Skip to main content

Many of you are probably not aware that certain members of the state legislature in Arkansas are trying to revive the Equal Rights Amendment.  This has been going on for the last few legislative sessions.  During the last go around, the people on the right went so far as to fly in Phyllis Shlafly to testify against the passage.  The issue never made it out of committee.

The good news is that we have a new opportunity!  The ERA is back before the committee again this year and we have 2 Democrats for it, 2 Republicans against it and a Democrat that is on the fence.  Do you all think that we can let him know that the left has his back?  The pressure from the homophobic right has been intense!  The anti-feminists have drawn horrible pictures of women fighting on the front lines of war.  We cannot let them win again... Not with victory within our grasp!

Please stand with me and push Senator Bobby Glover to move the issue out of committee.  Supporters of the ERA believe that we have a real chance for passage if only we can make it to the full chamber body.  We just need one more push to get it there.  Reignite the fight for equal rights for all people.  The Lilly Ledbetter  Act was a great start, let the ERA be the finish line.

If you wish to help show that our nation's daughters are equal to our nation's sons, please email or call Senator Glover.

Contact Information:

Arkansas State Senator Bobby Glover
cnhc@juno.com
870-552-7150

A big thanks in advance to all of you that take time out of your busy lives to make a difference today.

Originally posted to leftofsouth on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 11:34 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What's the current count? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pandoras Box

    How many more states need to ratify it?

    I hads a 401K but the economy ated it.

    by nightsweat on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 11:40:39 AM PDT

  •  Wouldn't this be wonderful? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HugoDog, Gemina13

    Who, in good conscience, can be against this?

    Question tho - and here I am sure I will show my ignorance of political process - how does moving this in Arkansas help push this nationally?

    "We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!" - The Shoveler

    by Pandoras Box on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 11:41:00 AM PDT

    •  Actually, I have an issue with it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pandoras Box

      maybe I am looking at it wrong (or have inaccurate info), but Ive often been troubled by the fact that it gives people who are opposed to gender based affirmative action another tool to attack it.  Now, I for one would love to be able to say we no longer need gender based AA, but I am not convinced of that.  

      My 2 cents

      •  huh? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pandoras Box, leftofsouth, chrome327

        we have amendments that make people equal based on race, yet we also have affirmative action. If we have an amendment that makes people equal based on sex, why would we then not have affirmative action? That seems like a convoluted reason not to support the ERA.

        "Every Pootie is a masterpiece." - Da Vinci

        by mdsiamese on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 12:31:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't believe that's the case. (0+ / 0-)

          What amendment makes people equal based on race?  

          There was a big debate some years ago over ERA strategy. Some folks liked the "three state" or Madison Amendment strategy, as put forth in this diary. Others preferred starting over with a "Constitutional Equality Amendment" that covered not only gender, but race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.  Few were optimistic on the chances of passing that, especially back in the mid nineties.

          •  I said "amendments" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bill W

            not amendment. There are several. But let's look at just one, the 14th amendment, which says in part "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

            We have this amendment and still have affirmative action. If we have the ERA, why would that mean we could not have gender based affirmative action?

            Note - the best argument against the need for the ERA is that SCOTUS has finally used the 14th amendment as an "equality" amendment (i.e. since Brown vs Board of Education).

            "Every Pootie is a masterpiece." - Da Vinci

            by mdsiamese on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 01:01:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The 14th only works if... (0+ / 0-)

              ...we accept the "living breathing document" notion and allow that the SCOTUS can interpret an amendment as meaning something other than what it was intended to mean. (IOW, if the 14th guaranteed equality of the sexes, the 19th would not have been necessary.)
              A number of current SC Justices don't accept that idea, and no doubt there will be others like them in the future. Adding an ERA, or even a broader "equality amendment" would help solidify the concept of equality and protect it from the "original intent" crowd. That's one argument, anyway.
              It's an interesting debate, no doubt.

              (and I'm going to start fixing dinner now, so if you reply to this, I'm not ignoring you, I'm just logged off for the night)

    •  Three State Strategy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pandoras Box

