For Good or Ill . . .
This is my 35th consecutive hour awake. My stomach is more settled (I was dry heaving all morning), and I just ate . . . *shifty eyes* A hamburger ;-; Prof. Hirsch got us all pizza tonight T^T He's so NICE!!!
And well, for good or ill, the seminar paper is in his hands and the hands of all of my classmates. We had a lottery to choose who was gonna critique who ;-; I wish Danielle hadn't gotten me! WHY CRUEL WORLD!
Anyway, I'm VERY sleepy, and once I get up enough strength to . . . get up -_-;;; I'm gonna have a bath and go straight to sleep.
If anyone wants to know what it is - exactly - I do, here ya go: (my footnotes were eaten by lj, if you're interested in my sources, just ask and I'll send you the original file - yes, I KNOW it's very wordy, loosely written, general and vague *among other things*): PERSISTENT RESISTANCE:
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN AND THE LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE, 1972-1982
by Sandy Ch-------
Introduction
The debate over women’s rights was punctuated by the struggle over the Equal
Rights Amendment (ERA) and the subsequent failure in gaining ratification in the necessary thirty-eight states. The Louisiana legislature was one of fifteen state legislatures that consistently declined to ratify the ERA despite constant lobbying on the part of women’s groups such as state and local chapters of the National Organization for Women (NOW) which consistently named ratification of the ERA as the organizations’ number one priority (following the National chapter’s example) as well as organizational members of the state ERA coalitions which formed in reaction to initial failures in state ratification efforts.
The failure of the Equal Rights Amendment to gain ratification has been attributed to diverse movement components. Myra Ferree and Beth Hess have identified that the increasing symbolism attached to the ERA was cause for its decline and subsequent ‘death’ when the extended time limit was reached: “For example, the . . . silly claim that the ERA would mandate gender-integrated restrooms, can best be understood in the context of southern white resentment of racial integration.” The opposition could and did add to the symbolism by framing an ideology meant to frighten fence-sitters into rejecting the ERA by educating the public that it would break down the family unit through negation of a wife’s right to protection from her husband and the law which would result in ejection of housewives from the home into the labor force.
Sylvia Ann Hewlett cites organizational problems within the pro-ERA camp and the lack of networking alliances with “political parties, trade unions, or professional organizations and therefore [failing] to connect with the real centers of political power.” Both Hewlett and Susan Brownmiller hint that the absence of radical feminist activism for ERA may have weakened the drive for ratification though for different reasons. Hewlett puts forth the theory that the division between the mainstream push for the ERA by the National Organization for Women and other politically moderate pro-ERA organizations in addition to radical preoccupation with gaining reproductive and sexual freedom within the confines of one national women’s movement caused the issues to become connected and muddled, effectively alienating potential ERA supporters. Brownmiller seems to suggest that radical feminist apathy to the ERA campaign deprived the mainstream effort of more dynamic - possibly more successful - lobbying strategies.
Further, Jane Mansbridge asserts that grassroots lobbying efforts such as letter-writing and endorsing pro-ERA candidates in addition to the decentralized organization of the proponent majority into several local interest groups and state coalitions weakened efforts in favor of the ERA. Mansbridge also relates that the comparatively better organized, better funded and more politically experienced anti-ERA minority lumped under the auspices of renowned conservative and anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly’s Stop ERA national coalition also contributed to the ultimate loss in the ratification contest. Simply, the very existence of a passionate opposition that merely had to steer debate away from equality and rights rhetoric to the possibility that passage of the ERA would reap substantial changes within the family unit and society as a whole ruined the chances of ERA ratification success. The unlikelihood of an ideological compromise on either side of the conflict, and the geographical advantage the anti-ERA forces had in only having to block ratification in over one-fourth of the states, easily found in the South, further spelled certain defeat for the ERA.
Indeed, Nancy Woloch claims that the “defeat of the ERA in June 1982 . . . was less a tribute to ‘Stop ERA’ efforts than to the solid South, as no southern state legislature ratified the amendment.” Despite the general political conservatism of Southern states, opinion polls conducted at various times and places during the 1970s to gauge support of the ERA indicated a clear pro-ERA majority in some unratified states. Considering this, it is logical to assume that ratification did not hinge upon public opposition in these states but the state legislators and the
legislative process.
Though all of the above factors had some bearing in the loss of the ERA in Louisiana to some extent, the persistent resistance to ratification in the state legislature was the main source of failure rather than ineffectual organization and lobbying by the major pro-ERA forces, the local and state chapters of the National Organization for Women (NOW), Louisiana ERA Coalition and ERA Central. Nor was the strategy of anti-ERA groups such as the Women’s Auxiliary of the New Orleans Chamber of Commerce and the Archdiocese Council of Catholic Women determinate of success or failure of the drive for ERA ratification. Efforts by Louisiana based ERA proponents were continually rendered meaningless by anti-ERA legislators. Their refusal to bend to the pro-ERA majority was reflected in the initial and subsequent failures at state ratification; the refusal to grant women a state Equal Rights Article in the 1975 State Constitution; dismissal or alteration of women’s rights legislation; the distribution of ERA related misinformation between legislator and public; and ignorance of poll results indicating pro-ERA constituencies.
As a result, pro-ERA organizations, both within and without the state, elected that ratification efforts should be strongly focused and aided by the national parent organizations in other, more promising, unratified states as early as 1974. There seemed to be nothing ERA proponents could do to increase the chances of the amendment’s passage when the strongest opposition had the power to kill it in committee before it could reach the House floor. In addition, electoral politics yielded easily reneged pro-ERA promises once a candidate was seated in office. There was also the problem of legislators who advertised themselves as supporting the ideal of equal rights but were only willing to grant equality through piecemeal legislation, not the ERA.
