendment increased. At the end of seven years, only five more States had ratified it, the last in 1977. Some States which have ratified the proposal Equal Rights Amendment have subsequently voted to rescind ratification, raising again the question of vhether a State has the power, once it votes to ratify, to withdraw its ratification. Article V of the Constitution, which provides for the amending of the 11 A State by State history of ratification of ERA is in U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. The Equal Rights Amendment (Proposed). CRS Issue Brief No. IB 74122, by Leslie Gladstone. Continuously updated. In addition, a list of States that have ratified the proposed amendment as of March 15, 1982, is given in the Appendix on p. 37 of this report. 21 On Oct. 20, 1978, President Carter approved a bill extending the deadline for ratification from March 1979 to June 30, 1982. Constitution, does not address t h i s question. The Supreme C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h i s 307 U.S. 4 3 3 ( 1 9 3 9 ) , d e c l a r i n g t h a t r e s c i s s i o n i s i s s u e i n Coleman v . -M ' iller a p o l i t i c a l q u e s t i o n f o r Congress t o d e c i d e . More r e c e n t l y , however, s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e r i g h t of S t a t e s t o r e s c i n d p r i o r t o r a t i f i c a t i o n by t h r e e - f o u r t h s i n a r u l i n g by t h e U.S. of a l l t h e S t a t e s were r a i s e d D i s t r i c t C o u r t of I d a h o on December 2 3 , 1981. 3/ In t h i s d e c i s i o n w h i c h a p p e a r s t o c o n t r a d i c t t h e 1939 Supreme C o u r t d e c i s i o n , J u d g e M a r i o n J. C a l l i s t e r r u l e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l S t a t e s were n o t bound by t h e i r o r i g i n a l v o t e s t o r a t i f y t h e amendment, b u t m i g h t r e s c i n d a t a n y p o i n t b e f o r e t h r e e - f o u r t h s -of t h e S t a t e s v o t e t o r a t i f y . Five S t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s - i n I d a h o , K e n t u c k y , a n d S o u t h Dakota--have Nebraska, Tennessee, r e v e r s e d t h e i r a p p r o v a l of t h e amendment. " R e s c i s s i o n , " s a i d Judge C a l l i s t e r , i s " c l e a r l y a proper e x e r c i s e of a S t a t e ' s power. - ... C o n g r e s s h a s no power t o d e t e r m i n e t h e v a l i d i t y o r i n v a l i d i t y of a p r o p e r l y c e r t i f i e d r a t i f i c a t i o n o r r e s c i s s i o n . " 51 The d i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o s a i d t h a t C o n g r e s s v i o l a t e d t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n when i t e x t e n d e d t h e d e a d l i n e f o r t h e p r o p o s e d amendment t o J u n e 3 0 , 1982. In h i s d e c i s i o n , Judge C a l l i s t e r v r o t e t h a t " [ a l s p a r t of t h e mode o f r a t i f i c a t i o n - C o n g r e s s may,. by a t v o - t h i r d s v o t e of both iiouses, s e t a r e a s o n a b l e time l i m i t f o r t h e S t a t e s t o a c t i n o r d e r f o r t h e r a t i f i c a t i o n t o be e f f e c t i v e . When [ s u c h a l i m i t ] i s s e t , i t i s b i n d i n g on C o n g r e s s and t h e S t a t e s and i t c a n n o t b e changed by C o n g r e s s t h e r e a f t e r ." 51 I n a d d i t i o n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s a i d t h a t even i f C o n g r e s s had t h e power t o e x t e n d t h e t i m e l i m i t , i t c o u l d n o t do s o by a s i m p l e I d a h o v. 4/ Idaho v. - 31 - 5/ - Ibid., p. Freeman, C i v i l K O . Freeman 71. , 79-1079 [ D . I d a h o , Dec. 23, 19811 S l i p O p i n i o n , p . 6 2 , 71. m a j o r i t y v o t e , a s i t d i d i n 1 9 7 8 , s i n c e e x t e n s i o n would r e q u i r e t h e same twot h i r d s m a j o r i t y i n b o t h Houses a s r e q u i r e d by A r t i c l e V of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n f o r p r o p o s a l o f a n amendment. On J a n u a r y 2 5 , 1 9 8 2 , however t h e U.S. Supreme C o u r t s t a y e d t h e I d a h o c o u r t d e c i s i o n i n i t s e n t i r e t y , p e n d i n g a h e a r i n g by t h e C o u r t a t a l a t e r d a t e . The e f f e c t o f t h e s t a y was t o a l l o w t h e amendment p r o c e s s t o c o n t i n u e u n t i l t h e J u n e 30, 1 9 8 2 , d e a d l i n e . Had t h e C o u r t n o t s t a y e d t h e I d a h o d e c i s i o n v i t h r e s p e c t t o e x t e n s i o n , t h e p r o p o s e d amendment would have b e e n c o n s i d e r e d d e a d a s o f March 2 2 , 1979-the original deadline. By i s s u i n g a s t a y , t h e C o u r t a l s o preserved i t s venue over t h e q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d i n t h e Idaho d e c i s i o n , i n c l u d i n g t h e q u e s t i o n of r e s c i s s i o n , w h i c h i t may t a k e u p a t a l a t e r d a t e . BRIEF USISLATILT KISTORY The proposed Equal R i g h t s Amendment, h a s been i n t r o d u c e d i n C o n g r e s s i n v a r i o u s forms. The f i r s t E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment, which was i n t r o d u c e d i n 1923 by S e n a t o r C h a r l e s C u r t i s and R e p r e s e n t a t i v e D a n i e l R. Anthony, Jr., p r o v i d e d Hen and vomen s h a l l have e q u a l r i g h t s t h r o u g h o u t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and e v e r y p l a c e s u b j e c t t o i t s jurisdiction. C o n g r e s s s h a l l have power t o e n f o r c e t h i s a r t i c l e by a p p r o p r i a t e l e g i s l a t i o n . 61 I n 1943 t h e S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y Committee r e p o r t e d o u t a p r o p o s e d amendment v h o s e l a n g u a g e was used i n l a t e r p r o p o s a l s u n t i l 1971. The 1 9 4 3 p r o p o s a l p r o v i d e d E q u a l i t y of r i g h t s u n d e r t h e l a v s h a l l n o t b e d e n i e d o r a b r i d g e d by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o r by any S t a t e o n a c c o u n t of sex. C o n g r e s s and t h e s e v e r a l S t a t e s s h a l l have power, w i t h i n t h e i r respective jurisdictions, t o enforce t h i s a r t i c l e by a p p r o p r i a t e l e g i s l a t i o n . I / H e a r i n g s were h e l d by b o t h t h e House of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and t h e S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y Committee b e g i n n i n g i n 1929. Both r e p o r t e d t h e Amendment. Before 1972, t h e S e n a t e t w i c e p a s s e d t h e Amendment, i n t h e 8 1 s t C o n g r e s s o n J a n u a r y 25, 19.A1, and i n t h e 83d C o n g r e s s , on J u l y 1 6 , 1953. 61 - S . J . Res. 21, Dec. 1 0 , 1923; and H . J . -7 / S.J. On b o t h o c c a s i o n s , t h e m e a s u r e Res. Res. 25 ( G i l l e t t e ) , J a n . 21, 1943. 75, Dec. 1 3 , 1923. was amended on t h e f l o o r t o i n c l u d e what was known a s t h e "Hayden r i d e r , " which provided that-The p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s a r t i c l e s h a l l n o t be c o n s t r u e d t o i m p a i r a n y r i g h t s , b e n e f i t s , o r e x e m p t i o n s now o r h e r e a f t e r c o n f e r r e d by l a w upon p e r s o n s of t h e f e m a l e sex. 81 I n 1964, t h e S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y Committee r e p o r t e d t h a t t h i s r i d e r " i s n o t a c c e p t a b l e t o women who want e q u a l r i g h t s u n d e r t h e l a v . of s o - c a l l e d 'rights' It i s u n d e r t h e g u i s e o r ' b e n e f i t s ' t h a t women h s v e been t r e a t e d u n e q u a l l y and d e n i e d o p p o r t u n i t i e s which a r e a v a i l a b l e t o men." 91 The House of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s p a s s e d t h e Equal R i g h t s Amendment i n t h e 9 1 s t C o n g r e s s on August 1 0 , 1 9 7 0 , a f t e r t h e d i s c h a r g e p r o c e d u r e was used t o f r e e t h e p r o p o s a l from Committee. T h e r e had been no Committee a c t i o n on a n e q u a l r i g h t s amendment f o r 22 y e a r s , and i t v a s a m a j o r g o a l of p r o p o n e n t s of t h e Amendment, i n t h e 9 1 s t C o n g r e s s l e d by R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Martha G r i f f i t h s , t o b r i n g t h e b i l l t o t h e f l o o r of t h e House. E a r l i e r , i n May 1970, t h e S e n a t e Subcommittee o n C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Amendments c h a i r e d by S e n a t o r B i r c h Bayh, h e l d t h r e e d a y s of h e a r i n g s and f a v o r a b l y r e p o r t e d t h e Amendment t o t h e f u l l S e n a t e Committee o n t h e J u d i c i a r y . On September 9 , - 10, 11, and 15, t h e f u l l Committee h e l d h e a r i n g s , c h a i r e d by S e n a t o r Sam J . E r v i n , Jr. 101 8 1 S . J . R e s . 25, a s amended, 8 1 s t Cong., C o n g r e s s i o n a l R e c o r d , v o l . 9 5 , J a n . 2 7 , 1950. p. 903; and S . J . Res. 4 9 , a s amended, 83d Cong., C o n g r e s s i o n a l R e c o r d , v o l . 99, J u l . 1 6 , 1953. p . 9223. 