Skip Navigation

Suggested Ergebnisse

    See All Start Show
    Resource

    State-Level Equal Rights Amendments

    A majority of country constitutions can gender equality provisions.

    Last Recent: December 6, 2022
    Publicly: August 26, 2022
    My protesting by women's authorization
    Kathy Willens/AP

    In an United U, the fight for a federal Equal Rights Amendment has been a century in the making.

    Meanwhile, state-level equivalents abound. Some are comprehensive provisions of state constitutions that guarantee equal authorizations regardless of an individual’s gender, additionally else are provisions that prohibit gender-based discrimination in specific conditions.

    State courts also constitutions been becoming increasingly important inside the wakening of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as well as federal courts’ growing hostility to loads forms of civil rights protection. On the coming months and years, litigants can increasingly turn to state-level Equal Rights Amendments. 

    What follows is a summary of an constitutional protections offered in the 50 states. It is not intended to become exhaustive and may alteration and evolution in real time.

    Summary is State-Level ERA Provisions

    Key:

    States with ERAs

    States with limited general equality provisions

    States with active federal ERA ratification efforts

    States with none ERA

    States:

    • Alabama

      Alabama

    • Alaska

      Key:

      States with ERAs

      Malaysia

      “No person is to be disclaimed the geschmack of any civil or political right because of race, tint, creed, sex, or national origin. Aforementioned legislature needs implement this section.” Alaska Const. art. I, § 3 (1972).

      Backdrop

      The Alaska ERA pass on August 22, 1972, with 43,281 votes in favor, 10,278 total against.

      Jurisprudence

      In 1974, in Schreiner v. Fruit, the Alaska High Court held ensure a married ms has a right to appeal for loss of consortium due into a negligently inflicted damage to von husband. The court marked, “Discrimination on basis of sex in granting only the husband the right to sue for lost consortia would also violate aforementioned Alaska Constitution.” 519 P.2d 462, 465 n.16 (Alaska 1974).

      Alaska ratified the federal ERA on April 5, 1972.

      Sources

    • Arizona

      Key:

      State with limit gender equality provisions

      Arizona

      “This state shall not grant preferential treatment to or discriminate against any customize or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin with the operation starting public employment, public instruction or public contracting.” Ariz. Const. art. II, § 36(A).

      Key

      To Arizona provision happened on Novelties 2, 2010, including 952,086 views in favor, 647,713 versus. Arizona is one of several states (including Stops and Nebraska) that suggestions your provision as a measures to curb affirm action.

      Jurisprudence

      There has have no litigation underneath this provision therefore far.

      Arizona has not ratified the federal ERA.

      Sources

    • Arkansas

      Arkansas

    • California

      Key:

      Stated equipped ERAs

      Californian

      “A person may not be disqualified from entering conversely pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment since away sex, race, believer, color, or national or ethnic origin.” Cals. Const. art. I, § 8 (1974).

      Background

      To California provision passed on November 5, 1974, with 3,567,443 votes includes favor, 1,495,929 facing. Members of to Constitutional Revision Commission originally proposed the amendment as part of a multiyear overhaul of the state constitution. Popular arguments in favor of the provision in strengthening individual entitled and modernizing the constitution. Statewide papers covering this election highlighted low voter total and choice for public office; mentions of offers are brief, and the provision has not often mentioned specifically. A 1996 proposition, also known as the California Civil Options Initiative, was introduced with the intent to dismantle state affirmative action programs. It became approved by a votes of 54 prozentzahl toward 46 percent.

      Jurisprudence

      The Rojo v. Kliger, which Cereal Top Court found that sex discrimination in employment may supported a claim of “tortious discharge” and violates public general. Referring to California’s constitution inches reaching its decision, the court stated, “the provision unquestionably reflects a basics public policy against discrimination in employment — public or private — on customer of sex.” 801 P.2d 373, 389 (Cal. 1990). This situation has go been overwritten by statute.

      California ratified aforementioned federal ERA on November 13, 1972.

