Equal Rights Amendment (Proposed)

The proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was first introduced in 1923, and was passed by the Congress in 1972. In 1978, Congress extended the original deadline for ratification of the ERA. Thus, if it receives approval in the form of ratification by 38 States before June 30, 1982, the measure will become the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, and will require equal treatment under Federal and State laws and practices for all persons, regardless of sex.

EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT (PROPOSED) ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB74122 AUTHOR: Leslie Gladstone Government Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED 10/18/74 DATE UPDATED 07/08/82 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0708 CRS- 1 ISSUE DEFINITION The proposed E q u a l Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was f i r s t introduced i n 1 9 2 3 , and was passed by the Congress in 1972. In 1 9 7 8 , Congress extended the original deadline for ratification of the ERA. Thus, if i t receives approval in the form of ratification by 3 8 States before J u n e 3 0 , 1 9 8 2 , the measure will become the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, a n d will require equal treatment under Federal a n d State laws and practices for a l l persons, regardless of sex. While some Americans would welcome a constitutional guarantee of equal rights and responsibilities for persons o f both s e x e s , others view the proposed amendment a s a potential threat to family life and t o the traditional roles of men and women. BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS The proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution w a s f i r s t introduced 3 years after the 19th Amendment (to provide women's suffrage) was ratified. After being introduced i n various f o r m s i n nearly every Congress s i n c e 1 9 2 3 , the ERA was approved by the 92d Congress in 1972. The proposed a m e n d m e n t provides that: Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied o r abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. The Judiciary Committees of both Houses o f Congress had held hearings o n the measure a n d had reported the amendment t o the full House and Senate prior to its passage by the 92d Congress. The Senate previously had passed the amendment twice: i n the 81st Congress on Jan. 2 5 , 1 9 5 0 , a n d in the 8 3 d Congress on J u l y 1 6 , 1953. On both occasions, the measure included what w a s known a s the "Hayden rider," which provided that "the provisions of this article shall not be construed t o impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by l a w upon persons of the female sex." Proponents of the measure consistently resisted attempts to amend the ERA. The House o f Representatives passed the Equal Rights Amendment i n the 9 1 s t Congress on Aug. 1 0 , 1 9 7 0 , after the discharge procedure was used to f r e e the proposal from the Judiciary Committee. There had been no committee action o n the ERA for 2 2 years prior to this action. When the Senate considered the measure i n October 1 9 7 0 , i t adopted two amendments: to exempt women from the draft and to permit recitation of nondenominational prayers in public schools a n d other public buildings. Supporters of the ERA were again unhappy with an amended version, a n d on Nov. 1 9 , 1 9 7 0 , by unanimous consent, the Senate laid a s i d e the proposed E R A , and CRS- 2 IB74122 UPDATE-07/08/82 took n o f u r t h e r a c t i o n i n the 9 1 s t Congress. The House passed t h e ERA (H.J.Res. 208) I n the 9 2 d Congress on Oct. 12, 1 9 7 1 , rejecting two committee amendments which would have: (1) added the words "of any personvf t o Section 1 , and (2) a d d e d a section allowing the exemption o f w o m e n f r o m the draft a n d holding that the ERA would not impair the validity of a n y l a w which "reasonably promotes the health a n d safety of the people." After rejecting 1 0 amendments proposed by Sen. Sam E r v i n , the Senate approved H.J.Res. 2 0 8 on Mar. 2 2 , 1 9 7 2 , clearing i t f o r ratification by the States. Three-fourths (38) of the States must ratify the ERA before i t can become a part of the Constitution. The original d e a d l i n e for ratification was Mar. 2 2 , 1979. T h e 9 5 t h Congress enacted legislation extending the deadline until J u n e 3 0 , 1982. I t would take effect two y e a r s after f u l l ratification. The f i r s t State to ratify, Hawaii, did so within hours o f f i n a l congressional approval. T o d a t e , 3 5 S t a t e s have ratified the m e a s u r e , including N e b r a s k a , Tennessee, I d a h o , K e n t u c k y , and South D a k o t a (where the Lt. Governor, a c t i n g with the power of the Governor, who was o u t of t o w n , vetoed the rescission), which later voted to rescind ratification (see Chronology f o r dates of State ratification a n d rescission). The question o f whether a State may rescind i t s ratification of a proposed amendment has never been finally resolved by either the courts or t h e Congress. H i s t o r i c a l l y , most legal opinion has tended to a g r e e with the Su.preme C o u r t decision in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), that rescission i s a "political q u e s t i o n w ) that Congress has f u l l d i s c r e t i o n , f r e e from judicial r e v i e w , t o determine the validity of withdrawal of ratification. In the instances of the F o u r t e e n t h and Fifteenth Amendments, Congress determined that withdrawal of a prior ratification was i n v a l i d , thereby establishing precedent