Eventually, women’s rights activists for equality under the law took a more active role in gaining legislative concessions, particularly in the arena of property law. The United States Supreme Court, in the early 1980s, reinforced the changes wrought in property law - specifically the ‘Head and Master’ clause of the Louisiana Civil Code. The end result was that ERA support from those proponents who did not participate in lobbying legislators or join pro-ERA organizations weakened considerably. The ERA ‘died’ in the Louisiana legislature as early as 1972 with the first failure to ratify and the beginning of a consistent history of disappointments, long before its national ‘death’ in 1982.
The Fight for Equal Rights in Louisiana
The Equal Rights Amendment proposal, as penned by suffragist Alice Paul in 1943, was passed by the United States Senate on March 22, 1972, effectively turning it over to the states for ratification. Hawaii ratified on the same day the proposal passed the Senate, and by early 1973 thirty of the needed thirty-eight states had decided in favor of ratification. When the Amendment first came before the Louisiana legislature in 1972, it was passed in the Senate but defeated in the House by 17 votes, a trend that would continue until the extended time limit ended without the needed ratification gains in 1982.
With such a lackluster beginning, pro-ERA women looked to the upcoming State Constitutional Convention of 1973 (CC-73) for an opportunity to at least win equal rights under state law with the New Orleans chapter of NOW taking the initiative and composing a petition for the inclusion of a state Equal Rights Article in the new Constitution. This measure was not a compromise nor would success in the venture alter or halt work towards gaining ratification. Rather the state ERA was to be insurance of rights under state law as well as a stepping-stone to facilitating favor within the state legislature towards the federal ERA.
Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights Committee to the Constitutional Convention, chaired by black rights activist Representative Alphonse Jackson, ultimately shattered ERA proponent hopes by authoring an article that read, “No law shall arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably discriminate against any person by reason of birth, age, sex . . .” Reasons behind the article proved paternalistic and ridiculous to women for a state ERA. Delegates stated vaguely that the measure would benefit women and prevent sex integrated bathrooms. The 1975 State Constitution, then, would give legislators the legal right to discriminate not only on the basis of gender but other factors as well so long as there was a viable and logical reason for the inequity. The tactic of moving for a state ERA to quell opposition and gain equality at least under state law did not reap any measure of satisfaction. Rather, the utter disregard of the delegates and legislators created a sense of urgency among ERA proponents, spurring them to begin coalition organizations for the ratification of ERA such as ERA United of Louisiana which, at its first organizational meeting on December 1, 1973, boasted eleven active member groups - the League of Women Voters, American Association of University Women, Business and Professional Women, Louisiana Consumers League, and Common Cause for examples.
Pro-ERA mobilization, however, did not inspire ratification or legal concessions towards true equity by the Louisiana legislature. Nancy Wingate, Public Relations Officer for ERA Central, wrote in October 1974, “every single piece of women’s rights reform legislation proposed last session was defeated;” but, there was still hope for equality because, “For the first time, they are listening to us, inviting us to their political meetings, asking for funds to investigate women’s status . . . and generally worrying about how their ERA NO votes will affect their re-election chances.”
Worry over re-election was not enough to harness favor for ERA within the legislature either, however. According to the Public Affairs Research Analysis of voting within the Louisiana legislature, between 1972 and 1975 of 36 voting Senators 23 consistently voted for, 11 against ERA with one abstention. The numbers were somewhat less balanced in the House with 23 of 105 Representatives voting for, 69 against, and 14 abstentions.
Similarly, other women’s rights legislation was either voted down or amended to weaken it enough to pass such as the Women’s Property Act of 1976 which was meant to “amend and reenact” previous legislation concerning the regulation and distribution of “certain immovable property” - for instance, a house - owned jointly by a husband and wife or separately. The original bill had been amended to include all immovable property but was altered to basically reinforce the status quo. The same year saw the rejection of a Displaced Homemakers bill meant to “[provide] for the counseling and training of displaced homemakers no longer eligible for dependent support or other assistance.”
This resistance, not only to the ERA but the bulk of legislation meant to lessen the gap between male and female inequality, was influenced by the “ideological distinctiveness” of the South, according to Janet Boles. Southern men - by this distinct ideology - are meant to protect women through their social power, and Southern women are meant to take care of the home and family while cultivating a deep religious awareness. Indeed, the opposition forces often used religion based arguments against the ERA: “God did not make man and woman the same. This foolish amendment allows no consideration for the innate differences between the sexes.”
Another consideration to explain the legislative block is the inaccurate dispensation of information both to and from legislators. This is telling as pro-ERA legislators with an anti-ERA constituency usually dismissed the opposition as giving in to unfounded and ridiculous concerns. Similarly, anti-ERA legislators with a pro-ERA constituency usually interpreted majority support as indicative of overall ignorance of the issue and set out to educate. For example, an article by Representative Louis “Woody” Jenkins claiming that the ERA would almost absolutely eradicate all sex-based discrimination drew the ire of then law student and women’s rights activist Clay Latimer whose rebuttal asserted that Jenkins was “not entitled to present blatantly false statements” and that “It is an abuse of your privilege as an attorney and a legislator to allow the . . . academicians and students . . . to be deceived by irresponsible statements.”
