At the time this Every Member Tool was written, a blue ribbon commission stacked NCAA Division 1 university representatives, just submitted a report to the Education Secretary regarding the continued validity of Title IX. The Education Secretary is to make his decision public February 28, 2003. The Commission's recommendations are:

Commission Recommendations for Title IX

· require a 50/50 split of male/female athletes no matter what ratio of women to men were in the student population that is the current standard.

· do not count non-traditional students who are mostly female

· count unfilled slots on women's teams as if they were filled.

· do not count male walk ons

· allow variances with Title IX requirements

· allow a requirement that female athletes show interest in sports before allowing them to play

· allow private slush funds to support men's teams

· allow Education Secretary to develop his own means of Title IX compliance.

( Click for current information from the National Women's Law Center's website tht provided the previous list)

Affirmative action is also under attack. George Bush has added his support to a case seeking to repeal the use of affirmative action in admissions at public universities. In the future there will be vacancies on the Supreme Court, which George W. Bush will fill. Given his choices for judges in the lower courts, it is quite possible he will pick conservative judges which might tip the scales on an already narrowly divided court.

At the same time there is a fight going on to revitalize the Equal Rights Amendment. Several states have initiated a new push to pass the ERA in their states and hopefully make it the next amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The League of Women Voters U.S. supports this new drive to pass the E.R.A. This Every Member Tool will explain the history of the ERA, current laws and cases pertaining to women, the reasons behind this new revitalization of the ERA, and the plan for the future, so that you may decide for yourself whether or not the E.R.A. is "Unfinished Business".

The History Behind the E.R.A.

In 1923 Alice Paul wrote what she called the Lucretia Mott Amendment it read:

"Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction"

It was later revised to read:

Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

We know it by another name: The Equal Rights Amendment.

It was introduced to Congress first in 1923 and in every session after that until it passed Congress in 1972 and went on to the states.

In the 1940's the first to add it to their platform were the Republicans and then the Democrats.

The Act, which was now named after its champion, Alice Paul, languished until the 1960's when the civil rights movement breathed new life into it, just as the abolitionist movement started the first women's suffrage movement.

In 1972 the Congress passed it onto the states. 38 states were needed to pass the Amendment and 22 were obtained in the first year.

Then the Amendment ran into trouble. Its opponents made many arguments against it including: (1) it would mean only unisex bathrooms, (2) it would force women into the military and fight alongside men; (3) it would promote same sex marriages; (4) it would cause wholesale abortions; (5) it was an abomination to the Bible which requires the wife to be subservient; (6) it would abolish same sex institutions; and (7) it would be a power grab of the federal government to further restrict states rights.

The 1979 deadline was approaching and 3 states were still needed to pass it. The League opposed an extension to the deadline because the League felt pressure on states was needed to force passage of the amendment. However, Congress extended the deadline until 1982. The Amendment was losing steam and the political climate was turning more conservative. In 1980, the party that originally added the ERA to its platform, the Republicans, was the first to remove it from their platform. None of the lobbying, marches, petitioning or fundraising succeeded in passing the Amendment. It died in 1982 with only three states needed to pass it. Those states which still had not passed the Amendment included: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

But its champions have not given up. Every year since 1982, the Congress has reintroduced it. Now they have a developed a new "Three State Strategy" which will be discussed below.

Do We Need the ERA Anymore?

Before discussing the plan for reviving the ERA we need ask ourselves if it is still needed. Before you answer that question think about your answers to the following survey created by the ERA Campaign Network, which was conducted in 2001. Click to see how your answers matched up with the others who have taken it:

1. In your opinion should male and female citizens of the United States have equal rights?

2. As far as you know, does the Constitution of the United States make it clear that male and female citizens are supposed to have equal rights?

3. In your opinion, should the Constitution make it clear that male and female citizens are supposed to have equal rights?