9 / U.S. C o n g r e s s . S e n a t e . Committee o n t h e J u d i c i a r y . Equal R i g h t s and Women. S. R e p t . No. 1558, 8 8 t h Cong., 2d S e s s . Washington, C.S. for Govt. P r i n t . O f f . , 1964. en 1 0 1 S e n a t o r E r v i n c h a i r e d t h e h e a r i n g s a t t h e r e q u e s t o f S e n a t o r James 0. ~ a s t l Chairman ~ , of t h e Committee. During Senate consideration of H.J. Res. 264, the Senate adopted two amendments: 1) to guarantee that nothing in the women's rights amendment would require the drafting of women into the armed forces if Congress chose not to draft them; and 2) to permit recitation of "non-denominational" prayers in public schools and all other public buildings. On October 14, 1970, following the adoption of these two amendments, Senator Bayh introduced a substitute amendment vhich read: Neither the United States nor any State shall on account of sex, deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Women's organizations supporting the Equal Rights Amendment opposed the two amendments added by the Senate and Senator Bayh's substitute resolution because they believed that this would still allov protective labor laws which vere possible under the 14th amendment. The Senate laid aside the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, and no further action was taken by the 91st Congress. Subsequently, the wording of the second section of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment was changed by the proponents to meet the objections raised by several constitutional lawyers, including Senator Ervin. (K.J. The Equal Rights hnendment Res. 208) as introduced in the 92d Congress read as follows: H.J. Res. 208 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women. Resolved by the Senate and Kouse of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when r a t i f i e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s of t h r e e - f 0 . ~ 7 - F ~of t h e s e v e r a l S t a t e s w i t h i n s e v e n y e a r s from t h e d a t e of i t s s u b m i s s i o n by t h e C o n g r e s s . ARTICLE "Sec. 1. E q u a l i t y of r i g h t s u n d e r t h e l a w s h a l l n o t be d e n i e d o r a b r i d g e d by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o r by a n y S t a t e o n a c c o u n t of s e x . " S e c . 2. The C o n g r e s s s h a l l have t h e power t o e n f o r c e , by a p p r o p r i a t e l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s a r t i c l e . "Sec. 3. T h i s amendment s h a l l t a k e e f f e c t t v o y e a r s a f t e r t h e d a t e of r a t i f i c a t i o n . " k i e a r i n g s w e r e h e l d i n t h e 92d C o n g r e s s by Subcommittee No. 4 of t h e House J u d i c i a r y Committee on t h e E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment (Y.J. Res. 208) and t h e Women's E q u a l i t y Act ( H . R . 1971. 9 1 6 ) on March 24, 25 and 31 and A p r i l 1 , 2 , and 5 , On A p r i l 2 9 , 1 9 7 1 , t h e Subcommittee r e p o r t e d H . J . Res. 208 t o t h e f u l l Committee v h i c h a p p r o v e d i t o n J u n e 2 3 , 1971, w i t h two amendments. The f i r s t amendment re.vorded t h e m e a s u r e b y a d d i n g t h e v o r d s "of any p e r s o n " a s f o l l o w s : E q u a l i t y of r i g h t s of any person under t h e law s h a l l n o t b e d e n i e d o r a b r i d g e d by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o r by any S t a t e on account of s e x . [emphasis added] The s e c o n d amendment, known a s t h e "Wiggins hmendment ," added t h e f o l l o v i n g section to the b i l l : T h i s a r t i c l e s h a l l not impair t h e v a l i d i t y of any l a w o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s which exempts a p e r s o n from c o m p u l s o r y m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e o r ariy o t h e r l a w of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o r any S t a t e which r e a s o n a b l y p r o m o t e s t h e h e a l t h and s a f e t y o f t h e p e o p l e . When t h e House of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s c o n s i d e r e d t h e E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment on O c t o b e r 1 2 , 1 9 7 1 , however, i t r e j e c t e d t h e Committee amendments and a p p r o v e d t h e m e a s u r e by a r o l l c a l l v o t e of 354-24 111 i n t h e form i n which introduced : 1 1 - C o n g r e s s i o n a l Record, v . 117, O c t . 1 2 , 1971. p. 35815. i t was E q u a l i t y of r i g h t s u n d e r t h e l a w s h a l l n o t b e d e n i e d o r a b r i d g e d by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o r by a n y S t a t e o n a c c o u n t of s e x . The C o n g r e s s s h a l l have t h e p o v e r t o e n f o r c e , by a p p r o p r i a t e l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s a r t i c l e . A l t h o u g h i t h e l d no h e a r i n g s on t h e p r o p o s e d amendment, t h e S e n a t e Committee on t h e J u d i c i a r y f a v o r a b l y r e p o r t e d o u t t h e E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment i n i t s o r i g i n a l form on F e b r u a r y 29, 1972. 8 , S . J . Res. 9 , H . J . The S e n a t e began d e b a t e o n t h e m e a s u r e (S.J. Res. 208) on Harch 1 7 , 1972. Res. D u r i n g t h e two d a y s b e f o r e t h e f i n a l v o t e of t h e S e n a t e , S e n a t o r Sam E r v i n i n t r o d u c e d a t o t a l of t e n amendments t o t h e ERA i n a n e f f o r t t o m o d i f y i t s a p p l i c a t i o n . The amendments were t h e f o l l o w i n g : No. 1044 - 1058 - No. 1065 - 1066 - No. 1067 - No. 1068 - No. 1069 - No. 1070 - No. 1071 - NO. NO. t o o f f e r t v o a l t e r n a t i v e v e r s i o n s o f t h e ERA, with the provision t h a t t h e v e r s i o n r a t i f i e d by t h e r e q u i s i t e number o f S t a t e s would be a d o p t e d ( d e f e a t e d , 82-9, Mar. 2 2 , 1 9 7 8 ) t o exempt a n y l a w p r o h i b i t i n g s e x u a l a c t i v i t y between p e r s o n s of t h e same s e x o r t h e m a r r i a g e of p e r s o n s of t h e same s e x ( w i t h d r a w n , H a r c h 21, 1972) t o exempt vomen from compulsory m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e ( d e f e a t e d , 73-18, March 21, 1 9 7 2 ) t o exempt women from s e r v i c e i n combat u n i t s ( d e f e a t e d , 71-18, March 2 1 , 1 9 7 2 ) t o exempt from c o v e r a g e l a w s e x t e n d i n g p r o t e c t i o n s o r e x e m p t i o n s t o women ( d e f e a t e d , 75-11, March 2 1 , 1972) t o exempt from c o v e r a g e l a w s e x t e n d i n g p r o t e c t i o n s o r e x e m p t i o n s t o women ( d e f e a t e d , 77-14, March 2 2 , 1972 ) t o exempt from c o v e r a g e l a w s m a i n t a i n i n g f a t h e r s ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ( d e f e a t e d , 72-17, March 2 2 , 1 9 7 2 ) t o exempt from c o v e r a g e l a w s s e c u r i n g p r i v a c y ( d e f e a t e d , 79-11, March 22, 1 9 7 2 ) t o exempt from c o v e r a g e l a w s p e r t a i n i n g t o s e x u a l o f f e n s e s ( d e f e a t e d , 71-17, March 22, 1 9 7 2 ) No- 1072 - t o exempt from c o v e r a g e l a w s based on p h y s i o l o g i c a l o r f u n c t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s e x e s ( d e f e a t e d , 78-12, March 2 2 , 1 9 7 2 ) E x c e r p t s from t h e d e b a t e on t h e p r o p o s e d amendments t o t h e E M p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e i n t e n t of C o n g r e s s i n p a s s i n g t h e Amendment. For example, o n e w i l l f i n d t h e i n t e n t o f C o n g r e s s w i t h r e s p e c t t o women and t h e d r a f t i n t h e p r o and c o n d e b a t e on proposed amendment No. 1 0 6 5 , t o exempt women from compulsory military service. T h i s d e b a t e a l s o summarizes most of t h e c o n c e r n s a b o u t t h e E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment. On f l a r c h 2 2 , 1 9 7 2 , a f t e r r e j e c t i o n of t h e E r v i n amendments, t h e S e n a t e p a s s e d t h e House v e r s i o n of t h e E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment by a v o t e of 84-8. I n l a t e 1 9 7 7 , w i t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y 18 months l e f t u n t i l t h e March 1979 d e a d l i n e f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n of t h e ERA, and w i t h 35 o f t h e n e c e s s a r y 38 S t a t e s h a v i n g r a t i f i e d i t , a movement began t o e x t e n d t h e d e a d l i n e f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n . L e g i s l a t i o n was i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e 9 5 t h C o n g r e s s t o e x t e n d t h e d e a d l i n e s e v e n y e a r s u n t i l March 2 2 , 1986. B e a r i n g s o n H.J. Res. 638 were h e l d on November 1, 4 , a n d 8 , 1 9 7 7 , and May 1 7 , 1 8 and 1 9 , 1 9 7 8 , by t h e Subcommittee on C i v i l and C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R i g h t s of t h e House C o n m i t t e e o n t h e J u d i c i a r y . - t h e House Committee on J u d i c i a r y a p p r o v e d H . J . On J u l y 1 8 , 1978, Res. 638 w i t h an amendment t o - e x t e n d t h e d e a d l i n e t o J u n e 3 0 , 1982. 