Yet, despite the possible swapping of misinformation between public and legislator, a poll conducted in March 1975 by ERA Central of Louisiana in Orleans and Jefferson parishes indicated that 64% of the state population were pro-ERA; but majority support for the ERA was still disregarded by legislators as the ERA was defeated in 1975, again despite promises made to Louisiana NOW that the Amendment would at least pass out of committee in 1976, and onward into 1980 when Representative John John of Crowley suggested that the ERA no longer be discussed within the legislature and no longer be opened to a vote.
Long-term legislative resistance to the ERA and other women’s rights legislation eventually demoralized legislators that stood on the pro-ERA platform as in the case of Representative Manuel Fernandez who had sponsored the ratification proposal for years until defeat in 1980 inspired him to give up sponsorship and admit that the ERA had little chance of being ratified in Louisiana. Similarly, lack of anti-ERA legislator response to concerted pro-ERA lobbying efforts forced Louisiana NOW to decline targeting by the National chapter in 1976 - that is, decline concentrated aid (funds, lobbying materials, etc.) as one of the stubbornly unratified states most likely to gain ratification. The decision to allow another state, such as Georgia or Illinois, to be targeted instead of Louisiana was an acknowledgment that “it’s damn near hopeless.”
Louisiana: NOT a Target State
Whether or not Louisiana would be a target state was not merely the decision of pro-ERA forces in Louisiana. Those parent organizations contributing to the ratification effort in the targeted states also had a voice in the labeling process. As early as 1974, merely two years after the first failure of ERA in the Louisiana legislature, the national American Association of University Women refused an application for funds from ERA United of Louisiana to aid in the campaigning process. In the same way - though by the officers’ own decision - Louisiana NOW was left to fund its own lobbying efforts within the state.
It is possible this behavior on the part of national and local ERA organizations was indicative of legislative awareness. Resistant legislators were not the only problem. There was also the very real dilemma of legislators elected for their pro-ERA platforms voting against the ERA once in office. A clear example would be Representative Lane Carson who was elected as a proponent of ERA from a New Orleans Lake-area constituency where 85% supported the ERA. In 1976, when the ERA was up for vote, he voted it down, following the example of another New Orleans representative, John Hainkel, a man who was quickly identified as the ring-leader of opposition in the legislature.
Another plausible reason for Louisiana’s non-target status in regards to legislator behavior is the phenomenon of the legislator in favor of the principle of equality between the sexes but unwilling to accept the Equal Rights Amendment as the method to legally establish that equality. By his own words, Lane Carson was such a legislator; and his chief argument for not supporting the ratification of the ERA was as follows, “I will not vote for an equal rights amendment . . . that will hand over to the federal government complete control over such local family matters as divorce, separation, custody, child support, etc.”
The ‘federal government takeover’ argument was a staple of anti-ERA legislators as was the promise to further the cause of women’s rights through piecemeal legislation that rarely passed in full as explained above. The traditional desire to retain state control over family law coupled with a resistance to exacting social change through legislation was also a strike against Louisiana becoming a target state. For example, the Louisiana legislature did not ratify the 19th Amendment (added to the United States Constitution in 1920) giving women the right to vote until 1970, and only then as a kindness to the League of Women Voters on the 50th anniversary of women gaining the right of suffrage.
Ironically, the failure of Louisiana legislators to act in ways favorable to women’s rights activists, to revise laws dealing with the status of women in the state yielded the result of women taking a more direct political initiative in addition to dreaded federal involvement in state affairs concerning the ‘Head and Master’ and property laws. As stated above, the State Constitutional Convention of 1973 wrote into the Constitution of 1975 a so-called Equal Rights Article which allowed sex-based discrimination as long as it was implemented with some logical reason in mind.
This measure did not sit well with pro-ERA people, and Clay Latimer along with attorney and family law expert Janet Mary Riley began a series of informational workshops held around the state called “The Changing Status of Louisiana Women.” Working as a reporter for the Louisiana State Law Institute (LSLI), a state government agency charged with the task of formulating state Civil Code revisions, Riley gathered personal accounts of legal discrimination against wives in regards to distribution of property within a marriage. During the next several years, she and the LSLI proposed to construct an equal management article which Riley eventually authored, and after many stalls and conflicts, was passed during the 1978 legislative session to go into effect in 1980.
The Equal Management law, when first proposed, was meant to invalidate the ‘Head and Master’ law, which basically endowed the husband with all property rights in marriage, separation or divorce, by granting wives fully “equal access to and control of community property;” however, the LSLI rejected the idea in 1976, prompting Riley to resign from her post as reporter to the Institute. The proposal that eventually won passage in 1978 defined community property as managed jointly and equally by the husband and wife during marriage or separately by mutual contract. The measure was initially favorable to both proponents and opponents of ERA as proponents interpreted the acceptance of Equal Management as a step toward ERA ratification while opponents saw it as an affirmation of state granted equal rights for women, rendering a federal ERA unnecessary.
Further, though it had taken the Louisiana legislature nearly a decade to implement a more equitable property law, the United States Supreme Court saw fit to reinforce recent state measures by striking down the ‘Head and Master’ law under the auspices of the equal protection clause in 1981. This federal action in addition to the implementation of an Equal Management law by the state legislature aided in the sabotage of the already crippled ERA movement in Louisiana by appeasing the casual (as opposed to the active) supporter and illegitimizing the prospect of a federal ERA for opponents. In any case, the extended ratification deadline granted the ERA was met without Louisiana ratification and lacking the necessary 38 ratified states, signifying it’s political ‘death’ by state legislators in 1982.
