Skip to content Skip to search

Republish This Story

* Please read before republishing *

We’re happy to make this story available to republish for free under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives Creative Commons license as long as you follow our republishing guidelines, which require that you credit The 19th and retain our pixel. See our full guidelines for more information.

To republish, simply copy the HTML at right, which includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline and credit to The 19th. Have questions? Please email [email protected].

— The Editors

Loading...

Modal Gallery

/
Sign up for our newsletter

Menu

  • Our Mission
  • Our Team
  • Latest Stories
  • Search
  • Upcoming Events
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Donate
  • Work With Us
  • Fellowships
    • From the Collection

      Changing Child Care

      Illustration of a woman feeding a baby a bottle
      • 1 in 4 parents report being fired for work interruptions due to child care breakdowns

        Chabeli Carrazana · February 2
      • Washington, D.C., offers financial relief to local child care workers

        Orion Rummler · September 20
      • As climate change worsens hurricane season in Louisiana, doulas are ensuring parents can safely feed their babies

        Jessica Kutz · May 5
    • From the Collection

      Next-Gen GOP

      Illustration of a woman riding an elephant
      • Mayra Flores’ victory set a record for women in Congress. It also reflects the growing visibility of Republican Latinas

        Candice Norwood · June 21
      • A banner year for Republican women

        Amanda Becker · November 11
      • Republican women could double representation in the U.S. House

        Amanda Becker · November 4
    • From the Collection

      On The Rise

      Illustration of three women marching
      • Can Cheri Beasley build a winning coalition in North Carolina?

        Candice Norwood · October 11
      • Los Angeles has never elected a woman mayor. Karen Bass hopes to change that.

        Nadra Nittle · September 8
      • Judge J. Michelle Childs is confirmed to D.C. appeals court

        Candice Norwood · July 20
    • From the Collection

      Pandemic Within a Pandemic

      Illustration of four people marching for Black Lives Matter with coronavirus as the backdrop
      • Some LGBTQ+ people worry that the COVID-19 vaccine will affect HIV medication. It won’t.

        Orion Rummler · November 23
      • Why are more men dying from COVID? It’s a complicated story of nature vs. nurture, researchers say

        Mariel Padilla · September 22
      • Few incarcerated women were released during COVID. The ones who remain have struggled.

        Candice Norwood · August 17
    • From the Collection

      Portraits of a Pandemic

      Illustration of a woman wearing a mask and holding up the coronavirus
      • For family caregivers, COVID is a mental health crisis in the making

        Shefali Luthra · October 8
      • A new database tracks COVID-19’s effects on sex and gender

        Shefali Luthra · September 15
      • Pregnant in a pandemic: The 'perfect storm for a crisis'

        Shefali Luthra · August 25
    • From the Collection

      The 19th Explains

      People walking from many articles to one article where they can get the context they need on an issue.
      • The 19th Explains: What we know about Brittney Griner’s case and what it took to get her home

        Candice Norwood, Katherine Gilyard · December 8
      • The 19th Explains: Why the Respect for Marriage Act doesn’t codify same-sex marriage rights

        Kate Sosin · December 8
      • The 19th Explains: Why baby formula is still hard to find months after the shortage

        Mariel Padilla · December 1
    • From the Collection

      The Electability Myth

      Illustration of three women speaking at podiums
      • Mayra Flores’ victory set a record for women in Congress. It also reflects the growing visibility of Republican Latinas

        Candice Norwood · June 21
      • Stepping in after tragedy: How political wives became widow lawmakers

        Mariel Padilla · May 24
      • Do term limits help women candidates? New York could be a new testing ground

        Barbara Rodriguez · January 11
    • From the Collection

      The Impact of Aging

      A number of older people walking down a path of information.
      • From ballroom dancing to bloodshed, the older AAPI community grapples with gun control

        Nadra Nittle, Mariel Padilla · January 27
      • 'I'm planning on working until the day I die': Older women voters are worried about the future

        Mariel Padilla · June 3
      • Climate change is forcing care workers to act as first responders

        Jessica Kutz · May 31
    • From the Collection

      Voting Rights

      A series of hands reaching for ballots.
      • Election workers believe in our system — and want everyone else to, too

        Barbara Rodriguez, Jennifer Gerson · November 8
      • Voter ID laws stand between transgender people, women and the ballot box

        Barbara Rodriguez · October 14
      • Emily’s List expands focus on diverse candidates and voting rights ahead of midterm elections

        Errin Haines · August 30

    View all collections

  • Explore by Topic

    • 19th Polling
    • Abortion
    • Business & Economy
    • Caregiving
    • Coronavirus
    • Education
    • Election 2020
    • Election 2022
    • Environment & Climate
    • Health
    • Immigration
    • Inside The 19th
    • Justice
    • LGBTQ+
    • Politics
    • Press Release
    • Race
    • Sports
    • Technology

    View All Topics

Home
  • Our Mission
  • Our Team
  • Latest Stories
  • Search
  • Upcoming Events
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Donate
  • Work With Us
  • Fellowships

We’re an independent, nonprofit newsroom reporting on gender, politics and policy. Read our story.

