Isabella Carter
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that guarantees equal rights for women. The ERA was initially proposed in Congress in 1923 and passed in 1972 with a deadline for ratification by March 1979. The amendment seeks to end legal distinctions between men and women in matters such as divorce, property, and employment. Despite gaining widespread support, the ERA has faced legal challenges and has not been ratified by the required number of states to become a constitutional amendment. The debate around the ERA continues, with some arguing for its revival and others questioning its relevance in the present day.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Year of proposal | 1923 |
| Year of passage by Congress | 1972 |
| Original deadline for ratification | March 1979 |
| Number of states needed for ratification | 38 |
| Number of states that approved the amendment for ratification | 35 |
| Number of states that have ratified the ERA as of 2020 | 38 |
| Year of the extended deadline for ratification | 1982 |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was initially proposed in 1923
- The ERA seeks to guarantee legal gender equality
- The ERA failed to be ratified by the required number of states
- The ERA has faced opposition and lawsuits from several states
- The ERA has gained support from both Democratic and Republican parties
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was initially proposed in 1923
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was initially proposed in Congress in 1923, three years after the ratification of the 19th Amendment. The ERA was written by equal rights activist Alice Paul and sought to secure full legal gender equality for women and men. It aimed to end legal distinctions between the sexes in matters such as divorce, property, and employment. Despite early efforts, the ERA did not achieve ratification in its initial push.
The proposal emerged from the broader women's movement, which advocated for political and social reform on various women's issues. The ERA gained support from those who believed that social change could be achieved through legislation. By 1940, both the Democratic and Republican parties included support for the ERA in their platforms. However, it would take several more decades for significant progress to be made.
In 1970, Representative Martha Griffiths of Michigan played a pivotal role in advancing the ERA. With slight revisions, the amendment passed both houses in 1972 but still faced the challenge of achieving ratification by the required number of states. By the original deadline of March 1979, only 35 states had approved the amendment, falling short of the necessary 38 states.
The deadline was then extended to June 30, 1982, but the ERA could not secure ratification by the additional states needed. Despite this setback, the work towards ratification continued. In recent years, there has been a renewed push for the ERA, with Nevada ratifying it in 2017 and Illinois following suit in 2018. As of 2020, 38 states have ratified the ERA, and the focus has shifted to ensuring its protections for women's rights are added to the Constitution.
Victims' Rights: The Federal Constitutional Amendment's History
You may want to see also
The ERA seeks to guarantee legal gender equality
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that seeks to guarantee legal gender equality. It was initially proposed in Congress in 1923 by equal rights activist Alice Paul, aiming to secure full equality for women. The ERA would reject sharp legislative lines between sexes and instead advocate for a legal system that judges individuals based on merit rather than unalterable traits of birth. Despite early support, the ERA failed to achieve ratification in its early years.
The ERA gained renewed attention in 2017 when Nevada became the first state to ratify the measure since 1977, followed by Illinois in 2018, and Virginia in 2020. To date, 38 states have ratified the ERA, surpassing the required threshold of 38 states for constitutional amendments. However, whether the ERA's protections for women will be added to the Constitution remains uncertain.
The ERA has faced legal challenges and controversies, with some states arguing against it and seeking to prevent its ratification. Opponents fear the loss of special protections for women and resist increasing federal authority. The Supreme Court has ruled on related issues, and while it acknowledged the ERA's failure to receive the required number of ratifications, it also stated that Congress has the authority to impose deadlines for ratification.
Despite the legal complexities, proponents of the ERA argue that its adoption can significantly advance the cause of equality in the 21st century. They believe that the ERA is a crucial step towards guaranteeing equal rights for women and men under the Constitution. The ERA's supporters include lawmakers, sociologists, legal scholars, and grassroots movements, who advocate for its ratification to ensure legal gender equality.
The ongoing efforts to ratify the ERA demonstrate a commitment to gender equality and a recognition of the need for legislative action to achieve it. While the ERA has not yet been added to the Constitution, its supporters remain dedicated to the cause, utilizing social media, advocacy tools, and legislative strategies to advance the amendment's ratification and ensure that gender equality is legally protected.
Voting on Amendments: When is it Allowed?
You may want to see also
The ERA failed to be ratified by the required number of states
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was first proposed in 1923 but did not pass Congress until 1972. The ERA is a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that guarantees equal rights for women. It seeks to ensure that each person is judged on the basis of individual merit rather than their sex, an unalterable trait of birth.
Under US law, amendments to the Constitution must be ratified by three-fourths, or 38 out of 50, state legislatures. While the ERA gained momentum in 2017 when Nevada became the first state to ratify the measure since 1977, and continued to gain support with Illinois following suit in 2018, and Virginia in 2020, the amendment ultimately failed to be ratified by the required number of states.
