Eleanor Finch
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would have explicitly prohibited sex discrimination. The ERA was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1971 and by the U.S. Senate in 1972, setting a seven-year deadline for its ratification by the requisite number of states, which was later extended to 1982. However, the ERA was never ratified and is not currently a part of the Constitution. The closest it came to gaining ratification was in 1979, before the original deadline. In 1978, as the 1979 deadline approached, there was a dispute over whether Congress had the authority to revise this deadline. The debate over the ERA's ratification status continued well beyond 1979, with the Illinois House of Representatives voting in favour of the ERA in 1980, and a group of ERA supporters protesting in 1982.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Name of Amendment | Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) |
| Purpose | To explicitly prohibit sex discrimination |
| Authors | Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman |
| First Introduced in Congress | December 1923 |
| Reintroduced by | Representative Martha Griffiths |
| Year of Approval by US House of Representatives | 1971 |
| Year of Approval by US Senate | 1972 |
| Deadline for Ratification | March 22, 1979 |
| Revised Deadline | June 30, 1982 |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)
As the deadline loomed in 1978, the 95th Congress voted to extend it to 1982. However, this extension was vigorously contested as scholars debated whether Congress had the authority to revise a previously agreed-upon deadline for state action on a constitutional amendment. The South Dakota Legislature, for example, adopted Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 on March 1, 1979, stipulating that South Dakota's 1973 ERA ratification would expire along with the original deadline.
Despite the extended deadline, the ERA failed to gain enough ratifications by 1982. In January 2020, the attorneys general of three states filed suit in U.S. District Court, seeking to require the Archivist of the United States to publish and certify the amendment as ratified. However, the District Court dismissed the case, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, stating that the plaintiff states had not clearly shown that the Archivist had a duty to certify and publish the ERA or that Congress lacked the authority to set a time limit.
While the ERA is not currently part of the Constitution, its ratification status remains a subject of debate. The ERA came close to gaining additional ratifications, but ultimately fell short, and the movement faced setbacks such as the Illinois House of Representatives' failure to pass a resolution in its favour due to parliamentary rules.
Separation of Powers: A Constitutional Cornerstone?
You may want to see also
ERA's ratification deadline
The part of the US Constitution that was revised in 1979 was the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The ERA was a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that aimed to explicitly prohibit gender discrimination. It was written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman and introduced in Congress in 1923. With the rise of the women's movement in the 1960s, the ERA gained momentum, and after being reintroduced by Representative Martha Griffiths in 1971, it was approved by the US House of Representatives that year and by the US Senate in 1972.
The ERA was then placed before the state legislatures, with a seven-year deadline, until March 22, 1979, to acquire ratification by three-fourths (38) of the state legislatures. By the initial deadline, 35 states had ratified the ERA, and a simple majority in Congress extended the deadline to 1982. However, by this extended deadline, the ERA was still three states short of the necessary 38 states for ratification.
The deadline for the ERA's ratification has been a contentious issue. In 2020, the US Department of Justice affirmed that the original 1979 deadline was valid and enforceable, and that any extension or removal of the deadline would require new action by Congress or the courts. This stance was upheld by the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which stated that the plaintiff states had not shown that the Archivist of the United States had a duty to certify and publish the ERA or that Congress lacked the authority to impose a time limit.
Despite the ERA not meeting the ratification deadline, there are ongoing efforts to ratify the amendment. The American Bar Association (ABA) passed a resolution in 2024 urging the implementation of the ERA, and in 2023, there was a move in Congress to remove the deadline for the ERA's ratification altogether. The ERA's purpose remains relevant, aiming to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of gender, and the debate surrounding its ratification continues.
The Electoral College: Constitutional Cornerstone or Relic?
You may want to see also
Congress's authority to revise deadline
The authority of Congress to revise deadlines has been a subject of debate, with a notable example being the case of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The ERA was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution, which aimed to explicitly prohibit gender discrimination. It was first introduced in Congress in 1923 and gained momentum in the 1960s with the rise of the women's movement. After being reintroduced in 1971, it was approved by the US House of Representatives and, in 1972, by the US Senate. This triggered a seven-year deadline for ratification by the states, setting March 22, 1979, as the original deadline.
As the 1979 deadline approached, Congress adopted a resolution to extend it to 1982. This action sparked controversy and legal challenges. The debate centred on two main questions: whether Congress has the authority to revise a previously agreed-upon deadline for constitutional amendments, and whether ratification is a one-time event that, once done, cannot be undone.
Advocates and scholars disputed Congress's authority to extend the ERA's deadline. On March 1, 1979, the South Dakota Legislature adopted Senate Joint Resolution No. 2, stipulating that their 1973 ERA ratification would expire on the original deadline of March 22, 1979. They argued that Congress had "unilaterally [...] alter[ed] the terms and conditions" of the ratification process.
