qm_spring_2016

17 / 36

Virginia Capitol C onnections, Spring 2016 17
that if citizens wanted to change the Constitution, the Founders had
provided a way. His fellow Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, has said, “If
I could choose an amendment to add to the Constitution, it would be
the Equal Rights Amendment.”
“The ERA is necessary because gender has not been granted the
same level of protection under the 14th Amendment as race, religion,
or national origin. Without these protections, governments have more
freedom to take actions that have an unfair impact on women,” says
Senator Scott Surovell, who co-patroned this year’s resolution with
Senator Jennifer Wexton.
For Surovell, the matter is personal. He has introduced similar
bills in the past as a member of the House of Delegates, and his first
action as a Freshman Senator was to introduce the significantly titled
SJI. When asked why he was
passionate about the issue, he
explained, “Women’s equality
was a frequent discussion
topic at my family dinner
table. My mother was a
founder of Fairfax County’s
Women’s Commission and
testified in favor of ERA at
the 1972 General Assembly
Session while pregnant with
my little brother when I was
one year-old.” He adds, “I
will introduce the ERA until
the General Assembly ratifies
it. General discrimination is a
real problem in Virginia and
the United States and ERA is
a tool to that will combat this
problem and help level the
playing field for all women.”
So much history has been
made at Virginia’s Capitol
since it was built in 1788, and
it is certain to bear witness to a whole lot more. Those women AND
men who are continuing to stand up for the Equal Rights Amendment
today are determined to move Virginia forward again in the hopes
that the Commonwealth will play an important part in finishing what
Alice Paul started over a hundred years ago.
Sarah Alderson is an award-winning freelance writer who also
works in the General Assembly broadcast control rooms during
sessions and the Capitol Studio throughout the year. She can be
reached at
Amendment, which addresses citizenship rights, also covers gender
equality. Some claim that the deadline that was later imposed on the
amendment has since passed and therefore makes the whole effort
useless.
Proponents argue that the deadline is not a valid reason to
dismiss the amendment. Eileen Davis, the other Co-Founder of
Women Matter notes that constitutional amendments have already
been ratified after a deadline. “The Virginia General Assembly itself
ratified the 24th Amendment in 1977, seven years after Congress’
deadline,” she says. “There have also been challenges to the
constitutionality of any ratification deadline.”
“In NOW vs. Idaho, the Supreme Court declared the statutory
deadline moot because, as of the date of the ruling, no state had ratified
post-deadline and thus did not
provide “actionable reason” to
consider the argument,” Davis
adds. “This is currently the
position of many in Congress,
who are waiting for a freshly
ratified state to give cause
to remove the deadline and
restart the process.”
In fact, there are those in
Congress who are looking to
the Commonwealth to lead
with a decision that would
provide a reason to remove
the deadline. “The Virginia
Senate passed the Equal Rights
Amendment, we are waiting on
the House,” Congresswoman
Jackie Speiers announced on
the floor of Congress on March
2nd as members watched to
see what Virginia would do.
“The Equal Rights
Amendment has passed
with bipartisan support in the Virginia Senate FIVE times in recent
years only to die in the House of Delegates Privileges and Elections
Committee,” explains Davis. In other words, it has never reached a
debate on the House floor. During this past session, the resolution
passed the Senate 21-19, but the same House committee once again
decided to shelve it for another year.
The late Supreme Court JusticeAntonin Scalia opined that women
are not equal under the Constitution. “Certainly the Constitution
does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue
is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t,” he explained. Scalia maintained V