for congressional non-recognition of rescission. H o w e v e r , because the action of one Congress i s not binding o n another Congress, the question remains open and i s subject to discussion i n the ratification of ERA. Legislation was introduced i n the 9 5 t h Congress to provide t h a t any S t a t e legislature which rescinds its ratification of a proposed a m e n d m e n t t o the Constitution shall be considered to have not ratified the amendment. Amendments to H.J.Res. 6 3 8 to a l l o w rescissions were defeated by the H o u s e a n d Senate. CONTROVERSY OVER PROPOSED AMENDMENT (1) interpretations Controversy over t h e proposed amendment r e l a t e s to: of its probable effects i n some a r e a s , ( 2 ) whether there should be room i n the l a w f o r " r e a s o n a b l e w distinctions in t h e treatment of men a n d w o m e n , a n d (3) whether a constitutional amendment i s the proper vehicle f o r improving the legal status o f women in our Nation. T h e r e is l i t t l e disagreement a b o u t the general intent of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. Legislative intent i n this regard i s clearly seen i n the Senate debate on the measure i n March 1 9 7 2 , the H o u s e a n d Senate Judiciary Committee reports o n the measure, and congressional hearings h,eld in 1970-1971 (see Reports and Hearings). A s stated in the Senate Judiciary Committee report o n t h e measure, " T h e basic principle o n which the Amendment rests may be stated shortly: sex should not be a factor i n determining the l e g a l rights o f men o r women.... T h e Amendment will a f f e c t o n l y governmental a c t i o n ; the private a c t i o n s and the private relationships of men and women CRS- 3 IB74122 UPDATE-07/08/82 a r e unaffected." T h e Equal Rights Amendment would require that governments treat each person, male or f e m a l e , a s a citizen and individual under t h e law. It is directed a t eliminating gender-based classifications in the l a w which specifically deny equality o f rights o r violate the principle of nondiscrimination with regard to sex. Thus every Federal or State l a w which makes a discriminatory distinction between men and women would be invalid under the Equal Rights Amendment. Both proponents a n d opponents of the amendment a g r e e that proper interpretation of the ERA would result i n the elimination of the use of sex a s the sole factor in determining, f o r example, who would be subj.ect t o the military draft, if one were reinstated; who in a divorce action would be awarded custody of a child; who would have responsibility f o r family support; or who would be subject t o jury duty. Public schools could not require higher admissions standards for persons of one sex than for the other; courts could not impose longer jail sentences on convicted criminals of one sex. Thus certain responsibilities and protections which have been or are now extended t o members o f o n e s e x , but not to members of the other s e x , would have to be either extended to everyone or eliminated entirely. Although there i s general agreement o n the intent of the a m e n d m e n t , o n e issue of interpretation o n which opinions still are divided is whether the existence o f separate restrooms, prisons, a n d d o r m i t o r i e s for males and f e m a l e s would be permissible under provisions of the proposed Equal R i g h t s Amendment. One point of view i s that the constitutional r i g h t of privacy established by the Supreme Court i n Griswold v. Connecticut, 3 8 1 U.S. 479 (1965), would permit a separation of the sexes with respect t o such places a s public restrooms and sleeping quarters. T h e opposing v i e w i s that the most recent constitutional amendment takes precedence over a l l other sections of the constitution with which i t i s inconsistent, and to a l l o w separate facilities would be to revive the "separate but equal" doctrine. Opponents of the amendment also express concern that the Court has not y e t clearly defined the rights of privacy and that therefore it i s impossible to ascertain how this principle would be applied under the Equal R i g h t s Amendment. Proponents have argued that the existence of separate restrooms i n n o way discriminates o n the basis of sex and d o e s not violate the equality-of-rights principle which underlies the Equal Rights Amendment. A second disagreement concerns whether i t i s i n the interest of the N a t i o n , or of the women o f the Nation, to establish . a b s o l u t e , unequivocal equality of treatment for men a n d women under the law. There are some w h o believe that because o f unique characteristics o r traditional societal r o l e s , women should receive different legal treatment than men. T h e opposing v i e w i s t h a t a l l citizens should share equally the rights and responsibilities of citizenship under the law. T h i s basic conflict leads to the third major area of disagreement: whether the process of constitutional amendment i s the best means to i m p r o v e t h e legal status of women in the United States. O n e point of v i e w is that a ConStitUtiOnal amendment is unnecessary because the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, if properly interpreted', would nullify every law T h i s idea i s lacking a rational basis which makes distinctions based o n sex. closely allied with the view that. men and women should not always receive absolutely equal legal treatment. The approach of relying o n the 14th Amendment appears to offer more flexibility of interpretation than d o e s the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which forbids any sex-based classification. Those