About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

36 Rutgers L.J. 1201 (2004-2005)
State Equal Rights Amendments Revisited: Evaluating Their Effectiveness in Advancing Protection against Sex Discrimination

handle is hein.journals/rutlj36 and id is 1215 raw text is: STATE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENTS REVISITED: EVALUATING THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IN ADVANCING PROTECTION AGAINST SEX DISCRIMINATION Linda J. Wharton* I. INTRODUCTION Three decades have passed since fourteen states-inspired by the Federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) campaign of the 1970s and early 1980s-added ERAs to their state constitutions.' In adding these provisions to their constitutions, these states joined three others that already had explicit protection from sex discrimination in their state constitutions.2 The language of many of these amendments tracked that of the proposed Federal ERA, and their legislative histories indicate a specific desire to provide more comprehensive protection against sex discrimination than that available * Associate Professor of Political Science, Richard Stockton College of New Jersey; Lecturer-in-Law, University of Pennsylvania School of Law (1996-2002); J.D. Rutgers University School of Law-Camden (1981). Many of the ideas in this Article grew out of my past work as the Managing Attorney of the Women's Law Project in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where I served as lead counsel or co-counsel in litigation challenging sex discrimination under both the Federal Constitution and Pennsylvania's Equal Rights Amendment. This litigation included several cases in the area of reproductive rights, including Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). 1 am deeply grateful for the excellent feedback on drafts of this Article that I received from Pamela Elam, Ann Freedman, Susan Frietsche, Seth Kreimer, Molly Murphy MacGregor and Robert F. Williams. Many thanks also to Debra Franzese for her excellent research assistance and to both my colleagues at Richard Stockton College and my family for their encouragement and support. I. ALASKA CONST. art 1, § 3; COLO. CONST. art. II, § 29; CONN. CONST. art. I, § 20; HAW. CONST. art. I, § 21; ILL. CONST. art. I, § 18; MD. CONST. art. I, § 3; MASS. CONST. Pt. I, art. 1; MONT. CONST. art. II, § 4; N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 2; N.M. CONST. art. II, § I; PA. CONST. art. I, § 28 ; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 3a; VA. CONST. art. I, § 11; WASH. CONST. art. XXXI, § 1. For the full text and date of adoption of each state ERA, see infra Appendix. 2. Two states-Wyoming and Utah-added sex equality guarantees to their constitutions at the same time that they extended the right of suffrage to women in the late nineteenth century. UTAH CONST., art. IV, § I; WYO. CONST. art. I, § 2. California added a provision to its constitution that expressly prohibited sex discrimination in employment in 1879. CAL. CONST. art. I, § 8. Some states also explicitly provide protection against sex discrimination in public education in their constitutions. CAL. CONST. art. I, § 31(a); HAW. CONST. art. X, § 1; WYo. CONST. art. VII, § 10; MONT. CONST. art. 10 § 7.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most