{ "id": "R42979", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R42979", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 612443, "date": "2019-12-23", "retrieved": "2020-01-06T23:07:37.715181", "title": "The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues", "summary": "The proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (ERA) declares that \u201cequality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex....\u201d The ERA was approved by Congress for ratification by the states in 1972; the amendment included a customary, but not constitutionally mandated, seven-year deadline for ratification. Between 1972 and 1977, 35 state legislatures, of the 38 required by the Constitution, voted to ratify the ERA. Despite a congressional extension of the deadline from 1979 to 1982, no additional states approved the amendment during the extended period, at which time the amendment was widely considered to have expired.\nAfter 23 years in which no additional state voted to ratify the ERA, the situation changed when Nevada and Illinois approved the amendment, in March 2017 and May 2018, respectively. In addition, a change in party control of the Virginia legislature in the 2019 elections raised hopes among ERA supporters that this state might also vote to ratify, which would bring the number of approvals to 38, the requirement set by Article V for validation of a proposed amendment as part of the Constitution.\nIn the context of these developments, ERA proponents have renewed efforts to restart the ratification process. These actions center on the assertion that because the amendment did not include a ratification deadline within the amendment text, it remains potentially viable and eligible for ratification indefinitely. This proposal was originally known as the \u201cThree State Solution,\u201d for the number of state ratifications then necessary to reach the constitutional requirement that it be approved by three-fourths of the states. Supporters of this approach maintain that Congress has the authority both to repeal the original 1979 ratification deadline and its 1982 extension, and to restart the ratification clock at the current 37-state level\u2014including the Nevada and Illinois ratifications\u2014with or without a future ratification deadline. They assert that the broad authority over the amendment process provided to Congress by Article V of the Constitution includes this right. They further claim that the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Coleman v. Miller favors their position. They also note the precedent of the Twenty-Seventh \u201cMadison\u201d Amendment, which was ratified in 1992, 203 years after Congress proposed it to the states.\nOpponents of reopening the amendment process may argue that attempting to revive the ERA would be politically divisive, and contrary to the spirit, and perhaps the letter, of Article V and Congress\u2019s earlier intentions. They might also reject the example of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, which, unlike the proposed ERA, never had a ratification time limit. Further, they might claim that efforts to revive the ERA ignore the possibility that state ratifications may have expired with the 1982 deadline, and that ERA proponents fail to consider the issue of state withdrawals from the amendment, known as rescissions, a question that has not been specifically decided in any U.S. court.\nIn addition to proposals for the Three State Solution, the Equal Rights Amendment has also been introduced as new \u201cfresh start\u201d resolutions in each Congress since 1982. \nIn the 116th Congress, resolutions have been introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate that embrace both approaches. H.J.Res. 35, introduced by Representative Carolyn Maloney, and, introduced by Senator Robert Menendez, propose \u201cfresh start\u201d equal rights amendments. H.J.Res. 38 and H.J.Res. 79, both introduced by Representative Jackie Speier, and S.J.Res. 6, introduced by Senator Benjamin Cardin, would restart the ratification process by removing the deadlines for ratification of the ERA set in 1972 and extended in 1979. On April 30, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the ERA. On November 13, the committee held a markup session on H.J.Res. 79 and ordered that measure be reported favorably to the full House. This report will be updated to reflect further developments.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42979", "sha1": "7fdb2904b1bf0368c41fb9e18fb1fd69ad5593ec", "filename": "files/20191223_R42979_7fdb2904b1bf0368c41fb9e18fb1fd69ad5593ec.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42979", "sha1": "9b449eaf55398216bb8cee30f4e1226b29f37811", "filename": "files/20191223_R42979_9b449eaf55398216bb8cee30f4e1226b29f37811.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4846, "name": "Civil Rights & Liberties" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 582883, "date": "2018-07-18", "retrieved": "2018-07-19T13:39:34.092957", "title": "The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues", "summary": "The proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (ERA), which declares that \u201cequality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex,\u201d was approved by Congress for ratification by the states in 1972. The proposal included a seven-year deadline for ratification. Between 1972 and 1977, 35 state legislatures, of the 38 required by the Constitution, voted to ratify the ERA. Despite a congressional extension of the deadline from 1979 to 1982, no additional states approved the amendment during the extended period, at which time the amendment was widely considered to have expired.