The dispute over Congress's authority to revise deadlines continued even after the extended deadline passed in 1982. In January 2020, the attorneys general of three states filed a suit seeking to require the Archivist of the United States to certify the ERA as ratified, even after the original and extended deadlines had passed. However, the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case, stating that the plaintiff states had not proven that Congress lacked the authority to set a time limit in the proposing clause of the ERA.
The Richest of the Rich: Defining the Top 1%
You may want to see also
Explore related products
ERA's inclusion in the Constitution
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would explicitly prohibit sex discrimination. It was written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman and was first introduced in Congress in December 1923. With the rise of the women's movement in the United States during the 1960s, the ERA gained increasing support. After being reintroduced by Representative Martha Griffiths in 1971, it was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives that year and by the U.S. Senate in 1972, thus submitting the ERA to the state legislatures for ratification as provided by Article Five of the United States Constitution. A seven-year, 1979, deadline was included with the legislation by Congress, after which a simple majority of Congress extended the deadline to 1982.
The ERA's ratification deadline was contested in 1978 as scholars were divided over whether Congress had the authority to revise a previously agreed-upon deadline for the states to act upon a constitutional amendment. The South Dakota Legislature, for instance, adopted Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 on March 1, 1979, stipulating that South Dakota's 1973 ERA ratification would be "sunsetted" as of the original deadline, March 22, 1979.
In January 2020, after the Justice Department issued an opinion that the deadline for the passage of the amendment had expired at the time of the original 1979 deadline, the attorneys general of three states filed a suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They sought to require the Archivist of the United States to publish and certify the amendment as ratified. However, the District Court dismissed the case, and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal, stating that the plaintiff states had "not clearly and indisputably shown that the Archivist had a duty to certify and publish the ERA or that Congress lacked the authority to place a time limit in the proposing clause of the ERA".
The closest the ERA came to gaining an additional ratification between the original deadline of March 22, 1979, and the revised June 30, 1982, expiration date was when it was brought before the Illinois House of Representatives in 1980, resulting in a vote of 102–71 in favor. However, Illinois' internal parliamentary rules required a three-fifths majority on constitutional amendments, and the measure failed by five votes.
The District Clause: DC's Constitutional Standing
You may want to see also
ERA's impact on sex discrimination
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would explicitly prohibit sex discrimination. It was written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman and was first introduced in Congress in December 1923. The ERA gained increasing support with the rise of the women's movement in the United States during the 1960s. It was reintroduced by Representative Martha Griffiths in 1971 and approved by the U.S. House of Representatives that year and by the U.S. Senate in 1972. A seven-year deadline for its ratification was set by Congress for 1979, which was later extended to 1982 by a simple majority of Congress.
The ERA would have provided a specific constitutional guarantee of equal rights, making it harder for legislators and courts to reverse progress in eliminating sex discrimination. It would have helped to address the impact of the current legal and judicial systems, which often disadvantage women due to their traditional use of the male experience as the norm. The ERA would have promoted laws and court decisions that fairly take into account the experiences of both women and men.
The ERA would have provided a clearer judicial standard for deciding cases of sex discrimination and conclusively invalidated the claim that the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment, does not protect against sex discrimination. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment was first applied to sex discrimination in 1971 or 1972 and has never been interpreted to grant equal rights on the basis of sex in the uniform and inclusive way that the ERA would.
However, some critics argue that the ERA would be worse than current law by restricting the government's ability to address existing inequality, such as pay discrimination and domestic violence. They argue that a better amendment would explicitly allow for policies designed to advance sex equality. The ERA could also impact sex-based affirmative action, potentially prohibiting such policies and affecting maternity leave policies and efforts to increase women's employment under government contracts. Additionally, sex-neutral affirmative action policies designed to benefit women or reduce sex inequality could be legally vulnerable under the ERA.
Who's Not in the President's Cabinet?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No part of the US Constitution was revised in 1979. The closest was the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which was a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that would have prohibited sex discrimination. The ERA did not pass.
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman and introduced to Congress in 1923. It gained support in the 1960s with the rise of the women's movement and was reintroduced in 1971. It was approved by the US House of Representatives that year and by the US Senate in 1972.
The deadline for the ERA to be ratified was March 22, 1979. This was seven years from when the ERA was submitted to the states for ratification.
When the deadline was reached, the ERA had not been ratified by enough states. The deadline was extended to 1982, but the ERA still did not pass.
The extension of the ERA deadline was contested, and the South Dakota Legislature adopted a resolution stating that the ERA should be "sunsetted" as of the original deadline. The resolution argued that Congress did not have the authority to alter the terms of the ratification process unilaterally.
