Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

History

Drafted by suffragette Alice Paul, founder of the National Woman's Party, the ERA was first put before Congress in 1923. Paul envisioned a bill that would extend women's rights following the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. But early opponents of the legislation, including Florence Kelly and the League of Women Voters, feared that it would end protective labor laws. Following endorsement by both Republican and Democratic parties in the 1940s, the ERA was modified to include a rider that exempted women's labor protection laws. But addition of the rider failed to resolve debates surrounding the amendment, and the ERA remained stymied in Congressional committee sessions for another two decades. In 1972, Congress approved a rider-free version of the ERA submitted by Representative Martha Griffith (D-MI). With the 1967 endorsement of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the rise of the second wave of the women's movement following the 1963 publication of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, ERA proponents were confident the legislation would be fully ratified. The political climate of the early 1970s was less amenable then perceived, however, and conservative activists, led by Phyllis Schlafly, raised powerful opposition to the amendment. Schlafly's “STOP the ERA” movement argued that the bill would end the legal privileges and protections granted to women and lead to a host of unanticipated outcomes, from women's participation in the military draft to unisex public bathrooms.

In the face of a unified opposition movement, the ratification process slowed and Indiana became the 35th, and final, state to ratify the ERA in 1977. Between 1973 and 1979, five states rescinded ratification (or let it lapse), raising important questions about the amendment process and the legality of state rescission bills. Despite a 3-year extension of the 7-year deadline for ratification, the ERA failed to secure further endorsement and was defeated in 1982. Although the ERA has been reintroduced to every Congress since 1983, support for the bill waned as it became increasingly associated with debates regarding abortion rights and funding.

Beginning in the mid-1990s, ERA proponents pursued the “three-state strategy,” which argues that the 1982 ratification deadline should be nullified and the ERA passed once three more states approve ratification. The “three-state strategy” was adopted following the 1992 passage of the Twenty-seventh Amendment (the “Madison Amendment”), after a ratification period of 203 years. ERA supporters argue that the Madison Amendment establishes precedent for Congress to amend previously established legislative deadlines. Following this interpretation, Congress could validate the 35 existing ERA ratifications and add the amendment to the Constitution following its approval by three more states. Opponents argue that the Madison Amendment fails to establish precedent because it was proposed in 1789 without a deadline, and that the ERA only secured the approval of 30 states, following its rescission by five ratifying states in the 1970s. In 2007, ERA proponents pursued this strategy by introducing ratification bills in legislative sessions of eight unratified states. To date, no further ratifications have been secured. The 2007 Women's Equality Amendment adopts the language of the ERA without specifying a deadline for its ratification. The Women's Equality Amendment would need to need to secure independent ratification by 38 states for congressional approval and enactment. With more than 200 congressional co-sponsors, the Women's Equality Amendment is supported by both the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the League of Women Voters.

...