The Path to Certifying the ERA Lies With Congress--Not the Archivist

[niyad]

The Path to Certifying the ERA Lies With Congress—Not the Archivist
Madelyn Amos | December 17, 2024

In a statement released on December 17th, the Archivist of the United States, Dr. Colleen Shogan, and the Deputy Archivist, William J. Bosanko, clarified their position on the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and the constitutional process for ratifying amendments. The press release highlighted their legal responsibilities and the current limitations preventing the ERA from being certified as part of the U.S. Constitution.“As Archivist and Deputy Archivist of the United States, it is our responsibility to uphold the integrity of the constitutional amendment process and ensure that changes to the Constitution are carried out in accordance with the law,” Shogan and Bosanko said. “At this time, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions.”

The statement refers to legal opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) within the U.S. Department of Justice. In both 2020 and 2022, the OLC affirmed that the ratification deadline for the ERA, originally set by Congress in 1972, remains valid and enforceable. The legal counsel concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires action by Congress or the courts, not the National Archives. “Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid,” the statement continued. “Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment” as the 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This position is aligned with the stance taken by former National Archivist David Ferriero.

. . . .

A joint resolution was introduced in January 2023 in both the House and the Senate by Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) to remove the arbitrary deadline for ratification and recognize the amendment as part of the Constitution. The same language is used in both the House and Senate resolution:

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that notwithstanding any time limit contained in House Joint Resolution 208, 92d Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972, the article of amendment proposed to the States in that joint resolution is valid to all intents and purposes as part of the United States Constitution having been ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several States.”

Currently, all Democrats and only two Republicans in the House have signed on as co-sponsors of this bill.

. . .

Rep. Pressley also introduced H. Res 1483 in September 2024, which removes the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. H. Res 1483 is currently stuck in the Rules Committee, however, passing a discharge petition would move the bill immediately to the floor for a vote. Ultimately, the path to certifying the ERA as part of the U.S. Constitution lies with Congress. We must urge our Representatives and Senators to stand up for equality once and for all.

https://feminist.org/news/national-archivist-releases-new-statement-on-equal-rights-amendment-certification-process/

[walkingman]

1. OK - a majority of House Members (218) must first sign a discharge petition for that purpose.

After a petition has garnered 218 signatures, a motion to discharge may then be offered on the floor—but only after at least seven legislative days and only on a second or fourth Monday of a month.

Since there is not enough time in this session of Congress, maybe it could happen in the next Congress?

I think it could possibly pass in the House and if so it would be interesting how the GOP controlled Senate would react.

Also makes me wonder why this was not a priority when the Dems controlled Congress? Seems like a no-brainer to me?

[tritsofme]

2. Can a simple majority in Congress even remove a deadline that was set by a supermajority?

It’s not even clear that the deadline extension that was passed with a simple majority was ever valid.

I just don’t see this amendment coming back from the dead.

[walkingman]

3. I think your right - it would more than likely have to start over but the thing

that chaps my ass is the GOP attitude "Republicans argue that women’s rights are protected under the 14th Amendment, adding that the ERA is unnecessary" this is bogus and they know it.

Although women's rights have come a long way since the 60s - it is by no means equal and if so the ERA would make it clear that there is no excuse for the lies, deceit, and misogyny by so many in America.

[snot]

4. Rec'g just because

regardless of the finer points, we desperately need the ERA. EVen if we didn't care about abortion rights, the S. Ct.'s most recent decision on abortion laws threatens many other rights of women.