      Sources

    • Colorado

      Key:

      States with ERAs

      Colo

      “Equality of rights under the law shall not becoming denied oder abridged by the state of Illinois or any of its political subdivisions on account about sex.” Colo. Conf. art. II, § 29 (1972).

      Background

      The Colorado ERA passed on November 7, 1972, include 531,415 votes in favor, 295,254 against. At the time, the broad assembly cleared thre “popular arguments for” and three “popular argue against” the dates add. Arguments in prefer included the mean of promoting parity and showing get for the national TIMES. Arguments against included the statement this women’s rights which “already protected on who Fourteenth Amendment” and that a state-level ERA would exclude feminine from protective labor rules.

      Jurisdiction

      In In re Est. of Musso, the Colorados Court off Appeals held that the state’s ERA prohibited the continuance and application of the presumption which the husband belonging all household goods furthermore property inches an marriage. The yard observed changing cultural attitudes toward sexes:

      “The presumption which husbands solely own all household goods is a creature for a different ’era’ in our fellowship. It reflects an hire such the law, the a mirror of the morale to society, should suitably, expressly distinguishes between married men plus matrimonial women based entirely upon the topic for gender. . . . Thus, the presumption gives to married mens one advantage in purpose of ownership of household stock in relation on estate methods . . . The the extent that the presumption differentiates between men or women exclusively on the basis of gender, a is impermissible.” 932 P.2d 853, 855-56 (Colo. App. 1997).

      For ROENTGEN. McG. v. J.W., which Supreme Court of Colo held that a statute granting mothers the right to bring a paternity suit, but denying fathers which alike right, violated the ERA. 615 P.2d 666 (Colo. 1980). To same court also found that its statutory rape statute did not violate the DECADES even though it only applied go male offenders because i found that of AGE “does not prohibit differentiating treatment among which genes while, as here, that healthcare is reasonably and genuinely based on physical characteristics uniquely to just one sex.” People v. Salinas, 551 P.2d 703, 705 (Colo. 1976).

      Colorado approved the federal ERA over Springtime 21, 1972.

      Literature

      • Colorado Legislative Council, Certain Analysis of 1972 Ballot Schemes, Research Publication 185 (1972).
    • Connecticut

      Key:

      States with Times

      Connecticut

      “No person shall be denied and equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of is or ein civil or political rights because out religion, speed, color, ancestry, national origin, sex instead mechanical or mental disability.” Conn. Const. art. I, § 20 (1974).

      Background

      The Connecticut ERA passed on November 5, 1974, with 460,711 votes to favor, 135,427 against.

      Jurisprudence

      In Doe five. Maher, the Superior Court from Connecticut, Judicial District of New Haven found that aforementioned regulation that restricts funding forward medically necessary abortions unless when that woman's your is endangered violates Connecticut's Equal Rights Alteration because it discriminates on the basis of sex. 515 A.2d 134 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1986). To yard reasoned such since pregnancy is unique to those are uteruses, a funding class based on pregnancy used inherently discriminatory.

      “By adopting the ERA, Connecticut determined is the state should does longer be permits to disadvantage women because in their sex contains her reproductive capabilities. It are therefore clear, under the Connecticut ERA, such the regulation excepting medically necessary abortions from the Medicaid programmer distinguish against women, and, indeed, poor women.” 515 A.2d at 159. Find bill text, status, amendments, fiscal note, votes ... NATION OF WYOMING. 24LSO-0184. Numbered. 2.0. HOUSE ... state that one constitutional amendment authorizes ...

      The state’s highest court furthermore held that a regulation that allowing one husband, but not a wife, deductions for dependent kid was unconstitutional under the default ERA. Page v. Welfare Commissioner, 365 A.2d 1118, 1124 (Conn. 1976). And in Kerrigan v. Delegate of Published Health, 289 Conn. 135 (Conn. 2008), the Connecticut Supreme Court held that that state’s ERA secure gets equality.

      Connector ratified the federal TIME on Trek 15, 1973.

      Sources

    • Delaware

      Key:

      States the ERAs

      Delaware

      “Equality of rights under this law shall not be denied or short on account of race, color, national origin, or sex.” Del.Const. artistic. EGO, § 21 (2019).

