The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed change to the United States Constitution intended to guarantee that legal rights cannot be denied or limited on the basis of sex. Advocates describe it as a simple, broad assurance of equality intended to eliminate sex-based legal distinctions and to provide a clear constitutional standard for courts and legislators. The ERA has been a central focus of American gender-equality politics since it was first drafted in the early 20th century and remains the subject of ongoing legal and political debate.
Text, purpose, and legal effect
The most widely circulated text of the ERA reads in substance that "equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." Proponents argue that placing such a statement in the Constitution would strengthen federal and state protections against discrimination, require courts to apply a stricter standard to laws that differentiate by sex, and close gaps left by statutes and judicial interpretation. Opponents have raised concerns about the scope of that effect, noting that its adoption could require revisions to established legal distinctions and practices.
Origins and legislative history
The ERA was drafted in the 1920s and first introduced in Congress in 1923. Early work on the amendment is associated with women's suffrage and the campaign for equal civil rights for women. After decades of advocacy, Congress approved the amendment in 1972 and sent it to the states for ratification. Ratification requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures (38 of 50).
By the end of the original ratification period established by Congress, 35 states had ratified the amendment. Over the following decades, additional state legislatures voted to ratify, and proponents contend that by 2020 a sufficient number of states had acted to reach the 38-state threshold. The validity of those later ratifications, and of several earlier states' attempts to rescind ratification, has been the subject of legal and procedural controversy. These disputes involve questions about the effect of ratification deadlines, whether states may rescind ratification, and the role of federal officials in certifying an amendment's adoption.
Major organizations and public debate
Support for the ERA has come from a wide range of women's rights groups and civil-rights advocates, while opposition has come from various quarters including some social conservatives, certain labor interests, and others worried about unintended legal consequences. Prominent organizations and activists played leading roles in the amendment's congressional passage and the subsequent state-level ratification campaigns; for example, early suffragists and later feminist organizations campaigned vigorously for adoption. See Alice Paul for background on the amendment's early drafting and National Organization for Women for later activism directed at Congress and state capitals. Legislative action in the U.S. Congress and debates in the United States Senate were pivotal moments in the amendment's modern history.
Arguments for and against
- Arguments for: A federal ERA would provide a clear, constitutional prohibition on sex discrimination; it could strengthen legal remedies for unequal treatment and reduce reliance on varying statutory protections across states.
- Arguments against: Critics argue some protections exist already through statutes and court rulings, that the amendment's broad language could have unanticipated legal consequences, and that it might affect gender-differentiated policies such as military conscription; debates about the draft and military service were a notable aspect of public discussion in the 1970s and 1980s (see draft-related concerns).
- Practical concerns: Questions over ratification deadlines, retroactive legal effects, and state rescissions have also shaped the policy debate and litigation around the ERA.
State-level action and contemporary relevance
Many states have adopted their own state constitutional provisions or laws that echo the goals of the ERA; in total, a number of state constitutions include equal-rights language. Some states that have enacted state-level equality provisions were among those that originally declined or later rescinded federal ratification, and regional political differences—especially in parts of the American South—have influenced state action and public opinion on the amendment (regional variations). Today, ERA advocacy continues through legislative campaigns, public education, and litigation, and the amendment remains a touchstone in debates over gender equality, civil rights, and constitutional interpretation.
Whatever the outcome of ongoing legal and political challenges, the ERA has had a lasting effect on American public life by focusing attention on sex discrimination, shaping legislative reforms, and prompting state-level protections. Its history illustrates how constitutional change can be slow, contested, and consequential at both national and local levels.