who hold this view also point to the Supreme Court decision in Reed v. CRS- 4 R e e d , 404 U.S. 71 (1971), a s a strong indication that the C o u r t would find sex-based discrimination to be in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Reed c a s e , the Supreme Court ruled a s U n C O n ~ t i t U t i O n a l a n Idaho statute requiring preference of male relatives over f e m a l e relatives a s administrators of estates. The Reed decision represented the f i r s t time the Supreme Court had struck down a l a w which discriminated against women. Since R e e d , several other c a s e s have struck down gender classifications: Frontiero v. R i c h a r d s o n , 4 1 1 U.S. 6 7 7 (1973), concerning military benefits in a "suspect which four J u s t i c e s argued t h a t sex should be ruled Classification," t h r e e argued that the C o u r t should n o t make such a determination, o n e rejected the idea o u t r i g h t , and the ninth took no position (1975), concerning jury o n the matter; T a y l o r v. L o u i s i a n a , 4 1 9 U.S. 522 selection; Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 4 2 0 U.S. 6 3 6 (1975) , concerning S o c i a l Security benefits f o r widowed f a t h e r s ; Stanton v. S t a n t o n , 4 2 1 U.S. 7 (1975), concerning the a g e o f majority; Craig e t al. v. Boren, Governor of O k l a h o m a , et al., 4 2 9 U.S. 1 9 0 (1976), concerning the a g e of majority i n the sale of - , 4 5 U.S.L.W. 4 2 3 7 (Mar. 2 , 3.2% beer, and C a l i f a n o v. G o l d f a r b , - - U.S. 1 9 7 7 1 , concerning social security benefits for widowers. On the other h a n d , several recent Supreme Court decisions have upheld gender classifications which discriminated against men and i n favor o f w o m e n , on the ground t h a t they a r e intended to overcome historic discrimination against. women. F o r example: Kahn v. S.hevin, 416 U.S. 3 5 1 (1974), regarding 498 tax exemptions benefitting widows; and Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U.S. (1975), which involved promotion systems i n the Navy. Because gender classifications have not been struck down with consistency in recent S u p r e m e C o u r t decisions, supporters of a constitutional a m e n d m e n t a r g u e that there is a need for the establishment of a clear r u l e that gender classifications a r e suspect and t h a t they must be justified by showing a compelling interest in order to b e sustained. T o d a t e , the Court has not held that sex discrimination i s "suspect" under the equal p r o t e c t i o n . c l a u s e of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus leaving the burden of proof on a complaining w o m a n t h a t a sex-based classification is "unreasonable." CONTROVERSY OVER EXTENSION OF T H E RATIFICATION DEADLINE T h r e e basic questions arose during consideration of extending the (1) does ratification d e a d l i n e f o r the proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Congress have t h e power to extend the deadline; (2) if Congress has such authority, should i t extend the ratification deadline; a n d (3) i f Congress chose to extend the deadline, by what legislative method would the extension have to be enacted. T h e first question regarding congressional authority t o extend the deadline f o r ratification had n e v e r been addressed specifically by earlier Congresses or t h e courts. Article V of the Constitution sets forth the method of a m e n d i n g the Constitution; however, i t does not mention any time limits for ratification of a proposed amendment. The Supreme Court i n D i l l o n v. G l o s s , 256 U.S. 3 6 8 (1921), held that under Article V of the Constitution, C o n g r e s s , in proposing a n a m e n d m e n t , may f i x a reasonable time for ratification. Beginning with the 18th Amendment and continuing until the 2 3 r d , except f o r the 19th Amendment (the Woman's Suffrage Amendment) for which no time l i m i t w a s set, 7-year limits were included in the substantive provisions of amendments. T h e n , beginning with the 23rd Amendment, time CRS- 5 IB74122 UPDATE-07/08/82 limits were included a s a part df the resolving clause of the underlying amendment, as i s the case o f the resolution proposing a constitutional proposed Equal Rights Amendment. Therefore, there is no disagreement that the Congress has the power to set a reasonable time limit for ratification of a proposed amendment. With respect to the actual time limit set for ratification of a proposed a m e n d m e n t , the Supreme Court has held that seven years is reasonable (Dillon v. Gloss) and the Congress can make the final determination, with respect to a n amendment which originally had no time l i m i t , on the reasonableness of the Miller, time within which a sufficient number of States must a c t (Coleman v. 3 0 7 U.S. 4 3 3 (1939)). For example, since 1 9 0 0 only o n e amendment, the proposed child-labor amendment submitted i n J u n e 1 9 2 4 , has n o t been ratified by the requisite number of States. Since this proposed amendment had n o time l i m i t , i t is still pending before the States. If this proposed amendment were ratified by the requisite number of S t a t e s , i t would then be up to the Congress to decide if its ratification were completed within a reasonable amount of time. With reference to the proposed ERA the question was whether Congress, once i t has set a time l i m i t , could extend that time period. T h e Coleman decision w a s used by both opponents and proponents of the extension. Opponents said that a succeeding Congress can determine the validity of the time period only when no time limit has been set by the proposing