1 2 / The Louse c o n s i d e r e d K . J . Res. 638 on August 1 5 , 1978. During t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a m o t i o n t o recommit t h e r e s o l u t i o n t o t h e C o m n i t t e e o n t h e J u d i c i a r y was d e f e a t e d . The House a l s o r e j e c t e d an amendment t h a t would a l l o w S t a t e s t h a t had a l r e a d y r a t i f i e d t h e p r o p o s e d Equal R i g h t s Amendment d u r i n g t h e f i r s t seven-year period t o rescind t h a t action during t h e extension period, 1 2 1 The S e n a t e Committee o n t h e J u d i c i a r y , Subcommittee o n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , h e l d h e a r i n g s o n a s i m i l a r b i l l , S. J . Res. 1 3 4 , on August 2-4, 1978. a s w e l l a s t o r e q u i r e t h e G e n e r a l S e r v i c e s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (GSA) t o submit n o t i c e s of a l l r e s o l u t i o n s of r a t i f i c a t i o n o r r e s c i s s i o n t o t h e C o n g r e s s f o r f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of w h e t h e r t h e Amendment had i n f a c t b e e n p r o p e r l y r a t i f i e d . A m o t i o n t o p r o v i d e a n a f f i r m a t i v e v o t e o f t v o - t h i r d s o f t h e t4embers p r e s e n t and v o t i n g on t h e f i n a l p a s s a g e of H . J . Res. 638 v a s t a b l e d . H. J. Res. 638 p a s s e d t h e llouse o n August 1 5 , 1978, b y a v o t e of 2 3 3 t o 1 8 9 . The S e n a t e c o n s i d e r e d H . J . Res. 638 on O c t o b e r 3 , 4 , and 6 , 1978. On O c t o b e r 3 , 1 9 7 8 , a n amendment t o p e r m i t a S t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e t o r e s c i n d r a t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e Equal R i g h t s Amendment, and a n amendment t o r e q u i r e t h a t t h e j o i n t r e s o l u t i o n s b e p a s s e d by t w o - t h i r d s o f b o t h Houses o f t h e C o n g r e s s i n o r d e r t o become e f f e c t i v e , were b o t h d e f e a t e d . g/ On October 4 , 1978, t h e S e n a t e r e j e c t e d f i v e amendments: 1) t o a l l o w a S t a t e t o r e s c i n d i t s r a t i f i c a t i o n of t h e p r o p o s e d Amendment any t i m e a f t e r t h i s j o i n t r e s o l u t i o n becomes effective; 2 ) t o p r o v i d e t h a t t h e C o n g r e s s e x p r e s s no o p i n i o n v i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e e f f e c t of t h e a c t i o n of any S t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e i n r e s c i n d i n g i t s r a t i f i c a t i o n of t h e Amendment; 3 ) t o permit a S t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e t o rescind i t s r a t i f i c a t i o n of t h e Amendment a f t e r 1-larch 2 2 , 1979; 4.) t o p r o p o s e a new a ~ e n d m e n t t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n t o p r o v i d e t h a t e q u a l i t y of r i g h t s n o t be d e n i e d on a c c o u n t of s e x ; and 5 ) t o e s t a b l i s h J a n u a r y 1, 1 9 8 0 , a s t h e d e a d l i n e f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n of t h e Amendment. The S e n a t e p a s s e d H . J . H.J. Res. 6 3 8 on O c t o b e r 6 , 1978 b y a v o t e 60-36. Res. 6 3 8 , which e x t e n d e d t h e d e a d l i n e f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n u n t i l J u n e 3 0 , 1982, was s i g n e d by t h e P r e s i d e n t o n O c t o b e r 20, 1978. 13/ - S e e d i s c u s s i o n on p. 1-3. THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDmKT: PRO AND CON C o n t r o v e r s y o v e r t h e p r o p o s e d Anendment c e n t e r s on f o u r m a j o r a r e a s : ( 1 ) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of i t s probable e f f e c t s i n a r e a s s u c h a s r i g h t of p r i v a c y , m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e , m a r r i a g e and t h e f a m i l y , p r o t e c t i v e l a b o r l a w s , and c r i m i n a l laws r e l a t i n g t o sexual offenses; ( 2 ) w h e t h e r t h e r e s h o u l d be room i n t h e law f o r " r e a s o n a b l e " d i s t i n c t i o n s i n t h e t r e a r m e n t of men and women; ( 3 ) w h e t h e r a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment i s t h e p r o p e r v e h i c l e f o r i m p r o v i n g t h e l e g a l s t a t u s of vomen i n o u r N a t i o n ; and ( 4 ) w h e t h e r t h e p r o p o s e d Amendment i n f r i n g e s on t h e r i g h t s o f the States. T h e r e i s l i t t l e d i s a g r e e m e n t a b o u t t h e g e n e r a l i n t e n t o f t h e p r o p o s e d Equal R i g h t s Amendment. L e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i n t h i s r e g a r d i s found i n t h e S e n a t e d e b a t e on t h e m e a s u r e i n March 1 9 7 2 , t h e p e r t i n e n t House and S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y Committee r e p o r t s , and c o n g r e s s i o n a l h e a r i n g s h e l d i n 1970-71. As s t a t e d i n t h e S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y Committee r e p o r t - "The b a s i c p r i n c i p l e on which t h e Amendment r e s t s may b e s t a t e d shortly: s e x s h o u l d n o t be a f a c t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e l e g a l r i g h t s o f men o r women. The Amendment w i l l a f f e c t o n l y g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t i o n ; t h e p r i v a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f men and women are u n a f f e c t e d [emphasis added] 141 ... ." 1 4 / U.S. C o n g r e s s . S e n a t e . Committee on J u d i c i a r y . Equal R i g h t s f o r Men a= Women; R e p o r t T o g e t h e r w i t h I n d i v i d u a l Views t o Accompany S. 3 . Res. 9 and H . J . Res. 208. S. R e p t . No. 92-689, 92d Cong. 2d S e s s . W a s h i n g t o n , U.S. C o v t . P r i n t . O f f . , 1 9 7 2 . p. 2. The E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment would r e q u i r e t h a t g o v e r n m e n t s t r e a t m a l e s and f e m a l e s e q u a l l y a s c i t i z e n s and i n d i v i d u a l s u n d e r t h e l a w . e l i m i n a t i n g from t h e law sex-based It i s d i r e c t e d a t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s t h a t s p e c i f i c a l l y deny e q u a l i t y of r i g h t s o r v i o l a t e t h e p r i n c i p l e of n o n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o sex. T h u s , F e d e r a l o r S t a t e l a w o r o f f i c i a l p r a c t i c e t h a t makes a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n men and women ~ o u l dbe i n v a l i d u n d e r t h e E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment. Both p r o p o n e n t s and o p p o n e n t s o f t h e Amendment a g r e e t h a t p r o p e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e ERA would r e s u l t i n t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e u s e o f s e x a s t h e s o l e f a c t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g , f o r e x a m p l e , who would be s u b j e c t t o t h e m i l i t a r y d r a f t , i f i t were r e i n s t a t e d ; who i n a d i v o r c e a c t i o n would be awarded c u s t o d y o f a c h i l d ; who v o u l d h a v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r f a m i l y s u p p o r t ; o r who v o u l d be s u b j e c t t o j u r y d u t y . Moreover, p u b l i c s c h o o l s could n o t r e q u i r e h i g h e r a d m i s s i o n s s t a n d a r d s f o r p e r s o n s o f one s e x t h a n t h e o t h e r , and c o u r t s c o u l d n o t h p o s e l o n g e r jail s e n t e n c e s o n c o n v i c t e d c r i m i n a l s o f o n e s e x . Thus, c e r t a i n r e s p o n s i b l i t i e s a n d p r o t e c t i o n s which o n c e w e r e o r a r e now e x t e n d e d o n l y t o members o f o n e s e x would have t o be e i t h e r e x t e n d e d t o e v e r y o n e o r e l i m i n a t e d . EFFECTS OF' THE ERA The f i r s t a r e a o f i d e n t i f i a b l e c o n t r o v e r s y i s t h e p r o b a b l e e f f e c t of t h e E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment i n t h e a r e a s of p r i v a c y , military s e r v i c e , m a r r i a g e and t h e f a m i l y , p r o t e c t i v e l a b o r l a w s , and c r i m i n a l laws r e l a t i n g t o s e x u a l o f f e n s e s . R i g h t of P r i v a c y One a r e a s t i l l s u b j e c t t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n where o p i n i o n i s d i v i d e d i s w h e t h e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f s e p a r a t e r e s t r o o m s , p r i s o n s , and d o r m i t o r i e s f o r m a l e s and f e m a l e s would be p e r m i s s i b l e u n d e r p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e proposed E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment. ':he l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y of t h e proposed a e n d m e n t r e v e a l s t h a t C o n g r e s s r e c o g n i z e d t h e r i g h t of p r i v a c y d o c t r i n e a s i t was d e v e l o p e d by t h e U.S. G r i s w o l d v. C o n n e c t i c u t , 381 U.S. 479 ( 1 9 6 5 ) . Supreme C o u r t i n I n t h i s c a s e , t h e Court recognized t h a t t h e r i g h t of p r i v a c y d e r i v e d from s p e c i f i c r i g h t s embodied i n t h e F i r s t , T h i r d , F o u r t h , ? i f t h and N i n t h Amendments. The S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y r e p o r t on t h e e f f e c t of t h e E i U s t a t e s t h a t t h e " c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t o f p r i v a c y e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e Supreme C o u r t i n G r i s v o l d v . C o n n e c t i c u t . . . would . . . p e r m i t a s e p a r a t i o n of t h e s e x e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o s u c h p l a c e s a s p u b l i c t o i l e t s , a s w e l l a s s l e e p i n g q u a r t e r s of p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s . " s/ The C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n s i n G r i s v o l d and o t h e r c a s e s have s u s t a i n e d t h e r i g h t of p r i v a c y i n a r e a s r e l a t i n g t o " m a r r i a g e , p r o c r e a t i o n , c o n t r a c e p t i o n , f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and c h i l d b e a r i n g and e d u c a t i o n . " The l a c k o f p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n and u n c e r t a i n t y o v e r c o u r t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n u n d e r t h e ERA c o n c e r n s o p p o n e n t s o f t h e ERA. They a r g u e t h a t t h e p r i v a c y a s p e c t o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t v e e n men and women would be changed i n t h e f o l l o w i n g a r e a s : ( 1 ) such p o l i c e p r a c t i c e s a s s e a r c h e s i n v o l v i n g t h e removal of c l o t h i n g c o u l d be p e r f o r m e d by members o f e i t h e r s e x w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e s e x of t h e - one t o be s e a r c h e d ; ( 2 ) s e g r e g a t i o n by s e x i n s l e e p i n g q u a r t e r s o f p r i s o n s o r similar p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s vould be outlawed; ( 3 ) s e g r e g a t i o n by s e x of l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e armed f o r c e s would b e o u t l a w e d ; and ( 4 ) s e g r e g a t i o n by s e x i n h o s p i t a l s would be o u t l a w e d . 