Virginia Becomes the 38th State to Pass the Equal Rights Amendment

On a more positive note than the threat of gun extremist violence, Virginia is in the news for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment - yet another measure Republicans had blocked for many years. With Virginia's passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, the 3/4 of the states requirement has been met and the issue now becomes whether or not Congress' 10 year period for state ratification is binding.   Article V of the U.S. Constitution itself imposes no ratification deadline: 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

Expect litigation to be filed by progressive states to push for final adoption of this Amendment which would provide women much enhanced protections - much to the consternation of Republicans, male chauvinists, and  right wing Christian extremists who want women forever subordinate to men.   A piece in Mother Jones looks at Virginia's historic action:

Since Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972, the proposal to enshrine gender equality in the Constitution has languished in state legislatures, failing to rack up the approvals in the three-quarters of states required of Constitutional amendments—until now. On Wednesday, Virginia became the 38th state to pass a resolution to ratify the ERA in its newly elected Democratic state legislature. 

The significance of the ERA lies in its power to strengthen existing anti-discrimination laws—on issues like pay equity, sexual violence, and pregnancy discrimination—by giving them the weight of a constitutional amendment that cannot easily be repealed, amended, or weakened in the courts, its proponents argue. 

The deadline for 38 states to ratify the amendment passed in 1982, and in the intervening years, five states have rescinded their earlier approvals. These complications mean that the ERA still faces significant hurdles before it could be added to the Constitution, including potential years of legal battles. [T]he old battles over the ERA have been revived in recent years as women’s groups have strategized to reenergize the older movement. Their efforts have been fruitful: In 2017, Nevada voted to ratify the amendment. In 2018, Illinois followed suit. Both were part of a modern “three-state strategy” to move the amendment forward.

Because it would have changed the Constitution, the proposal went to the states for ratification after Congress approved it. States had 10 years to pass the amendment, but conservatives and anti-feminist activists, led by the late activist Phyllis Schlafly—who claimed, among other things, that women would lose financial support from their husbands if the ERA was passed—fought fiercely against it. By the time the 1982 deadline rolled around, only 35 states had ratified—three short. The amendment was dead.

But the ERA’s demise never deterred women’s groups from trying to restart the conversation. At least 10 state legislatures, backed by the ERA Coalition (which counts Steinem as a board member) and smaller state groups like the Virginia-based Women Matter, have introduced bills to ratify the ERA in the years since it was first approved. They’ve focused on the so-called “three-state strategy”: if they can get three more states to pass the amendment, they’re hoping Congress will recognize the ratifications that occurred after 1982 as valid and let it pass.

Now, it may now be up to Congress to recognize the late ratifications and push the amendment process forward, according to Julie Suk, a professor at the City University of New York who is writing a book about the ERA.

“I think there’s a very strong political and moral argument,” Suk says. “It’s taken a generation 100 years to get the ERA because there are obvious challenges to getting equal rights when you don’t have equal rights. If Congress were to say ‘follow the rules, sorry you were late,’ I think they would be rejecting 100 years of effort by women.”

Sadly, with today's GOP, moral arguments mean nothing.  Thus, court battles may be what ultimately push the ERA over the finish line.