The Equal Rights Amendment: A Century-Long Fight for Constitutional Equality
A Constitutional Odyssey: The ERA’s Rocky Journey
First drafted in 1923 by suffragist Alice Paul, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) sought to enshrine gender equality in the U.S. Constitution with a simple mandate: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied… on account of sex.” Congress finally passed the ERA in 1972, but with an unprecedented twist—a seven-year ratification deadline embedded in its proposing clause (not the amendment text itself). This made the ERA the only constitutional amendment with such a time limit.
By 1982, only 35 states had ratified it, falling three short of the required 38. Congress extended the deadline to 1982, but no additional states approved it during this period. Decades later, a renewed push saw Nevada (2017), Illinois (2018), and finally Virginia (2020) ratify the ERA, technically reaching the 38-state threshold—but 48 years past the original deadline. Five states (Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, South Dakota) attempted to rescind their earlier ratifications, creating legal ambiguity about whether the ERA could still be valid.
Biden’s Symbolic Gesture and Legal Reality
In January 2025, President Joe Biden declared the ERA “the law of the land,” aligning with the American Bar Association’s stance that the deadline was unenforceable. However, his proclamation lacked legal force. The National Archivist, responsible for certifying amendments, refused to act, citing unresolved disputes over rescissions and deadlines. Biden’s move was largely symbolic, underscoring political support but leaving the ERA in constitutional limbo.
Why the ERA Still Matters
Constitutional Safeguards: The U.S. Constitution still does not explicitly prohibit sex discrimination. The 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause has been inconsistently applied to gender cases.
Preventing Rollbacks: Without the ERA, hard-won rights (e.g., abortion access, pay equity) remain vulnerable to shifting political winds.
Global Standing: Over 85% of U.N. member states constitutionally prohibit sex discrimination—the U.S. lags behind.
Legal Standard: The ERA would elevate sex discrimination to “strict scrutiny,” the highest judicial review standard, matching protections for race and religion.
Minnesota’s State-Level Push
While the federal ERA stalls, Minnesota is forging its own path. In May 2024, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL)-led House passed a state Equal Rights Amendment to appear on the 2026 ballot but the proposal failed in the Senate. The measure will be before the legislature in the 2025 session, and if it passes and is then approved by voters, it would:
Prohibit discrimination based on race, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy outcomes (including abortion).
Counteract conservative-led challenges to LGBTQ+ and reproductive rights.
Controversy: Republicans opposed including abortion protections, arguing it politicized the amendment. Legal experts warn that without explicit constitutional safeguards, some of Minnesota’s laws (e.g., 2023 abortion rights statute) could face reversal by future legislatures or courts.
The League of Women Voters: A Century of ERA Advocacy
Throughout the ERA's long journey, the League of Women Voters (LWV) has been a steadfast champion of constitutional equality. Since the amendment's inception, the LWV has recognized it as crucial for achieving true equality under the law. The League's efforts span from national advocacy to grassroots action in states like Minnesota. As the LWVMN gears up for the 2026 state ERA ballot initiative, it continues a tradition of voter education and mobilization. Through community forums, legislative advocacy, and public campaigns, the LWV demonstrates how local action can drive progress even when federal efforts stall. The League's unwavering commitment underscores the ERA's enduring importance, proving that progress, while often slow, is achievable through persistent civic engagement.