Congress. Proponents said that since the Court held that a subsequent Congress can determine the reasonableness of the time within which a sufficient number of States must a c t when no time limit for ratification has been set, a subsequent Congress can a l s o determine the validity of the reasonableness of a time limit set by the proposing Congress. Opponents of the extension a l s o argued that the only role for the Congress i n the amendment process is that of proposing amendments a n d , t h e n , perhaps decidlng on ratification if no time limit is set. Congress, therefore, has no authority to interfere with the ratification process once begun. Another a r g u m e n t was that the States when ratifying relied on the 7-year deadline a n d i t would be unfair to these States to change the time limit. Proponents of the extension a r g u e d , that according to the Dillon and Coleman decisions, the Congress has the authority to establish a reasonable time f o r ratification and therefore may extend the period if the extension is They further argued that the time period was i n the f o r a reasonable time. resolving clause a n d not the amendment submitted to the S t a t e s , therefore, i t i s a matter of detail, not substance, and is under the exclusive purview of the Congress. Has a reasonable period of time been given to ratification of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment or should the Congress extend the deadline? Opponents of the extension stated that a reasonable time has been given f o r ratification. They argued that the purpose of the reasonable time r u l e articulated by the Supreme Court i n Dillon was that there be a contemporaneous consensus; that i s , a l l the ratifications of the several States should have occurred sufficiently close together to reflect a consensus of three-fourths o f the several States a t a given point i n time. Opponents pointed out that 3 0 States ratified the ERA during the f i r s t year. T h r e e additional States ratified the amendment i n 1 9 7 4 , one i n 1 9 7 5 and one i n January 1977. They argued that now the trend is against ratification as four States have rescinded their prior ratifications. They pointed o u t that CRS- 6 IB74122 UPDATE-07/08/82 every S t a t e legislature has considered ERA a n d worked i t s will according to its constitutional processes. In the 1 5 unratified S t a t e s , 2 4 c o m m i t t e e votes a n d 5 9 floor votes have taken place since the proposed amendment w a s submitted to the States for ratification. Opponents a r g u e that i n this d a y of mass communications seven years i s a'more than reasonable period of time. Further they argued that i t i s unfair "to change the r u l e s i n the middle o f the game." Proponents of the extension stated t h a t the 9 2 n d C o n g r e s s set t h e 7-year time limit because that had been t h e traditional time period set o n a m e n d m e n t s proposed since 1 9 1 7 , with t h e 18th Amendment (except f o r t h e w o m a n ' s suffrage amendment, which s e t n o , time limit). Regarding t h e contemporaneous consensus, proponents argued that there i s no contemporaneous consensus on the issues raised by the 1 4 t h Amendment because the d e b a t e i s still going on. L i k e w i s e , there is no contemporaneo.us consensus o n t h e issues raised by the ERA nor i s there likely to be. T h e y further argued t h a t i t took nearly 5 0 years to get the ERA passed by Congress a n d will probably take a t least another 50 years for the Amendment's full i m p a c t to be felt. P r o p o n e n t s argued that public opinion polls continue t o reflect the belief o f a majority of Americans that the ERA should be ratified. They further a r g u e that ERA has not been fully heard in some States. F o r e x a m p l e , i n o n e S t a t e ERA has never come to the floor of either house. In f o u r S t a t e s , only o n e house has voted on ERA. In others ERA has been held up i n committee. At l e a s t seven States have enacted r u l e s requiring more t h a n a simple majority [ ~ l a b a m a-- three-fifths f o r the ratification of a constitutional amendment. in i n t h e House; Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho a n d Kansas -- two-thirds Proponents a r g u e d both Houses; a n d Illinois -- three-fifths i n both Houses.] that a time l i m i t can not be set o n human equality. If the ERA had not been ratified by Mar. 2 2 , 1 9 7 9 , s o m e observers f e l t that several options remained open for the passage and ratification of a n Equal Rights Amendment. If a n extension not passed the Congress, o n e alternative was to seek the enactment of a new amendment. S o m e opponents o f the extension urged the Congress to defeat the extension a n d , after t h e t i m e l i m i t e x p i r e d , pass a revised versio'n o f the ERA more acceptable to t h e States. Another i s s u e discussed i n relation to extension i s whether States should be statutorily allowed by such legislation t o rescind their prior ratification of a proposed amendment. T h e Supreme C o u r t has said t h a t rescission i s a political matter for the Congress to decide. (Coleman v. Miller) O n e question is when should the Congress d e c i d e that i s s u e w i t h respect to t h e proposed Equal Rights Amendment. S o m e argued that s i n c e rescission i s a separate i s s u e , the time t o make the decision on whether a S t a t e can rescind i t s ratification i s w h e n the requisite number o f S t a t e s have ratified. T h e Congress has made such determinations with respect to t h e 1 4 t h a n d 1 5 t h Amendments. Others argued t h a t i t would be unfair to extend the time f