Friday, March 27, 2020
This is my local rep, supporting the constitutional rights of women.
Last weekend, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost ordered Ohio reproductive health clinics to cease providing abortions—claiming that abortion services are not “essential” medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic.
When Ohio state House Representative Tavia Galonski—chair of the Ohio Women’s Democratic Legislative Caucus—first heard the news, she felt rage.
“Now is not the time to overturn the U.S. Constitution in the middle of a pandemic,” she said.
After his announcement, Attorney General Yost faced immediate pushback from abortion rights advocates and pro-choice state legislators.
Following a round of intense negotiations, Ohio clinics remain open.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020
Women have been serving in the United States military since the Revolutionary War, helping to sew uniforms, heal the wounded and, eventually, fight in combat. But they have never been required to register for a military draft.
That could soon change. Under a new recommendation to Congress by a national commission, all Americans ages 18 to 25 — and not just young men as currently covered by the law — should be required to register with the government in case of a military draft. The move sets up a debate over a divisive issue that has been simmering for years.
The question of whether to expand draft registration to women was among the most contentious issues considered over the past two years by the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service, a bipartisan group that was appointed by Congress to address the issue of conscription. The commission is set to release it recommendations to Congress on Wednesday.
Friday, March 20, 2020
Estefania Cruz Lera,.Women From the Establishment Versus the ‘Squad’: Feminine Political Representation Styles in the US Congress, Norteamérica, 15:1, january-june (2020)
In 2019, a historical record number of women shaped the US Congress. In addition to the increase in female participation, there is also a wider ethnic, racial, cultural and class diversity among these congress members. In this political universe, two highly contrasting profiles stand out: on the one hand, the women of the establishment led by Nancy Pelosi; on the other, the challenging "Squad" headed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Based on an analysis of social networks, press coverage, and legislative performance, in this investigation both styles of political representation are contrasted. The main result of this research is that in relation to the patterns of proposing laws, voting and fundraising there are no differences between the Squad and the women of the establishment. The main divergences reside in their public discourse, in the ideological platform to which they ascribe and in the style of leadership they exercise.
Tuesday, March 17, 2020
In 2009, the Kentucky General Assembly rushed to enact changes to the Commonwealth’s domestic violence statutes. The legislation, House Bill One, known as the Amanda Ross Domestic Violence Protection Act, or Amanda’s Law, was in response to the murder of Amanda Ross. Within six months of obtaining a domestic violence order (DVO), Ms. Ross was dead. She had been murdered by her ex-fiancée, Steve Nunn, a former Kentucky State Representative. Amanda’s Law amended the domestic violence statutes in a few significant ways, but the most significant change was the ability of the court to order the offender to wear a Global Positioning Monitoring System (GPMS) device. The court could order this type of tracking after being presented with evidence that the offender had committed a substantial violation of the previous order.
The irony of Amanda’s Law is that, even if it had been in effect when she was brutally shot down outside of her home, it would not have had any impact on her survival. This is because the statute requires the following: that a DVO be entered, that the offender have committed a criminal offense against the survivor in violation of the DVO, that the domestic violence survivor then go back to the court issuing the original DVO with evidence of the criminal conduct, and that the survivor make a showing to the court that this conviction qualifies as a substantial violation of the court’s domestic violence order. Only then will the issuing court consider a GPMS be used. Amanda Ross had not achieved any of these steps prior to her death. As such, this knee-jerk reaction by the Kentucky legislature would not have helped her. In the nine years since its passage, a GPMS has been ordered only three times pursuant to Amanda’s Law. The law is a failure in this respect and needs to be amended.
Friday, February 28, 2020
Abortion restrictions that were enacted when Republicans controlled Virginia’s General Assembly are being undone in legislation approved by the Democrats who are now in charge.
The House on Thursday gave final passage to a bill that would roll back provisions including a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion and a requirement that women seeking an abortion undergo an ultrasound and counseling. The measure would also undo the requirement that abortions be provided by a physician, allowing nurse practitioners to perform them, and do away with strict building code requirements on facilities where abortions are performed.
