Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution declares that the Equal Rights Amendment is valid as part of the Constitution despite any time limit in the original proposal. It states that the amendment has been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. The measure uses a joint resolution to make that declaration at the federal level. It specifically says the earlier time limit does not prevent the amendment from being valid.
As a joint resolution, it must be approved by both the Senate and the House and then be presented to the President for signature or veto. Joint resolutions can create binding federal action if signed by the President or enacted over a veto.
S.J. Res. 38 declares that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), proposed in House Joint Resolution 208 (92nd Congress, 1972), is valid as part of the U.S. Constitution notwithstanding any time limit in the original joint resolution.
The joint resolution states the ERA has been ratified by legislatures of three-fourths of the states and is therefore part of the Constitution.
No fiscal cost and simple text help, but strong ideological controversy, absence of compromise features, and procedural/legal hurdles lower chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is concise and explicit in its primary legal declaration but sparse in procedural and implementation detail.
Process legitimacy: liberals/centrists accept retroactive ratification; conservatives insist on original deadline
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Process legitimacy: liberals/centrists accept retroactive ratification; conservatives insist on original deadline
Likely strongly supportive.
Views the resolution as correcting an arbitrary technical barrier and finally enshrining constitutional gender equality.
Sees legal and symbolic advances for civil rights.
Generally supportive but cautious.
Sees merit in resolving a longstanding constitutional question, while wanting clarity on legal implications and costs of litigation.
Prefers procedural steps to reduce uncertainty.
Likely opposed.
Emphasizes procedural and constitutional concerns about ignoring an original time limit and potential state rescissions.
Worried about federal overreach and uncertain policy consequences.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
No fiscal cost and simple text help, but strong ideological controversy, absence of compromise features, and procedural/legal hurdles lower chances.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Process legitimacy: liberals/centrists accept retroactive ratification; conservatives insist on original deadline
No fiscal cost and simple text help, but strong ideological controversy, absence of compromise features, and procedural/legal hurdles lower…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is concise and explicit in its primary legal declaration but sparse in procedural and implementation detail.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.