o r ratification without allowing States to rescind their prior ratifications. In other w o r d s , a State l e g i s l a t u r e ' s vote t o ratify would be considered irreversable within the ratification time p e r i o d , but a c o m p a r a b l e vote against ratification o r the rescission of a n earlier ratification could be reversed by subsequent action. Amendments to H.J.Res. 6 3 8 to a l l o w rescission were defeated in both the House a n d Senate. At the time Congress chose to extend t h e d e a d l i n e , what legislative method should have been used? S e v e r a l possible methods were available to the Congress f o r extending the CRS- 7 IB74122 UPDATE-07/08/82 ratification deadline. T h o s e who supported the concurrent resolution, requiring only a majority v o t e , argued that the Constitution identifies With respect to the constitutional issues as requiring a two-thirds vote. amendment process, only the substance of proposed amendments to the Constitution require a two-thirds v o t e , a s opposed to other parts of the amending process requiring a simple majority vote. For example, Congress, when deciding whether the necessary three-fourths of the States had ratified the 14th Amendment, used the concurrent resolution to express the congressional view. An argument raised against a concurrent resolution was that i t does not have the f o r c e of law a n d therefore was not binding on a subsequent Congress. Others argued that a joint resolution requiring a two-thirds vote is necessary since the ERA was originally proposed and passed by a joint resolution. They argued that many Members of Congress may have voted for the Amendment because of the time limit and i t would be unfair t o change t h a t Another argument for a joint resolution w a s time limit by a simple majority. that i t would have the f o r c e o f law. An argument against the necessity f o r a two-thirds vote was that extending the deadline is a matter of detail a n d not substance; therefore, requiring only a majority vote. A third proposal was to pass a joint resolution by a majority vote requiring the President's signature. T h i s method, like the two-thirds vote o n a joint r e ~ o l ~ t i o nwould , have the effect of law. An argument for t h i s approach was that if the Congress wanted to change the time l i m i t when the ERA was being considered by t h e 9 2 n d Congress, such a change would have required only a majority vote a n d , therefore, it should only require a majority Vote now. Those who argued against this method say that it i s a dangerous precedent to involve the executive- branch i n the process of amending the Constitution of the United States. H.J.Res. 6 3 8 passed both the House and Senate by majority votes. 6 3 8 was signed by the President o n Oct. 2 0 , 1 9 7 8 , although there is question a s to whether his signature i s necessary. H.J.Res. still a RATIFICATION HISTORY Although the Equal Rights Amendment w a s ratified by 35 States o u t of the requisite 38, n o States ratified the Amendment after January 1977. The extension of the ratification period provided by H.J.Res. 6 3 8 ended on J u n e 3 0 , 1 9 8 2 , and the proposed amendment, still three States short, died automatically o n that date. LEGAL CHALLENGES A ruling on Dec. 2 3 , 1 9 8 1 , by the U.S. District C o u r t for Idaho raised substantial questions about t h e amendment's legal status with regard to the issues of rescission and extension. In Idaho v. F r e e m a n , Civil No. 79-1097 (D. Idaho, Dec. 2 3 , 1981), Judge Marion J. Callister ruled t h a t individual States were not bound by their original votes to ratify the amendment, but might rescind a t any point before three-fourths of t h e States vote to to ratify. F i v e S t a t e legislatures, Nebraska, Tennessee, I d a h o , Kentucky, a n d South Dakota, have reversed their approval of the amendment. "Rescission," said Judge Callister, is "clearly a proper exercise of a S t a t e ' s power [ . ] " (Idaho v. Freeman, Slip Opinion a t p. 62.) "Congress has no power to determine the validity o r invalidity of a properly certified ratification .... CRS- 8 IB74122 UPDATE-07/08/82 o r rescission," (Ibid, p. 71) T h e district court also said that Congress violated the Constitution when i t extended the deadline f o r the proposed amendment. I n his decision, J u d g e Callister wrote that "[a]s part of the mode of ratification C o n g r e s s m a y , by a two-thirds v o t e of both H o u s e s , set a r e a s o n a b l e time limit for the States to a c t i n order for the ratification to be effective. When [ s u c h a l i m i t ] i s s e t , i t i s binding o n Congress and the States a n d it cannot be changed by In a d d i t i o n , the Court said that even Congress thereafter." (Ibid, p. 71.) if Congress had the power to extend the time l i m i t , i t could not d o so by a s i m p l e majority v o t e , a s i t did in 1 9 7 8 , since extension would require the s a m e two-thirds majority i n both Houses a s required by Article V of the Constitution f o r proposal of a n amendment. H o w e v e r , on Jan. 2 5 , 1 9 8 2 , the Supreme C o u r t stayed the I d a h o court decision in i t s entirety, thus clearing the amendment's legal s t a t u s (pending a hearing by the Court a t a later date). LEGISLATION H.J.Res. 2 0 8 , 9 2 d Congress (Griffiths) Constitutional Amendment. Provides that equality of rights under the l a w shall not be denied o r abridged by the United States or by any State o n a c c o u n t of sex. Passed the House o f Representatives by a v o t e of 354-24 on Oct. 1 2 , 1 9 7 1 , and passed the Senate o n Mar. 2 2 , 1 9 7 2 , by a v o t e of 84-8. T h e amendment must