The Senate companion measure passed earlier in the week. The legislation now goes to Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, who supports it.
“When this legislation goes into effect, Virginians will no longer have to navigate an obstacle course of delays and barriers in order to access a safe and legal abortion,” said Jamie Lockhart, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia.
The measures passed largely along party lines, with staunch opposition from Republicans and religious advocacy groups that testified against it in committee hearings.
Republican Del. Kathy Byron said in a floor speech Thursday that the changes would lead to women being less informed about “maybe one of the most important decisions that they ever make.”
“What we're doing today is we're voting to deny women complete information on what an abortion means, its consequences, its implications, its alternatives," she said.
The law, passed Thursday in the House of Delegates, will repeal Virginia’s mandatory waiting period, which requires patients to wait 24 hours after a consultation to receive an abortion. It will allow certified nurse midwives and nurse practitioners to perform first-trimester abortion services and remove the requirement that providers give counseling to patients seeking abortions. It will also eliminate the requirement for an ultrasound before an abortion, a practice that can be traumatizing for patients. The American Medical Association says mandatory ultrasounds provide no “additional medically necessary information.” ***
“Those restrictions in the code were politically charged,” says Herring, “and it had nothing do with the provision of good care.”
Democratic state lawmakers across the country have passed similar abortion protections in the past year, as attacks on abortion access have ramped up in conservative states. In 2019, nine states—Illinois, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, California, Nevada, New Jersey, and Hawaii—passed legislation protecting or expanding the right to an abortion. Maine also voted to allow certified nurse midwives and nurse practitioners to provide non-surgical abortions. Four states codified Roe v. Wade by enshrining the right to an abortion in their state law.
Herring says she hopes Virginia will be the next state to codify the right to an abortion. She notes that there are a record number of women from both parties in the legislature. “When women are elected and in power,” she says, “there will be a tendency that we make sure that we are protecting our interests.”
Friday, February 14, 2020
The House of Representatives took one giant step Thursday by voting to remove the 1982 ratification deadline for the Equal Rights Amendment.
For a summary of the issues regarding the ratification deadline, see The Arguments as to Why the ERA Can Still be Ratified Now After the Deadline
The U.S. House has voted to remove the deadline on ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment in an attempt to revive the amendment.The 232-183 vote fell largely along party lines with five Republicans supporting the measure and zero Democrats opposing it.
Changing the deadline is a key part of one route that some ERA proponents believe would lead to the amendment becoming a part of the Constitution, but the path forward is uncertain.
The proposed amendment says simply, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex," and it has had a renaissance in recent years, with three states ratifying it since 2017.
However, the bill may well be stymied after this vote.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said earlier this month that he's "personally not a supporter" of the amendment, and the Trump administration's Office of Legal Counsel has said that it considers the ERA "expired."
During debate on the House floor, Republicans leaned on antiabortion and constitutional arguments to oppose the ERA, arguing that enshrining protections for women in the Constitution would mean abortion could not be restricted. Democrats focused on the legality of deadlines and the importance of equal rights.“This has nothing to do with the abortion issue. That is an excuse, not a reason,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), arguing that women are still paid less than men for similar work, and often are shorted on pensions and maternity leaves.
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Third Circuit Upholds Philadelphia Ban on Employers Asking About Salary History Against First Amendment Challenge
In a decision that could have national implications for the wage equity movement, a federal appeals court Thursday sided with the city of Philadelphia, saying it can ban employers from asking job applicants their salary history.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit partly reversed a 2018 lower court decision that said the city could not ban employers from asking about salary history, but could ban them from relying on it to set wages. The Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce sued the city after the law was passed in 2017, claiming it violated the commercial-speech rights of employers.***
The 67-page unanimous opinion, representing the three-judge panel, was written by Judge Theodore McKee, who wrote that while the provision does limit employers’ speech, it is “only because that limitation prevents the tentacles of any past wage discrimination from attaching to an employee’s subsequent salary.”***
Philadelphia was the first city in the country to pass such a ban, following a statewide ban in Massachusetts. More than a dozen states and municipalities followed suit, including New Jersey.
