The Great Equalizer

After nearly 100 years, the Equal Rights Amendment is both closer to becoming part of the Constitution, and further away from it, than it's ever been.

The U.S. House gave the Equal Rights Amendment a temporary new lease on life Thursday by voting to remove a 1982 deadline for ratification by the states.

The 232-183 vote, on a resolution introduced by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), pushes the issue to the Senate, where Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have introduced a similar measure.
During debate on the House floor, Republicans leaned on antiabortion and constitutional arguments to oppose the ERA, arguing that enshrining protections for women in the Constitution would mean abortion could not be restricted. Democrats focused on the legality of deadlines and the importance of equal rights.

“This has nothing to do with the abortion issue. That is an excuse, not a reason,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), arguing that women are still paid less than men for similar work, and often are shorted on pensions and maternity leaves.

She and some of the other female lawmakers wore purple to show their support for the long-sought constitutional amendment, which was first proposed nearly a century ago.

But it will take more than color coordination to enact the ERA.

Three-quarters of the states must ratify a proposed amendment for it to be added to the Constitution. With new Democratic majorities in both chambers, the Virginia General Assembly met that threshold last month, becoming the 38th state to ratify the ERA.

Supporters of the amendment say that Congress’s deadline can be changed by a simple vote of the same body, because the Constitution itself does not specify a ratification deadline.

Others disagree.

In anticipation of Virginia’s vote, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel advised the national archivist not to certify the ratification because of the expired deadline.

Three lawsuits have been filed over the ERA, including one this month by the attorneys general of Illinois, Nevada and Virginia, calling for its addition to the Constitution. A lawsuit opposing ratification was filed in Alabama last year by the attorneys general of Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota.

Another lawsuit supports ratification and was filed in Massachusetts by Equal Means Equal, the Yellow Roses group and Katherine Weitbrecht.

At least one of the legal challenges is expected to end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

And it's that last part that's the killer.  Even if the ERA got past the Senate tomorrow, the Roberts Court would block it. Even Justice Ginsburg has openly questioned the process, noting five states have withdrawn their support for the ERA since 1972.

It doesn't look good, and it looks like it won't make it into the Constitution at any point soon.