be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the States within 7 years from the date of final approval by the Congress. H.J.Res. 6 3 8 , 9 5 t h Congress (Holtzman et al.) Extends the deadline for ratification of the proposed Equal Rights Ameridment until June 3 0 , 1982. Passed t h e House o n Aug. 1 5 , 1 9 7 8 , by a vote of 233 t o 1 8 9 a n d passed the Senate on Oct. 6 , 1 9 7 8 , by a v o t e of 60 to 36. Signed by the President on Oct. 2 0 , 1978. H.J.Res. 1 9 2 , 9 7 t h Congress (Kindness) Constitutional Amendment. Declares that equality of rights under the l a w shall not be denied o r abridged by the United States or any S t a t e o n account of sex. Introduced Feb. 2 5 , 1 9 8 1 ; referred to Committee o n the Judiciary. HEARINGS U.S. Congress. House. Committee o n the Judiciary. Subcommittee o n Civil and Constitutional Rights. Equal Rights Amendment extension. 638. Hearings, 9 5 t h Congress, 1 s t and 2nd s e s s i o n s , on H.J:Res. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 3 7 8 p. Hearings held Nov. 1 , 4 , and 8 , 1 9 7 7 ; and May 1 7 - 1 9 , 1978. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee o n the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Constitution. Extension of t h e deadline f o r ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. H e a r i n g s , 95th Congress, 2d session. (Printed hearings not y e t available.) Hearings held Aug. 2-4, 1978. CRS- 9 IB74122 UPDATE-07/08/82 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee Equal rights for men and w o m e n , 1971. H e a r i n g s , No. 4. 9 2 6 Congress, 1 s t session, on H.J.Res. 3 5 , 2 0 8 , and related bills; and H.R. 9 1 6 and related bills. Mar. 2 4 , 2 5 , a n d 3 1 ; Apr. 1 , 2 , a n d 5 , 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., . 1971. 7 2 4 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Equal r i g h t s , 1970. Hearings, 9 1 s t C o n g r e s s , 2d s e s s i o n , o n S.J.Res. 61 a n d S.J.Res. 231. Sept. 9 , 1 0 , 1 1 , and 1 5 , 1970. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1970. 4 3 3 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee o n the Judiciary. Subcommittee o n Constitutional Amendments. T h e "equal r i g h t s q qamendment. Hearings, 9 1 s t Congress, 2d session, o n S.J.Res. 61. May 5 , 6 and 7 , 1970. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1970. 793 p. REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Equal r i g h t s for men and women; report together with individual views to accompany H.J.Res. 208. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 16 p. (92d Congress, 1 s t session. House. Report no. 92-359) ----- Proposed equal rights amendment extension; report to accompany H.J.Res. 638. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1 9 7 8 . . 64 p. (95th Congress, 2d session. House Report no. 95-1405). 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. W a s h i n g t o n , U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1972. 5 2 p. (92d C o n g r e s s , 2d session. Senate. Report no. 92-689) OTHER CONGRESSIONAL ACTION CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS The following Amendment: 01/24/77 03/19/75 02/07/74 01/25/74 01/18/74 03/22/73 03/15/73 03/01/73 02/28/73 02/08/73 02/08/73 02/05/73 State legislatures have ratified the E q u a l Rights Indiana North Dakota Ohio Montana Maine Washington Connecticut Vermont New Mexico Minnesota Oregon South Dakota (voted to rescind 03/01/79) 01/26/73 11/13/72 09/27/72 06/26/72 06/21/72 05/26/72 05/22/72 05/18/72 04/26/72 04/22/72 04/21/72 04/17/72 04/14/72 04/05/72 04/04/72 03/30/72 03/29/72 03/28/72 03/24/72 03/24/72 03/23/72 03/23/72 03/22/72 ---- -- -- ----- ----- ---- --- ------ Wyoming California Pennsylvania Kentucky (voted to rescind 03/16/78) Massachusetts Maryland Michigan New York Wisconsin West Virginia Colorado New Jersey Rhode Island Alaska Tennessee (voted to rescind 04/23/74) Texas Nebraska (voted to rescind 03/15/73) Kansas Idaho (voted to rescind 02/08/77) Iowa Delaware New Hampshire Hawaii The following 15 State legislatures have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. The following 1 6 States have equal rights provisions in their constitutions: Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. RATIFICATION HISTORY OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT - ALABAMA: Senate 24-8. ALASKA: House ratified, 03/24/72, 38-2. 04/05/72, 16-2. ARIZONA: rejected in committee, 02/22/73; rejected in House committee 03/07/74, 7-5; rejected in House 02/25/75, rejected in committee, 03/05/73; 41-19. Senate rejected in committee 04/01/74, 5-4; rejected in Senate 02/13/75, 16-14; approved on 1st reading 02/26/76, 16-14; rejected on 2nd reading 03/01/76, 15-15; rejected in Senate, 05/05/77, 18-11; rejected by passing amended version striking section 2, 04/11/78, 17-13. rejected, 06/12/73, 26-6; rejected, 01/31/78 - Senate - ratified, - - ARKANSAS : Senate 20-14. - rejected by passing amended version 02/01/73, House approved a "do passn recommendation - in committee, 02/16/77, voice vote; approved a "do not pass" recommendation in committee, 03/14/79, by a vote of 14-4. - House - ratified, Senate - ratified, CALIFORNIA: Senate ratified, 11/09/72, 11/13/72, 54-16. COLORADO: ratified, 04/13/72, 61-0. House 04/21/72, 30-1. CONNECTICUT: House - rejected, 04/06/72, 83-77; ratified, 03/08/73, 99-47. Senate - ratified, 03/15/73, 27-9. DELAWARE : Senate - ratified, 03/22/72, 16-0. 