Tuesday, February 4, 2020
There are now 3 lawsuits seeking a judicial decision on the 38 ratifications of the Equal Rights Amendment and whether the 1982 (or 1979) deadline prohibits those ratifications.
I've written a short explanation of the arguments made in support of the ERA's enactment now. See Tracy Thomas, The Arguments as to Why the ERA Can Still be Ratified Now--After the Deadline
Despite the court action, there is an argument that Congress's amendment deadline is a political question that cannot be decided by the courts. In Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), SCOTUS held, in fractured opinions, that the question of a reasonable time for ratification is a non-justiciable political question, left to Congress and not the courts. (Coleman concerned the timeliness of a 13 year delay in ratification of the proposed Child Labor Amendment.)
Attorney General Lawsuit to Enforce ERA (DC)
The lawsuit will likely become the vehicle for deciding that question, said Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring, who brought the suit along with Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford. Two other federal lawsuits on the matter are also pending.***
The latest suit, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, contradicts a Justice Department memo earlier this month that said the national archivist, who certifies the ratification of amendments, should not do so for the ERA, citing the 1982 deadline. The archivist has said he will follow the DOJ advice unless a final federal court decision overrides it.
See also WSJ, States Seek Ruling on Equal Rights Amendment Ratification Deadline [pay wall]
Proponents' Lawsuit to Enforce ERA (Mass.)
Another lawsuit has been filed in Massachusetts from ERA Proponents seeking to challenge Congress' authority to make amendment deadlines mandatory. Equal Means Equal v. Ferriero (D. Mass. filed 1/7/2020).
AG Lawsuit to Block ERA (Alabama)
Three states that did not ratify ERA have sued to block certification of the amendment. In December 2019, three Attorney Generals, two from states that never ratified the ERA (Alabama and Louisiana), and one that attempt to rescind (South Dakota) sued in federal court in the Northern District of Alabama to prevent the National Archivist from recording the ERA, arguing that the deadline had expired and that the rescinded votes could not be counted. Alabama v. Ferriero (N.D. Ala., filed Dec. 16, 2019). They also argued that the ERA would hurt women, undermine state sovereignty, and threaten anti-abortion laws, expand to LGBT rights, and invalidate gender segregation in schools, prisons, sports, and domestic violence shelters.
All lawsuits seek an injunction to direct the actions of the National Archivist to either record, or not record, the 38 state ratifications. Once recorded, the ERA automatically becomes an amendment in two years.
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
The Virginia Senate unanimously passed a bill Tuesday requiring public schools to include free menstrual products in their bathrooms.
Senate Bill 232 applies to schools that educate fifth-to-12th graders. According to the Virginia Department of Education, this encompasses 132 school districts and almost over 630,000 female students.
"I would like to see that the supplies are available, just like other supplies that we keep in the bathroom," said Sen. Jennifer Boysko, D-Fairfax, the legislation's chief patron.
An earlier version of the bill applied the stipulation to the aforementioned schools where at least 40% of students qualified for free or reduced lunch.
Boysko introduced the bill to make it more convenient for students to access menstrual products and help them avoid accidents.
"This is a necessity and girls can't carry out their school day without it," Boysko said. "Some girls are missing school time and end up going home and missing classes because of these kinds of challenges."
According to Boysko, school budgets currently cover menstrual product expenses, but they are often kept in the nurse's office, making it inconvenient for students.
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
The Historical and Legal Significance of Virginia's Recent Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment
In this interview, I offer my thoughts on the history and future of the ERA.
Wisconsin NPR, Central Time, Virginia Just Ratified The Equal Rights Amendment: What Does That Mean?nt-what-does-mean
Virginia’s General Assembly passed the Equal Rights Amendment recently, becoming the 38th state to do so, nearly four decades after a controversial deadline passed. A legal scholar shares the history of the ERA, what the Virginia vote means and where the effort goes from here.
