Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:56:22.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Building Support for the ERA: A Case of “Too Much, Too Late”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2022

Janet K. Boles
Janet K. Boles*
Affiliation:
Marquette University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A case can be made that non-ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a classic example of “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.” After all, the ERA had received overwhelming support in both houses of Congress, passing by a vote of 354 to 23 in the House and 84 to 8 in the Senate. Both major political parties had repeatedly supported the ERA in their national party platforms; not until 1980 did one party (the Republican) adopt a stance of neutrality. Every President from Truman to Carter had endorsed the amendment. And, by the end of the campaign for state ratification, more than 450 organizations with a total membership of over 50 million were on record in support of the ERA. While the amendment was before Congress in 1970-72, lobbying for the ERA was heavy and well-organized, and no countervailing forces were ever mobilized in any effective way. In view of this broad base of political and public support for the amendment, and little visible opposition, a reasonable prognosis in 1972 was that it would be ratified by the required 38 states long before the original deadline of March 22, 1979, set by Congress.

However, the ratification process was far more complex than either political observers or amendment supporters recognized initially. Although an intensive lobbying effort had been waged to push the amendment through Congress, supporters naively believed that it would be quickly ratified in the absence of pre-existing state groups poised to press for passage and without major allocation of national organizations' resources.

Type
The Equal Rights Amendment: Anatomy of a Failure
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , Fall 1982 , pp. 572 - 577
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a more extensive discussion of proponent strategies from 1972 to 1977 see Boles, Janet K., The Politics of the Equal Rights Amendment (New York: Longman, 1979)Google Scholar.

2 See Milbrath, Lester, The Washington Lobbyists (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963)Google Scholar, and Hall, Donald R., Cooperative Lobbying—The Power of Pressure (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1969)Google Scholar.

3 “Organizations Supporting the Equal Rights Amendment,” National NOW Times, 13 May 1980, 14–15 Google Scholar.

4 “NOW National ERA Campaign Launched,” National NOW Times, 11 February 1979, 1 Google Scholar.

5 “Total ERA Mobilization Voted,” National NOW Times, 13 October/November 1980, 1 Google Scholar.

6 Goldsmith, Judy, “ERA Walks Raise $1 Million,” National NOW Times, 14 September 1981, 1 Google Scholar.

7 “Total ERA Mobilization Voted.”

8 Lambros, Demetra, “Caucus Indicts Twelve Who Roadblocked ERA,” Women's Political Times, 7 July 1982, 1 Google Scholar.

9 There is some evidence, for example, that anti-ERA groups were more effective in the use of campaign contributions. See Jones, Judson H., “The Effect of Pro- and Anti-ERA Campaign Contributions on the ERA Voting Behavior of the 80th Illinois House of Representatives,” Women & Politics, 2 (Spring/Summer 1982): 71–86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 See Coleman, James S., Community Conflict (New York: Free Press, 1957)Google Scholar, and Crain, Robert L. et al. , The Politics of Community Conflict (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969)Google Scholar.

11 Taylor, Paul, “NOW Seeking $3 Million War Chest to Oust ERA Foes, Fight New Right,” Washington Post, 27 August 1982, A2 Google Scholar.

12 Salsini, Barbara, “Wisconsin Fan Seeks Top NOW Post,” Milwaukee Journal, 2 September 1982, 8 Google Scholar.

13 See Downs, Anthony, Inside Bureaucracy (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), 19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Peter Blau refers to this as “succession of goals.” See Blau, , The Dynamics of Bureaucracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955), 193–198 Google Scholar.

15 See March, James G. and Simon, Herbert, Organizations (New York: John Wiley, 1958), 38 Google Scholar.

16 See Bokowski, Debrah and Clausen, Aage R., “Federalism, Representation and the Amendment Process: The Case of the Equal Rights Amendment” (Paper delivered at Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 1979)Google Scholar. Using University of Michigan Survey Research Center data, they found that despite an approval rating of 70 percent for the ERA, only 21 percent of the national sample had a position on the issue and knew the action taken on it by their own state legislature.

17 Poole, Keith T. and Zeigler, L. Harmon, “The Diffusion of Feminist Ideology,” Political Behavior 3 (3 1981): 229–256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.