Why Did the ERA Fail?

The proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteed that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Two more short sections gave Congress enforcement powers and provided that the ERA would take effect two years after ratification. By the 1970s, it had become the symbol of the women’s movement, and the controversy it sparked revealed profound differences in beliefs and values among Americans.

The National Woman’s Party, a militant suffrage organization that had helped win the vote for women in 1920, first proposed an equal rights amendment to the Constitution in 1923. It won little support, however, before the resurgence of feminism in the late 1960s, when the National Organization for Women and other women’s groups made the ERA a key objective.

Both houses of Congress passed the ERA in March 1972 by overwhelming margins, 354–23 in the House and 84–8 in the Senate. Within three hours, Hawai’i rushed to become the first state to ratify, and twenty-three states quickly followed. Public opinion heavily favored ratification, peaking at 74 percent in favor in 1974 and never falling below 52 percent, while opposition never topped 31 percent. Yet even after Congress extended the ratification period until 1982, the ERA fell three short of the three-fourths of the states required by the Constitution (see The Fight for the Equal Rights Amendment spot map). Why did a measure with so much congressional and popular support fail?

The ERA encountered well-organized and passionate opposition linked to the growing conservative forces in the 1970s. Conservatives’ opposition to the ERA reflected in part their distaste for big government, but even more it signaled the Christian Right’s determination to preserve traditional gender roles and “family values.” What feminists saw as a simple measure to ensure equal rights for all citizens, ERA opponents saw as a threat to women’s God-given and natural right to be protected and supported by men. They raised fears by suggesting extravagant ways in which courts might interpret the amendment. Phyllis Schlafly claimed that the ERA would put abortion rights and gay rights into the Constitution, deprive women of alimony and child support, and send them into combat.

Anti-ERA arguments drew on conservative Christian beliefs. Evangelical minister and politician Jerry Falwell declared the ERA “a definite violation of holy Scripture [and its] mandate that ‘the husband is the head of the wife.’” Anti-ERA rhetoric also appealed to some women’s understanding of their own self-interest. Many ERA opponents were full-time housewives who had no stake in equal treatment in the marketplace and who feared that the amendment would eliminate the duty of men to support their families.

Schlafly and other conservatives skillfully mobilized women who saw their traditional roles threatened. In October 1972, she established a national movement called STOP (Stop Taking Our Privileges) ERA, whose members deluged legislators with letters and lobbied them personally in state capitols. In Illinois, they gave lawmakers apple pies with notes that read, “My heart and my hand went into this dough / For the sake of the family please vote ‘no.’” Opponents also brought baby girls to the legislature wearing signs that pleaded, “Please don’t draft me.”

ERA opponents had an easier task than supporters because the framers of the Constitution had stacked the odds against revision. All opponents had to do was convince a minority of legislators in a minority of states to preserve the status quo. In addition, unlike their suffragist predecessors, pro-ERA forces had concentrated on winning Congress and were not prepared for the state campaigns.

The very gains that feminists made in the 1960s and 1970s also worked against ratification. Congress had banned sex discrimination in employment, education, and other areas, and the Supreme Court had struck down several discriminatory laws, thus making it harder for ERA advocates to demonstrate the urgency of constitutional revision.

The ERA failed because a handful of men in a handful of state legislatures voted against it. The shift of only a few votes in states such as Illinois and North Carolina would have meant ratification. Schlafly’s forces played a key role in the defeat because men could vote no and take cover behind the many women who opposed it. And those women proved willing to commit time, energy, and money to block ratification because they were convinced that the ERA threatened their very way of life.

Feminists did not leave the ERA battle empty-handed, however. Thousands of women were mobilized on both sides of the issue, participating in the public arena for the first time. Fourteen states passed their own equal rights amendments after 1970. And feminists continued to fight legislative and judicial battles for the expansion of women’s rights into the twenty-first century.

Questions for Analysis

Summarize the Argument: What different values were expressed by opponents and supporters of the ERA? What did both sides gain from the campaigns?

Analyze the Evidence: What structural features of the U.S. Constitution made ratification difficult for ERA advocates? What other specific obstacles prevented ERA’s passage?

Consider the Context: Why were woman suffrage supporters more successful than ERA advocates in gaining a constitutional amendment?