History of ERA Passage
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was passed by Congress in 1972. The original Amendment contained a 7-year deadline in the preamble to the resolution reaching to 1979. Congress extended the deadline to 1982. President Carter signed the extension as a symbolic gesture, as the Constitution gives the President no formal role in amending the Constitution. The Office of Legal Counsel at the time opined that Congress had the power to grant the extension as a procedural move by majority vote. See Memorandum for Robert J. Lipshutz, Counsel to the President, from John M. Harmon, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Constitutionality of Extending the Time Period for Ratification of the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment (Oct. 31, 1977).
Only 32 states ratified the ERA by 1982—3 states shy of the 38 required by the Constitution of ¾ of the states. Momentum from the Women’s Marches, #MeToo movement, and the 2016 Presidential election triggered renewed interest in an equal rights amendment. Nevada then ratified the ERA in 2017, Illinois in 2018, and Virginia in 2020, thus now reaching the 38 states. Five states (Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota) attempted to rescind their ratification in the late 1970s.
Current Challenges to ERA Ratification
In December 2019, three Attorney Generals, two from states that never ratified the ERA (Alabama and Louisiana), and one that attempt to rescind (South Dakota) sued in federal court in the Northern District of Alabama to prevent the National Archivist from recording the ERA, arguing that the deadline had expired and that the rescinded votes could not be counted. Alabama v. Ferriero (N.D. Ala., filed Dec. 16, 2019). They also argued that the ERA would hurt women, undermine state sovereignty, and threaten anti-abortion laws, expand to LGBT rights, and invalidate gender segregation in schools, prisons, sports, and domestic violence shelters.
The National Archivist sought an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel as to the status of the ERA. Office of Legal Counsel, Memorandum, Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (Jan. 2020) The OLC opinion issued in January 2020 advised that Congress did not have the authority to modify the original deadline, disagreed with the prior 1977 OLC opinion supporting extension, and declined to issue an opinion on rescission.
Arguments in Support of Ratification Today
So what do proponents of ERA say? There are good arguments that the ERA remains open for ratification now, despite the past deadlines, and does not require a complete restart of the amendment and ratification process.
1. The original deadline is not mandatory.
a. Deadlines are not required for constitutional amendments. The first 17 amendments did not have a deadline.
b. The deadline is contained in the preamble to the resolution, and not the text of the amendment itself, and therefore is not binding as part of the ratification.
c. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) upholding Congress’s power to attach deadlines to constitutional amendments, is incorrect. In Dillon, the Court addressed a challenge to the deadline added for the first time for the Eighteenth Amendment for prohibition.
i. The textual basis for the Court’s holding stemming from Article V of the Constitution is incorrect. Congress’s power to determine the “mode of resolution” means only that Congress can decide whether to amend the Constitution by Congressional proposal or state legislative convention.
ii. Dillon’s conclusion that amendments implicitly require “contemporaneity” was disproven by the 27th Amendment which passed in 1992 after pending for over 200 years. The 27th Amendment prohibits Congress from voting itself pay raises, requiring an intervening election before such raises take effect. It was originally proposed in 1789 as the Second Amendment. While the 27th Amendment did not include an express deadline, its long open ratification period contradicts the Supreme Court’s holding that all amendments must be passed in relatively short time period.
2. Congress has the power to modify the deadline
a. The deadline is merely a procedural adjunct to the amendment, which Congress can modify, extend, or nullify. As a procedural matter, only a majority of the congressional houses is required.
b. The 1977 OLC decision concluded that Congress has the power to extend and thus alter initial deadlines.
c. The Supreme Court held in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), that in the absence of a deadline, Congress may determine after receiving 38 ratifications whether too much time has passed. In Coleman, the Child Labor Amendment was pending for thirteen years. It did not include a deadline. The Supreme Court held that Congress had the authority to determine matters of time and expiration, after ratification by 38 states.
d. Coleman also held, in fractured opinions, that the question of a reasonable time for ratification is a non-justiciable political question, left to Congress and not the courts.