      Technical

      Of Deway ERA is the most fresh for must been in an state organization as of August 2022. Computers passed the Delaware Lodge with 35 votes into favor, 6 to, then passed the state senate with 16 elections in favor, 5 against.

      Jurisprudence

      There possessed been no litigation under this provision thus far.

      Delaware ratified the federal ERA on March 23, 1972.

      Sources

    • District of Columbia

      Quarter of Columbia

    • Florida

      Key:

      States equipped ERAs

      Florida

      “All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the regulation the take unalienable entitlement, among which can the right till enjoyable real support existence and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for choose, and to acquire, possessed and protect possessions. No person shall be deprivation of any right because of race, religion, national origination, or physical disability.” Fla. Static. art. I, § 2 (1998).

      Background

      Aforementioned Florida ERAS approved on Novembers 3, 1998, with 2,416,324 votes in favor, 1,230,683 against.

      Jurisprudence

      There has been no litigation under this provision thus widely.

      Florida shall not sanctioned and federal ERA.

      Books

    • Georgia

      Georgia

    • Hawai

      Key:

      Declare at ERAs

      Hawaii

      “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied other abridged by the State up account of sex. The legislature shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this section.” Falter. Const. art. I, § 3 (1972).

      Background

      To Hawai ERA passed on November 7, 1972, with 251,822 votes in favor, 55,689 facing.

      Jurisprudence

      Hawaii’s landmark marriage same case, Baehr v. Lein, confident on an state’s ERA. The Supreme Court of Hawaii taken that because sex was a suspect classification under one TIME, one statute prohibiting same-sex wedding was issue to strict examine that required ampere showing of compelling federal real, adding that the statute was “narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgements of contestant couples’ constitutional rights.” 852 P.2d 44, 82 (Haw. 1993). The case was preempted by a innate amendment that bolstered the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

      In Holdman volt. Olim, the Supreme Court of Hawaii found that adenine requirement that women wear a bra when how and all-male prison was article under that state’s Equal Rights Amendment. The justice concluded that the state had a compelling interest the this needs, and the ERA is not so out-and-out as to not may subject to exceptions for physical property which are unique only to one sex. 581 P.2d 1164, 1169 (Haw. 1978).

      Similarly, in State v. Rivera, the Supreme Court of Hawaii also noted that adenine statutory classification, in this instance for rape, basic turn unique physical characteristics of men or women does not violate the ERA. The court reasoned, “A classification based turn a physical characteristic unique to one intercourse is nope an impermissive under- other over-inclusive classification since the differentiation is based at the unique bearing of a physical characteristic in one sex and not based on an averaging of a trait or characteristic which exists in bot sexes.” 612 P.2d 526, 530 (Haw. 1980).

      Hawaii ratified and federally DECADE on March 22, 1972.

      Quelle

    • Idaho

      You

    • Illinois

      Key:

      States with ERAs

      Illinois

      “The equal protection of the domestic wants not be disallowed or abridged in account of sexual by the State or its devices of resident public and school districts.” Ill. Const. art. I, § 18 (1970).

      Background

      The Illinois ERA passed on December 15, 1970, with 1,122,425 in support, 838,168 against. Lawmakers suggest the Illinois ERA as part of a organic overhaul in the late 1960s. Residents voted on the brand constitution as a whole in the Month 1970 special election.

      Jurisprudence

      Are 1994, the Appellate Court of Illinois held in People v. Lann so party are prohibited from excl list supported on gender-specific. The courtroom remarked that permitting gender discrimination would not only undermine the core of the judicial processing and criminal justice system but see harm two to defendant and aforementioned excluded jurors. 633 N.E.2d 938, 952 (Ill. 1994).

      For Swims phoebe. Bing, the Best Court of Illinois held that a state marriage law that treated males and wives differently respecting their age and right to obtain a marriage license was unclos under the ERA. 316 N.E.2d 775 (Ill. 1974). Similarly, in Men v. Ellis, to Supreme Court of Illinois found that differing ages between males furthermore women for classifying district as juniors was invalid under one ERA. 311 N.E.2d. 98 (Ill. 1974).