1 5 / U.S. C o n g r e s s . S e n a t e . Committee on t h e J u d i c i a r y . Equal R i g h t s f o r Men a= Women. S. R e p t . No. 92-689, 92d Cong., 2d S e s s . W a s h i n g t o n , U.S. Govt. P r i n t . O f f . , 1972. p . 12. P r o p o n e n t s a r g u e t h a t p r e v i o u s Supreme C o u r t d e c i s i o n s , i n which t h e C o u r t h a s recognized an i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t t o c o n t r o l h i s o r h e r b o d i l y f u n c t i o n s w i t h o u t i n t e r f e r e n c e by a S t a t e , would n o t b e i n c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e ERA. They p o i n t o u t t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t t o perform p e r s o n a l b o d i l y f u n c t i o n s , such 2s s l e e p i n g , s h o w e r i n g , and d i s r o b i n g , w i t h o u t i n t r u s i o n by members o f t h e o p p o s i t e s e x , a l s o would be p r o t e c t e d . O p p o n e n t s f u r t h e r s t a t e t h a t t h e most r e c e n t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment t a k e s p r e c e d e n c e o v e r a l l o t h e r s e c t i o n s o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n w i t h which i t i s inconsistent. T h u s , t h e y a r g u e t h a t i f t h e ERA w e r e c o n s t r u e d s t r i c t l y , t h e r e c o u l d b e no s e g r e g a t i o n of p u b l i c f a c i l i t i e s f o r men and women on t h e b a s i s of t h e r i g h t of p r i v a c y . Proponents argue t h a t the l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y i s c l e a r o n t h i s i s s u e and t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e of s e p a r a t e r e s t r o o m s i n no way d i s c r i m i n a t e s o n t h e b a s i s o f s e x and d o e s n o t v i o l a t e t h e e q u a l i t y - o f - r i g h t s u n d e r l i e s t h e E q u a l R i g h t s Amendments. principle vhich 161 Military Service - It i s g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d t o d a y t h a t t h e Equal R i g h t s Amendment would r e q u i r e C o n g r e s s t o t r e a t men and women e q u a l l y v i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e d r a f t , i f a d r a f t were r e i n s t a t e d . T h i s would mean t h a t b o t h men and wonen who meet p h y s i c a l and o t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t s , and who a r e n o t exempt o r d e f e r r e d by l a w , would b e s u b j e c t t o c o n s c r i p t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o t h e S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y Committee r e p o r t o n t h e e f f e c t s of t h e E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment. 171 1 6 1 F o r more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n s e e U.S. L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s . ~ o n ~ r e s s i o n aRle s e a r c h S e r v i c e . The P r o p o s e d Cqual R i g h t s Amendment and t h e R i g h t of P r i v a c y . CRS Memorandum, Dated May 10, 1976, by Karen Lewis. W a s h i n g t o n , 1976. 17/ - S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y Committee, E q u a l R i g h t s f o r Men and Woman, p. 13. S e n a t o r E r v i n a t t e m p t e d t o g u a r a n t e e t h a t p a s s a g e o f t h e ERA would n o t a f f e c t t h e r i g h t of C o n g r e s s t o e x c l u d e women from combat and t h e d r a f t . His p r o p o s a l s , however, v e r e d e f e a t e d . S t i l l u n c e r t a i n , v e r e t h e ERA r a t i f i e d be c o m p e l l e d t o s e r v e i n combat u n i t s . , h o w e v e r , i s w h e t h e r women would P r o p o n e n t s b e l i e v e t h a t t h e ERA would mandate e q u a l o p p o r t u n i t y f o r vonen i n t h e m i l i t a r y and t h a t t r a i n i n g programs would have t o be t h e same f o r b o t h s e x e s u n l e s s i n d i v i d u a l s shoved c e r t a i n physical differences o r incapacities requiring different treatment. I f women were a s s i g n e d t o combat u n i t s w i t h men, p r o p o n e n t s b e l i e v e , t h e S e c r e t a r i e s of t h e S e r v i c e s would have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o a s s i g n men and women a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a b i l i t i e s , t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n v a r i o u s q u e s t i o n s of privacy. A s Representative tlartha Grif f i t h s s t a t e d : - i s t h e t h i n g which i s e q u a l . -The d r a f t i s e q u a l . That But o n c e you a r e i n t h e Army, you a r e p u t where t h e Army t e l l s you where you a r e g o i n g . " 181 O p p o n e n t s of t h e ERA e x p r e s s c o n c e r n t h a t women w i l l h a v e t o be a s s i g n e d d i r e c t c o n b a t r o l e s i n t h e f i e l d i n t h e same manner and i n t h e same numbers a s men. They c h a r g e t h a t t h i s would a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t t h e e f f i c i e n c y and d i s c i p l i n e of o u r f o r c e s . d;ty Opponents a l s o p o i n t o u t t h a t i f vomen w e r e n o t a s s i g n e d t o i n t h e f i e l d , o v e r s e a s , o r o n b o a r d s h i p s , b u t were e n t e r i n g t h e armed f o r c e s i n l a r g e numbers, t h i s m i g h t r e s u l t i n a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e number o f men s e r v i n g more t i m e i n t h e f i e l d and o n b o a r d s h i p b e c a u s e o f a r e d u c e d number of p o s i t i o n s a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e i r r e a s s i g n m e n t . T r a d i t i o n a l l y , t h e d o c t r i n e of m i l i t a r y n e c e s s i t y h a s b e e n c i t e d a s r e a s o n enough f o r j u d i c i a l r e l u c t a n c e t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h m i l i t a r y d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . The judiciary has assumed that congressional and military decisions to exclude women from combat have been rational and sensible. Recognizing that national defense is a concern of constitutional dimension and that Congress is empowered "to provide for the common defense," the courts have refrained from interfering with this area of legislative perogative." 191 The Supreme Court's recent decision in Rostker v. Goldberg (49 USLW4798, June 23, 1981), a draft registration case involving sexual discrimination, can be seen as a continuation of the Court's historic deference to Congress in this area. There appear to be two couipelling, perhaps competing, national interestsone to eliminate discrimination based on sex and another to provide for national A district court dismissed the defendant's argument that the draft pefense. law was "invidiously discriminatory" because it exempted females, stating that "such classifications as age and sex are not arbitrary or unreasonable, and the classifications are justified by the compelling government interest which is to provide for the common defense ir! a manner . . . which would the efficiency and minimize the expense of raising an army." both maximize 201 Currently, women are excluded by policy from serving in the infantry, in field artillery, or to operate tanks in the A m y . By statute women are excluded - from service on combat ships in the Navy or combat aircraft In the Navy and Air Force. Columbia On July 27, 1978, the U.S. District Court for the District of 211 declared that the provision contained in 10 U.S.C. 6015, barring the Secretary of the Navy from exercising his discretion to qualify and assign 191 - See Kourematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). 20/ - United States v. Dorris, 319 F. Supp. 1306, 1308 (1970). 