Next think about these facts set out in a National Organization of Women's S.H.E., (Safety, Health, Equality) Equality pamphlet:

1. For every $1 the average white man earned in 1999, white women earned 72 cents (Bureau of Labor Statistics); black women 67 cents, latina 53.9 cents; Asian 80 cents

2. 1991 male retirees at 65 received $782/month but female retirees at 65 received $523/month (AFL/CIO Fact Sheet 1997)

3. If single mothers earned as much as men, they would increase their income 17% and lower their poverty rates from 25.3% to 12.6% (AFL-CIO, Equal Pay for Working Families, 1999)

4. Only 5.3% of senior managers are women, they hold only 10.6 of Fortune 500 board seats. (Catalyst, 1997 Census of Women Corporate Officers) Women only make up 14% of the national union boards. (Directory of the United States Labor Organizations, 1998)

5. Women owned businesses are now in the majority but women still have more difficulty in obtaining access to business capital than men (Federal Small Business Administration, 2001)

6. Female athletic teams receive only 33% of athletic funding (Women's Sports Foundation, 2001) and receive between 23% and 38% of athletic scholarships.

7. Only 33.8% of University faculty members are women although they are 48% of the doctorates. Women only make up 26% of the tenured faculty.

The above is only a summary. For more facts go to the California NOW

What Rights Does an American Woman Have?

In order to understand if we still need the ERA, we need to understand what rights women have now and how they obtained those rights.

The States and the Federal Government all have laws pertaining to women's rights. Look to the Constitutions, statutes, regulations of administrative agencies, and judicial decisions at both the state and federal level.

California Women Rights Laws and Cases

For more detail on all the statutes, regulations, and cases pertaining to women's rights, see the Women's Rights Handbook at the California Secretary of State's website. For more recent laws, see California NOW's Legislative Report Card.

Federal Equal Rights Laws & Cases

The court in 1972 had the opportunity to find that women were a "suspect class" as minorities like African Americans and entitled to more protection. The question was examined in Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973). The court fell short of finding sex was a "suspect class" and felt that Congress would settle whether it should be a suspect class, by amending the Constitution with the ERA.

The court raised sex discrimination to heightened scrutiny in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976). This meant a showing of something significantly higher had to be shown to prove that a sex discriminatory law was constitutional. This case stemmed from a statute that had differing drinking minimum age requirements for women and men.

In 1996 the court raised the standard again to "skeptical scrutiny" in U.S. v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). Again, this meant raising the bar on proof to something shy of a "compelling state interest" when examining the constitutionality of a gender discriminatory law. This was the case that allowed women to enter Virginia Military Institute, which, at the time, was an all male institution. This was a 5-4 decision and the dissenting justices felt that the standard was too capricious and random.

But, in US v. Madison, 120 US 1740 (2000), the court found that the impingement of state rights through the Federal Violence Against Women Act, was more important than the rights of women to be free of violence, and therefore the law was unconstitutional.

Do We Need the ERA Now?

Many people feel that women do not need the ERA anymore because they already have all the laws listed above.

However, laws can be repealed by a simple majority, and courts may change their mind if the make up of the court changes. But a Constitutional Amendment requires ¾ of the legislature to vote to repeal it.

We are lucky in California. We have guarantees that women in other states do not have. Our Constitution guarantees that women cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex. Other states are not so lucky.

The federal laws are not as safe as they have been. Title IX is being re-examined by a panel that most likely will move to lessen its impact. The court recently struck down a federal law regarding violence against women (U.S. v. Morrison, 120 US1740 (2000)) and the decisions have been narrowly split 5-4 in favor of upholding women's rights but the court make-up may change if the current President has the opportunity to appoint new justices.

There are many reasons why we need the ERA even in this age of apparent empowerment.

First, why not have the ERA even if we have everything women could possibly hope for. Many of the arguments against the ERA would seem silly now. Women now are integral part of our military, they can use unisex bathrooms without problems, and while all male schools have been integrated, several all female schools remain single sex. States that have adopted ERA's for their state constitution do not allow same sex marriages and there are limits on abortion. We have come to see that the fears of ERA are unfounded.

Second, we need to raise women to a higher standard under the 14th Amendment so that they are on equal footing with minorities who are entitled to the strictest scrutiny. Why should a law be allowed to discriminate against women, but not minorities?

Third, amending the Constitution would end long lawsuits by women to claim rights that men already have. (i.e. the VMI case described above)

Fourth, it will prevent the repeal of statutes and case law. Title IX is currently under examination, and one has to ask what might be next.

Finally, it will give the lower courts, including those in California, a cleaner and less fluid standard to deal with when deciding sex discrimination cases.