\nSince 1982, Senators and Representatives who support the amendment have continued to introduce new versions of the ERA, generally referred to as \u201cfresh start\u201d amendments. In addition, some Members of Congress have also introduced resolutions designed to reopen ratification for the ERA as proposed in 1972, restarting the process where it ended in 1982. This was known as the \u201cthree-state strategy,\u201d for the number of additional ratifications then needed to complete the process, until Nevada and Illinois ratified the amendment in March 2017 and May 2018, respectively, becoming the 36th and 37th states to do so. The ERA supporters\u2019 intention here is to repeal or remove the deadlines set for the proposed ERA, reactivate support for the amendment, and complete the ratification process by gaining approval from the one additional state needed to meet the constitutional requirement, assuming the Nevada and Illinois ratifications are valid.\nAs the 115th Congress convened, resolutions were introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate that embraced both approaches. H.J.Res. 33, introduced by Representative Carolyn Maloney, and S.J.Res. 6, introduced by Senator Robert Menendez, propose \u201cfresh start\u201d equal rights amendments. H.J.Res. 53, introduced by Representative Jackie Speier, and S.J.Res. 5, introduced by Senator Benjamin Cardin, would remove the deadline for ratification of the ERA proposed by Congress in 1972.\nFirst introduced in Congress in 1923, the ERA proposed to the states in 1972 by the 92nd Congress included the customary seven-year ratification time limit. Although through 1977 the ERA was approved by 35 states, various controversies brought the ratification process to a halt as the deadline approached. In 1978, Congress extended the deadline through 1982. Opponents claimed this violated the spirit, if not the letter of the amendment process; supporters insisted the amendment needed more time for state consideration. Further, they justified extension because the deadline was placed not in the amendment, but in its preamble. Despite the extension, no further states ratified during the extension period, and the amendment was presumed to have expired in 1982. During this period, the ratification question was further complicated when five state legislatures passed resolutions rescinding their earlier ratifications. The Supreme Court agreed to hear cases on the rescission question, but the ERA\u2019s ratification time limit expired before they could be argued, and the Court dismissed the cases as moot.\nMany ERA proponents claim that because the amendment did not include a ratification deadline within the amendment text, it remains potentially viable and eligible for ratification indefinitely. They maintain that Congress possesses the authority both to repeal the original 1979 ratification deadline and its 1982 extension, and to restart the ratification clock at the current 37-state level\u2014including the Nevada and Illinois ratifications\u2014with or without a future ratification deadline. In support, they assert that Article V of the Constitution gives Congress broad authority over the amendment process. They further cite the Supreme Court\u2019s decisions in Dillon v. Gloss and Coleman v. Miller in support of their position. They also note the precedent of the Twenty-Seventh \u201cMadison\u201d Amendment, which was ratified in 1992, 203 years after Congress proposed it to the states.\nOpponents of reopening the amendment process may argue that attempting to revive the ERA would be politically divisive, and that providing it with a \u201cthird bite of the apple\u201d would be contrary to the spirit and perhaps the letter of Article V and Congress\u2019s earlier intentions. They might also reject the example of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, which, unlike the proposed ERA, never had a ratification time limit. Further, they might claim that efforts to revive the ERA ignore the possibility that state ratifications may have expired with the 1982 deadline, and that amendment proponents fail to consider the issue of state rescission, which has never been specifically decided in any U.S. court.\nThe \u201cfresh start\u201d approach provides an alternative means to revive the ERA. It consists of starting over by introducing a new amendment, similar or identical to, but distinct from, the original. A fresh start would avoid potential controversies associated with reopening the ratification process, but would face the stringent constitutional requirements of two-thirds support in both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42979", "sha1": "10ac9a7f9789994024cf4db1c3ba6cb6f6e23c17", "filename": "files/20180718_R42979_10ac9a7f9789994024cf4db1c3ba6cb6f6e23c17.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42979", "sha1": "c89a71e68043af9a394752281e8c060e75a70f9c", "filename": "files/20180718_R42979_c89a71e68043af9a394752281e8c060e75a70f9c.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4846, "name": "Civil Rights & Liberties" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 462959, "date": "2017-07-28", "retrieved": "2017-08-22T13:42:57.964392", "title": "The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues", "summary": "The proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (ERA), which declares that \u201cequality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex,\u201d was approved by Congress for ratification by the states in 1972. The proposal included a seven-year deadline for ratification. Between 1972 and 1977, 35 state legislatures, of the 38 required by the Constitution, voted to ratify the ERA. Despite a congressional extension of the deadline from 1979 to 1982, no additional states approved the amendment during the extended period, at which time the amendment was widely considered to have expired.\nSince 1982, Senators and Representatives who support the amendment have continued to introduce new versions of the ERA, generally referred to as \u201cfresh start\u201d amendments. In addition, some Members of Congress have also introduced resolutions designed to reopen ratification for the ERA as proposed in 1972, restarting the process where it ended in 1982. This was known as the \u201cthree-state strategy,\u201d for the number of additional ratifications needed to complete the process, until Nevada ratified the amendment in March, 2017, becoming the 36th state to do so. The ERA supporters\u2019 intention here is to repeal or remove the deadlines set for the proposed ERA, reactivate support for the amendment, and complete the ratification process by gaining approval from the additional states\u2014now two in number, assuming Nevada\u2019s action is valid\u2014needed to meet the constitutional requirement.