If the deadline does not apply, then the question is whether states can rescind their past ratification. The precedent of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests no. Several states which had ratified the 14th Amendment attempted to rescind their vote. The National Archivist and Congress refused to accept the rescissions, essentially finding them to be irrevocable.
In the context of the ERA, a federal district court in Idaho concluded that states could rescind their votes. Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107 (D. Idaho 1981); but see John Carol Constitutional Amendment: Idaho v. Freeman, 16 Akron Law Rev. 151 (1983) (arguing Freeman was wrongly decided). The decision was appealed, and granted cert by the Supreme Court, but was dismissed as moot after expiration of the 1982 deadline.
Friday, January 17, 2020
“What happens in Virginia impacts the entire country and will reverberate across the globe,” said Betty Folliard, the founder of ERA Minnesota, who traveled to Richmond to watch the votes.
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
Catharine MacKinnon & Kimberle Crenshaw, Reconstituting the Future: An Equality Amendment , Yale Law Forum (Dec. 26, 2019)
A new constitutional amendment embodying a substantive intersectional equality analysis aims to rectify the founding U.S. treatment of race and sex and additional hierarchical social inequalities. Historical and doctrinal context and critique show why this step is urgently needed. A draft of the amendment is offered.
A new constitutional amendment offers a new beginning. The equality paradigm proposed here recognizes the failures of what is, turns away from language and interpretive canons rooted in an unjust past, and imagines a fully functioning democracy as the inheritance of future generations. This proposal reenvisions constitutional equality from the ground up: it centers on rectifying the founding acts and omissions of race and sex, separately and together, and incorporates similar but distinct inequalities.2 It is informed by prior efforts to integrate equality into the constitutional landscape that have been decimated by political reversals and doctrinal backlash. It aggregates the insights, aspirations, and critiques of many thinkers and actors who have seized this moment to breathe new life into the nation’s reckoning with inequality. It neither looks back to celebrate amendments whose transformative possibilities have been defeated nor participates in contemporary hand-wringing over equality’s jurisprudential limitations. It seeks to make equality real and to matter now. We argue that a new equality paradigm is necessary and present one form it could take.
Justice Department OLC Issues Opinion Declaring Equal Rights Amendment Dead Due to Expired Ratification Deadline
The Equal Rights Amendment has been dead for more than four decades, the Justice Department ruled Wednesday, and neither ratification by Virginia nor an effort to revive it by Congress can bring it back to life.
The Office of Legal Counsel, which serves as the in-house lawyers for the Executive Branch, said the deadline Congress set in 1972 for ratification is still valid, and has long since expired. Attempts to circumvent the deadline are futile, the lawyers said.
“We conclude that Congress had the constitutional authority to impose a deadline on the ratification of the ERA and, because that deadline has expired, the ERA Resolution is no longer pending before the states,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Steven A. Engel.
The opinion is binding on the National Archives, which is the federal agency tasked with certifying new amendments.
But activists are still expected to press their case in court, asking judges to rule the deadline illegal and the ERA still viable.
The opinion is Office of Legal Counsel, Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (Jan. 6, 2020). From the summary abstract:
Congress has constitutional authority to impose a deadline for ratifying a proposed constitutional amendment. It exercised this authority when proposing the Equal Rights Amendment and, because three-fourths of the state legislatures did not ratify before the deadline that Congress imposed, the Equal Rights Amendment has failed of adoption and is no longer pending before the States. Accordingly, even if one or more state legislatures were to ratify the proposed amendment, it would not become part of the Constitution, and the Archivist could not certify its adoption under 1 U.S.C. § 106b.
Congress may not revive a proposed amendment after a deadline for its ratification has expired. Should Congress wish to propose the amendment anew, it may do so through the same procedures required to propose an amendment in the first instance, consistent with Article V of the Constitution.
