Death Knell?

Two rulings hurt ERA

It was a stunning defeat, a double blow to the dwindling prospects for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In a long-awaited two-part decision, U.S. District Judge Marion J. Callister ruled in Boise, Idaho, last week that states have the constitutional right to change their minds. He declared that the legislatures of Idaho, Tennessee, Kentucky, Nebraska and South Dakota had acted legally when they voted to rescind their initial ratifications of ERA. In an 81-page ruling the judge wrote: "Congress has no power to determine the validity or invalidity of a properly certified ratification or recision." If that ruling is eventually sustained, it would reduce the number of states that have ratified the proposed 27th amendment from 35 to 30, far short of the 38 required to change the Constitution.

The second part of Judge Callister's opinion, if it is not overturned, means that ERA is already dead. He ruled that Congress had acted unconstitutionally when it decided to extend its original seven-year deadline for states to ratify ERA from March 22, 1979, to June 30, 1982. Declared the judge: "When this time is set, it is binding on Congress and the states and it cannot be changed by Congress thereafter." He noted that both houses had approved the original deadline by two-thirds votes but had allowed the extension by simple majorities.

Angry backers of the amendment announced that they would appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The National Organization for Women had tried to force the former high official of the Mormon Church to remove himself from the case on the ground that his religious beliefs posed a conflict of interest; leaders of his church are strongly opposed to ERA. A federal appeals court ruled that he need not give up the case, and Callister, contending that his faith would not influence his legal opinions, refused to do so.

Some legal scholars believe that ERA supporters have reasonable grounds to appeal Callister's ruling. Attorneys for NOW contend that the judge's decision violates the separation-of-powers principle of the Constitution, which makes Congress the supreme authority on the amendment process. Whether the Supreme Court will agree to consider the case before the June deadline remains uncertain. Even if the court does not act in time, NOW leaders vow to reintroduce the amendment and start the entire process all over again.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.