ERA

Below is the Statement I delivered to the Illinois Senate Executive Committee today on the ERA:

I’m Cristina Villarreal and I am President of the Chicago Chapter of the National Organization for Women.  Thank you for allowing me to speak today, it is an honor to be a part of this history that has been in the works for nearly a century.  And though I am glad that the discussion of equal rights is continuing, I’m disappointed that this amendment has not been ratified by our state sooner. 

I would like to discuss viability of the equal rights amendment. There is an argument that your vote today is not important, that because the 1982 Congressional deadline for ratification has passed, there is no point in Illinois ratifying the Amendment, but I’m here to assure you your vote today will make a difference. 

Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to propose amendments, and it gives Congress a uniquely broad authority over the amendment process. However, the Constitution remains silent on time limits for ratification and the power of Congress to impose time limits.  

Case law tries to clear this up.  InDillon v. Gloss (1921) the court ruled that an amendment should be ratified within a “reasonable” and “sufficiently contemporaneous” time frame.  In Coleman v. Miller (1939)the Court ruled that only congress can determine what is “reasonable” and “sufficiently contemporaneous.”

The Madison Amendment (Congressional pay), is an example of how “sufficiently contemporaneous” is determined by congress.  The Madison Amendment was originally passed by Congress in 1789, but did not become ratified until 1992.  If 203 years can be considered “reasonable” and “sufficiently contemporaneous,” than so can a few decades taken to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.  

When ratified, these will all be arguments that can be made if necessary, but most recently inNOW v. Idaho (1982) the U.S. Supreme Court declared regardless of any legal questions on issues related to deadlines and ratification are moot, because the Amendment has not been ratified  by 38 states`. 

The Three State Approach argues that there needs to be three more states to ratify the amendment and then Congress with it’s broad authority on the ratification process can do it’s job, and make a decision on the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.  The Congressional Research Service has reported on the viability of the Equal Rights Amendment, and they have concluded that even without the Three State Approach, there are legal strategies that could be used to still get the amendment ratified.  

Your vote could be a step in not only making women equal under the constitution, but also to getting a historical clarification on the ratification process. If you are a nerd like me, than you know that's a big deal. 

On another note, your vote matters for reasons other than simply because ratification is still viable.  You have an opportunity to right a historical wrong.  This amendment should have been ratified by the state, years before I was born, but it wasn’t, and you have an opportunity to get on the path to fixing that today.  But more than just fixing a historical wrong, we have a chance to make history.  Illinois has an opportunity to be at the forefront of revitalizing the women’s rights movement.  We can give hope, where hope was lost, and continue to move our nation forward into a more perfect union of equality. 

At the end of the day, after that long legal history and explanation on viability I just gave you, I would like to conclude with, viability does not matter.  Viability is irrelevant when it comes to doing the right thing. I have a young, amazing daughter at home.  What matters most is telling her and girls like her, that under the U.S. Constitution, they has equal rights.  I want my daughter to grow up in a state with legislators that value her rights and have the “yes” vote to prove it.  I urge you to please vote yes on SJRCA 75.