Monday, January 13, 2020
Ariel Jurow Kleiman, Amy Matsui & Estelle Mitchell, The Faulty Foundations of the Tax Code: Gender and Racial Bias in Our Tax Laws, San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 19-423
This report examines the outdated assumptions and gender and racial biases embedded in the U.S. tax code. It highlights tax code provisions that reflect and exacerbate gender disparities, with particular attention to those that disadvantage low-income women, women of color, members of the LGBTQ community, people with disabilities, and immigrants.
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
The US Supreme Court on Friday accepted a Justice Department appeal to review the cases of three men in the Air Force whose rape convictions were overturned last year -- including one whose confession the Air Force recorded -- when the top military appeals court found a five-year statute of limitations existed for military sexual assault before 2006.The Supreme Court arguments will be scheduled for next spring and a ruling is likely by the end of June.This will be the first time the justices consider a sexual assault issue in the #MeToo era, wading into a years-long controversy over how the military addresses sexual misconduct in its ranks as service branches continue to face scrutiny over their lack of progress countering the problem.***At the heart of the dispute is a ruling made last year by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the military's top appeals court, in a separate alleged rape case called US v. Mangahas.The Mangahas decision prohibited prosecutors from bringing charges for rape that happened before 2006 unless the offense had been reported and charged within five years.The Supreme Court will now interpret whether a five-year statute of limitations or no time limit should exist for the prosecution of military sexual assault for cases between 1986 and 2006.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the federal government’s case against a military court ruling that reversed several military rape convictions for crimes committed more than a decade or two ago.
The controversial decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, based on previous court decisions, placed a 5-year time limit on prosecuting crimes of rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006.
The case, United States v. Briggs, is a consolidation of filings named for Air Force Lt. Col. Michael Briggs who, in 2014, was convicted of raping a staff sergeant in 2005. The case came to light after Briggs called the victim in 2013 to confess — a conversation the victim recorded.
“I will always be sorry for raping you,” he told her, according to court documents.
The recording was key to bringing Briggs to trial and he was prosecuted under the assumption that there was no statute of limitations for pursuing rape cases in the military. He was found guilty, sentenced to five months confinement and dismissed from the service.
Years before the Briggs case, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice held that rape was a crime punishable by death and therefore had no time limit for prosecuting the crime. But in 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, or CAAF, ruled that some rape charges were not punishable by death, and the standard five-year limit for prosecuting most crimes was instated.
In 2006, however, Congress amended Uniformed Code of Military Justice to ensure that the time limit for rape cases was abolished. Briggs’s conviction, as well as others, came after the law was changed.
But in February 2018, the military appeals court affirmed the statute of limitations for cases that occurred in a gray area under the law, from 1986 to 2006.
The blue wave that flipped the Virginia Legislature last week was a victory for Democrats in the commonwealth, who will now be in control for the first time in more than 20 years.
But this milestone could affect more than just Virginia. It’s a potentially historic turning point for women and their equal rights. Because now that Democrats are in charge of both houses of the Virginia General Assembly, the Equal Rights Amendment might finally be approved there, which would mean it has been approved by three-fourths of the states — the threshold set for changing the U.S. Constitution.
The decades-long effort to amend the Constitution to explicitly outlaw sex discrimination seemed hopelessly stalled until 2017, when the Nevada Legislature unexpectedly voted to ratify — 45 years after Congress sent the amendment to the states for approval. Then, in 2018, the Illinois Legislature did the same, and suddenly it seemed that the ERA might actually reach the constitutional threshold. But efforts to get a 38th state to approve the amendment this year failed. A ratification bill in Virginia’s House of Delegates by Democrat Jennifer Carroll Foy was squashed by her Republican colleagues, who wouldn’t even let the proposal get out of a subcommittee.
Crazy as it seems, Republicans continue to oppose an amendment guaranteeing equal rights for women even in the 21st century. But their argument has shifted from decrying its threat to traditional gender roles to claiming that the ERA is unnecessary because of past Supreme Court rulings on discrimination. Even if passing the ERA were only a symbolic act, and we think it would be much more than that, then what’s the harm in enshrining it in the country’s most enduring statement of values?