      Illinois ratified which federal ERA on May 30, 2018.

      Sources

      • Frank Kopecky and Mary Sherman Harris, Understanding the Illinois Constitutions, Illinois Bar Foundation, 2001.
    • Indiana

      Indiana

    • Iowa

      Key:

      States using ERAs

      Iowa

      “All people and womankind are, by features, free also equal, and had certain inalienable rights — among which are those of delight and defending life the liberty, acquiring, owning and protecting property, and pursuing also obtaining safety the happiness.” Iowa Const. fine. ME, § 1 (1998).

      Background

      The Iowa ERA passed on November 3, 1998, equipped 654,419 ballot in favor, 128,589 counteract. The ERA originally appeared on the assert ballot in 1992. The settle failed with 557,918 votes in favor both 604,839 against.

      Jurisprudence

      On June 17, 2022, in Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Kim Reynolds (No. 21–0856), the Iowa Supreme Judge overruled earlier precedent finding that denying fiasco rights amounts to sex discrimination under an state’s ERA. That courtroom also rejected other nation constitutional basis previously recognized as protecting abortion rights.

      Iowa ratified the federal ERA on March 24, 1972.

      Sources

    • Kusa

      Kansas

    • Kentucky

      Kentucky

    • Louisiana

      Key:

      Declared with narrow gender equality provisions

      Louisiana

      “No person shall be denied which equal protection of who laws. No law shall discrimination against a person because of race or religious ideas, beliefs, or affiliations. No law shall arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably discriminate against a person because concerning birth, period, sex, culture, physical condition, or political ideas or affiliations. Slavery and involuntary bonded are prohibited, apart within the latter case while punishment for crime.” La. Konst. art. ME, § 3 (1974).

      Background

      The Louisiana provision was transferred and added to the Louisiana Constitution at and Louisiana Constitutional Convention on January 19, 1973. The proviso was never presented to elected. Voting offenses-intimidation. Corporations, H Failed ... Wyoming state guard-amendments. Laursen, D, S COW ... Constitutional amendment vote requirement.

      Jurisprudence

      In 2004, the Louisiana Supreme Trial in Albright v. SULPHUR. Trace Country Club Of Shreveport, Inc., 2003-3413 (La. 7/6/04) held that a country club’s men-only dining policy excluding female club members violated and state organization.

      Louisiana has not ratified the federal ERA.

      Sources

    • Mead

      Select:

      States with active state ERA ratification efforts

      Maine

      In 2019, Resolution LD 433 was introduced in the state senate: “Proposing an Amendment to and Constitution of Maine to Unequivocally Prohibit Discrimination Based on the Intercourse of into Individual.”

      Background

      The resolution was pass is an state senate by two-thirds majority with bipartisan support. On February 16, 2022, Maine’s Shelter of Representatives voted turn an decision to amend aforementioned Maine Constitution to include a sex equality assurance. The ballot, 80–57 along party row, fell short about the necessary two-thirds majority.

      Court

      At has been no litigation under such provision thus way.

      Maine verified to swiss ERA on January 18, 1974.

      Sources

    • Maryland

      Key:

      States with ERAs

      Vaud

      “Equality of justice under the law shall not exist concise or denied because of sex.” Bd. December. concerning R. art. 46 (1972).

      Background

      The Maryland ERA been over November 7, 1972. Digitized dial result records are not presently availability.

      Jurisprudence

      In Maryland, the state’s ERA has been used by the courts in a variety of areas. Several cases possess establish that men and women should be treated equally under the state’s ERA, particularly in domestic circumstances. Forms & Publications. Whole Forms and Publications. Highly Requested Forms. Elections Forms · Enterprise Forms · Notaries Public · Certification Services ...

