Equal Rights Amendment Ratification Status In 2020 And Its Legal Challenges

The statement that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was ratified as a Constitutional amendment in 2020 and became law is false. This prompts a deeper exploration into the history, the hurdles it faced, and its current status within the American legal landscape. To truly understand the ERA, we must delve into its origins, the timeline of its journey through Congress and the states, and the legal and political challenges that have prevented its full incorporation into the Constitution.

The Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex, has a history stretching back nearly a century. First introduced in Congress in 1923 by suffragist Alice Paul, it aimed to eliminate legal distinctions between men and women in matters of divorce, property, employment, and other areas. The ERA's primary goal was to enshrine gender equality explicitly in the Constitution, addressing what proponents saw as a significant gap in legal protections. While the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, its application to gender-based discrimination has been interpreted differently over time, making the need for a clearer, more direct statement of gender equality apparent to many.

From its initial introduction, the ERA faced numerous obstacles. It was debated and revised in Congress for decades, encountering opposition from various groups who raised concerns about its potential impacts on traditional family structures, labor laws, and other aspects of American life. The amendment finally passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate in 1972, setting off a race for ratification by the states. The ERA required ratification by 38 states (three-fourths of the states) within a seven-year deadline, later extended to 1979. By the late 1970s, 35 states had ratified the amendment, leaving it just three states short of the required threshold. However, a surge of organized opposition, fueled by social and political conservatives, stalled the ratification process. Concerns were raised about the potential for unintended consequences, such as the elimination of gender-specific protections in labor laws and the possibility of same-sex marriage (which was a contentious issue at the time). These concerns, coupled with effective lobbying efforts, led several states to rescind their ratifications, casting further doubt on the ERA's future.

The lapse of the ratification deadline in 1979 marked a significant setback for the ERA. Despite failing to meet the deadline, supporters continued to advocate for its passage, arguing that the need for explicit constitutional protection against gender discrimination remained as vital as ever. In recent years, a renewed push for ratification emerged, driven by a resurgence of feminist activism and a growing awareness of gender inequality in various aspects of society. In 2017, Nevada ratified the ERA, followed by Illinois in 2018 and Virginia in 2020. These ratifications brought the total number of states to 38, seemingly fulfilling the constitutional requirement for ratification. However, the legal landscape surrounding the ERA is far from settled.

The Legal Complications and Current Status

Despite achieving the necessary 38 state ratifications, the Equal Rights Amendment's path to becoming the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is fraught with legal and procedural challenges. The central issue revolves around the original ratification deadline imposed by Congress and the validity of states' attempts to rescind their ratifications. The Department of Justice issued an opinion in 2020 asserting that the deadline had expired and that states could not validly rescind their ratifications after the fact. This opinion has been challenged in court, leading to ongoing legal battles over the ERA's status.

One of the primary legal obstacles is the question of whether Congress had the authority to set a deadline for ratification in the first place. Proponents of the ERA argue that Article V of the Constitution, which outlines the amendment process, does not explicitly grant Congress the power to impose deadlines. They contend that once two-thirds of both houses of Congress propose an amendment and three-fourths of the states ratify it, the amendment should become part of the Constitution, regardless of any time constraints. Opponents, however, point to historical precedent, noting that Congress has routinely set ratification deadlines for constitutional amendments. They argue that these deadlines are essential for ensuring that amendments reflect the contemporary will of the people and that allowing amendments to remain in limbo indefinitely would undermine the constitutional process.

The issue of rescissions further complicates the ERA's status. Several states that initially ratified the amendment later attempted to rescind their ratifications, arguing that they had changed their positions on the issue. The legal validity of these rescissions is a matter of considerable debate. ERA supporters argue that rescissions should not be recognized, as the Constitution does not explicitly provide for them. They maintain that once a state has ratified an amendment, its decision is final. Opponents, however, argue that states have the right to change their minds before an amendment is officially added to the Constitution. This issue has been litigated in federal courts, with varying outcomes. Some courts have dismissed challenges to the rescissions on procedural grounds, while others have expressed skepticism about their validity.

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which is responsible for certifying constitutional amendments, has taken a cautious approach to the ERA. In light of the legal uncertainties and the Department of Justice opinion, NARA has not yet certified the ERA as the 28th Amendment. This decision has been challenged in court, with ERA advocates arguing that NARA has a legal duty to certify the amendment once the required number of states have ratified it. The legal battles over NARA's role are ongoing, and the outcome will likely have a significant impact on the ERA's future.

As of now, the Equal Rights Amendment remains in legal limbo. While it has achieved the necessary state ratifications, the unresolved issues surrounding the deadline and the rescissions prevent its full recognition as part of the Constitution. Congress could potentially take action to remove the deadline retroactively, which would likely resolve the legal challenges. However, such action would require bipartisan support, which has been difficult to achieve given the political divisions surrounding the ERA. Alternatively, ERA supporters could pursue further litigation, seeking a definitive court ruling on the validity of the deadline and the rescissions. The ultimate fate of the ERA will likely depend on a combination of legal and political factors, and its future remains uncertain.

Implications of the ERA and the Path Forward

The potential implications of the Equal Rights Amendment becoming part of the Constitution are far-reaching. At its core, the ERA would provide explicit constitutional protection against gender discrimination, strengthening legal safeguards for women and other marginalized groups. Proponents argue that the ERA is essential for ensuring full gender equality in areas such as employment, pay, reproductive rights, and protection from violence. By enshrining gender equality in the Constitution, the ERA would provide a clear legal standard for courts to apply in cases involving sex-based discrimination, potentially leading to more consistent and robust protections.

One of the key areas where the ERA could have a significant impact is employment law. Currently, federal laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit sex discrimination in the workplace. However, the ERA would provide an additional layer of constitutional protection, making it more difficult for employers to justify discriminatory practices. For example, the ERA could strengthen legal challenges to pay disparities between men and women, as well as discriminatory hiring and promotion practices. It could also provide greater protection for pregnant workers and those facing sexual harassment or assault in the workplace.

The ERA's implications for reproductive rights have also been a subject of considerable debate. Supporters argue that the ERA would help safeguard women's reproductive autonomy by providing a stronger constitutional basis for challenging laws that restrict access to abortion and contraception. They contend that such laws often disproportionately affect women and perpetuate gender inequality. Opponents, however, fear that the ERA could be interpreted as an endorsement of abortion rights, potentially leading to the invalidation of laws that protect unborn fetuses. The extent to which the ERA would impact reproductive rights is a complex legal question that would likely be resolved through future court decisions.

Beyond its legal implications, the Equal Rights Amendment has significant symbolic importance. For many, it represents a long-overdue recognition of women's equal status under the law. The ERA's passage would send a powerful message about the nation's commitment to gender equality and could help to shift societal attitudes and norms. It would also align the United States with many other countries that have already enshrined gender equality in their constitutions.

Looking ahead, the path forward for the ERA remains uncertain. As discussed, legal challenges persist, and political divisions continue to impede its full recognition. However, the renewed momentum behind the ERA in recent years suggests that the fight for gender equality is far from over. Supporters are exploring various strategies for advancing the ERA, including congressional action to remove the ratification deadline, further litigation to challenge the Department of Justice opinion and NARA's inaction, and continued advocacy to raise public awareness and support for the amendment.

In conclusion, while the statement that the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified in 2020 is technically false, the story of the ERA is far from over. It highlights the complexities of constitutional amendments, the enduring struggle for gender equality, and the ongoing debates about the role of the Constitution in protecting fundamental rights. The ERA's future will depend on the interplay of legal, political, and social forces, and its journey serves as a reminder of the challenges and opportunities in the pursuit of a more just and equitable society.

Answer

B. False