03/23/72, 37-0. FLORIDA: House ratified, 03/24/72, 91-4; rejected, 04/17/73, 64-54; ratified, 04/10/75, 62-58; ratified, 05/17/79, 66-53; ratified, 06/21/82, 60-58. Senate - rejected in committee, 04/04/73, 3-3; rejected in Senate, 04/10/74, 21-19; rejected, 04/25/75, 21-17; rejected, 04/13/77, 21-19; rejected in committee, 04/04/79, 12-4; rejected, 05/24/79, 19-21; rejected, 06/21/.82, 22-16. GEORGIA: House - rejected in committee, 02/19/73, 9-2; rejected in House, 01/28/74, 104-70; rejected in House, 01/25/82, 116-57. Senate - rejected, 02/17/75, 33-22; rejected in committee, 01/12/78, unanimously; rejected, 01/21/80, 32-23; rejected in House, 01/27/82, 116-57. HAWAII : ratified, 03/22/72, 51-0. House 03/22/72, 25-0. IDAHO : House - ratified, 03/24/72, 59-5; rescission defeated 02/13/74, 35-35; rescinded, 02/04/77, 44-22. Senate - ratified, 03/24/72, 31-4; rescinded, 1974, 2 dissenting votes; rescinded, 02/08/77, 18-17. ILLINOIS: Senate ratified, 05/00/72, 30-21; rejected in committee, 04/04/73, 14-7; rejected, 06/18/74, 30-24 as three-fifths majority is necessary for ratification in Illinois; Senate voted to retain the rule requiring a three-fifths vote to ratify a constitutional amendment, 03/05/75; Senate voted not to discharge measure from committee, 06/17/75, 30-28; rejected, 12/16/76, 29-22, a s three-fifths majority is necessary for ratification Illinois. House - rejected 05/16/72, 75-68, rejected, 06/30/72, 82-76; rejected, 04/04/73, 95-72; ratified, 05/01/75, 113-62; rejected a motion to change the three-fifths majority necessary to ratify a constitutional amendment to a simple majority, 03/09/77, 100-66; rejected, 06/02/77, 101-74, as 1 0 7 votes were needed to to ratify; rejected 06/07/78, 101-65, a s 1 0 7 29-9. - House - ratified, - - - Senate - ratified, votes were needed for ratification; rejected 06/22/78, 105-71, as 107 votes were needed for ratification; rejected, 06/18/80, 102-71; rejected 06/22/82, 103-72, as 107 Votes were needed for ratification. INDIANA: House - ratified, 02/14/73, 53-45; ratified, 01/24/75, rejected, 61-39; ratified, 01/12/77, 54-45. Senate 04/02/73, 34-16; rejected in committee, 02/13/75, 8-5; ratified, 01/18/77, 26-24. IOWA: House - ratified, 03/24/72, 73-14. 03/24/72, 44-1. KANSAS: ratified, 03/28/72, 86-37; rejected House rescission, 02/24/77, 66-56. Senate - ratified, 03/28/72, 34-5. KENTUCKY : ratified, 06/12/72, 56-31; voted to rescind, House 02/18/76, 57-40; voted to rescind, 03/16/78, 61-28. Senate -- ratified, 06/15/72, 20-18; voted to rescind, 03/14/78, 23-15. 03/20/78 -- the Lieutenant Governor, acting with the power of the Governor who as out of town, vetoed the rescission of Kentucky's ratification of ERA. LOUISIANA: Senate ratified, 06/07/72, 25-13; approved an amended rejected, version of ERA, 01/22/75, 21-16. House 06/29/72, 64-32; rejected in committee, 06/19/74, 10-7; rejected in committee, 06/11/75, 8-7; rejected in committee, 06/16/76, 10-6; rejected in committee, 06/07/77, 11-5; rejected in committee, 06/11/79, 11-5. MAINE: House - ratified, 02/27/73, 74-72; ratified, 01/17/74, 78-68. Senate rejected, 03/08/73, 16-15; ratified, 01/18/74, 19-11. MARYLAND: House - ratified, 03/24/72, 86-32. 03/31/72, unanimous. MASSACHUSETTS: Senate House MICHIGAN: ratified, 05/18/72, 90-18. House 05/22/72, voice vote. MINNESOTA: ratified, 01/17/73, 104-28. House 02/08/73, 48-18. MISSISSIPPI: rejected in Senate Committee, 02/08/73, 7-2; Senate rejected in committee, 03/09/76, 4-3; rejected in committee 01/28/77, 5-4. MISSOURI : Senate rejected in committee, 02/06/73, 7-3; rejected in Senate, 06/02/75, 20-14; rejected, 03/15/77, 22-12. House - rejected, 05/09/73, 81-70; ratified, 02/07/75, 82-75. - Senate - ratified, - - - - - - - Senate - ratified, - ratified, ratified, 06/19/72, voice vote. ratified, 06/21/72, 205-7. Senate Senate - ratified, - - - MONTANA: ratified, 01/18/73, 73-23. Senate House 02/02/73, 25-2; ratified, 01/11/74, 35-14; rejected rescission, 02/09/77, 25-25. NEBRASKA: ratified, 03/23/72, 38-0; Unicameral legislature rescinded, 03/15/73, 31-17; rejected ratification, 02/04/75, 25-25. NEVADA: rejected, 03/01/73, 16-4; rejected, 02/19/75, Senate 12-8; ratified, 02/08/77, 11-10; defeated, 01/16/79, 14-3. House ratified, 02/17/75, 27-13; rejected, 02/11/77, 24-15. rejected, - - - - 179-81. ratified, 04/17/72, House 04/17/72, 34-0. - 62-4. NEW MEXICO: House - ratified, 02/13/73, 02/13/73, 33-8. 40-22. NEW Y ORK: Senate - ratified, 04/20/72, 51-4. 05/03/72, 117-25. NORTH CAROLINA: Senate - reject-ed, 03/01/73, 27-24; rejected, 03/01/77, 26-24; rejected in committee 02/16/79; motion to table 06/04/82, 27-23. House rejected in committee, 01/21/74, 10-6; approved on first reading, 04/15/75, 60-58; 'rejected on second reading, 04/16/75, 62-57; ratified, 02/09/77, 61-55. NEW HAMPSHIRE: ratified, 03/23/72, House 03/23/72, 21-0. NEW JERSEY: - Senate Senate - House ratified, - Senate ratified, - ratified, ratified, - N'ORTH DAKOTA: - ratified, 02/07/73, 30-20; ratified, 01/24/75, Senate 28-22; -rejected rescission, 02/17/77, 32-18. rejected, 02/23/73, 51-49; ratified, House 02/03/75, 52-49. - - OHIO: House ratified, 03/28/73, 54-40. Senate - rejected in committee, 04/22/73, 6-3; rejected in committee, 05/08/73, 5-4; ratified, 02/07/74, 20-12. OKLAHOMA: ratified, 03/23/72, voice vote. Senate House rejected, 03/29/72, 52-36; rejected, 02/01/73, 53-45; rejected a "do pass" motion, 01/21/75, 51-45; rejected a "report progress" motion, 01/21/75, 51-45; approved a "do not pass'' motion, 01/21/75, 50-43; referred back to second House Committee, 03/15/77. OREGON : Senate - ratified, 02/01/73, 23-6; reaffirmed their ratification, 02/22/77, 48-14. House - ratified, 02/08/73, 50-9. PENNSYLVANIA: House - ratified, 05/02/72, 178-3. 