Conclusion:
A New Day for ERA in 2005?
In 1976, Fran Mayeaux wrote, “the real enemy was the 10 men who sat in judgement on your rights . . . and decided to deny them to you once again. Direct your energies, your anger against those people who have the power to change the laws”; and two years later, in 1978, Mindy Milam asserted that, “You know that if anything gets done, it’s because we did it. We can no longer rely on our legislature . . .” These women recognized the problem in gaining ERA
ratification or any sort of women’s right legislation would be a long, hard - possibly losing - battle due to an unresponsive, resistant state legislature. By 1982, when the extended ratification window closed, continuous defeat and exhaustion gave the illusion that the cause of ERA was a dead letter when, in truth, it was merely put to sleep.
On January 20, 2005 (Inauguration Day), members of the Louisiana ERA Coalition participating in the New Orleans Jazz Funeral demonstrated that, though the Equal Rights Amendment was killed in the state and nation in 1982, the Equal Rights Amendment is not dead but still a valid issue, one that they fully intend to actively strive for once again. Parading a large banner emblazoned with the text “EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT,” these people sought to do what their predecessors (though some, such as Felicia Kahn, have been involved in the ERA battle since the 1970s) strived to do - inform and raise public consciousness of a persistent problem: lack of Constitutional acknowledgment that women possess equal rights under federal law with men.
The fight, as the saying goes, is on - again. Though the ERA has been put before every Congress since its final defeat in 1982, recently individuals in the United States Congress have begun to mobilize along with women’s organization leaders, notably Kim Gandy, current President of National NOW, former President of Louisiana NOW, and veteran of the Louisiana ERA battle with the state legislature during the 1970s. Recent efforts include New York Representative Carolyn Maloney (D) reintroducing the ERA (H. J. Res. 37) to the 109th Congress on March 15, 2005; and the resolution currently has 166 House co-sponsors counting Louisiana Representative William Jefferson. There is also a parallel resolution (H. Res. 155), introduced by Representative Robert Andrews of New Jersey (D), which, if passed, would waive the seven year time limit for amendment ratification and only require ratification from the remaining three states needed to officially make the ERA part of the United States Constitution.
This dual strategy, seeking ratification through established guidelines as well as through one that ignores the prior accepted legislative precept of a seven year time limit for the amendment process, was made possible by the addition of the 27th, or “Madison,” Amendment in 1992. Unlike the ERA, which has been awaiting ratification for eighty years, the “Madison” (or Congressional Pay) Amendment was accepted after 203 years, setting a precedent - proponents believe - that make the Supreme Court’s ruling that an amendment’s life must be “sufficiently contemporaneous” to be eligible for reexamination negligible. Further, the Congressional decision to extend the seven year ratification period of the ERA in 1978 also set a precedent of Congressional “power to adjust or repeal the previous time limit on the ERA, determine whether state ratifications subsequent to 1982 are valid, and accept the ERA as part of the Constitution after three more states ratify.”
Publicly reopening the issue, according to the National ERA Campaign Network, is propitious at this time (2005) because attitudes have changed over the last thirty years since the first ratification effort failed and many of the anti-ERA arguments have lost substantial relevance. For example, the opposition often cited the concern that the ERA would require women to serve in military combat positions, that there would no longer be separation of public restrooms by gender, and that women would be forced to work outside the home. In the years following ERA’s defeat, women have joined their male comrades on the battlefield voluntarily, unisex bathrooms are in use without much controversy, and many women work outside the home by choice or necessity. Similarly, the legal prospect of unrestricted allowance of abortion and homosexual marriage, often attributed to passage of the ERA by those opposed to the amendment, has been rejected on the state level by states with ERAs written into their state constitutions such as Pennsylvania, which still stringently regulates abortion guidelines, and Hawaii, which recently amended the state constitution to explicitly define marriage as occurring between a man and woman.
In addition, Janet K. Boles identified one weakness of the 1970s movement for the ERA as the lack of a strong national pro-ERA coalition including moderate/conservative support as opposed or in addition to the many state coalitions spearheaded by the perceived liberal to radical National Organization for Women. The current fledgling movement boasts a national umbrella organization, the Alice Paul Institute, and there is also a plan to extend the campaign not only to the unratified states but to those that have ratified in the past to better prevent ratification rescission.
There has also been a renewal of confidence among proponents due to a shift in public favor. In 1982, a National Research Center General Social Survey indicated that 61.5% of Americans were in favor of the ERA becoming a part of the Constitution. Significantly, the percentage in favor is now 88% according to a study commissioned by the ERA Campaign Network and conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation in July 2001. Interestingly, of the total surveyed, 96% indicated that they believed men and women in America should have equal rights, 72% believed the Constitution already granted women equal rights, and the majority of those that responded as supporting the ERA were men (85%).
In the meantime, active legislative efforts have been made in Illinois, Florida, Missouri, and Nevada with Louisiana political activists just beginning to promote awareness through interaction with Governor Blanco, public demonstrations as stated above, and participation in regional women’s conferences endorsed by the governor geared toward inciting political action and change by women for women. However, whether the Louisiana legislature will stop resisting and become one of the three states to ratify (granted the ERA once again passes through the United States Congress) remains an open question as there has been no reintroduction of the ERA in the Louisiana legislature and no public endorsement from Governor Blanco or any Louisiana legislator. Only time will tell if revised strategy on the part of ERA proponents and the thirty year divide from the 1970s to recent times have made the political climate ripe and favorable for ratification on the national and state levels.