\nAs the 115th Congress convened, resolutions were introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate that embraced both approaches. H.J.Res. 33, introduced by Representative Carolyn Maloney, and S.J.Res. 6, introduced by Senator Robert Menendez, propose \u201cfresh start\u201d equal rights amendments. H.J.Res. 53, introduced by Representative Jackie Speier, and S.J.Res. 5, introduced by Senator Benjamin Cardin, would remove the deadline for ratification of the ERA proposed by Congress in 1972.\nFirst introduced in Congress in 1923, the ERA proposed to the states in 1972 by the 92nd Congress included the customary seven-year ratification time limit. Although through 1977 the ERA was approved by 35 states, various controversies brought the ratification process to a halt as the deadline approached. In 1978, Congress extended the deadline through 1982. Opponents claimed this violated the spirit, if not the letter of the amendment process; supporters insisted the amendment needed more time for state consideration. Further, they justified extension because the deadline was placed not in the amendment, but in its preamble. Despite the extension, no further states ratified during the extension period, and the amendment was presumed to have expired in 1982. During this period, the ratification question was further complicated when five state legislatures passed resolutions rescinding their earlier ratifications. The Supreme Court agreed to hear cases on the rescission question, but the ERA\u2019s ratification time limit expired before they could be argued, and the Court dismissed the cases as moot.\nMany ERA proponents claim that because the amendment did not include a ratification deadline within the amendment text, it remains potentially viable and eligible for ratification indefinitely. They maintain that Congress possesses the authority both to repeal the original 1979 ratification deadline and its 1982 extension, and to restart the ratification clock at the current 36-state level\u2014including Nevada\u2019s ratification\u2014with or without a future ratification deadline. In support, they assert that Article V of the Constitution gives Congress broad authority over the amendment process. They further cite the Supreme Court\u2019s decisions in Dillon v. Gloss and Coleman v. Miller in support of their position. They also note the precedent of the Twenty-Seventh \u201cMadison\u201d Amendment, which was ratified in 1992, 203 years after Congress proposed it to the states.\nOpponents of reopening the amendment process may argue that attempting to revive the ERA would be politically divisive, and that providing it with a \u201cthird bite of the apple\u201d would be contrary to the spirit and perhaps the letter of Article V and Congress\u2019s earlier intentions. They might also reject the example of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, which, unlike the proposed ERA, never had a ratification time limit. Further, they might claim that efforts to revive the ERA ignore the possibility that state ratifications may have expired with the 1982 deadline, and that amendment proponents fail to consider the issue of state rescission, which has never been specifically decided in any U.S. court.\nThe \u201cfresh start\u201d approach provides an alternative means to revive the ERA. It consists of starting over by introducing a new amendment, similar or identical to, but distinct from, the original. A fresh start would avoid potential controversies associated with reopening the ratification process, but would face the stringent constitutional requirements of two-thirds support in both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42979", "sha1": "35dfc42bd59dfc743b59ce7f7ac95d10bcd95b85", "filename": "files/20170728_R42979_35dfc42bd59dfc743b59ce7f7ac95d10bcd95b85.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42979", "sha1": "2d17ab9f4008e607af71ccc0f0b524b95361e843", "filename": "files/20170728_R42979_2d17ab9f4008e607af71ccc0f0b524b95361e843.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4846, "name": "Civil Rights & Liberties" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 429631, "date": "2014-04-08", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T20:30:54.278162", "title": "The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues", "summary": "The year 2012 marked the 30th anniversary of the expiration of the proposed Equal Rights Amendments extended ratification deadline. Since that time, new analyses have emerged that bear on the question of whether the amendment proposed in 1972 remains constitutionally viable. This report examines the legislative history of an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and both identifies and provides an analysis of contemporary factors that may bear on its present and future viability.\nAn Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress in 1923. In 1972, after 49 years of effort by supporters, Congress proposed an amendment declaring that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. The Constitution requires that three-fourths of the states, 38 at present, must ratify an amendment before it takes effect. When it proposed the ERA, Congress followed contemporary practice by adding a seven-year ratification deadline to the amendments preamble: if not ratified by 38 states by March 22, 1979, the amendment would expire.\nAlthough the proposed ERA was eventually approved by 35 states, opposition and various controversies brought the ratification process to a halt as the deadline approached. In 1978, Congress extended the deadline until June 30, 1982. Opponents claimed this violated the spirit, if not the letter of the amendment process; supporters insisted the amendment needed more time for state consideration. Further, they justified extension because the deadline was placed not in the amendment, but in its preamble. Despite the extension, no further states ratified during the extension period, and it was presumed to have expired in 1982. During this period, however, the legislatures of five states passed resolutions rescinding their earlier ratifications. The Supreme Court agreed to hear cases on the rescission question, but the proposed ERA expired before they could be heard, and the Court dismissed the cases as moot.