By: Robert Scott

All writers in Op Ed are here to inform and acknowledge issues of importance to our communities, however these writings represent the views  and opinions of the authors and not necessarily of The Advertiser. 

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” That is the entire wording of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, now poised to become the 28^thAmendment to the United States Constitution. 

Originally introduced in 1923, the proposed amendment languished until it was successfully passed by Congress in 1972. Congress wrote into its passage a requirement of dubious enforceability, that the 38 states necessary for ratification must do so by 1979. Only 35 states had done so by that year, so Congress extended the deadline to 1982; however, no more states ratified within that three-year extension. 

Years passed, but then Nevada voted its ratification in 2017, and Illinois did so last year, in 2018. South Carolina has not ratified the amendment, and we appear to have lost the opportunity to become the 38^thstate. That is because Virginia’s newly elected Democratic Legislature has stated its intention to ratify as soon as they convene in 2020, and the Virginia Governor has stated he would sign that ratification – making Virginia the 38^thand determining state to turn the proposal into a Constitutional Amendment.

There are complications. Can an amendment passed by the Senate languish for years, and then suddenly become the law of the land because some states decide to ratify it years afterward? That was the case for the 27^thamendment, which was passed by Congress in 1789 while George Washington was President, but not ratified by the required three-fourths of the states until Georges H. W. Bush was President in 1992. Another complication: some states have who initially voted to ratify have subsequently voted to “unratify” the Equal Rights Amendment, yet they are still counted among the 38. That, too, has precedent. The Supreme Court ruled following the Civil War amendments (13, 14, and 15) that subsequent “unratification” votes on amendments are moot; you can’t unring a bell.

Tthe Senate voted a deadline which has come and gone. Is such a deadline enforceable? If it is, can the Senate now extend the deadline as they did once before, only retroactively? And if so, would the Senate Republican leadership allow such an extension to come to a vote? There is already a bill to effect such an extension, and among its sponsors are the two Republican women Senators, representing Maine and Alaska. If the Republican Senate defeated such a bill presumably backed by all Democratic and some Republican Senators, or Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decided not even to allow a vote, would that risk the ire of enough women voters to affect the 2020 Congressional elections? And finally, if challenges in 2020 call for a Supreme Court decision on the Equal Rights Amendment during the already divisive election season, how would they decide – and how would the various candidates for President and for Congress speak about the case, before and after such a decision?

The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923 and passed by Congress in 1972, is likely once again to be headline news in the already strident election year, 2020. 

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” How would you vote, dear reader, if passage of the amendment were up to you?

The Equal Rights Amendment

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” That is the entire wording of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, now poised to become the 28^thAmendment to the United States Constitution. 

Originally introduced in 1923, the proposed amendment languished until it was successfully passed by Congress in 1972. Congress wrote into its passage a requirement of dubious enforceability, that the 38 states necessary for ratification must do so by 1979. Only 35 states had done so by that year, so Congress extended the deadline to 1982; however, no more states ratified within that three-year extension. 

Years passed, but then Nevada voted its ratification in 2017, and Illinois did so last year, in 2018. South Carolina has not ratified the amendment, and we appear to have lost the opportunity to become the 38^thstate. That is because Virginia’s newly elected Democratic Legislature has stated its intention to ratify as soon as they convene in 2020, and the Virginia Governor has stated he would sign that ratification – making Virginia the 38^thand determining state to turn the proposal into a Constitutional Amendment.

There are complications. Can an amendment passed by the Senate languish for years, and then suddenly become the law of the land because some states decide to ratify it years afterward? That was the case for the 27^thamendment, which was passed by Congress in 1789 while George Washington was President, but not ratified by the required three-fourths of the states until Georges H. W. Bush was President in 1992. Another complication: some states have who initially voted to ratify have subsequently voted to “unratify” the Equal Rights Amendment, yet they are still counted among the 38. That, too, has precedent. The Supreme Court ruled following the Civil War amendments (13, 14, and 15) that subsequent “unratification” votes on amendments are moot; you can’t unring a bell.

Tthe Senate voted a deadline which has come and gone. Is such a deadline enforceable? If it is, can the Senate now extend the deadline as they did once before, only retroactively? And if so, would the Senate Republican leadership allow such an extension to come to a vote? There is already a bill to effect such an extension, and among its sponsors are the two Republican women Senators, representing Maine and Alaska. If the Republican Senate defeated such a bill presumably backed by all Democratic and some Republican Senators, or Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decided not even to allow a vote, would that risk the ire of enough women voters to affect the 2020 Congressional elections? And finally, if challenges in 2020 call for a Supreme Court decision on the Equal Rights Amendment during the already divisive election season, how would they decide – and how would the various candidates for President and for Congress speak about the case, before and after such a decision?

The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923 and passed by Congress in 1972, is likely once again to be headline news in the already strident election year, 2020. 

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” How would you vote, dear reader, if passage of the amendment were up to you?

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” How would you vote, dear reader, if passage of the amendment were up to you?