In 2023, the US Senate fell short of the votes needed to enshrine equal rights for women in the Constitution. While the majority of senators voted in favour of recognising the ERA as part of the Constitution, the amendment did not pass. This was due in part to opposition from anti-abortion groups, who argued that the ERA could provide a pathway to making abortion a constitutional right.
The ERA also faced legal challenges, with the Supreme Court declaring that the amendment had not received the required number of ratifications and had therefore "failed of adoption". Additionally, some states rescinded their ratifications, and a federal appeals court rejected calls from Illinois and Nevada for the ERA to be adopted.
Despite the failure to ratify the ERA, supporters argue that it is still necessary to ensure that gender equality is enshrined in the Constitution, providing permanent protections for women and girls on issues such as equal pay, child marriage, and sexual violence.
Massachusetts Constitution Amendments: Ratification Timeline
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$11.99 $17.99
The ERA has faced opposition and lawsuits from several states
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been a highly debated topic since its introduction in Congress in 1923, with both strong supporters and opponents. While 38 states have ratified the ERA, it has faced opposition and lawsuits from several states, primarily on the grounds of abortion rights and the role of the federal government in imposing deadlines.
In December 2019, the states of Alabama, Louisiana, and South Dakota sued to prevent further ratification of the ERA, arguing that the deadline for ratification had passed and that the amendment was unnecessary due to existing federal laws ensuring equal treatment regardless of gender. North Dakota also clarified that its previous ratification of the ERA was no longer valid. These states, along with Nebraska and Tennessee, intervened in a lawsuit filed by Virginia, Illinois, and Nevada, which sought to recognize the ERA as the 28th Amendment.
The opposition to the ERA has been led by groups such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) and ERAmerica, who argue that the ERA is necessary to guarantee equal rights for women and eliminate gender discrimination. However, conservative groups, including religious organizations, have argued that the ERA would lead to universal abortion rights and same-sex marriage, which goes against their values.
The legal battle over the ERA has continued, with Virginia withdrawing from the lawsuit in 2022 and the remaining plaintiffs, Illinois and Nevada, appealing the ruling. The District Court of Appeals rejected their request, stating that the legal issue was not clear and indisputable. Despite the ongoing lawsuits, the ERA's future remains uncertain, with some calling for a fresh start to address the changing status of women and gender equality.
The 7th Amendment: A Historical Addition to the Constitution
You may want to see also
The ERA has gained support from both Democratic and Republican parties
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has had a long and complex history, with support from both Democratic and Republican parties at different times. While the amendment has not been added to the Constitution, it has gained momentum and support over the years, with a focus on guaranteeing equal rights for women.
In the early 1940s, both the Democratic and Republican parties included support for the ERA in their platforms. The Republican Party was the first to endorse the ERA in 1940, and it remained in their platform until 1980. During this time, the main support base for the ERA was among middle-class Republican women, while some Southern Democrats also supported it. In 1950 and 1953, the ERA passed the Senate with the addition of the "Hayden rider," which aimed to address concerns about women's rights by allowing women to keep their existing and future special protections.
However, there was also opposition to the ERA within both parties. Some Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats aligned with anti-ERA labour unions, opposed the amendment. By the late 1970s, conservative activists and the emerging religious right launched a successful campaign to stop the amendment, led by Republican lawyer and activist Phyllis Schlafly, who argued that the ERA would lead to gender-neutral bathrooms, same-sex marriage, and women in military combat, among other concerns. This opposition contributed to a decline in support for the ERA among Republicans, and the Republican Party removed their support for the ERA from their platform in 1980.
In recent years, there has been a renewed push to adopt the ERA, with Nevada becoming the first state to ratify the measure since 1977 in 2017, followed by Illinois in 2018. These ratifications have led to increased GOP support for the ERA, with Republican lawmakers helping to shepherd the measure. In 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA, with bipartisan support in both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly. While the ERA has not been added to the Constitution, these recent ratifications and the changing political landscape have brought renewed attention and support for the amendment from both Democratic and Republican parties.
The 13th Amendment: Mississippi's Ratification Journey
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Equal Rights Amendment is a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that guarantees equal rights for women and men.
The ERA was first proposed in Congress in 1923 by equal rights activist Alice Paul.
As of 2020, 38 states have ratified the ERA. However, it is still unclear whether its protections for women's rights will be added to the Constitution.
The ERA has faced legal challenges and has not been ratified by the required number of states. There have been recent efforts to revive and support the amendment, but its future remains uncertain.
