This joint resolution declares the Equal Rights Amendment as validly ratified and part of the Constitution, regardless of any previously set time limits.
Lisa Murkowski
Senator
AK
This joint resolution affirms the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the Constitution. It asserts that the ERA has met the constitutional requirement for ratification by three-fourths of the states, superseding any previously set time constraints. With this resolution, the ERA is declared a valid constitutional amendment.
Resolution Declares Equal Rights Amendment Ratified, Bypassing Original Deadline
This joint resolution takes a definitive stance: it declares the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) officially ratified and part of the U.S. Constitution. First proposed way back in 1972, the ERA aimed to guarantee legal gender equality. The catch? The original proposal, House Joint Resolution 208, included a time limit for states to ratify it. While that deadline passed decades ago, this new resolution asserts that because the required three-fourths of state legislatures have eventually ratified it, the ERA is now valid, regardless of the expired timeline.
Dusting Off the History Books: The ERA's Long Road
The core text of the ERA is straightforward: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." The original push for ratification in the 1970s fell short of the required 38 states before the deadline. However, several states ratified the amendment after the deadline expired, eventually reaching the three-fourths threshold. This resolution essentially says those later ratifications count, and the original time limit set by Congress isn't binding on the amendment's validity once the state threshold is met.
What 'Valid' Could Mean in Practice
By declaring the ERA validated, this resolution aims to formally embed gender equality as a fundamental right within the Constitution. If this view prevails, it could provide a clearer and stronger legal basis for challenging laws, policies, and practices perceived as discriminatory based on sex. Think potential impacts on areas like workplace equality, pay equity disputes, insurance rates, or even how family law cases are approached. It shifts the legal landscape by potentially elevating sex-based discrimination claims to a higher level of constitutional scrutiny.
The Elephant in the Room: The Deadline Debate
The central issue this resolution tackles head-on is the validity of ratifications that happened after the original congressional deadline. This resolution declares the ERA valid, but it doesn't erase the legal questions surrounding the expired deadline. Expect legal challenges focusing on whether Congress has the authority to retroactively validate the amendment or ignore the time limit set decades ago. The practical effect of the ERA, therefore, hinges not just on this resolution, but on how the courts ultimately interpret this complex constitutional question.