211 Ovens v. - Brown (Civil Action No. 76-2086). any iGavy women t o a n y d u t y on a n y Navy s h i p , o t h e r t h a n h o s p i t a l s h i p s o r t r a n s p o r t s , v i o l a t e s t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n of t h e l a w a s g u a r a n t e e d by t h e F i f t h Amendment. I n l i g h t of t h a t d e c i s i o n , i t would a p p e a r t h a t i f t h e ERA were r a t i f i e d , any remaining s t a t u t e s r e q u i r i n g d i f f e r e n t t r e a t m e n t on t h e b a s i s of s e x would have t o b e c h a n g e d . H a r r i a g e and t h e Family One o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t a r e a s of c o n c e r n t o o p p o n e n t s o f t h e E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment i s t h e p o s s i b l e e f f e c t o f t h e Amendment on t h e f a m i l y a s a s o c i a l u n i t . The c o n c e r n s a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h t h e r o l e s o f t h e husband and w i f e i n a n o n g o i n g m a r r i a g e , on t h e e f f e c t s on t h e m a r i t a l p a r t n e r s and t h e c h i l d r e n when t h e r e i s a break-up of t h e m a r r i a g e , and on t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t m a r r i a g e l a w s would be changed t o a l l o w p e r s o n s o f t h e same s e x t o m a r r y . s a y that i t w i l l d e s t r o y t h e f a m i l y . Opponents o f t h e Amendment They f u r t h e r a r g u e that i t w i l l t a k e away p r i v i l e g e s t h a t women now e n joy. One c o n c e r n i s w h e t h e r t h e ERA would i n v a l i d a t e S t a t e l a w s w h i c h r e q u i r e a husband t o s u p p o r t h i s w i f e . Opponents a r g u e that were t h e ERA t o i n v a l i d a t e t h e s e l a w s , t o d o s o would t a k e away a v i f e ' s " l e g a l r i g h t " t o b e a f u l l - t i m e w i f e and m o t h e r s u p p o r t e d by h e r husband and would f o r c e h e r i n t o t h e j o b m a r k e t i n o r d e r t o f u l f i l l t h e e q u a l i z e d d u t y of s u p p o r t . e q u a l i z a t i o n o f t h e d u t y o f s u p p o r t t o mean o n e - h a l f Opponents i n t e r p r e t t h e the financial support. P r o p o n e n t s of t h e Amendment a r g u e , however, t h a t " t h e s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n o f e a c h s p o u s e would be d e f i n e d i n f u n c t i o n a l t e r m s b a s e d , f o r e x a m p l e on e a c h s p o u s e ' s e a r n i n g power, c u r r e n t r e s o u r c e s , and nonmonetary c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o - t h e family w e l f a r e . " 221 They b e l i e v e t h a t i f t h i s were t h e c a s e t h e l e g a l s t a t u s o f t h e homemaker would be s t r e n g t h e n e d . F u r t h e r , proponents point out t h a t i n none o f t h e S t a t e s which have i n c o r p o r a t e d e q u a l r i g h t s p r o v i s i o n s into their State Constitutions a n d v h i c h have e q u a l i z e d t h e d u t y o f s u p p o r t , a r e w i v e s o b l i g a t e d t o work f o r c o m p e n s a t i o n o u t s i d e t h e home i n o r d e r t o equalize their contribution. O p p o n e n t s a r g u e t h a t upon d i v o r c e , women would l o s e t h e i r r i g h t t o a l i m o n y and c h i l d s u p p o r t . P r o p o n e n t s a g r e e t h a t d i v o r c e l a w s would have t o be s e x - n e u t r a l and t h a t f a c t o r s o t h e r t h a n o n e ' s s e x would h a v e t o b e u s e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e ptiyment o f a l i m o n y and t h e c u s t o d y of c h i l d r e n . These f a c t o r s could i n c l u d e n e e d s o f a d e p e n d e n t s p o u s e and a b i l i t y of t h e v a g e - e a r n i n g spouse t o pay, v h i c h t h e p r o p o n e n t s p o i n t o u t a r e nov i n c l u d e d i n t h e Uniform M a r r i a g e and D i v o r c e kt a d o p t e d by t h e N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e of Commissions on Uniform S t a t e Laws. O p p o n e n t s a r g u e f u r t h e r t h a t u n d e r ERA a woman, upon t h e d e a t h o f h e r h u s b a n d , would l o s e h e r r i g h t t o d o w e r , a n o u t r i g h t i n t e r e s t i n t h e r e a l e s t a t e of h e r d e c e a s e d h u s b a n d , which s h e has by l a w i n some S t a t e s . Proponents of t h e Amendment a r g u e t h a t d o v e r r i g h t s c o u l d be e x t e n d e d t o men. A n o t h e r c o n c e r n r a i s e d by o p p o n e n t s o f t h e Amendment i s t h a t i t would p e r m i t p e r s o n s of t h e s a n e s e x t o m a r r y . The r a t t o n a l e i s t h a t no l a w would be a l l o w e d w h i c h makes a d i s t i n c t i o n on t h e b a s i s o f s e x . I n t h e congressional d e b a t e on t h i s i s s u e , S e n a t o r Bayh s t a t e d - The e q u a l r i g h t s amendment would n o t p r o h i b i t a S t a t e from s a y i n g t h a t t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e would be p r o h i b i t e d t o men p a r t n e r s . It would n o t p r o h i b i t a S t a t e from s a y i n g t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e would be p r o h i b i t e d t o women p a r t n e r s . 2-21 - S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y C o r n i t t e e , Equal R i g h t s f o r Men and Women, p . 17. All it says is that if a State legislature makes a judgement that it is wrong for a man to marry a man, then it must say it is wrong for a woman to marry a woman. g/ Protective Labor Laws Unions for several years opposed the Equal Rights Amendment on the grounds that it would invalidate such protective labor laws as weight-lifting laws applicable only to women, and laws limiting the hours women may work. Proponents of the ERA argue, however, that Title V I I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which already prohibits sex discrimination in employment, has not had that effect. To enforce this Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued sex discrimination guidelines vhich interpret the "bona fide occupational qualification" narrowly. The EEOC guidelines declare that State lavs which prohibit or limit employment of women in certain occupations g/discriminate on the basis of sex, because they do not take into account individual capacities and preferences. VII. - Accordingly, they conflict with and are superseded by Title A series of court cases has upheld this guideline. According to a Women's Bureau report, "the conflict between State and Federal laws on this point was for the most part resolved in the early 1970's." 23/ - 251 Congressional Record, v. 118, March 21, 1972. p. 9331. 2 4 / Such as in jobs requiring the lifting or carrying of more than specified weigh=, for more than a specified number of hours, and during certain hours of the night. - 25/ U.S. Department of labor. Employment Standards Administration. Women's Bureau. State Labor Laws in Transition: From Protection to Equal Status for Women. Washington, 1976. p. 18. C r i m i n a l Laws R e l a t i n g t o S e x u a l O f f e n s e s Because o f h e a l t h c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , p r e v a i l i n g m o r a l s t a n d a r d s , and p h y s i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e s e x e s , l e g i s l a t u r e s have a d o p t e d some c r i m i n a l l a w s which apply t o only one sex. T h e s e i n c l u d e laws r e g a r d i n g s e d u c t i o n , s t a t u t o r y r a p e , s o d m y , and p r o s t i t u t i o n . O p p o n e n t s o f t h e Amendment s a y t h a t t h e ERA v i l l f o r b i d a l l e x i s t i n g and f u t u r e c r i m i n a l l a v s w h i c h make a l e g a l d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n men and women. Under t h e E M , i t may b e t h a t t h o s e l a v s v h i c h a r e l i m i t e d t o o n e s e x would have t o be e x t e n d e d t o b o t h , o r s u c h l a w s would become i n v a l i d . For example, many p r o s t i t u t i o n l a w s make o n l y t h e a c t s o f wonen c r i m i n a l and n o t t h o s e of men. T h e s e l a w s c o u l d be e x t e n d e d t o c o v e r a l l t h o s e i n v o l v e d i n p r o s t i t u t i o n transactions. P r o p o n e n t s o f t h e Amendment a r g u e t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y makes i t c l e a r t h a t l a w s s u c h a s t h e s e c o n c e r n i n g s t a t u t o r y r a p e wouid b e j u s t i f i e d under t h e "unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s q u a l i f i c a t i o n . " Some S t a t e s , h o w e v e r , have z l r e a d y changed t h e i r l a w s r e g a r d i n g r a p e and sodomy, p l a c i n g them u n d e r a s e x u a l a s s a u l t code a p p l i e d e q u a l l y t o both s e x e s , hereby e l i m i n a t i n g a n y p r o b l e m v h i c h m i g h t a r i s e a s a r e s u l t o f t h e ERA. SHOULD TYEIZE BE ABSOLUTE EQUALITY? h second a r e a of disagreement c o n c e r n s v h e t h e r i t i s i n t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e N a t i o n , o r o f t h e women o f t h e N a t i o n , t o e s t a b l i s h a b s o l u t e , u n e q u i v o c a l e q u a l i t y o f t r e a t m e n t f o r men and wonen u n d e r t h e l a w . Some o p p o n e n t s o f ERA a r g u e t h a t b e c a u s e of u n i q u e p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i e t a l r o l e s , women s h o u l d r e c e i v e more o r d i f f e r e n t l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n t h a n men. S u p p o r t e r s of ERA a r g u e t h a t a l l c i t i z e n s v i t h o u t r e g a r d t o s e x s h o u l d s h a r e e q u a l l y t h e r i g h t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f c i t i z e n s h i p u n d e r t h e l a w . ShOULlJ TliERE BE A CONSTITUTIOKAL AMEhQMENT? T h e r e i s a t h i r d m a j o r a r e a of d i s a g r e e m e n t - - w h e t h e r a constitutional amendment i s t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e means f o r i m p r o v i n g t h e l e g a l s t a t u s of women i n t h e United S t a t e s . One v i e w i s t h a t a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment i s u n n e c c e s s a r y b e c a u s e t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a u s e of t h e 1 4 t h amendment, i f p r o p e r l y i n t e r p r e t e d , would n u l l i f y e v e r y l a w t h a t makes d i s t i n c t i o n s b a s e d on s e x and w h i c h i s n o t r a t i o n a l l y based. T h i s i d e a i s c l o s e l y a l l i e d w i t h t h e v i e w t h a t men and women should not a l v a y s r e c e i v e a b s o l u t e l y equal l e g a l t r e a t m e n t . Opponents o f ERA a r g u e t h a t t h e 1 4 t h amendment o f f e r s more f l e x i b i l i t y o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a n d o e s t h e p r o p o s e d Equal R i g h t s Amendment, v