\nERA proponents claim that Article V of the Constitution gives Congress uniquely broad authority over the amendment process. They also point to Supreme Court decisions, Dillon v. Gloss and Coleman v. Miller, that they claim support this assertion. In addition, they cite the example of the Twenty-Seventh Madison Amendment, which was ratified in 1992, after having been pending for 203 years. This, they maintain, further supports their assertion that proposed amendments that do not include time limits within the amendment text itself remain viable and eligible for ratification indefinitely.\nIn recent years, some advocates of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment have devised the three-state approach, which embraces the assertion that Congress possesses the authority both to repeal the original ratification time limit and its 1978 extension, and to restart the ratification clock at the current 35-state level, without a time limit. They contend that only three additional ratifications would be necessary any time in the future for the amendment to become effective.\nOpponents of further extension may argue that attempting to revive the amendment would be politically divisive, and that providing the proposed ERA with a third bite of the apple would be contrary to the spirit and perhaps the letter of Article V and Congresss earlier intentions. They would arguably reject the example of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, which, unlike the proposed ERA, never had a ratification time limit. Further, they might claim that efforts to revive the proposed ERA ignore the possibility that state ratifications may have expired with the 1982 deadline, and that proponents of the amendment do not address the issue of state rescission, which has never been specifically addressed by any U.S. court, but only dismissed by the Supreme Court because the cases accepted on appeal had become moot.\nThe fresh start approach provides an alternative means to revive the Equal Rights Amendment. It consists of starting over by introducing a new amendment, identical to, but distinct from, the original. A fresh start would avoid potential controversies associated with the three-state approach, but would face the stringent constitutional requirements of two-thirds support in both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.\nLegislation embracing both approaches has been introduced in the 113th Congress. S.J.Res. 10, offered by Senator Robert Menendez on March 5, 2013, and H.J.Res. 56, introduced by Representative Carolyn Maloney on September 13, 2013, propose a fresh start. The three-state approach is advanced in S.J.Res. 15 and H.J.Res. 43, both introduced on May 9, 2013, by Senator Ben Cardin and Representative Robert J. Andrews, and H.J.Res. 113, introduced on March 27, 2014, by Representative Jackie Speier. These proposals would restart the ratification process for the proposed Equal Rights Amendment at 35 states and extend it indefinitely by effectively repealing both the original seven-year ratification time limit, and its later extension.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42979", "sha1": "e15dfdc91260d7d20aab0d7b73e3e38a6f500fbc", "filename": "files/20140408_R42979_e15dfdc91260d7d20aab0d7b73e3e38a6f500fbc.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42979", "sha1": "6d1ac21de459b7d9ddd5478c18ff4edc2c32a95a", "filename": "files/20140408_R42979_6d1ac21de459b7d9ddd5478c18ff4edc2c32a95a.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc820717/", "id": "R42979_2013May21", "date": "2013-05-21", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20130521_R42979_e6cdaef6c6e574c6f7c4655d26e3e35e32960ac6.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20130521_R42979_e6cdaef6c6e574c6f7c4655d26e3e35e32960ac6.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc462590/", "id": "R42979_2013May09", "date": "2013-05-09", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues", "summary": "This report examines the legislative history of the various proposals that ultimately emerged as the proposed Equal Rights Amendment and both identifies and provides an analysis of contemporary factors that may bear on its present and future viability.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20130509_R42979_d1a309325907abdf43b6c3c3241ec101c118d180.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20130509_R42979_d1a309325907abdf43b6c3c3241ec101c118d180.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Constitutional amendments", "name": "Constitutional amendments" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Legislative amendments", "name": "Legislative amendments" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Law and legislation", "name": "Law and legislation" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc462783/", "id": "R42979_2013Feb28", "date": "2013-02-28", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues", "summary": "This report examines the legislative history of the various proposals that ultimately emerged as the proposed Equal Rights Amendment and both identifies and provides an analysis of contemporary factors that may bear on its present and future viability.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20130228_R42979_3c80b907303070d6e35e3d78891d37583fd2be03.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20130228_R42979_3c80b907303070d6e35e3d78891d37583fd2be03.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Constitutional amendments", "name": "Constitutional amendments" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Legislative amendments", "name": "Legislative amendments" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Law and legislation", "name": "Law and legislation" } ] } ], "topics": [ "American Law", "Constitutional Questions" ] }