- Kysra
And well, for good or ill, the seminar paper is in his hands and the hands of all of my classmates. We had a lottery to choose who was gonna critique who ;-; I wish Danielle hadn't gotten me! WHY CRUEL WORLD!
Anyway, I'm VERY sleepy, and once I get up enough strength to . . . get up -_-;;; I'm gonna have a bath and go straight to sleep.
If anyone wants to know what it is - exactly - I do, here ya go: (my footnotes were eaten by lj, if you're interested in my sources, just ask and I'll send you the original file - yes, I KNOW it's very wordy, loosely written, general and vague *among other things*): PERSISTENT RESISTANCE:
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN AND THE LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE, 1972-1982
by Sandy Ch-------
Introduction
The debate over women’s rights was punctuated by the struggle over the Equal
Rights Amendment (ERA) and the subsequent failure in gaining ratification in the necessary thirty-eight states. The Louisiana legislature was one of fifteen state legislatures that consistently declined to ratify the ERA despite constant lobbying on the part of women’s groups such as state and local chapters of the National Organization for Women (NOW) which consistently named ratification of the ERA as the organizations’ number one priority (following the National chapter’s example) as well as organizational members of the state ERA coalitions which formed in reaction to initial failures in state ratification efforts.
The failure of the Equal Rights Amendment to gain ratification has been attributed to diverse movement components. Myra Ferree and Beth Hess have identified that the increasing symbolism attached to the ERA was cause for its decline and subsequent ‘death’ when the extended time limit was reached: “For example, the . . . silly claim that the ERA would mandate gender-integrated restrooms, can best be understood in the context of southern white resentment of racial integration.” The opposition could and did add to the symbolism by framing an ideology meant to frighten fence-sitters into rejecting the ERA by educating the public that it would break down the family unit through negation of a wife’s right to protection from her husband and the law which would result in ejection of housewives from the home into the labor force.
Sylvia Ann Hewlett cites organizational problems within the pro-ERA camp and the lack of networking alliances with “political parties, trade unions, or professional organizations and therefore [failing] to connect with the real centers of political power.” Both Hewlett and Susan Brownmiller hint that the absence of radical feminist activism for ERA may have weakened the drive for ratification though for different reasons. Hewlett puts forth the theory that the division between the mainstream push for the ERA by the National Organization for Women and other politically moderate pro-ERA organizations in addition to radical preoccupation with gaining reproductive and sexual freedom within the confines of one national women’s movement caused the issues to become connected and muddled, effectively alienating potential ERA supporters. Brownmiller seems to suggest that radical feminist apathy to the ERA campaign deprived the mainstream effort of more dynamic - possibly more successful - lobbying strategies.
Further, Jane Mansbridge asserts that grassroots lobbying efforts such as letter-writing and endorsing pro-ERA candidates in addition to the decentralized organization of the proponent majority into several local interest groups and state coalitions weakened efforts in favor of the ERA. Mansbridge also relates that the comparatively better organized, better funded and more politically experienced anti-ERA minority lumped under the auspices of renowned conservative and anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly’s Stop ERA national coalition also contributed to the ultimate loss in the ratification contest. Simply, the very existence of a passionate opposition that merely had to steer debate away from equality and rights rhetoric to the possibility that passage of the ERA would reap substantial changes within the family unit and society as a whole ruined the chances of ERA ratification success. The unlikelihood of an ideological compromise on either side of the conflict, and the geographical advantage the anti-ERA forces had in only having to block ratification in over one-fourth of the states, easily found in the South, further spelled certain defeat for the ERA.
Indeed, Nancy Woloch claims that the “defeat of the ERA in June 1982 . . . was less a tribute to ‘Stop ERA’ efforts than to the solid South, as no southern state legislature ratified the amendment.” Despite the general political conservatism of Southern states, opinion polls conducted at various times and places during the 1970s to gauge support of the ERA indicated a clear pro-ERA majority in some unratified states. Considering this, it is logical to assume that ratification did not hinge upon public opposition in these states but the state legislators and the
legislative process.
Though all of the above factors had some bearing in the loss of the ERA in Louisiana to some extent, the persistent resistance to ratification in the state legislature was the main source of failure rather than ineffectual organization and lobbying by the major pro-ERA forces, the local and state chapters of the National Organization for Women (NOW), Louisiana ERA Coalition and ERA Central. Nor was the strategy of anti-ERA groups such as the Women’s Auxiliary of the New Orleans Chamber of Commerce and the Archdiocese Council of Catholic Women determinate of success or failure of the drive for ERA ratification. Efforts by Louisiana based ERA proponents were continually rendered meaningless by anti-ERA legislators. Their refusal to bend to the pro-ERA majority was reflected in the initial and subsequent failures at state ratification; the refusal to grant women a state Equal Rights Article in the 1975 State Constitution; dismissal or alteration of women’s rights legislation; the distribution of ERA related misinformation between legislator and public; and ignorance of poll results indicating pro-ERA constituencies.
As a result, pro-ERA organizations, both within and without the state, elected that ratification efforts should be strongly focused and aided by the national parent organizations in other, more promising, unratified states as early as 1974. There seemed to be nothing ERA proponents could do to increase the chances of the amendment’s passage when the strongest opposition had the power to kill it in committee before it could reach the House floor. In addition, electoral politics yielded easily reneged pro-ERA promises once a candidate was seated in office. There was also the problem of legislators who advertised themselves as supporting the ideal of equal rights but were only willing to grant equality through piecemeal legislation, not the ERA.
