The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues
Congressional Research Service
Summary
The proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (ERA) declares that “equality of
rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account
of sex….” The ERA was approved by Congress for ratification by the states in 1972; the
amendment included a customary, but not constitutionally mandated, seven-year deadline for
ratification. Between 1972 and 1977, 35 state legislatures, of the 38 required by the Constitution,
voted to ratify the ERA. Despite a congressional extension of the deadline from 1979 to 1982, no
additional states approved the amendment during the extended period, at which time the
amendment was widely considered to have expired.
After 23 years in which no additional state voted to ratify the ERA, the situation changed when
Nevada and Illinois approved the amendment, in March 2017 and May 2018, respectively. In
addition, a change in party control of the Virginia legislature in the 2019 elections raised hopes
among ERA supporters that this state might also vote to ratify, which would bring the number of
approvals to 38, the requirement set by Article V for validation of a proposed amendment as part
of the Constitution.
In the context of these developments, ERA proponents have renewed efforts to restart the
ratification process. These actions center on the assertion that because the amendment did not
include a ratification deadline within the amendment text, it remains potentially viable and
eligible for ratification indefinitely. This proposal was originally known as the “Three State
Solution,” for the number of state ratifications then necessary to reach the constitutional
requirement that it be approved by three-fourths of the states. Supporters of this approach
maintain that Congress has the authority both to repeal the original 1979 ratification deadline and
its 1982 extension, and to restart the ratification clock at the current 37-state level—including the
Nevada and Illinois ratifications—with or without a future ratification deadline. They assert that
the broad authority over the amendment process provided to Congress by Article V of the
Constitution includes this right. They further claim that the Supreme Court’s decision in Coleman
v. Miller favors their position. They also note the precedent of the Twenty-Seventh
“Madison”
Amendment, which was ratified in 1992, 203 years after Congress proposed it to the states.
Opponents of reopening the amendment process may argue that attempting to revive the ERA
would be politically divisive, and contrary to the spirit, and perhaps the letter, of Article V and
Congress’s earlier intentions. They might also reject the example of the Twenty-Seventh
Amendment, which, unlike the proposed ERA, never had a ratification time limit. Further, they
might claim that efforts to revive the ERA ignore the possibility that state ratifications may have
expired with the 1982 deadline, and that ERA proponents fail to consider the issue of state
withdrawals from the amendment, known as rescissions, a question that has not been specifically
decided in any U.S. court.
In addition to proposals for the Three State Solution, the Equal Rights Amendment has also been
introduced as new “fresh start” resolutions in each Congress since 1982.
In the 116
th
Congress, resolutions have been introduced in the House of Representatives and the
Senate that embrace both approaches. H.J.Res. 35, introduced by Representative Carolyn
Maloney, and S.J.Res. 15, introduced by Senator Robert Menendez, propose “fresh start” equal
rights amendments. H.J.Res. 38 and H.J.Res. 79, both introduced by Representative Jackie Speier,
and S.J.Res. 6, introduced by Senator Benjamin Cardin, would restart the ratification process by
removing the deadlines for ratification of the ERA set in 1972 and extended in 1979. On April 30,
2019, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the ERA. On November 13, the