The 19th News(letter)

News from reporters who represent you and your communities.

Please check your email to confirm your subscription!

Submitting...

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Become a member

The 19th thanks our sponsors. Become one.

A march in D.C. for the ERA in 1978.
Demonstrators carry a banner down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., during a march for the Equal Rights Amendment in 1978. (Archive Photo by Ann E. Zelle/Getty Images)

Politics

The 19th Explains: What is the Equal Rights Amendment and will it become part of the Constitution?

Supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment have been trying to add it to America’s founding legal document for nearly 50 years. Could 2021 be the year it happens? 

Barbara Rodriguez

State Politics and Voting Reporter

Barbara Rodriguez portrait

Published

2021-03-01 06:00
6:00
March 1, 2021
am

Updated

2021-03-17 15:40:35.000000

Share

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

Recent efforts to add the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are nearly 50 years in the making — longer if you count efforts by suffragists — and aim to explicitly protect people from discrimination on the basis of sex.

The U.S. House voted earlier this year to pass a resolution that would recognize it. A similar proposal has been introduced in the U.S. Senate, where its future is more unclear.

The Equal Rights Amendment still isn’t a part of the Constitution, even though many pieces of the puzzle appear to be in place: Congress approved the proposal, and so have many state legislatures. There is now a new push, through the courts and the halls of Congress, to settle the true status of the amendment.

The 19th thanks our sponsors. Become one.

Here’s what to know.

What exactly is the U.S. House doing?

The House voted in March on H.J.Res.17, which would effectively remove any past deadlines on the Equal Rights Amendment.

In 1972, Congress passed the ERA with a stipulation that state legislatures ratify the ERA in seven years. By the deadline in 1979, only 35 states had ratified the amendment instead of the 38 needed. Congress extended the deadline to 1982, but no additional states passed the amendment in that time.

What exactly is the ERA?

The ERA, or the Equal Rights Amendment, is a proposal to add equality protections “on account of sex” to the U.S. Constitution. In other words, the measure is supposed to add gender protections to the country’s founding legal document. (Groups that support the proposal interchangeably frame it as the potential for legal protections against discrimination on the basis of gender and gender identity.)

Here’s the exact proposed language of section 1 of the ERA: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

What does it do? Why do supporters of the ERA think the amendment is necessary?

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment includes protections against sex discrimination. But some scholars and judges — notably, the late Justice Antonin Scalia — have expressed a belief that there is no explicit guarantee of protection against sex discrimination in the U.S. Constitution.

Stories by experienced reporters you can trust and relate to.

Delivered directly to your inbox every weekday.

Please check your email to confirm your subscription!

Submitting…

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Supporters of the ERA believe clear language in the Constitution — which did not originally include the words “women” or “sex” — is increasingly important with a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court that could roll back existing protections. The ERA could bolster arguments in gender-based discrimination cases that pop up in America’s legal system.

Who opposes the ERA? Why?

Some opponents believe it would overturn laws or invalidate programs that have separate policies based on gender, such as educational programs or sports. However, the Supreme Court has provided clear guidelines for the legal use of gender-based programs.

Others have argued that the amendment would overturn abortion restrictions, and conservative groups have highlighted this point increasingly. It’s an argument with no clarity because it hasn’t been seriously challenged in court, though some key supporters working under the ERA Coalition have argued that the measure is not about the medical procedure. Abortion access is separately protected under the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

The current arguments against the ERA is an extension of a battle that began decades ago. In the 1960s and 1970s, conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly claimed the amendment would remove various legal protections for women — an argument that found strong support among White women at the time.

Some argue that the Equal Rights Amendment is no longer needed because court rulings have gradually expanded protections against sex discrimination, rulings that often relied on the legal arguments of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the late U.S. Supreme Court justice.

A historical photo of NOW President Eleanor Smeal, and former First Ladies, Betty Ford & Lady Bird Johnson urge ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment at a rally on the Lincoln Memorial Grounds.
National Organization for Women President Eleanor Smeal and former first ladies Betty Ford and Lady Bird Johnson urge ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment at a rally on the Lincoln Memorial grounds in October 1981. (Photo by Bettmann / Getty Contributor)

How far back do ERA efforts go?

The strategic effort to add the Equal Rights Amendment began in earnest shortly after the 19th Amendment — which granted women the right to vote, though that right was extended mainly to only White women — was added to the Constitution in 1920.

The first version of the Equal Rights Amendment was introduced in Congress in December 1923, according to Julie C. Suk, a legal scholar and author of the book of  “We The Women: The Unstoppable Mothers of the Equal Rights Amendment.” The first hearings were held in 1925.

Suk’s book highlights both White and non-White women leaders of the movement. Among them was Mary Church Terrell, a founder of the National Association of Colored Women and later a founder of the NAACP. A Black woman, Terrell advocated for the amendment in the 1940s, decades after she had also championed for voting rights.

As Suk explains in her book, Terrell testified for the ERA in congressional hearings because she believed it could help working mothers, noting that many were often already breadwinners and caregivers for their families.