Eventually, women’s rights activists for equality under the law took a more active role in gaining legislative concessions, particularly in the arena of property law. The United States Supreme Court, in the early 1980s, reinforced the changes wrought in property law - specifically the ‘Head and Master’ clause of the Louisiana Civil Code. The end result was that ERA support from those proponents who did not participate in lobbying legislators or join pro-ERA organizations weakened considerably. The ERA ‘died’ in the Louisiana legislature as early as 1972 with the first failure to ratify and the beginning of a consistent history of disappointments, long before its national ‘death’ in 1982.
The Fight for Equal Rights in Louisiana
The Equal Rights Amendment proposal, as penned by suffragist Alice Paul in 1943, was passed by the United States Senate on March 22, 1972, effectively turning it over to the states for ratification. Hawaii ratified on the same day the proposal passed the Senate, and by early 1973 thirty of the needed thirty-eight states had decided in favor of ratification. When the Amendment first came before the Louisiana legislature in 1972, it was passed in the Senate but defeated in the House by 17 votes, a trend that would continue until the extended time limit ended without the needed ratification gains in 1982.
With such a lackluster beginning, pro-ERA women looked to the upcoming State Constitutional Convention of 1973 (CC-73) for an opportunity to at least win equal rights under state law with the New Orleans chapter of NOW taking the initiative and composing a petition for the inclusion of a state Equal Rights Article in the new Constitution. This measure was not a compromise nor would success in the venture alter or halt work towards gaining ratification. Rather the state ERA was to be insurance of rights under state law as well as a stepping-stone to facilitating favor within the state legislature towards the federal ERA.
Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights Committee to the Constitutional Convention, chaired by black rights activist Representative Alphonse Jackson, ultimately shattered ERA proponent hopes by authoring an article that read, “No law shall arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably discriminate against any person by reason of birth, age, sex . . .” Reasons behind the article proved paternalistic and ridiculous to women for a state ERA. Delegates stated vaguely that the measure would benefit women and prevent sex integrated bathrooms. The 1975 State Constitution, then, would give legislators the legal right to discriminate not only on the basis of gender but other factors as well so long as there was a viable and logical reason for the inequity. The tactic of moving for a state ERA to quell opposition and gain equality at least under state law did not reap any measure of satisfaction. Rather, the utter disregard of the delegates and legislators created a sense of urgency among ERA proponents, spurring them to begin coalition organizations for the ratification of ERA such as ERA United of Louisiana which, at its first organizational meeting on December 1, 1973, boasted eleven active member groups - the League of Women Voters, American Association of University Women, Business and Professional Women, Louisiana Consumers League, and Common Cause for examples.
Pro-ERA mobilization, however, did not inspire ratification or legal concessions towards true equity by the Louisiana legislature. Nancy Wingate, Public Relations Officer for ERA Central, wrote in October 1974, “every single piece of women’s rights reform legislation proposed last session was defeated;” but, there was still hope for equality because, “For the first time, they are listening to us, inviting us to their political meetings, asking for funds to investigate women’s status . . . and generally worrying about how their ERA NO votes will affect their re-election chances.”
Worry over re-election was not enough to harness favor for ERA within the legislature either, however. According to the Public Affairs Research Analysis of voting within the Louisiana legislature, between 1972 and 1975 of 36 voting Senators 23 consistently voted for, 11 against ERA with one abstention. The numbers were somewhat less balanced in the House with 23 of 105 Representatives voting for, 69 against, and 14 abstentions.
Similarly, other women’s rights legislation was either voted down or amended to weaken it enough to pass such as the Women’s Property Act of 1976 which was meant to “amend and reenact” previous legislation concerning the regulation and distribution of “certain immovable property” - for instance, a house - owned jointly by a husband and wife or separately. The original bill had been amended to include all immovable property but was altered to basically reinforce the status quo. The same year saw the rejection of a Displaced Homemakers bill meant to “[provide] for the counseling and training of displaced homemakers no longer eligible for dependent support or other assistance.”
This resistance, not only to the ERA but the bulk of legislation meant to lessen the gap between male and female inequality, was influenced by the “ideological distinctiveness” of the South, according to Janet Boles. Southern men - by this distinct ideology - are meant to protect women through their social power, and Southern women are meant to take care of the home and family while cultivating a deep religious awareness. Indeed, the opposition forces often used religion based arguments against the ERA: “God did not make man and woman the same. This foolish amendment allows no consideration for the innate differences between the sexes.”
Another consideration to explain the legislative block is the inaccurate dispensation of information both to and from legislators. This is telling as pro-ERA legislators with an anti-ERA constituency usually dismissed the opposition as giving in to unfounded and ridiculous concerns. Similarly, anti-ERA legislators with a pro-ERA constituency usually interpreted majority support as indicative of overall ignorance of the issue and set out to educate. For example, an article by Representative Louis “Woody” Jenkins claiming that the ERA would almost absolutely eradicate all sex-based discrimination drew the ire of then law student and women’s rights activist Clay Latimer whose rebuttal asserted that Jenkins was “not entitled to present blatantly false statements” and that “It is an abuse of your privilege as an attorney and a legislator to allow the . . . academicians and students . . . to be deceived by irresponsible statements.”
