But in another legal twist, five states -- Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho and South Dakota -- voted in the 1970s to revoke their ratifications. It is unclear and unresolved by the courts whether states may rescind a ratification vote.
The Justice Department said it did not matter. "Regardless of the continuing validity of the five states' ratifications, three-fourths of the states did not ratify the amendment before the deadline that Congress set for the ERA resolution, and therefore the 1972 version of the ERA has failed ... and has expired."
The opinion cited comments by Ginsburg that supported the idea that the window for ratifying the 1972 ERA had closed. Noting in September that the ERA "fell three states short of ratification," she said, "I hope someday it will be put back in the political hopper, starting over again, collecting the necessary number of states to ratify it."
On Thursday, House Democrats, led by Reps. Jackie Speier of Hillsborough and Carolyn B. Maloney of N.Y., are expected to approve a resolution to waive the time limit set in the 1972 resolution. They argue that Congress was free to include the time limit in 1972, and it is also free to lift it now. They also point out the states approved the text of the amendment, which does not contain a time limit.
But prospects for passage in the Senate are dim. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given no sign he will bring up the legislation.
And on Monday, Ginsburg spoke at the Georgetown University Law Center and repeated her view that the recent ratifications came too late. "There is too much controversy about latecomers," she said in response to a question. The votes by Virginia, Illinois and Nevada came "long after the deadline passed ... . I would like to see a new beginning. I'd like it to start over."
Women's rights advocates are reluctant to criticize Ginsburg, but they disagree with her view on the significance of the deadline.
"It is ultimately up to Congress, not the courts, to decide whether the ERA has been ratified," said Julie C. Suk, dean for the master's programs at the City University of New York. In two decisions early in the 20th century, the Supreme Court left it to Congress to decide whether to include a deadline for ratifying a constitutional amendment and whether to deem an amendment was ratified in a reasonable time period. "Put together, these precedents support Congress' power to lift a deadline imposed by a previous Congress," she said.
States on both sides of the dispute have gone to court. Two weeks ago, state attorney generals for Virginia, Illinois and Nevada sued David Ferriero, the national archivist, seeking a ruling that would declare the ERA "has become the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." In December, the state attorneys for Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota sued seeking a ruling to prevent the archivist from "illegally adding the long-failed ERA" to the Constitution.
The abortion issue has spurred new opposition from Republicans.
"We've been concerned about this for a long time," said Douglas D. Johnson, a veteran policy advisor for the National Right to Life Committee. "They used to say this was a right-wing scare tactic, but we have seen many statements recently from pro-abortion-rights advocates who say they would use the ERA as a pro-abortion legal weapon."
He cites as an example NARAL Pro-Choice America in its "ERA-YES" campaign. It says the amendment "would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion" and "would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws because they violate both the constitutional right to privacy and sexual equality."
Many others say the ERA would cap the long drive for equality for women. In 1964, Congress made it illegal for employers to discriminate based on sex. A 1972 amendment extended the ban on sex discrimination to schools and colleges, while preserving separate sports teams for girls and boys.
During the 1970s, the Supreme Court took up a series of cases brought by Ginsburg, then an attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, and struck down laws that permitted discrimination between women and men. But the justices stopped short of ruling squarely that equal rights under law may never be denied because of sex.
(c)2020 Los Angeles Times
Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.