      Three-state strategy

      The three-state strategy is an argument made by some ERA supporters that the earlier 35 state ratifications are still valid and therefore only three more are needed in order to add the ERA to the Constitution, without Congress resubmitting it to state lawmakers.
      The three-state strategy was publicly unveiled at a press conference held in Washington, D.C., in December, 1993. According to an Associated Press report, "a coalition of women's groups," operating under the name "ERA Summit," planned "to ask Congress to nullify 1982 deadline for ratification."[18] Early the following year, Congressman Robert E. Andrews (D-NJ) introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to require that "when the legislatures of an additional three states ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, the House of Representatives shall take any legislative action necessary to verify the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment as a part of the Constitution."[19] No action was taken on the resolution, which has also been introduced in subsequent Congresses.
      An article published in the William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law in 1997[20] explains a legal rationale for the "three-state strategy." It argues that:
      The 35 ratifications from state legislatures during the 1970s remain valid;
      Rescissions of prior ratifications are not constitutional;
      The 1978 extension of the ERA's deadline demonstrates that Congress can amend previously established deadlines; and
      The Twenty seventh Amendment's 202½ year ratification period set a standard of "sufficiently contemporaneous"—a term used during the U.S. Supreme Court's 1921 ruling in Dillon v. Gloss—giving Congress the power to set time limits on constitutional amendments. Dillon v. Gloss was later modified by Coleman v. Miller, which is also a basis for the three state strategy.
      The article further reasons that because the Constitution gives the Congress the power to propose amendments to the Constitution—and including changing aspects of the ratification process itself— that if and when three additional states ratify the ERA, the Congress has the power to deem the ERA properly ratified and duly added to the Constitution.
      Opponents of the three-state strategy point out that the 1789 resolution proposing what is known today as the Twenty seventh Amendment ("Madison Amendment"), dealing with congressional pay raises, did not contain a deadline for ratification.
      In 1996, the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service issued a report that said, "There is no precedent for Congress promulgating an amendment based on state ratifications adopted after a ratification deadline has expired. However, proponents of this course cite as possible precedent the ratification activity of the states regarding the 27th Amendment... proponents of the ERA might wish to adopt a strategy of urging its ratification by state legislatures because their actions might prompt this or a future Congress to proclaim the amendment had been ratified." CRS stressed that it "takes no position on any of the issues."[21]
      Several state legislatures have considered the three-state strategy, but none has passed a resolution:
      The first state legislature to consider a ratification resolution based on the "three-state" theory was Virginia, in 1994. The resolution was not approved.[22]
      The Illinois House of Representatives on May 21, 2003, adopted a resolution ratifying the ERA—proposed in 1972. However, the Illinois Senate did not ratify the ERA and resolution died at the end of 2004.
      On April 5, 2005, the Arkansas Senate voted 16 yeas, 15 nays and 4 "not voting" on a resolution to approve the ERA. Under the Arkansas Senate parliamentary rules, this type of resolution requires a majority vote—that is, at least 18 votes for the amendment.
      During 2007, ERA ratification resolutions were introduced in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, and Mississippi. The Arkansas resolution (HJR 1002) failed in a committee of the state House, after 20 legislators (including two members of the committee) withdrew their co-sponsorships of the resolution. Pro-life groups claim the change was due in part to their intervention.[23] On May 15, 2007, the Committee on Civil Law and Procedure of the Louisiana House defeated a similar ERA ratification resolution (HCR 4), on a vote of 5 to 4.

      From Wikipedia

  •  Three State Strategy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pandoras Box, h bridges

    Three More States are needed... Two if Arkansas Passes it.

    Tip Jar here as well

  •  sent an email! thanks again (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leftofsouth

    for the heads up

    "We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!" - The Shoveler

    by Pandoras Box on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 12:35:29 PM PDT

  •  Is this a test? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Void Indigo

    From Wikipedia's page on the ERA, which matches my recollections:

    The 92nd Congress, in proposing the ERA, had set a seven-year time limit for the Amendment's ratification and, by the end of that deadline on March 22, 1979, a total of 35 of the required 38 states had ratified it. Five of these 35 states withdrew their ratifications before the deadline arrived.

    ...

    In 1978, the Congress passed a controversial bill by simple majority (not a two-thirds supermajority) that extended the ratification deadline by 39 months. During this disputed extension, no new states ratified or rescinded. In Idaho v. Freeman (1981), a federal district court ruled the extension to be unconstitutional.

    The National Organization for Women appealed the district court's holding in Idaho v. Freeman. In NOW v. Idaho, 459 U.S. 809 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court declared the entire matter moot on the grounds that the 1972 ERA was dead with or without either the rescissions or the purported deadline extension. [my emphasis]

    I'm all for reintroducing the ERA in Congress.  I'm not for supporting doomed efforts that will make people feel they've done something while going nowhere.  If no states have been considering it for so long, maybe there's a reason for that, huh?

    •  All I can figure (0+ / 0-)

      I that some see an opportunity to use the precedent of the 27th to make a new argument (and the time limit itself may be open to challenge).

      Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

      by bythesea on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 02:02:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My guess is different (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bythesea

        I think that some people think that there's political hay to be made and don't much care that it puts us on the very likely losing side of a legal argument.

        I wish that this energy instead went into reintroduction and clean passage of the ERA.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site