A joint resolution establishing the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
- Sponsor
- Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 25, 2025
Bottom line
This resolution seeks to formally recognize the Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, bypassing the original ratification deadline.
What it actually does
This joint resolution asserts that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been validly ratified by three-fourths of the states and is now part of the U.S. Constitution, despite the expiration of the original time limit for ratification. It aims to remove any legal ambiguity regarding the ERA's status by declaring its ratification complete and effective.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the original time limit for ratification, included in the proposing clause of the ERA but not in the amendment itself, was not constitutionally binding and could be removed by Congress. They contend that a sufficient number of states have ratified the ERA, making it legally valid, and that its inclusion in the Constitution is essential for ensuring explicit legal equality for all Americans regardless of sex.
Opponents contend
Opponents argue that the ERA's ratification deadline expired decades ago, rendering subsequent state ratifications invalid. They also raise concerns about the potential broad legal interpretations of the ERA, particularly regarding abortion rights and gender identity, which they believe could lead to unintended consequences and federal overreach.
The bill text is extremely short and easy to read, but its implications are vast, requiring significant background knowledge to fully understand.
Section 1
Affirmation of Equal Rights Amendment Ratification
This provision declares that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), originally proposed in 1972, is now a valid part of the U.S. Constitution. It explicitly states that the time limit for ratification, which was included in the original proposing resolution but not in the text of the amendment itself, is to be disregarded. This effectively recognizes the ratifications by three-fourths of the states, including those that occurred after the original deadline.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision is a necessary step to formally recognize the will of the states that have ratified the ERA, ensuring that constitutional equality for all is explicitly enshrined. They believe it rectifies a historical oversight and provides a clear legal basis for challenging sex-based discrimination.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this provision attempts to circumvent established constitutional amendment procedures by ignoring a validly set deadline. They argue that allowing post-deadline ratifications to count sets a dangerous precedent for future amendments and could lead to legal challenges regarding the legitimacy of the ERA's inclusion.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire to explicitly enshrine gender equality in the Constitution against concerns about adhering to procedural rules for constitutional amendments, specifically the validity of a time limit set by Congress.