Let’s talk about the E.R.A. (no, not the band, the Equal Rights Amendment). Back in the day, it was looking pretty good for the E.R.A. to be officially added to the Constitution. All it needed was approval from three-quarters of the states. But in the late 70s, progress came to a screeching halt when Phyllis Schlafly and the conserva-crowd started fear-mongering about a world without good ol’ patriarchy. Boo! Hiss!

Fast forward to today, and Congress is finally starting to show some interest in the E.R.A. again. This is thanks in part to D-Trump’s particular brand of misogyny, and also in part to the Supreme Court taking away women’s right to abortions. Not cool, SCOTUS. Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia have all ratified the E.R.A. since 2017, bringing the total up to a whopping 38 states! Just two more to go, baby!

Buuuuuut, there’s a little hiccup. When Congress passed the E.R.A. in ’72, they put a deadline on it that said it had to be ratified within seven years (aka 1979). They did end up extending the deadline to ’82, but some states also decided to take back their ratifications, which really threw a wrench in things. So now people are all like, “Hey, what gives? Can these recent ratifications even count if they came decades later than the deadline? And with those rescinded ratifications, do we even have enough states to make it happen?”

Now there’s a big ol’ debate happening over who gets to decide how to handle all of this deadline and rescission nonsense. The Constitution doesn’t really say anything about it, so it’s up for interpretation. What it does say though is that Congress gets to suggest amendments if they feel like it. And on top of that, they get to decide how those amendments get ratified (aka the process of approval). So, if Congress has the power to decide on deadlines, it only makes sense that they also have the power to change those deadlines or refuse to recognize rescissions. Makes sense, right? Alriiiight, we’re done here.

Serious News: nytimes