general terms the process for amending that document. No mention is made of time limits for consideration by the states of a proposed amendment and in regard to the first seventeen amendments, no deadlines were imposed. The Supreme Court has had two occasions to construe Article V with regard to time limitations on the ratification process. In reviewing the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment, where Congress had imposed a seven year deadline, the Court unequivocably stated that "[as to the] power of Congress, keeping within reasonable limits, to fix a definite period for the ratification we entertain no doubt." Dillion v. Gloss, 257 U.S. 368, 375 (1921). The Court further described the time limit as one of those "subsidiary matters of detail" which the Congress may deal with "as the public interests and changing conditions may require." Id. In Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), the Court reiterated that the question of what constitutes a reasonable period of time for purposes of ratification of a proposed amendment "lies within the congressional province." Id. at 454. The seven year time period originally set for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment was not placed in the text of the proposed amendment. It was a statement of what the 92nd Congress believed would constitute a reasonable time for debate of the issues involved. Such an expression at the outset of official debate over the amendment does not bar this Congress from exercising its authority to determine whether the debate has run its course or whether an additional period is warranted. The issue before the Congress today is not whether the Equal Rights Amendment itself has merit. Nor is the Congress asked to consider an alteration of language in the text of a proposed amendment. The question is whether the public interest in full and informed debate and consideration of the proposed amendment and the relevant political, social and economic conditions require that an adjustment be made in "a matter of detail," the time for consideration of that amendment. The fervor with which proponents and opponents alike are currently debating the issue and the level of public awareness of the issue on the eve of the expiration of the original time period for consideration of the Equal Rights Amendment make it clear that defeat of H.J. Res. 638 would mean a premature end to debate and consideration of this amendment. Extension of the time for consideration for three additional years would permit a full airing of all sides of the issues and would still ensure that the end result would reflect the contemporaneousness necessary for the valid ratification of a constitutional amendment. Rescission Common Cause strongly opposes any amendment to authorize rescissions during the extended period. There has been a great deal of debate about the question of rescission and whether fairness requires Congress to authorize rescission in previously ratified states during the extended time period. While this argument is characterized by a certain symmetry, we find it inappropriate and highly confusing for this Congress to make any determination as to the question of the validity of efforts to rescind. Under the Supreme Court decision in Coleman v. Miller, it is clear that the Congress sitting at the time at which state ratifications are presented will be the interpreter of Article V in deciding whether the requisite number of states have approved an amendment. The issue before the Congress is whether the 95th Congress should state what interpretation a future Congress, whether it be the 96th or 97th, must or should place upon the powers of state legislatures under Article V. It is Common Cause's view that H.J. Res. 638 properly takes no position with regard to rescission and that the House properly rejected a rescission amendment. H.J. Res. 638 neither prohibits rescission nor sanctions it. While our reading of the various legal and historical precedents lead us to conclude that rescissions are to be ignored in the ratifying process, Congress need not pass any judgement on that question at this time. Regardless of what a future Congress may do in the way of recognizing the validity of a purported rescission, this Congress should not hold out to state legislatures the option of rescission as a viable course of action. A subsequent Congress would not be bound by any determination by the 95th Congress regarding rescission, since it has historically been the prerogative of the Congress sitting at the time of the final ratification to determine whether ratification has taken place in the requisite number of states. If the subsequent Congress were to disagree with this Congress on the matter of rescission there would be considerable confusion and frustration particularly in those states which might have rescinded approval of the amendment in reliance upon this Congress' views. Simple majority vote Although a two-thirds vote of each House of Congress is required to propose a constitutional amendment to the states, Article V does not require a supermajority in Congress to set the mode of ratification or to conclude that a proposed amendment has been ratified. Time for ratification is Eot a part of the text of the amendment, and in no way changes its substance. As the time requirement is not a part of the substance and does not require a supermajority vote, extension of that time period should also not require a supermajority. The matter of extending the period for consideration of a constitutional amendment assuring equality before the law regardless of sex is plainly a matter of great importance to all citizens. To have the public debate over the implications of the Equal Rights Amendment cut off in March 1979 while interest in it and public opinion for it still run strong would be premature and unwise. Common Cause strongly urges you to support adoption of H.J. Res. 638 and to oppose any efforts to amend it. Sincerely, NAN WATERMAN, Chairwoman. Hon. BIRCH BAYH, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Communications Workers of America (CWA) takes this oppotunity to again assure you of our support for S.J. Res. 134, which would extend the deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment for an additional seven years. CWA, with more than half of its membership made up of women, was one of the first labor unions to come out in support of the ERA. We have fought in every state of the union for its ratification. And most recently, we have adopted a policy prohibiting any