09/20/72, 43-3. RHODE ISLAND: Senate - - - ratified, 04/04/72, 39-11. Senate - ratified, House - ratified, SOUTH CAROLINA: House - ratified, 03/22/72, 83-0; rejected, 04/26/73, 62-44; rejected on a motion to table, 03/26/75, 46-43. Senate rejected on motion to table, 02/07/78, 23-18. - - SOUTH DAKOTA: ratified, 01/29/73, 22-13; rejected Senate rescission, 03/08/77. House ratified, 02/02/73, 43-27. 03/01/79, Senate concurred with House in holding prior ratification of ERA null and void, effective 03/23/79. TENNESSEE: House - ratified, 03/23/72, 70-0; rescinded, 04/23/74, 56-33. Senate ratified, 04/04/72, 25-5; rescinded, 03/19/74, 17-11. TEXAS: Senate - ratified, 03/29/72, unanimously. House - ratified, 03/30/72, 137-9. UTAH: House 54-21. VERMONT: House rejected, 1972, 69-67; ratified, 01/12/73, 120-.28. Senate ratified, 02/21/73, 19-8. VIRGINIA: House rejected in committee, 02/06/73, 13-2; rejected i n committee, 02/27/74, 02/27/74, 12-8; House failed in effort to change rules, 01/21/77, 62-46; rejected in committee, 02/09/78, 12-8. Senate - rejected in committee, 02/28/74, 10-5; approved in committee, 01/17/75, 6-5; rejected in Senate, 01/21/75, 21-19; rejected in committee, 01/23/75, 8-7; rejected in committee, 02/04/76, 8-7; rejected in Senate, 01/27/77, 20-18 a s 21 votes were necessary for ratification; Senate Privileges and Elections Committee voted 8-7 against a proposal to ratify; Senate rejected, 02/12/80, 19-20 (21 votes necessary to ratify); Senate rejected, 02/'17/82, 19-20. WASHINGTON: ratified, 03/09/73, 76-21. House 03/22/73, 29-19. WEST VIRGINIA: ratified, 04/21/72, 31-0; rescission Senate defeated, 02/26/74, 18-15. House ratified, 04/22/72, unrecorded vote. WISCONSIN: House ratified, 04/19/72, 81-11. O4/2O/72, 29-4. WYOMING: ratified, 01/15/73, 41-20. Senate ratified, House 01/24/73, 17-12; defeated rescission, 01/22/77, 16-14. - - - rejected, 01/24/73, 51-20; rejected, 02/18/75, - - - - - - - -- H.J.Res. - 638 signed by the President. ratified, - Senate - - CHRONOLOGY 10/20/78 Senate ratified, 08/15/78 --- 08/04/78 -- Hearings held by Subcommittee on the Constitution on S.J.Res. 134. 08/03/78 -- Hearings held by the Subcommittee on the Constitution on S.J.Res. 134. 08/02/78 -- 07/18/78 -- 05/17/78 - 11/08/77 -- Third day of hearings held by the Subcommittee on Civil a n d Constitutional Rights on H.J. Res. 638. 11/04/77 -- Second day of hearings held by the Subcommittee o n Civil a n d Constitutional Rights on H.J. Res. 638. 11/01/77 -- First day o f hearings held by the Subcommittee on Civil a n d Constitutional'Rights on H.J.Res. 638. 10/26/77 -- 03/22/72 -- The Senate passed H.J.Res. 10/12/71 -- T h e H o u s e passed H.J.Res. 10/06/78 H.J.Res. 6 3 8 passed the Senate by a vote of 60-36. H.J.Res. 6 3 8 , as amended by the Committee o n the Judiciary to extend'the ratification deadline until June 3 0 , 1 9 8 2 , passed the House by a vote of 233-189. Hearings held by the Subcommittee on the Constitution on S.J.Res. 134. House Committee on the Judiciary reported H.J.Res. 6 3 8 with a n amendment t o extend the ratification deadline until J u n e 3 0 , 1982. -- 05/19/78 Hearings on H.J.Res. 6 3 8 held by Subcommittee o n Civil a n d Constitutional Rights. H.J. Res. 6 3 8 introduced to extend the deadline for ratification of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. 208 by a vote of 84 to 8. 208 by a vote of 3 5 4 to 24. ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES Brown, Barbara A . , Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk, and Ann E. Freedman. T h e Equal Rights Amendment: a constitutional basis f o r equal rights for women. Yale law journal, v. 8 0 , no. 5 , April 1971: 871-986. U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Amending the Federal constitution -- procedures of the General 3ervices Administration a n d the State legislatures [ b y ] Stuart Glass. [washington] June 2 1 , 1971. 2 2 p. Multilith 71-196A ----- Analysis of the constitutionality of Illinois General A s s e m b l y ' s three-fifths majority rule [by] Karen J. Lewis. [washington] July 31, 9978. 8 p. ----- Analysis regarding the issue of extending the ratification deadline of t h e proposed Equal Rights Amendment [ b y ] Karen J. Lewis. [washington] 1977. 18 p. ----- T h e efficacy of State rescission of ratification of a F e d e r a l constitutional amendment [ b y ] Johnny H. Killian. [~ashington] 1977. 10 p. ----- Equal Rights Amendment: selected floor debate a n d votes [ b y ] Morrigene Holcomb. [ ~ a s h i n g t o n ]1974. 4 3 p. ----- Interpretation of 1 U.S.C. [ ~ a s h i n g t o n ]J u n e 2 , 1978. ----- The proposed equal rights amendment [ b y ] Karen Keesling. Jan. 1 5 , 1 9 7 1 ; rev. Mar. 2 4 , 1 9 7 2 ; rev. July 1 , 1977. [ ~ a s h i n g t o n ,19771 26 p. Multilith 77-129G ----- Ratification status of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment: a summary report [ b y ] Karen Keesling. [ ~ a s h i n g t o n ]1978. 5 p. ----- Role of Governor in adoption by State legislature of resolution ratifying or rescinding ratification of proposed Federal constitutional amendment [ b y ] Jay R. Shampansky. [ ~ a s h i n g t o n ]1978. 13 p. ----- Sex discrimination and the U.S. Supreme Court [by] Karen J. Lewis. Nov. 1 8 , 1 9 7 6 ; rev. Aug. 3 , 1977. [ ~ a s h i n g t o n ]76 p. .Multilith 77-178A ----- State by S t a t e a n a l y s i s , 1 9 7 8 and 1979: equal rights a m e n d m e n t ratification status i n the unratified states [ b y ] Karen Keesling. [ ~ a s h i n g t o n ]Dec. 4 , 1978. 3 p. ----- State ratification of the proposed equal rights a m e n d m e n t (wording and type of legislative action) [ b y ] Karen Keesling. [ ~ a s h i n g t o n ]1978. 4 0 p. ----- State ratifications of the proposed equal rights a m e n d m e n t [ b y ] Karen Lewis. [washington] June 2 8 , 1978. 8 p. 1 0 6 (b) [ b y ] Karen Lewis. 6 p.