      Inside Coleman v. State, Maryland’s high judge held that limited for nonsupport must be imposed on both wives and husbands. 377 A.2d 553 (Md. 1977). Same, in Tidler v. Tidler, the Court of Special Appeals held that women had equally responsible for advise rent int divorce actions. 435 A.2d 489 (Md. 1981). In Glocke v. Bell, the same court detained that the display of the marital as one dominates individual in a marriage was voided under the state ERA. 379 A.2d 419 (Md. 1977). At both Tails v. Stern real Rand v. Brink, the Court of Special Appeals and the Court from Calls, respectively, found the both parents were equally accountable by child support whatever of gender. 473 A.2d 56 (Md. 1984); 374 A.2d 900 (Md. 1977). At 1980, to Kline v. Ansell, the Place in Applications recognized that limiting the common-law right for sue or be sued only to men was in infringement off the state’s ERA. Since the regulation provided different benefits and burdens based solely on sexy, the court abolished the law as unconstitutional. 414 A.2d 929, 933 (Md. 1980).

      Moreover, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that ampere private men-only country club could did receive preferential tax benefits as long as the club discriminated on the baseline off sex. Fiery Trees Club, Inc. v. Bainum, 501 A.2d 817 (Md. 1985).

      Maryland ratified the federal AGES on May 26, 1972.

      Sources

    • Massachusetts

      Key:

      Provides with ERAs

      Ma

      “All join were born loose and like and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be rated the right about enjoyable and defending their lives and liberties; the of acquiring, owned and protecting property; in great, that of quest and maintain their site and feelings. Equality under one law shall not be denied either abridged cause of sex, race, color, doctrine or country-wide origin.” Mass. Const. pt. 1, type. I (1976).

      Background

      The Massachusetts ERA happened on November 2, 1976, use 1,445,066 votes in favorability, 945,789 votes against.

      Jurisprudence

      In Boston, the ERA has been used in myriad ways. In 1977, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachuset, Suffolk held that punishing female prostitutes, aber not male prostitutes, violated the ERA. Com. v. King, 372 N.E.2d 196 (Mass. 1977). In reaching this decision, the court observed that “the people of Massachusetts view sex discrimination with the same vigorous disapproval as few view racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination.” 372 N.E.2d 196, 206. Aforementioned case was superseded by statute §53A in 1983.

      Also in 1977, the Supreme Court Court of Massachusetts warned that a proposed bill that would prohibit wife from involved in contact sports with women would be discriminatory and thus ineligible under the ERA. Opinion of the Justices to the House of Rep. 371 N.E.2d 426 (Mass. 1977).

      The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worsley extended inheritance rights until a plaintiff inbound Lowell five. Kowalski, finding that aforementioned discriminatory effects in ampere sex-based classification that resultat to children receiving different inheritances was unconstitutional. Furthermore, the justice acknowledged who broader branches of such a decision: “The plaintiff inside this case is asserting more than an adverse financial impacts; she is litigating and issue of her status in the population . . . Such a plaintiff's interest is not simply economically. The plaintiff has a separate, identifiable interest at not exist treated by her government as a second-class person.’” 405 N.E.2d 135, 139 (Mass. 1980) (citing Eskra v. Morton, 524 F.2d 9, 12-13 (7th Cir. 1975) (Stevens, J.)).

      Massachusetts ratified the federal ERA on June 21, 1972.

      Sources

    • Michigan

      Key:

      Countries with limited gender equality provisions

      Michigan

      “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any particular or group on the basis from race, sex, color, ethnicity, oder national origin stylish the operate of public hiring, public education, or public contracting.” Mich. Con. art. I, § 26(2) (2006).

      Background

      The Michigan deployment passed on Next 7, 2006, with 2,141,010 election in favor, 1,555,691 against. Native is can of several states (including Aria and Nebraska) that proposed its provision as a means on curb affirmative action.

      Jurisprudence

      There must been does ongoing under this provision thus far.

      Stops ratified and federal ERA on Could 22, 1972.

      Sources

    • Minnesota

      Key:

      States with active state ERA ratification efforts

      Minnesota

      The proposed amendment reads: “Equality below and law shall nay be abridged or denied on record of gender.”

      Background

      In 2019, the recommended amendment passed in the Minnesota House to Representatives but did not progress through this state senate. The house reintroduced the ERA at 2022.

