When Lincoln Sen. Patty Pansing Brooks got the news that Nebraska is one of five Republican-led states seeking to block an effort to see the Equal Rights Amendment adopted into the U.S. Constitution, she had a few words to say about it.Ìý
She stood up during the Friday morning session of the Legislature, somewhat in disbelief and more than a little aggravated and disturbed, she said, that state dollars were being spent on this.Ìý
"Of all the messages for Nebraska to send …," Pansing Brooks said.
The five states — Nebraska, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota — filed a motion Thursday to intervene in a lawsuit filed by Virginia, Nevada and Illinois. All five intervenors rescinded their approvals of the Equal Rights Amendment before a congressionally mandated ratification deadline more than 40 years ago.
People are also reading…
Virginia recently became the 38th state to ratify the measure, designed to guarantee women the same legal rights as men.
The Equal Rights Amendment says, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.â€Â
Pansing Brooks does not like the message the state's intervening in that lawsuit sends to the rest of the country, when the state is trying to get people to move to Nebraska, to its rural areas, to allow businesses to grow and thrive.Ìý
"I find this just kind of shocking that this has happened," she said.Ìý
Nebraska was one of the first states to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972. The next year, with one female senator — Shirley Marsh — in the body, the Legislature voted 31-17 to withdraw that ratification, even with some question as to whether that withdrawal meant anything.
The 1973 hearing on the resolution to withdraw, sponsored by Speaker Richard Proud of Omaha, drew 1,000 people, mostly women. Proud told them the amendment would wipe out laws that protect women, including spousal support and omitting women from the military draft.
Constitutional amendments must be ratified by three-quarters, or 38, of the 50 states. But the Equal Rights Amendment's future is uncertain, in part because the ratification deadline set by Congress expired so long ago.
Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson said Friday in a news release that recently there's been a movement to get states that had not previously ratified the Equal Rights Amendment to reconsider their prior decision in spite of the expiration date.Ìý
In their lawsuit against the archivist of the United States, Nevada, Illinois and Virginia seek to ratify the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment, concluding the time limit issued by Congress was not enforceable, and that states such as Nebraska that rescinded their ratification vote should still be counted as supporting it.Ìý
Peterson noted that a prior U.S. Supreme Court decision held that once the time period expired, the Equal Rights Amendment had become moot. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a few months ago the time had expired and it would make more sense to start over.Ìý
Peterson said Nebraska intervened in the lawsuit because the case asks the court to ignore Nebraska's rescission.
"As attorney general, I cannot allow the formal action taken by the Nebraska Unicameral to rescind its prior ERA vote to be ignored," Peterson said. "Therefore, intervening on the matter was necessary. This is consistent with my oath of office."Â
But there appears to be more to it than that.Ìý
In the five states' motion to intervene, they said they have stronger interests in the action than the plaintiffs. Even if the Equal Rights Amendment is not in the Constitution, the intervenors said, Virginia, Illinois and Nevada could voluntarily comply with it.Ìý
Also, if the Equal Rights Amendment is enacted, they said, it could put other laws at risk, such as those to prohibit expenditure of public funds on abortion, restrictions on abortion, regulations that protect women's health or rules that bar boys from playing on girls' sports teams.
It could force states to spend time and money to defend or change laws, they said.
Pansing Brooks criticized those reasons listed in the motion that focus on abortion and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals.
The states don't know that this would affect any of their laws but, just in case, they are going to take a stand against economic development and bringing businesses to the state, she said.Ìý
"Quit discriminating," she said. "We need to stand up as a group and say, 'I don't want my tax dollars spent like this.'"