Vice President Kamala Harris recently stirred debate with a statement asserting that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is “the law of the land.” However, the ERA, despite its historic significance and decades of advocacy, has not been certified as part of the US Constitution, raising questions about Harris’s remarks.
The ERA, aimed at guaranteeing equal legal rights regardless of sex, was first introduced in Congress in 1923. It gained momentum in 1972 when lawmakers passed it with the required two-thirds majority and sent it to the states for ratification. Thirty-eight states were needed to ratify the amendment by a deadline initially set at seven years, later extended to ten. However, by the time the deadline expired in 1982, only 35 states had ratified it.
More recently, advocates have claimed victory after additional states symbolically ratified the amendment decades later, bringing the total to 38. Harris referenced this movement in her statement, asserting, “It makes our nation stronger, and it is the law of the land because the American people have spoken in states across our nation.”
Despite Harris’s claim, the Archivist of the United States has stated otherwise. Archivist Dr Colleen Shogan and Deputy Archivist William J. Bosanko released a detailed response emphasising that the ERA cannot be recognised as part of the Constitution due to established legal deadlines. “In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel affirmed that the ratification deadline is valid and enforceable,” their statement read. Furthermore, court rulings at multiple levels have upheld these deadlines, leaving the ERA in legal limbo.
Harris’s comments come amid renewed calls for gender equality and the protection of civil rights. In her statement, she championed the ERA’s intent, highlighting its importance for women and society at large. “When we lift up women, we lift up children, families, communities, and all of society,” she said. However, her assertion that the amendment has been fully enacted contradicts legal and judicial findings.
For the ERA to move forward, Congress would need to take new legislative action to remove or extend the ratification deadline. Until then, the Archivist’s office has made it clear that personal opinions, no matter how passionate, cannot override legal precedent.