h i c h t h e y c o n t e n d f o r b i d s a n y s e x based c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Those who h o l d t h i s v i e w a l s o p o i n t t o t h e Supreme C o u r t decision i n Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. C o u r t v o u l d f i n d sex-based 71 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , a s a s t r o n g i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t o be i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a u s e o f t h e 1 4 t h amendment. In the Reed c a s e , t h e Supreme c o u r t r u l e d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l an I d a h o s t a t u t e r e q u i r i n g p r e f e r e n c e o f m a l e r e l a t i v e s o v e r f e m a l e r e l a t i v e s a s a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of e s t a t e s . - The Reed d e c i s i o n r e p r e s e n t e d t h e f i r s t t i m e t h e Supreme C o u r t had s t r u c k d o n a l a v b e c a u s e i t d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t women. Since Reed, classifications: s e v e r a l o t h e r d e c i s i o n s h a v e s t r u c k down sex-based F r o n t i e r 0 v . R i c h a r d s o n , 411 U.S. m i l i t a r y b e n e f i t s ; T a y l o r v. L o u i s i a n a , 419 U.S. s e l e c t i o n ; W e i n b e r g e r v . W i e s e n f e l d , 4 2 0 U.S. 677 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , c o n c e r n i n g 522 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , c o n c e r n i n g j u r y 635 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , c o n c e r n i n g s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s f o r widowed f a t h e r s ; S t a n t o n v. S t a n t o n , 421 U.S. (19751, c o n c e r n i n g t h e a g e of m a j o r i t y ; C r a i g e t a l . v . B o r e n , G o v e r n o r of Oklahoma, e t a l . , 429 G + S . 190 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , c o n c e r n i n g t h e a g e o f m a j o r i t y i n t h e s a l e of 3 . 2 1 b e e r ; and C a l i f a n o v. G o l d f a r b , 430 U.S. 199 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , c o n c e r n i n g s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s f o r widowers. On t h e o t h e r h a n d , o t h e r r e c e n t Supreme C o u r t d e c i s i o n s h a v e u p h e l d s e x c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s which d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t men and f a v o r e d women on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e y a r e i n t e n d e d t o overcome h i s t o r i c d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t women. example: Kahn v . S h e v i n , 416 U.S. For 351 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , r e g a r d i n g t a x e x e m p t i o n s b e n e f i t i n g widows; and S c h l e s i n g e r v . B a l l a r d , 419 U.S. 498 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , which i n v o l v e d p r o m o t i o n s y s t e a s i n t h e Navy. B e c a u s e s e x c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s h a v e n o t b e e n s t r u c k down w i t h c o n s i s t e n c y by t h e Supreme C o u r t , s u p p o r t e r s o f t h e ERA a r g u e f o r a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment w h i c h makes c l e a r t h a t s e x c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s a r e s u s p e c t and t h a t t h e y must be j u s t i f i e d by showing a c o m p e l l i n g i n t e r e s t i n o r d e r t o b e s u s t a i n e d . TO d a t e , t h e C o u r t h a s n o t h e l d t h a t sex d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s " s u s p e c t " u n d e r t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a u s e o f t h e 1 4 t h amendment, t h u s l e a v i n g t h e b u r d e n of p r o o f o n t h e c o m p l a i n a n t t h a t a sex-based - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n d o e s n o t b e a r a " f a i r and s u b s t a n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p " t o a l e g i t i m a t e governmental purpose. Those who s u p p o r t p a s s a g e o f t h e Amendment a l s o a r g u e t h a t a n amendment t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y t o e s t a b l i s h a n a t i o n a l p o l i c y and t o s e t a s t a n d a r d f o r t h e e l i m i n a t i o n of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b a s e d on s e x . Without t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a n d a r d , t h e y s a y , c u r r e n t l a w s c o u l d be amended and weakened. This c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a n d a r d would a l s o p r o h i b i t t h e p a s s a g e o f f u t u r e l a w s w h i c h d i s c r i m i n a t e on t h e b a s i s o f s e x . O p p o n e n t s o f t h e Amendment a r g u e t h a t w i t h t h e p a s s a g e of r e c e n t l a w s s u c h a s t h e E q u a l Pay A c t o f 1 9 6 3 , T i t l e IX of t h e E d u c a t i o n Amendments of 1 9 7 2 , t h e E q u a l C r e d i t O p p o r t u n i t y Act of 1 9 7 6 , and t h e P r e g n a n c y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n Act of 1 9 7 8 , d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on t h e b a s i s o f s e x i n employment, e d u c a t i o n , and c r e d i t i s now i l l e g a l . O t h e r a r e a s of discrimination t h e y a r g u e , c o u l d be i n d i v i d u a l l y r e c t i f i e d by e n a c t i n g s e p a r a t e l a w s p r e t a t i n i n g t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r s u b j e c t , i . e . , on a law-by-lav basis. THE ENFORCEMENT CLAUSE A f o u r t h a r e a of c o n t r o v e r s y i s t h e enforcement c l a u s e of t h e proposed E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment. stated: When t h e ERA was f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d i n 1 9 2 3 , t h e s e c t i o n " C o n g r e s s s h a l l have p o v e r t o e n f o r c e t h i s a r t i c l e by a p p r o p r i a t e legislation." The wording of t h e Amendment was changed t o conform w i t h t h e e n f o r c e m e n t p r o v i s i o n o f t h e P r o h i b i t i o n ( 1 8 t h ) Amendment, which r e a d : "Congress and t h e s e v e r a l S t a t e s s h a l l have p o v e r , w i t h i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n s , t o e n f o r c e t h i s a r t i c l e by a p p r o p r i a t e l e g i s l a t i o n . " I n l a t e 1 9 7 0 t h e w o r d i n g v a s changed by t h e p r o p o n e n t s t o r e a d : "The C o n g r e s s s h a l l have t h e p o v e r t o e n f o r c e , by a p p r o p r i a t e l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s a r t i c l e . " The p r o p o n e n t s d e c i d e d upon t h i s c h a n g e o f l a n g u a g e a f t e r S e n a t o r E r v i n ' s h e a r i n g s , d u r i n g v h i c h he a s k e d s e v e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w y e r s t o a n a l y z e t h e meaning and i n t e n t o f t h e s e c o n d c l a u s e . Since these c o n s t i t u t i o n a l lawyers agreed t h a t t h e language should be changed, t h e p r o p o n e n t s a g r e e d t o c h a n g e t h e wording t o c o n f o r m t o t h a t o f m o s t o f t h e o t h e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments. Some o p p o n e n t s o f t h e ERA h a v e a r g u e d t h a t t h e e n f o r c e m e n t s e c t i o n of t h e p r o p o s e d E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment, i n i t s c u r r e n t f o r m , would augment F e d e r a l pover a t t h e expense of t h e S t a t e s . P r o p o n e n t s o f t h e Amendment p o i n t o u t , however, t h a t t h i s w o r d i n g c o n f o r m s t o t h a t o f t h e 1 3 t h , 1 4 t h , 1 5 t h , 19th, 2 3 d , 2 4 t h , and 2 6 t h amendments, and t h a t t h e 1 8 t h amendment, which u a s t h e o n l y c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment t o p r o v i d e f o r e n f o r c e m e n t by C o n g r e s s and t h e S t a t e s , was r e p e a l e d . They a l s o a r g u e t h a t b e c a u s e o f t h e 1 0 t h amendment t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , w h i c h s t a t e s t h a t " t h e powers n o t d e l e g a t e d t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s by t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , n o r p r o h i b i t e d by i t t o t h e S t a t e s , a r e r e s e r v e d t o t h e S t a t e s r e s p e c t i v e l y , o r t o t h e p e o p l e , " i t i s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e ERA t o d e l e g a t e e n f o r c e m e n t a u t h o r i t y o n l y t o t h e Congress-the S t a t e s a l r e a d y have t h i s a u t h o r i t y . S e c t i o n 3 of t h e Amendment s t a t e s t h a t t h e E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment would t a k e e f f e c t two y e a r s a f t e r t h e d a t e o f r a t i f i c a t i o n . The p u r p o s e of t h i s s e c t i o n i s t o g i v e t h e S t a t e s and t h e F e d e r a l Government t i m e t o b r i n g t h e i r l a w s i n t o c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e ERA. EXTENS1014 OF THE DEADLINE FOR RATIFICATION: PRO AND CON Pour b a s i c q u e s t i o n s a r o s e d u r i n g t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e x t e n s i o n of t h e d e a d l i n e f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n of t h e proposed E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment i n 1978: ( 1 ) Does C o n g r e s s h a v e t h e power t o e x t e n d t h e d e a d l i n e ? ( 2 ) I f Congress has such a u t h o r i t y , should i t extend t h e d e a d l i n e ? ( 3 ) I f Congress e x t e n d s t h e d e a d l i n e , should i t a l l o w S t a t e s t o r e s c i n d prior ratifications? ( 4 ) I f C o n g r e s s c h o o s e s t o e x t e n d t h e d e a d l i n e , by what l e g i s l a t i v e method would t h e e x t e n s i o n have t o be e n a c t e d ? %/ UOZS CONGRESS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE? The q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g c o n g r e s s i o n a l a u t h o r i t y t o e x t e n d t h e d e a d l i n e f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n had n e v e r been a d d r e s s e d s p e c i f i c a l l y by e a r l i e r C o n g r e s s e s o r t h e - courts. A r t i c l e V o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n s e t s f o r t h t h e method of amending t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n ; i t d o e s n o t m e n t i o n , however, t i m e l i m i t s f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n of a p r o p o s e d amendment. The Supreme C o u r t i n D i l l o n v . G l o s s , 256 U.S. 368 ( 1 9 2 1 ) , h e l d t h a t u n d e r A r t i c l e V of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , C o n g r e s s , i n p r o p o s i n g a n amendment, may f i x a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n . 