Why Is the ERA "Unfinished Business"

Besides the ERA being reintroduced in every Congress since 1982 there are several states which are mounting a campaign to pass the ERA today. Why would states do this? It is based upon a Constitutional Amendment that was recently passed by Congress after lying dormant in Congress for over 200 years. This is the 27th Amendment, or the Madison Amendment, and pertains to compensation to Congress members. It was passed to the states in 1789 for ratification and obtained its ¾ goal 1992. If the Madison Amendment could be passed then the ERA still has life in it if three states can create a groundswell to pass the Amendment in their states. For more information on the strategy see: a summary set forth in the NCWO's ERA Task Force website:
http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/viability.htm or the original article: "The Equal Rights Amendment: Why the ERA Remains Legally Viable and Properly Before the States," by Allison Held, Sheryl Herndon, and Danielle Stager, published in the Spring 1997 issue of William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law.

The states, which are actively trying to pass the ERA, include:

Illinois: This is the most promising state currently. The ERA passed the Illinois House Judiciary Committee and passed onto the floor February 5, 2003. Once it passes the House it will move to the Senate for passage. For more information: ERACampaginIL@aol.com

Florida: Is making presentations to women legislators. For information: SandyJOestreich@cs.com

Oklahoma: Making presentations to gain support. for more information: ERACampaignOK@aol.com

Missouri: Using a PAC to elect pro-ERA representatives. The ERA was re-filed in the House and Senate this year. For information:Sbreeze@mindspring.com

Virginia: Introducing a new ERA resolution. For information: ERACampaign1@comcast.net

In the U.S. Congress, follow Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) resolution H.Res. 38, which requests that the House take all legislative action necessary to verify state ratifications of the ERA. The previous "start over" ERA resolution introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) is adding bipartisan co-sponsors and is expected to be reintroduced in time for Women's History Month this March.

Over 160 groups have joined together to pass the ERA. These groups include: League of Women Voters U.S., American Association of University Women, Business & Professional Women/USA, National Organization of Women, National Women's Political Caucus, ERA Campaign, and the Equal Rights Amendment Organization.

What Can You Do?

Educate yourself and then talk to your friends and neighbors. Most are unaware that the ERA is still very much alive.

The sites listed above are looking for your support. Write your representatives and urge them to support any ERA legislation or legislation like Title IX which is currently under attack.

Points for Discussion

1. What were the reasons the ERA failed in 1982?
2. Are those reasons still current today?
3. What are the protections for women, which are in danger of being rolled back today?
4. Do we still need those protections?
5. Is the ERA still needed today? Will it be needed tomorrow?
6. What arguments can you think of for passage of the ERA today?
7. What are the arguments against passing the ERA today?

Resources Used in Writing This Every Member Tool

1. Written Materials
   
   1. The Equal Rights Amendment, Unfinished Business for the Constitution, Study Guide, 1998 Alice Paul Centennial Foundation Inc.
      
   2. S.H.E. Safety, Health & Equal Opportunities, Equal Opportunities Pamphlet, National Organization of Women.
      
2. Audio/Visual Materials
   The Equal Rights Amendment, Unfinished Business for the Constitution, Produced by Ruth Pollack, Educational Film Center, 1998, Ó 1998 Alice Paul Centennial Foundation.
   
3. Web Sites
   
   1. www.ERACampaign.net
      
   2. www.equalrightsamendment.org
      
   3. www.canow.org
      
   4. www.findlaw.com
      
   5. www.nwlc.org
      
   6. http://caag.state.ca.us/publications/womansrights/
      
   7. www.womenssportsfoundation.org

Results of ERA Campaign Survey

1. 95% YES (95% of the men, 97% of the women); 3% NO (4% of the men, 2% of the women); 1% DON'T KNOW (1% of the men, 1% of the women).
   
2. 72% YES (75% of the men; 69% of the women); 18% NO (16% of the men; 21% of the women) 10% HAVE NO IDEA (9% of the men, 10% of the women) **
   
3. 88% YES (85% of the men, 91% of the women); 9% NO (11% of the men, 6% of the women); DON'T KNOW 3% (4% of the men, 3% of the women)

**Note that the Constitution does not make it clear that men and women have equal rights.