Yet, despite the possible swapping of misinformation between public and legislator, a poll conducted in March 1975 by ERA Central of Louisiana in Orleans and Jefferson parishes indicated that 64% of the state population were pro-ERA; but majority support for the ERA was still disregarded by legislators as the ERA was defeated in 1975, again despite promises made to Louisiana NOW that the Amendment would at least pass out of committee in 1976, and onward into 1980 when Representative John John of Crowley suggested that the ERA no longer be discussed within the legislature and no longer be opened to a vote.
Long-term legislative resistance to the ERA and other women’s rights legislation eventually demoralized legislators that stood on the pro-ERA platform as in the case of Representative Manuel Fernandez who had sponsored the ratification proposal for years until defeat in 1980 inspired him to give up sponsorship and admit that the ERA had little chance of being ratified in Louisiana. Similarly, lack of anti-ERA legislator response to concerted pro-ERA lobbying efforts forced Louisiana NOW to decline targeting by the National chapter in 1976 - that is, decline concentrated aid (funds, lobbying materials, etc.) as one of the stubbornly unratified states most likely to gain ratification. The decision to allow another state, such as Georgia or Illinois, to be targeted instead of Louisiana was an acknowledgment that “it’s damn near hopeless.”
Louisiana: NOT a Target State
Whether or not Louisiana would be a target state was not merely the decision of pro-ERA forces in Louisiana. Those parent organizations contributing to the ratification effort in the targeted states also had a voice in the labeling process. As early as 1974, merely two years after the first failure of ERA in the Louisiana legislature, the national American Association of University Women refused an application for funds from ERA United of Louisiana to aid in the campaigning process. In the same way - though by the officers’ own decision - Louisiana NOW was left to fund its own lobbying efforts within the state.
It is possible this behavior on the part of national and local ERA organizations was indicative of legislative awareness. Resistant legislators were not the only problem. There was also the very real dilemma of legislators elected for their pro-ERA platforms voting against the ERA once in office. A clear example would be Representative Lane Carson who was elected as a proponent of ERA from a New Orleans Lake-area constituency where 85% supported the ERA. In 1976, when the ERA was up for vote, he voted it down, following the example of another New Orleans representative, John Hainkel, a man who was quickly identified as the ring-leader of opposition in the legislature.
Another plausible reason for Louisiana’s non-target status in regards to legislator behavior is the phenomenon of the legislator in favor of the principle of equality between the sexes but unwilling to accept the Equal Rights Amendment as the method to legally establish that equality. By his own words, Lane Carson was such a legislator; and his chief argument for not supporting the ratification of the ERA was as follows, “I will not vote for an equal rights amendment . . . that will hand over to the federal government complete control over such local family matters as divorce, separation, custody, child support, etc.”
The ‘federal government takeover’ argument was a staple of anti-ERA legislators as was the promise to further the cause of women’s rights through piecemeal legislation that rarely passed in full as explained above. The traditional desire to retain state control over family law coupled with a resistance to exacting social change through legislation was also a strike against Louisiana becoming a target state. For example, the Louisiana legislature did not ratify the 19th Amendment (added to the United States Constitution in 1920) giving women the right to vote until 1970, and only then as a kindness to the League of Women Voters on the 50th anniversary of women gaining the right of suffrage.
Ironically, the failure of Louisiana legislators to act in ways favorable to women’s rights activists, to revise laws dealing with the status of women in the state yielded the result of women taking a more direct political initiative in addition to dreaded federal involvement in state affairs concerning the ‘Head and Master’ and property laws. As stated above, the State Constitutional Convention of 1973 wrote into the Constitution of 1975 a so-called Equal Rights Article which allowed sex-based discrimination as long as it was implemented with some logical reason in mind.
This measure did not sit well with pro-ERA people, and Clay Latimer along with attorney and family law expert Janet Mary Riley began a series of informational workshops held around the state called “The Changing Status of Louisiana Women.” Working as a reporter for the Louisiana State Law Institute (LSLI), a state government agency charged with the task of formulating state Civil Code revisions, Riley gathered personal accounts of legal discrimination against wives in regards to distribution of property within a marriage. During the next several years, she and the LSLI proposed to construct an equal management article which Riley eventually authored, and after many stalls and conflicts, was passed during the 1978 legislative session to go into effect in 1980.
The Equal Management law, when first proposed, was meant to invalidate the ‘Head and Master’ law, which basically endowed the husband with all property rights in marriage, separation or divorce, by granting wives fully “equal access to and control of community property;” however, the LSLI rejected the idea in 1976, prompting Riley to resign from her post as reporter to the Institute. The proposal that eventually won passage in 1978 defined community property as managed jointly and equally by the husband and wife during marriage or separately by mutual contract. The measure was initially favorable to both proponents and opponents of ERA as proponents interpreted the acceptance of Equal Management as a step toward ERA ratification while opponents saw it as an affirmation of state granted equal rights for women, rendering a federal ERA unnecessary.
Further, though it had taken the Louisiana legislature nearly a decade to implement a more equitable property law, the United States Supreme Court saw fit to reinforce recent state measures by striking down the ‘Head and Master’ law under the auspices of the equal protection clause in 1981. This federal action in addition to the implementation of an Equal Management law by the state legislature aided in the sabotage of the already crippled ERA movement in Louisiana by appeasing the casual (as opposed to the active) supporter and illegitimizing the prospect of a federal ERA for opponents. In any case, the extended ratification deadline granted the ERA was met without Louisiana ratification and lacking the necessary 38 ratified states, signifying it’s political ‘death’ by state legislators in 1982.
Conclusion:
A New Day for ERA in 2005?