national meeting of our union in a non-ERA ratified state. At our recent Annual Convention held in June of this year in San Francisco, we re-affirmed our support for the ERA. Attached is a copy of that resolution, which we hope you wil make part of your hearing record on S.J. Res. 134. Sincerely yours, Attachment. GLENN E. WATTS, President. RESOLUTION 40A-78-2-EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT Our 34th Annual Convention in 1972 soundly endorsed the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, becoming one of the early major groups supporting the necessary drive for approval by at least 38 State Legislatures, so the Amendment can become part of the United States Constitution. On a nationwide basis, we have worked with many other groups to secure State ratification. As of today, 35 States-3 short of the minimum-have ratified. The deadline set by the Congress was 7 years beginning on March 22, 1972, when the final action was taken on Capitol Hill. In February 1978, the Executive Board of the Communications Workers of America acted to exert this Union's maximum economic pressure on the 15 States which have failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The Board motion stated: Moved That CWA Conventions be held in states that ratified the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and that the President of CWA give due consideration to the ratification situation as other meetings of CWA are planned. The 15 "holdout" States are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia and Utah. 35-065-79-28 In reviewing the targeted States, we have the votes but strong opposition from leaders of the Legislatures in some States. In others, we must await the hoped-for replacement of key "anti" members after the 1980 elections. We must now realistically anticipate the expiration of the 7-year ratification period. Legislation to extend the ratification period is now pending in the Congress. Opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment are trafficking nationally in the myth that the 7-year period for ratification by the States is some kind of holy writ. The facts are that of the 27 Amendments, only 5-the 18th, 20th, 21st, 22nd' and the 27th "Equal Rights" Amendment currently pending-had time limits of a uniform 7 years set for ratification. Opponents contend that the present moves to extend the ratification period amount to "tampering" with the Constitution. Article V of the Constitution, the amendment article, sets no time limit for ratification. Some opponents believe the pending extension legislation would set a "frivolous precedent" by setting "new rules to the game." We believe Equal Rights cannot be associated with the term "frivolous." Resolved: That this 40th Annual Convention of the Communications Workers of America join with the AFL-CIO and other groups in support of the extension legislation; be it also Resolved: That CWA, its Districts and Locals continue the educational campaign to cause major groups to shift meetings out of the 15 unratified States, so the clearest possible message-the economic one-may shine through. COUNCIL FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS, DEAR SENATOR: The membership of Council for Women's Rights (CWR) has requested that I contact you about H.J. Res. 638, the extention of the time for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, which the House of Representatives recently passed by a substantial majority. When the Equal Rights Amendment was originally introduced in 1923, it had no time limit for ratification. The seven year limit was attached (despite our protests) to appease Senator Sam Ervin and Congressman Emanuel Cellers. You will be asked to vote on four critcal issues: 1. A filibuster has been promised. This would be disastrous not only to the cause of women's equality but to the Senate itself. There is little time to finish other critical business in this session. We ask that you vote yes for cloture. 2. H.J. Res. 638 requires only a simple majority vote. It is not a constitutional amendment, but a change in the preamble of the resolution that sent the Equal Rights Amendment to the states, and it does not require a two-thirds vote. Please vote no on any action to require a two-thirds majority. 3. Although there has been much debate about allowing rescission if the extension is granted, this is clearly not a valid issue. Only the Congress sitting when the 38th state ratifies can vote on this matter. We ask you vote no on any rescission amendment. 4. Finally, you will be asked to vote on the extension itself. The Constitution leaves the question of timeliness to the discretion of Congress. The Equal Rights Amendment is an issue that is viable and that deserves further time for debate. In one state legislature, it has never been released from committee and never debated on the floor. We believe that this violates the constitutional process. It is a matter of grave concern that a handful of legislators in any state can so easily block the passage of this critical amendment. Please vote yes on the extension of time for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. In 1972, a majority of the Senate voiced a strong commitment to equal rights and justice for women. Your votes on the above issues will reassure women across the country that you are genuinely concerned about the fact that women still do not have the protections that the Constitution grants to male citizens at birth. Sincerely, BARBARA EVANS CRAWFORD, President. DOCTORS FOR THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT, Dallas, Tex. DEAR SENATOR EASTLAND: Doctors for the Equal Rights Amendment urge you to vote yes on S.J. Res. 134 to extend the time for ratification of the E.R.A., yes to invoke cloture, and no to any amendment of the bill to require 3 majority or to allow rescission. Currently, opposition to the E.R.A. is based upon confusion and emotionalism, rather than logic (“Psychiatric Opinion," Vol. 15, No. 8, Aug. 1978). Should the E.R.A. not be ratified by 38 states by March 22, 1979, it will be the first time in our history that an Amendment has failed, not for lack of interest or obsolescence, but because of an arbitrary deadline. Mr. John Harmon of the Justice Department reported in the Congressional Record, Vol. 124, No. 73, May 17, 1978, that: By placing the time period in the proposing resolution rather than in the text of the amendment, the 92nd Congress effectively decided that the proposal should remain viable for at least 7 years without barring a subsequent