2021: Schweikert Voted Against Removing The Deadline For The Equal Rights Amendment Ratification, Which Would Allow The Proposed Constitutional Amendment To Be Valid Whenever It Becomes Ratified By Three-Fourths Of The States. In March 2021, Schweikert voted against a joint resolution which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "remove the deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, which would state 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.' The ERA was proposed to the states in 1972, with a seven-year deadline for ratification, which was subsequently extended through June 1982. The joint resolution would make the proposed constitutional amendment valid as part of the Constitution whenever ratified by three-fourths of the states." The vote was on passage. The House passed the joint resolution by a vote of 222-204. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 82, 3/17/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/17/21; Congressional Actions, H.J.Res. 17]
March 2021: A Federal District Judge Ruled That The Deadline To Ratify The Equal Rights Amendment Had Expired And The Recent Ratification Of Three States Arrived Too Late. According to CNN, "A federal district judge on Friday dealt a blow to advocates of the Equal Rights Amendment in ruling that the deadline to ratify the ERA 'expired long ago' and three states' recent ratifications of the amendment arrived 'too late to count.'" [CNN, 3/6/21]
January 2020: Virginia, Illinois And Nevada Sued The U.S. Archivist In An Attempt To Challenge A Justice Department Opinion That Stated The Equal Rights Amendment Ratification Deadline Expired Decades Ago And Ensure The Final Adoption Of The Amendment To The Constitution. According to CNN, "Three attorneys general of states that recently ratified the Equal Rights Amendment are suing to have the amendment added to the Constitution, challenging a Justice Department opinion that the deadline for passage expired decades ago. In a complaint filed Thursday, the attorneys general of Virginia, Illinois and Nevada are asking the US District Court in Washington, DC, to force the archivist of the United States, who administers the ratification process, to 'carry out his statutory duty of recognizing the complete and final adoption' of the ERA as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution." [CNN, 1/30/20]
Supporters Of The Equal Rights Amendment Believed The Federal Court Ruling Indicated It Was Congress's Duty To Finalize The Ratification. According to CNN, "Proponents of the ERA believe the court ruling signaled that it's now up to Congress to validate their argument that the ERA has already been ratified and should be published as the Constitution's 28th Amendment." [CNN, 3/17/21]
Opponents Of The Equal Rights Amendment Argued That Congress Could To Change The Deadline After Decades Since Its Expiration And "Blast The Vote As A Political Stunt." According to CNN, "opponents say Congress cannot retroactively change its imposed deadline decades after it expired and blast the vote as a political stunt." [CNN, 3/17/21]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Removing The Deadline For The Equal Rights Amendment Ratification. In March 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "adoption of the rule that would provide for House floor consideration of a joint resolution removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment (H J Res 17) [...] The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on each of the five measures." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 216-204. [House Vote 79, 3/16/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/16/21; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 17; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 233]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against A Resolution That Would Facilitate The Passage Of Removing The Equal Rights Amendment Ratification Deadline By A Simple Majority Vote. In March 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "adoption of the rule that would provide for [...] automatic agreement, upon adoption of the rule, to a resolution (H Res 232) that would require a simple majority affirmative vote in the House for passage of H J Res 17." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 216-204, thus automatically adopting the resolution. [House Vote 79, 3/16/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/16/21; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 232; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 233]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Removing The Deadline For The Equal Rights Amendment Ratification. In March 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 233) that would provide for House floor consideration of a joint resolution removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment (H J Res 17) [...] The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on each of the five measures." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 212-200. [House Vote 78, 3/16/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/16/21; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 17; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 233]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against A Resolution That Would Facilitate The Passage Of Removing The Equal Rights Amendment Ratification Deadline By A Simple Majority Vote. In March 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 233) that would provide for [...] automatic agreement, upon adoption of the rule, to a resolution (H Res 232) that would require a simple majority affirmative vote in the House for passage of H J Res 17." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 212-200. [House Vote 78, 3/16/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/16/21; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 232; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 233]
2020: Schweikert Voted Against Removing The Deadline For Ratification Of The Equal Rights Amendment To The Constitution. In February 2020, Schweikert voted against a joint resolution that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "remove the deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, which would state 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.' The ERA was proposed to the states in 1972, with a seven-year deadline for ratification, which was subsequently extended through June 1982. The joint resolution would make the proposed constitutional amendment valid as part of the Constitution whenever ratified by three-fourths of the states." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 232-183. [House Vote 70, 2/13/20; Congressional Quarterly, 2/13/20; Congressional Actions, H.J.Res.79]
The ERA Would Safeguard Women's Rights In The Constitution. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Democrats say that the ERA would finally enshrine equal rights for women in the Constitution and that Congress has the constitutional authority to retroactively remove the ratification deadline so the amendment can now be added to the Constitution." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/12/20]
Republicans Opposed The ERA Because They Believed It Would Be Used To Expand Abortion Rights. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The ERA is also indivisible from the issue of abortion rights, with Republicans warning that ratification would lead to expanded use of abortion and rollbacks of anti-abortion legislation on the state level. Conservatives argue that because abortions are exclusive to women, any restrictions on the procedure could be deemed unconstitutional under the ERA. 'If ratified, the ERA would be used by pro-abortion groups to undo pro-life legislation and lead to more abortions and taxpayer funding of abortions,' [Rep. Debbie] Lesko warned." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/12/20]
The ERA Had Bipartisan Support Until Social Conservatives Pressured Republicans To Oppose The Amendment In The 1970s. According to Politico, "For most of its nearly 100-year-history, the ERA enjoyed bipartisan support, including from Presidents Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower. But opposition from social conservatives in the 1970s prompted Republicans to drop it from their party platform in 1980, and to persuade the last few states needed to ratify not to do so." [Politico, 2/13/20]