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.” 
		  
		
		
		  
		
		 
		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. 
		
		
		  
		
		[to top of second column] 
			 | 
            
             
            
			  
            Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul. 
			(Capitol News Illinois file photo) 
            
			
			
			  
		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. 
			
		
		  
			
		“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.  |