Danaya Wright, "Great Variety of Relevant Conditions, Political, Social and Economic": The Constitutionality of Deadlines on Amendment Proposals Under Article V, 28 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1 (2019)
Within a year or two, the thirty-eighth state is likely to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), setting up an unprecedented constitutional challenge. The ERA was proposed with a seven-year deadline in the resolving clause, establishing the mode of ratification. That was a shift from earlier precedents in which a deadline had been placed in the text of the amendment proposal itself. Article V is annoyingly silent on the issue of congressional deadlines in amendment proposals, and the Supreme Court has never addressed the issue of a deadline that could void an otherwise properly ratified amendment. The practice of placing deadlines on amendment proposals began in 1917 with the Eighteenth Amendment, but has not been consistent since. Deadlines appear to have originated as an effort to torpedo amendments by opponents, but have since become almost pro forma. Some argue deadlines ensure finality and closure;8 others argue they infringe on the power of states to control the ratification process free of unconstitutional limitations imposed by the national legislature.
With the 1992 ratification of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment after 203 years, and state ratifications of the ERA after 35 years,11 the issue of congressional deadlines is both front and center and of potentially enormous consequence. This Article examines the history, theory, and policy of amendment deadlines and argues that they are unconstitutional limitations on state power, inconsistent with the federalism guarantees of the founding. This issue will almost certainly require resolution by the Supreme Court, which needs to give the issue of congressional deadlines its most thoughtful attention.
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Massachusetts became the first state to ban employers from posing this question to job candidates back in 2016. Since then, 17 other states and as many local jurisdictions have passed versions of the ban, including New Jersey, whose law will go into effect in January; Illinois, which took effect last month; and Kansas City, Mo., where a ban will go into effect next week.
Why does this matter?
The new laws are designed to protect job seekers — like former me — from receiving starting salaries that are tied to low past salaries. This is mostly aimed at women, and many of the bills directly address equal pay and the gender wage gap. The idea is that if a woman is paid less from the get-go, and then limited by her past salary at each subsequent job, it may be impossible for her to catch up.
“This bill provides a means of narrowing the wage gap by making it less likely for employers to unintentionally perpetuate the gap by basing salary offers for new hires on their previous salary,” New Jersey Assemblywoman Joann Downey said of her state’s bill, which she sponsored. She added that the practice had a disproportionate effect on women.
Is the ban active in my state?
HR Dive, a human resources news and analysis site, keeps a list of state and local governments that have salary history bans on the docket. (You can check the status of your state or locality here.) Salary.com also has a list of state and local bans.
Some states have passed bans that won’t go into effect until 2020 or later. For example, Colorado signed the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act into law earlier this year, but it won’t take effect until Jan. 1, 2021.
Each bill is also a little different. While Alabama’s law doesn’t ban the question outright, it does prohibit employers from refusing to “interview, hire, promote, or employ” any job applicant who declines to answer. In California, not only is the question banned, but employers are also required to answer if an applicant asks about a pay range. Other versions may ban not only employers’ questions about compensation history but also those about benefits like a 401(k).
Friday, October 4, 2019
New CA Law Allows Campaign Funds to be Used for Childcare to Promote Gender Parity Among Elected Officials
A bill introduced by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Oakland) that would allow campaign funds to be used for child care by those who choose to run for elected office in California was signed into law Monday by Governor Gavin Newsom.
“AB 220 will help create greater gender parity among elected officials in California and more broadly help all parents with young children seek and serve in public office by allowing the use of campaign funds for child care expenses,” said Bonta. “I’m excited and extremely grateful to Governor Newsom for signing AB 220 into law.”
AB 220 amends the Political Reform Act of 1974 to expressly allow campaign funds to be used for child care by those who choose to run for elected offices in California.
Currently, there is no statute in California or official ruling by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) allowing candidates to use campaign funds for child care purposes. That meant any person who attempted to use campaign funds for child care expenses had no statutory protection and would have been relying on a 20-year-old, non-binding advice letter by the FPPC which does not carry the weight of law. AB 220 provides certainty for parents of young children seeking office by placing this allowance in statute.