“I think from early on, the perspective of the working mother often came into the conversation by way of women of color, largely because for the most part it remains true today: Women of color are more disadvantaged than White women as compared to White men, if you just measure things like the pay gap, or even the percentage of women of color who are in low-wage jobs, or the proportion of women of color in essential work,” Suk told The 19th.

The ERA was stuck in a legislative committee for years until then-Rep. Martha Griffiths of Michigan used a parliamentary procedure to bring the measure to a floor vote. Others legislators, including Patsy Mink of Hawaii, the first woman of color and first Asian American elected to Congress, helped spearhead efforts, along with Shirley Chisholm of New York, the first Black woman to be elected to Congress and later the first Black woman to seek the presidential nomination for a major party.

Chisholm argued during a floor speech in 1970: “The time is clearly now to put this House on record for the fullest expression of that equality of opportunity which our founding fathers professed. They professed it, but they did not assure it to their daughters, as they tried to do for their sons. The Constitution they wrote was designed to protect the rights of white, male citizens. As there were no black Founding Fathers, there were no founding mothers — a great pity, on both counts. It is not too late to complete the work they left undone. Today, here, we should start to do so.”

Congress adopted the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972.

So where is the amendment now?

To add an amendment to the Constitution, Congress must pass it with a two-thirds majority, and then three-fourths of state legislatures — so 38 out of 50 — must ratify the amendment.

That has happened with the ERA, but it’s complicated.

After just 35 states ratified the amendment, some thought the issue was lost. State lawmakers, led by Black women, revived the effort.

In 2017, the Nevada legislature ratified the ERA. The Illinois legislature followed with ratification in 2018. In January 2020, a new Democratic-controlled Virginia legislature became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The back-to-back-to-back votes have kicked off a new debate about the status of the amendment.

When states ratify an amendment to the constitution, the federal government must acknowledge the move to effectively make it official. That has not happened.

After the Virginia legislature ratified the amendment, an archivist with the National Archives and Records Administration refused to certify the ERA under guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice. The DOJ at the time issued an opinion citing the expired deadline on the ERA.

Democratic attorneys general in Nevada, Illinois and Virginia filed a lawsuit seeking to declare that the amendment is a part of the constitution. A federal judge dismissed the case in March 2021, arguing the attorneys general have no legal standing to sue. The legal questions raised by the lawsuit could take years to be resolved, and some expect it to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now people — members of Congress, attorneys general, those who support the ERA and those who oppose it — are trying to figure out what happens next.

An image of members of the Equal Rights Amendment Task Force, attend a news conference at the House Triangle.
Jessica Lenahan, center, a domestic violence survivor, and Carol Jenkins, right, of the Equal Rights Amendment Task Force, attend a news conference in June 2018 on the Equal Rights Amendment. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

Does missing the deadline mean it has to start over?

It depends on who you ask.

The Trump Justice Department believes the deadline was binding.

People who support the ERA argue that the original deadline was not in the amendment text that states ratified, but rather part of a joint resolution. They believe a new Congress can pass another resolution that effectively removes the deadline.

Attorneys are trying to sort this all out through litigation. Supporters of the ERA have sent a letter to President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris asking them to ensure the archivist acknowledges the amendment’s ratification. 

So what does happen next?

As the legal questions get sorted out in court, some members of Congress want to use their political power to remove the deadline for states to ratify the ERA.

In 2020, the Democratic-controlled House passed a resolution affirming that the amendment is a part of the constitution. The Republican-controlled Senate did not take up the measure.

On March 17, House lawmakers again passed the same resolution, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier of California and Republican Rep. Tom Reed of New York. A similar resolution, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, has been filed in the new Democratic-controlled Senate.

In the Senate, it’s unclear whether ERA supporters will need a simple majority vote or 60 votes. A handful of Senate Republicans support the ERA, but as of early March 2021, not enough for 60 votes.

Supporters of the ERA believe the resolutions in Congress that affirm the amendment and remove the deadlines are an important step while the legal questions play out in court. They believe the election of a Democratic president, and renewed awareness of the amendment, will codify the ERA in 2021. Whether that’s true remains unclear.

Share

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

Help sustain what we started

Your monthly investment is critical to our sustainability as a nonprofit newsroom.

Donate Today

Become a member

From the Collection

The 19th Explains

People walking from many articles to one article where they can get the context they need on an issue.
  • The 19th Explains: What we know about Brittney Griner’s case and what it took to get her home

    Candice Norwood, Katherine Gilyard · December 8
  • The 19th Explains: Why the Respect for Marriage Act doesn’t codify same-sex marriage rights

    Kate Sosin · December 8
  • The 19th Explains: Why baby formula is still hard to find months after the shortage

    Mariel Padilla · December 1

Up Next

Signs at the Capitol in support of the relief bill

Politics

Advocates fought for a relief bill that helped women. Here’s what the House voted to approve.

A provision to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour is in the House bill but is unlikely to make it through the Senate. 

Read the Story

The 19th
The 19th is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. Our stories are free to republish in accordance with these guidelines.

  • Donate
  • Newsletter
  • Events
  • Search
  • Jobs
  • Fellowships
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Community Guidelines
  • Membership
  • Membership FAQ
  • Major Gifts
  • Sponsorship
  • Privacy
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram