Illinois takes Equal Rights Amendment to appeals court
Send a link to a friend
[September 29, 2022]
By PETER HANCOCK
Capitol News Illinois
phancock@capitolnewsillinois.com
SPRINGFIELD – Attorneys for the state of
Illinois joined their colleagues in Nevada and Virginia Wednesday in
asking a federal appellate court to declare that the Equal Rights
Amendment has been legally ratified as the 28th amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
“I have a daughter who intends to practice law, and the Constitution she
will pledge to protect should fully protect her as well,” Attorney
General Kwame Raoul said in a statement released after the oral
arguments. “Until the United States Constitution reflects our society’s
commitment to not go backward, none of us should stop fighting for
equality.”
Illinois Solicitor General Jane Notz argued the state’s case before the
appellate court.
The push for an amendment barring discrimination on the basis of sex was
first proposed in Congress in 1923. But it wasn’t until 1972 that an
amendment finally cleared both chambers of Congress by two-thirds
majorities and was sent to the states for ratification.
The proposed amendment reads: “Equality of rights under the law shall
not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on
account of sex.”
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2748c/2748c850e194448376ea1d041ac6f32c4b3a4d12" alt=""
At issue in the case is a clause in the original resolution that said it
would become valid when ratified by three-fourths of the states “within
seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress.”
Thirty-eight states are needed for ratification of an amendment, but
when the deadline lapsed in 1979, only 35 states had ratified the
amendment, and six of those had taken subsequent votes to rescind their
endorsement of the amendment.
At one point, Congress tried to extend the deadline into 1982, but that
was quickly challenged in court and before the U.S. Supreme Court could
hear arguments in the case, the extended deadline lapsed.
Years later, in 2017, Nevada became the first state to ratify the
amendment after the deadline. Illinois followed suit in 2018 and
Virginia voted to ratify the amendment in 2020, making it the 38th state
to vote for ratification.
Shortly after the Virginia vote, Illinois and Nevada joined Virginia in
filing a lawsuit seeking an order for National Archivist David Ferriero
to publish and certify the amendment as part of the U.S. Constitution.
But in a ruling handed down in March 2021, a federal judge dismissed the
case, saying among other things that certification by the archivist
would have no legal effect, and therefore his refusal to certify did not
cause the plaintiffs any harm and that Congress was within its authority
to set a deadline for ratification.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e395c/e395c24c9137db7af34b57f59d44980d70d03c2b" alt=""
[to top of second column]
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4c201/4c2011a5b234e4de29f0bb2efba8cd4483c1edf2" alt=""
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul.
(Capitol News Illinois file photo)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7f68b/7f68b27d6a3a0963c5d8e998c641b3f42c97f11a" alt=""
Illinois and Nevada appealed that ruling. Virginia did not take part in
the appeal.
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Illinois and
Nevada argued that the lower court got the decision wrong.
They argued that the process of ratifying constitutional amendments is
spelled out in Article V of the Constitution, which says nothing about
Congress having authority to set deadlines for ratification. They also
argued that the Constitution is silent on whether states can rescind
their ratification of an amendment after already having voted to do so.
Ferriero was joined by five states opposing the amendment – Alabama,
Louisiana, Nebraska, South Dakota and Tennessee – in arguing that the
ERA had not been duly ratified.
They argued that Congress does have a right to set deadlines for
ratification and, in fact, has used a seven-year deadline several times,
beginning with the 18th amendment that established prohibition, which
was ratified in 1919.
They also argued that states have a right to rescind their ratification
if a proposed amendment does not achieve the three-fourths threshold
within a reasonable period of time.
“They didn’t intend the ERA to float in the ether for all eternity,” the
lawyers wrote in their briefs. “Simply put, the world is different now
than it was in 1972. Nearly every legislator that voted to ratify the
ERA is either deceased or no longer in office. Even the youngest
eligible voter that year would be nearly 70 years old now.”
Finally, they also argued that the Equal Rights Amendment itself is not
really about preventing gender-based discrimination but, rather,
“creating a federal constitutional backstop for abortion rights.”
A three-judge panel of the court took the case under advisement but did
not indicate when they would issue a decision. Regardless of how they
rule, the case is almost certain to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bd3b3/bd3b37bef05c1c99ffc73521ef4bd40a60fca58b" alt=""
“We are grateful to the Attorneys General for pursuing this important
litigation,” Zakiya Thomas, president and CEO of the ERA Coalition, said
in a statement. “The ERA has met all the constitutional requirements for
an amendment, and the Archivist has a statutory duty to publish it.
Publication will give official notice to all 50 states that the ERA is
now the Twenty-Eighth Amendment.”
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news
service covering state government that is distributed to more than 400
newspapers statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press
Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation. |