1 8 t h amendment and c o n t i n u i n g u n t i l t h e 23rd--except Beginning w i t h t h e f o r t h e 1 9 t h amendment, 2 6 / The q u e s t i o n s of e x t e n t i o n of t h e d e a d l i n e and r e s c i s s i o n of S t a t e a p p r o v a l l a t e r became s u b j e c t s o f c o u r t a c t i o n i n I d a h o v . Freeman. See p . 2 and 32 of t h i s r e p o r t f o r f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n . t h e Woman's S u f f r a g e Amendment, f o r which no t i m e l i m i t v a s s e t - s e v e n - y e a r were i n c l u d e d i n t h e s u b s t a n t i v e p r o v i s i o n s of amendments. limits Then, b e g i n n i n g w i t h 2 3 r d amendment, t i m e l i m i t s were i n c l u d e d a s a p a r t of t h e r e s o l v i n g c l a u s e o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g r e s o l u t i o n p r o p o s i n g a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment, a s i s t h e c a s e of t h e p r o p o s e d E q u a l R i g h t s Amendment. T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e i s no d i s a g r e e m e n t over whether t h e Congress has t h e p w e r t o s e t a r e a s o n a b l e time l i m i t f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n of a p r o p o s e d amendment. With r e s p e c t t o t h e a c t u a l t i m e l i m i t s e t f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n o f a p r o p o s e d amendment, t h e Supreme C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t s e v e n y e a r s i s r e a s o n a b l e ( D i l l o n v . G l o s s ) , and t h e C o n g r e s s c a n make t h e f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n , w i t h r e s p e c t t o a n amendment w h i c h o r i g i n a l l y had no t i m e l i m i t , on t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e t i m e w i t h i n which a s u f f i c i e n t number o f S t a t e s must a c t (Coleman v. H i l l e r , 307 U.S. 433 ( 1 9 3 9 ) . - F o r e x a m p l e , s i n c e 1900 o n l y o n e amendment, t h e p r o p o s e d Child-Labor Amendment s u b m i t t e d i n J u n e 1 9 2 4 , h a s n o t b e e n r a t i f e d by t h e r e q u i s i t e number of S t a t e s . S i n c e t h i s p r o p o s e d amendment had no t i m e l i m i t , i t i s s t i l l p e n d i n g before the States. I f t h i s p r o p o s e d amendment v e r e r a t i f i e d by t h e r e q u i s i t e number of S t a t e s , i t would t h e n be up t o t h e C o n g r e s s t o d e c i d e i f i t s - r a t i f i c a t i o n had been c o m p l e t e d w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e amount of t i m e . The q u e s t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e p r o p o s e d ERA was w h e t h e r C o n g r e s s , once i t had s e t a t i m e l i m i t , c o u l d e x t e n d t h a t t i m e p e r i o d . The Coleman d e c i s i o n was used by b o t h o p p o n e n t s and p r o p o n e n t s o f t h e e x t e n s i o n . Opponents s a i d t h a t a s u c c e e d i n g C o n g r e s s car, d e t e r m i n e t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e t i m e p e r i o d o n l y when no t i m e l i m i t h a s b e e n set by t h e p r o p o s i n g C o n g r e s s . Proponents s a i d t h a t s i n c e t h e Court h e l d t h a t subsequent Congresses can determine t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of t h e t i m e w i t h i n v h i c h a s u f f i c i e n t number of S t a t e s must a c t vhen no t i m e l i m i t f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n h a s b e e n s e t , a s u b s e q u e n t C o n g r e s s c a n a l s o d e t e r m i n e t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of a t i m e l i m i t s e t by the proposing Congress. Opponents o f t h e e x t e n s i o n a l s o a r g u e d t h a t t h e o n l y r o l e f o r t h e C o n g r e s s i n t h e amendment p r o c e s s i s t h a t of p r o p o s i n g amendments a n d , p e r h a p s , c o n f i n n i n g r a t i f i c a t i o n i f no t i m e l i m i t i s s e t . C o n g r e s s , t h e r e f o r e , h a s no a u t h o r i t y t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e r a t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s o n c e begun. A n o t h e r argument was t h a t t h e S t a t e s , when r a t i f y i n g , r e l i e d on t h e s e v e n - y e a r d e a d l i n e , and i t would be u n f a i r t o t h e s e S t a t e s t o change t h e t i m e l i m i t . P r o p o n e n t s of t h e e x t e n s i o n a r g u e d t h a t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e D i l l o n an& Coleman d e c i s i o n s , t h e Congress has t h e a u t h o r i t y t o e s t a b l i s h a r e a s o n a b l e time f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e may e x t e n d t h e p e r i o d i f t h e e x t e n s i o n i s f o r a reasonable time. They f u r t h e r a r g u e d t h a t t h e t i m e p e r i o d was set f o r t h i n t h e r e s o l v i n g c l a u s e and n o t i n t h e amendment s u b m i t t e d t o t h e S t a t e s ; b e i n g a " m a t t e r of d e t a i l , " n o t o f s u b s t a n c e , t h e r e f o r e , i t i s u n d e r t h e e x c l u s i v e p u r v i e w of t h e C o n g r e s s . - UAS A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME INITIALLY GIVEN TO RATIFICATION? SHOULD CONGRESS HAVE EXTENDED THE DEADLINE? Opponents o f t h e e x t e n s i o n s t a t e d t h a t a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e had b e e n g i v e n for ratification. They a r g u e d t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e r e a s o n a b l e t i m e r u l e a r t i c u l a t e d by t h e Supreme C o u r t i n D i l l o n was t h a t t h e r e b e a " c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s consensus: " t h a t i s , a l l t h e r a t i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e s e v e r a l S t a t e s s h o u l d have occurred s u f f i c i e n t l y c l o s e t o g e t h e r t o r e f l e c t a consensus of t h r e e - f o u r t h s of t h e s e v e r a l S t a t e s w i t h i n a g i v e n p e r i o d of t h e . Opponents p o i n t e d o u t t h a t 30 S t a t e s r a t i f i e d t h e ERA d u r i n g t h e f i r s t y e a r . T h r e e a d d i t i o n a l S t a t e s r a t i f i e d t h e amendment i n 1 9 7 4 , one i n 1975 and one i n J a n u a r y 1977. They a r g u e d t h a t tne trend was against ratification in as much as four States had rescinded their prior ratifications by 1978. They pointed out that every State legislature had considered the ERA and vorked its will according to its constitutional processes In the 15 unratified States, 24 committee votes and 59 floor votes have taken place since the proposed Amendment was submitted to the States for ratification. Opponents argued that in this day of mass communicaticns seven years is a more than reasonable period of time. Further, they argued that it is unfair "to change the rules in the middle of the game." Proponents of the extension stated that the 92d Congress set the seven-year time limit because that had been the traditional time period set on amendments proposed since 1917 (except for the Woman's Suffrage Amendment, which set no time limit). Proponents also argued that public opinion polls continued to reflect the belief of a majority of Americans that the ERA should be ratified. argued that the ERA had not been fully heard in some States. one State--Mississippi-the lu four States-Alabama, - They further For example, in ERA had never come to the floor of either house. Arkansas, Utah, and Virginia-only one house had voted on the ERA. .In others the E U had been held up in committee. At least seven States had enacted rules requiring more than a simple majority for the ratification of a constitutional amendment. 