Congress from making a more informed judgment at a later time as to the reasonableness of the time period for ratification of the E.R.A. We urge you to vote against rescission. It is understandable that one may oppose extension on the grounds of strict construction or even "changing the rules," but it is absolutely contradictory and illogical to cite these same grounds for supporting rescission. Mr. Harmon continues: . . . it is my opinion that the extension would not give rise to any right of rescission and furthermore that Congress cannot give to the States a right to rescind by any means short of amending Article V of the Constitution. The proposition was advanced by James Madison during the debate in the States over the adoption of the Constitution that a State's ratification must be unconditional and irrevocable. E.R.A. proponents will be observing your vote on cloture. To prevent S.J. Res. 134 from coming to a vote in the Senate is the same unjust subordination of principle to procedure as that arbitrary deadline that threatens to deny equality under the law to all U.S. citizens. The extension is legal and constitutional. The E.R.A. is the will of the people. Vote yes on S.J. Res. 134. Sincerely, EDWARD R. JOHNSON, M.D. NEW YORK, N.Y., August 14, 1978. Hon. BIRCH BAYH, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I am writing on behalf of the National Board of Directors of Girl Scouts of the United States of America to support S.J. Res. 138 to extend the time limitations for States to consider ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. As a long-time friend of Girl Scouting, you are aware of the major program thrusts of our organization nationally. With a membership of over 3,000,000 girls and adults, Girl Scouting today is committed to guiding each of its members in developing values, deepening self-awareness, relating to others, and contributing to society. "Worlds to Explore," the first major revision in Girl Scout educational activities released in 1977, reflects this commitment and represents an exhilarating renewal of the vitality of the Girl Scout program. The World of Well-Being emphasizes physical and emotional health, interpersonal relationships, nutrition, and exercise, work and play; The World of People portrays cultural diversity with a multitude of opportunities to appreciate ethnic, national, and religious conditions; The World of Today and Tomorrow addresses the changing roles and responsibilities for girls and women; The World of Arts encourages girls to explore themselves through the art forms; The World of the Out-of-Doors depicts national treasures so needful of humankind's understanding. Paralleling the efforts of Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. in developing "Worlds to Explore," developments in the women's movement have been of considerable interest to the Girl Scout movement. In 1976, the National Board of Directors of Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. voted to provide educational activities to the Girl Scout membership "to encourage local councils to engage in reflection and discussion of the Amendment for Equal Rights . . . as a means to help girls form independent opinions." In 1977, the National Board of Directors of Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. voted to endorse the Equal Rights Amendment. Although this action was not binding on the Girl Scout membership, it was a clear statement from the Board reflecting its own duties and responsibilities. During that same year, I served on the President's Commission on the Observance of International Women's Year, whose primary focus was the planning and implementation of the National Women's Conference that took place in Houston, Texas. And you, Senator, are well aware of the decisions reached in Houston. The message from Houston was poignant and clear-women seek as a human right a full voice and role for women in determining the destiny of the world and the nation-women seek full partnership with men in order to achieve a world in which the whole human race can live in peace and security. Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment was one of the points in the 25-point plan approved. I am no expert in constitutional law, but as a citizen of the United States, and a woman, an artificial time limit of seven years seems an extremely arbitrary figure in which to determine my constitutional rights. What makes seven years more timely than ten years-or fourteen years. I have not found the answer to this question in anything I've read, and can only make a plea to those of your colleagues on the Committee and in the full Senate for the elimination of an arbitrary, artificial deadline and the acceptance of the proposal you have suggested in S.J. Res. 138. As President of the National Board of Directors, and as a woman, I thank you for your unending efforts to improve the status of women in this country and the world. With best wishes, I remain GLORIA D. SCOTT, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, Hon. BIRCH BAYH, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR BAYH: As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, you will soon be considering the merits of the ERA extension bill. As you know, few guiding precedents exist for there has never been such a particular set of controversial circumstances surrounding any prior constitutional amendment. As part of our continuing efforts to respond quickly to the issues that are of immediate concern to members of Congress, we have just completed the enclosed "Issue Bulletin" on the extension bill. We believe that relevant arguments have been included and analyzed. But perhaps the following three questions are most important: Should the rule provide for a simple majority or a two-thirds vote? Can the time limit be extended for ratifications alone or should it include recissions also? And perhaps most importantly, since Congress' action on this bill will set the precedent for all future constitutional amendments, what are the political implications? In the enclosed "Issue Bulletin," reference is made to a Backgrounder that we sent you last November when the extension idea was first introduced in the House, We would be glad to provide you with a fresh copy. We invite your comments on the enclosed "Issue Bulletin" and welcome the opportunity to be of service to you in the future. Sincerely, The proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, sent to the states on March 22, 1972, is stalled three states short of the necessary three-fourths |