In 1976, Fran Mayeaux wrote, “the real enemy was the 10 men who sat in judgement on your rights . . . and decided to deny them to you once again. Direct your energies, your anger against those people who have the power to change the laws”; and two years later, in 1978, Mindy Milam asserted that, “You know that if anything gets done, it’s because we did it. We can no longer rely on our legislature . . .” These women recognized the problem in gaining ERA
ratification or any sort of women’s right legislation would be a long, hard - possibly losing - battle due to an unresponsive, resistant state legislature. By 1982, when the extended ratification window closed, continuous defeat and exhaustion gave the illusion that the cause of ERA was a dead letter when, in truth, it was merely put to sleep.
On January 20, 2005 (Inauguration Day), members of the Louisiana ERA Coalition participating in the New Orleans Jazz Funeral demonstrated that, though the Equal Rights Amendment was killed in the state and nation in 1982, the Equal Rights Amendment is not dead but still a valid issue, one that they fully intend to actively strive for once again. Parading a large banner emblazoned with the text “EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT,” these people sought to do what their predecessors (though some, such as Felicia Kahn, have been involved in the ERA battle since the 1970s) strived to do - inform and raise public consciousness of a persistent problem: lack of Constitutional acknowledgment that women possess equal rights under federal law with men.
The fight, as the saying goes, is on - again. Though the ERA has been put before every Congress since its final defeat in 1982, recently individuals in the United States Congress have begun to mobilize along with women’s organization leaders, notably Kim Gandy, current President of National NOW, former President of Louisiana NOW, and veteran of the Louisiana ERA battle with the state legislature during the 1970s. Recent efforts include New York Representative Carolyn Maloney (D) reintroducing the ERA (H. J. Res. 37) to the 109th Congress on March 15, 2005; and the resolution currently has 166 House co-sponsors counting Louisiana Representative William Jefferson. There is also a parallel resolution (H. Res. 155), introduced by Representative Robert Andrews of New Jersey (D), which, if passed, would waive the seven year time limit for amendment ratification and only require ratification from the remaining three states needed to officially make the ERA part of the United States Constitution.
This dual strategy, seeking ratification through established guidelines as well as through one that ignores the prior accepted legislative precept of a seven year time limit for the amendment process, was made possible by the addition of the 27th, or “Madison,” Amendment in 1992. Unlike the ERA, which has been awaiting ratification for eighty years, the “Madison” (or Congressional Pay) Amendment was accepted after 203 years, setting a precedent - proponents believe - that make the Supreme Court’s ruling that an amendment’s life must be “sufficiently contemporaneous” to be eligible for reexamination negligible. Further, the Congressional decision to extend the seven year ratification period of the ERA in 1978 also set a precedent of Congressional “power to adjust or repeal the previous time limit on the ERA, determine whether state ratifications subsequent to 1982 are valid, and accept the ERA as part of the Constitution after three more states ratify.”
Publicly reopening the issue, according to the National ERA Campaign Network, is propitious at this time (2005) because attitudes have changed over the last thirty years since the first ratification effort failed and many of the anti-ERA arguments have lost substantial relevance. For example, the opposition often cited the concern that the ERA would require women to serve in military combat positions, that there would no longer be separation of public restrooms by gender, and that women would be forced to work outside the home. In the years following ERA’s defeat, women have joined their male comrades on the battlefield voluntarily, unisex bathrooms are in use without much controversy, and many women work outside the home by choice or necessity. Similarly, the legal prospect of unrestricted allowance of abortion and homosexual marriage, often attributed to passage of the ERA by those opposed to the amendment, has been rejected on the state level by states with ERAs written into their state constitutions such as Pennsylvania, which still stringently regulates abortion guidelines, and Hawaii, which recently amended the state constitution to explicitly define marriage as occurring between a man and woman.
In addition, Janet K. Boles identified one weakness of the 1970s movement for the ERA as the lack of a strong national pro-ERA coalition including moderate/conservative support as opposed or in addition to the many state coalitions spearheaded by the perceived liberal to radical National Organization for Women. The current fledgling movement boasts a national umbrella organization, the Alice Paul Institute, and there is also a plan to extend the campaign not only to the unratified states but to those that have ratified in the past to better prevent ratification rescission.
There has also been a renewal of confidence among proponents due to a shift in public favor. In 1982, a National Research Center General Social Survey indicated that 61.5% of Americans were in favor of the ERA becoming a part of the Constitution. Significantly, the percentage in favor is now 88% according to a study commissioned by the ERA Campaign Network and conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation in July 2001. Interestingly, of the total surveyed, 96% indicated that they believed men and women in America should have equal rights, 72% believed the Constitution already granted women equal rights, and the majority of those that responded as supporting the ERA were men (85%).
In the meantime, active legislative efforts have been made in Illinois, Florida, Missouri, and Nevada with Louisiana political activists just beginning to promote awareness through interaction with Governor Blanco, public demonstrations as stated above, and participation in regional women’s conferences endorsed by the governor geared toward inciting political action and change by women for women. However, whether the Louisiana legislature will stop resisting and become one of the three states to ratify (granted the ERA once again passes through the United States Congress) remains an open question as there has been no reintroduction of the ERA in the Louisiana legislature and no public endorsement from Governor Blanco or any Louisiana legislator. Only time will tell if revised strategy on the part of ERA proponents and the thirty year divide from the 1970s to recent times have made the political climate ripe and favorable for ratification on the national and state levels.
- Kysra