271 Proponents also argued that a time limit can not be set on human equality. - 2 7 1 Alabama had enacted a rule requiring a three-fifths majority in the House; Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, and Kansas, a two-thirds in both Houses; and Illinois, a three-fifths in both Houses. Colorado, Idaho, and Kansas are among the States that have ratified the proposed Amendment, although Idaho voted to rescind on February 8, 1977. WHAT LEGISLATIVE METHODS FOR EXTENSIOK E R E AVAILABLE? S e v e r a l p o s s i b l e methods v e r e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e C o n g r e s s f o r e x t e n d i n g t h e r a t i f ication deadline. These included: concurrent resolution requiring majority v o t e , j o i n t r e s o l u t i o n r e q u i r i n g two-thirds vote; o r joint resolution requiring m a j o r i t y v o t e and P r e s i d e n t i a l s i g n a t u r e . Those vho s u p p o r t e d t h e c o n c u r r e n t r e s o l u t i o n , r e q u i r i n g o n l y a m a j o r i t y v o t e , argued t h a t t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e s t h o s e a r e a s t h a t r e q u i r e a two-thirds vote. With r e s p e c t t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment p r o c e s s , o n l y t h e s u b s t a n c e of proposed amendments t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e s a twot h i r d s v o t e , a s opposed t o o t h e r p a r t s of t h e amending p r o c e s s r e q u i r i n g a simple majority vote. three-fourths F o r example, C o n g r e s s , when d e c i d i n g v h e t h e r t h e n e c e s s a r y o f t h e S t a t e s had r a t i f i e d t h e 1 4 t h amendment, u s e d t h e c o n c u r r e n t r e s o l u t i o n t o e x p r e s s t h e c o n g r e s s i o n a l view. An argument r a i s e d a g a i n s t a c o n c u r r e n t r e s o l u t i o n was t h a t i t d o e s n o t have t h e f o r c e of l a w and t h e r e f o r e i s n o t b i n d i n g on a s u b s e q u e n t C o n g r e s s . Others argued t h a t a j o i n t r e s o l u t i o n r e q u i r i n g a two-thirds v o t e was n e c e s s a r y s i n c e t h e ERA was o r i g i n a l l y p r o p o s e d and p a s s e d b y a j o i n t r e s o l u t i o n . - They a r g u e d t h a t many Members of C o n g r e s s may h a v e v o t e d f o r t h e Amendment b e c a u s e o f t h e t i m e l i m i t and i t would be u n f a i r t o change t h a t t i m e l i m i t by a s i m p l e majority. Another argument f o r a j o i n t r e s o l u t i o n was t h a t i t would h a v e t h e f o r c e o f law. An argument a g a i n s t t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r a t w o - t h i r d s extending t h e d e a d l i n e i s a "matter of detaila--not amendment-and v o t e was t h a t e n t i r e l y new c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t h a t it therefore required only a majority vote. A t h i r d p r o p o s a l was t o p a s s a j o i n t r e s o l u t i o n by a m a j o r i t y v o t e r e q u i r i n g the President's signature. T h i s method, l i k e t h e t w o - t h i r d s v o t e on a j o i n t r e s o l u t i o n , would have t h e e f f e c t o f law. An argument f o r t h i s a p p r o a c h v a s t h a t i f t h e C o n g r e s s wanted t o c h a n g e t h e t i m e l i m i t when t h e ERA was b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d by t h e 92d C o n g r e s s , s u c h a c h a n g e would h a v e r e q u i r e d o n l y a m a j o r i t y v o t e and, t h e r e f o r e , i t should only r e q u i r e a majority vote subsequently. Those vho a r g u e d a g a i n s t t h i s method s a i d t h a t i t would s e t a d a n g e r o u s p r e c e d e n t t o i n v o l v e t h e e x e c u t i v e b r a n c h i n t h e p r o c e s s of amending t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e United S t a t e s . H.J. R e s . 638 p a s s e d b o t h t h e House and S e n a t e by m a j o r i t y v o t e s . H.J. Res. 638 was s i g n e d b y t h e P r e s i d e n t on Oct. 2 0 , 1 9 7 8 , a l t h o u g h t h e r e i s s t i l l a q u e s t i o n as t o w h e t h e r h i s s i g n a t u r e i s n e c e s s a r y . MEST CONGRESS RECOGNIZE RESCISSIOK OF P R I O R RATIFICATION? The Supreme C o u r t i n Coleman v. Miller (307 U.S. 433 ( 1 9 3 9 1 ) r u l e d t h a t r e s c i s s i o n i s a p o l i t i c a l matter f o r C o n g r e s s t o d e c i d e . However, t h i s o p i n i o n has b e e n c h a l l e n g e d by I d a h o v. Freeman, w h i c h h e l d that S t a t e s h a v e a r i g h t t o r e s c i n d t h e i r a p p r o v a l o f a p r o p o s e d amendment u n t i l i t i s a c t u a l l y r a t i f i e d b y t h r e e - f o u r t h s o f a l l t h e S t a t e s , and t h a t C o n g r e s s must r e c o g n i z e t h a t a c t i o n . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t s a i d The c l e a r p u r p o s e o f a r t i c l e V o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n i s t o p r o v i d e t h a t a n amendment p r o p e r l y p r o p o s e d by C o n g r e s s s h o u l d become e f f e c t i v e when t h r e e - f o u r t h s o f t h e s t a t e s , a t t h e same t i m e and w i t h i n a c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s p e r i o d , a p p r o v e t h e amendment b y r a t i f i c a t i o n t h r o u g h t h e i r s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s . To a l l o w a n amendment t o become e f f e c t i v e a t a n y t i m e w i t h o u t t h e c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s a p p r o v a l o f t h r e e - f o u r t h s o f t h e s t a t e s would It f o l l o w s , be a c l e a r v i o l a t i o n o f a r t i c l e V o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . t h e r e f o r e , that a r e s c i s s i o n o f a p r i o r r a t i f i c a t i o n must b e r e c o g n i z e d i f i t o c c u r s p r i o r t o u n r e s c i n d e d r a t i f i c a t i o n by t h r e e - f o u r t h s of t h e s t a t e s . C o n g r e s s h a s no power t o d e t e r m i n e t h e v a l i d i t y o r i n v a l i d i t y of a p r o p e r l y c e r t i f i e d r a t i f i c a t i o n o r r e s c i s s i o n . 281 28/ - I d a h o v . Freeman, s l i p O p i n i o n , p . 71. The Supreme Court h a s a g r e e d t o h e a r t h i s q u e s t i o n , a l t h o u g h no d a t e h a s been set. APPENDIX 1: - STATES WHICH HAVE RATIFIED TKE EQUAL RIGHTS AXENDMEKT E/ 01124177-Indiana 03/19/75--North Dakota 02/07/74-Ohio 01 /25/74--Xontana 01/18/74--Maine U3/22/73--Washington 03/15/73--Connecticut 03101173--Vermont 02/28/73-New Mexico 02/08/73--Hinnesota 02/08/73-Oregon 02/05/73--South Dakota (voted to rescind 03/01/79) 01/26/73--Wyoning 11/13/72--California 091271'72-Pennsylvania b6/26/72--Kentucky (voted to rescind 03/16/78) 06/21/72-Massachusetts 05/2b/72--Haryland 05/22] 72-Michigan 05/18/72--New York 04 126172-Wisconsin U4122172-West Virginia 04/21/72-Colorado 04/17172--New Jersey 04/14/72-Rhode Island 04/05/72--Alaska 04/04/72-Tennessee (voted to rescind 04/23/74) 03/30/72-Texas 03129172--Nebraska (voted to rescind 03/15/73) 03128172-Kansas 03124172--Idaho (voted to rescind 02/08/77) 03124172-Iowa 03/23/72--Delaware 03123172-New Hampshire 291 Includes the five States which later voted to rescind ratification. Source: General Services Administration. Office of the Federal Register. Special Projects Unit. For a discussion of the role of the General Services Administration in certifying and recording copies of ratification resolutions, see U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. bending the Federal Constitution-Procedures of the General Services Administration and of the State Legislatures. CRS Report No. 80-89A, by Michael V. Seitzieger. Washington, 1980. p. 10. APPENDIX 2: ADDITIONAL SOURCES U.S. commission on Civil Rights. The Equal Rights Amendment: guaranteeing equal rights for women under the Constitution. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., June 1981. 29 p. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Equal rights for men and women; report together with individual views to accompany H.J. Res. 208. Washington, Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 16 p. (92d Congress, 1st session. House. Report no. 92-359) ---- Proposed equal rights amendment extension; report to accompany H.J. Res. 638. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 64 p. (95th Congress, 2d session. House Report no. 95-1405) U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. Equal Rights Amendment extension, Hearings, 95th Congress, 1st and 2d sessions, on H.J. Res. 638. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 378 p. Hearings held Nov. 1, 4, and 8, 1977; and May 17-19, 1978. U.S. Equal Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee No. 4 . rights for men and women, 1971. Hearings, 92d Congress, 1st session, on R.J. Res. 35, 208, and related bills; and H.R. 916 and related bills. Mar. 24, 25, and 31; Apr. 1, 2, and 5, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. print. Off., 1971. 724 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Equal rights for men and women; report together with individual views to accompany S.J. Res. 9 , and H.J. Res. 208. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1972. 52 p. (92d Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 92-689). - ---- Equal rights, 1970. Hearings, 9lst Congress, 2d session, on S.J. Res. 61 and S.J. Res. 231. Sept. 9, 10, 11, and 15, 1970. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1970. 433 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. The "equal rights" amendment. Hearings, 91st Congress, 2d session, on S.J. Res. 61. May 5, 6, and 7, 1970. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1970. 793 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Constitution. Equal Rights Amendment extension. Searings 95th Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1918. 764 p. Hearings held Aug. 2-4, 1978. U.S. ---- Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Equal Rights Amendment (proposed) [ b y ] Leslie Gladstone [Xashingtonj Continuously updated. 16 p. Issue Brief no. IB 74122. Equal Rights Amendment: selected floor debate and votes [ b y ] Morrigene Holcomb. [Washington] December 2 i , 1 9 7 4 . 4 3 p . Multilith 74-234 G.