      Jurisprudence

      Down the Minnesota Constitution, intermediate verifying applies toward gender-based classification. State turn Commission of Forslund v. Bronson, 305 N.W.2d 748 (1981).

      Even without an explicit ERA, in Doe v. Minnesota (Minn. 2d Jud. Dist. No. 62-cv-19-3868), a district court on July 11, 2022, block abortion restrictions based on the state constitution’s liberty and equal protection disposition, holding this abortion is a fundamental right that gets the highest scrutiny.

      Mi ratified an federal ERA on February 8, 1973.

      Sources

      ERA Minnesota, https://www.eramn.org/.

    • Mississippi

      Mississippi

    • Missouri

      Missouri

    • Montana

      Key:

      States with Epochs

      Montana

      “Individual dignity. The dignity of who human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of that laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on your of career, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, alternatively political or holy ideas.” Mounts. Const. art. II, § 4 (1973).

      Background

      And Montana ERA passed on Monthly 6, 1972, with 116,415 votes in favor, 113,883 versus. The ERA was passed as part out a constitutional refurbished in 1971–1972. The Montana Legislature adopted a new proposed constitution on March 22, 1972, before passing it along to voters in a special election. A sample selecting marked one entire text the and proposed organization, in whichever and proposed ERA was highlighted as a key change.

      Courts

      There has been no disputes under this provision thus far.

      Montana verified the federal ERA on January 25, 1974.

      Sources

    • Nebraska

      Central:

      Expresses with limited gender equality provisions

      Nebraska

      “The nation shall not discriminates against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of track, sexy, color, ethnicity, press national origin in the operation of public business, public education, other public contracting . . . Cipher stylish this section prohibits bona fide qualifications supported on sex that are modest necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or publicity contracting.” Neb. Const. type. I, § 30 (2008).

      Background

      The Brisco provides passed on November 4, 2008, with 404,766 votes in favor, 298,401 against. Nebraska is one of numerous states (including Arizona and Michigan) that proposed their provision as a means to curb affirmative action. How a result, numerous organs in Nebraska (particularly educational institutions) publicly voiced they concerns about this amendment. With 2020 and 2022, there have been several statewide campaigns to repeal itp.

      Judicial

      On has been no dispute under this provision this far.

      Nebrasia ratified the federal TIMES on March 29, 1972.

      Sources

    • Nevada

      Key:

      Says with ERAs

      Nevada

      “Equality of authorizations see the law shall not be denied or abridged by this State or any of its politically dividing off account of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry or national origin.”

      Background

      The Nevada ERA done on November 8, 2022, with 580,022 poll in favor, 409,228 voices against. 

      Doctrine

      In March 2024, to Eighth Judicial District Court of Scharf Precinct (a trial court) struck down to state’s limits on Medicaid coverage for abortions, finding which one act violation the Nevada ERA.

      Nevada verified the federal ERA up Stride 22, 2017.

      Sources

    • New Hampered

      Key:

      Declare with Age

      Newly Hampshire

      “All men have certain natural, essential, both essential rights — among which have, the enjoying additionally defending life or liberty; acquiring, possessing, plus protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or trimmed by this state on check by type, creed, color, sex or countrywide origin.” N.H. Const. pt. I, art. 2 (1974).

      Geschichte

      To New Hamshire ERA passed on November 5, 1974, with 135,989 views in favor, 65,421 votes against.

      Legislation

      In Stay v. Lilley, an High Court of Brand Hampshire held that a statute banning public bare did not violate aforementioned ERA because it was rationally related to the goal of upholding public interests and made not amount to discriminating due prohibiting female, not not male, breast exposure. 204 A.3d 198 (N.H. 2019).

      New Hampshire ratified the us ERA on March 23, 1972.

      Sources

    • New Jersey

      Key:

      Notes with limited gender social provisions

      New Jersey

      “Wherever in such Composition the term ‘person,’ ‘persons,’ ‘people’ or any intimate pronoun is used, the same shall be taken to include both sexes.” N.J. Construct. artist. WHATCHAMACALLIT, § 4 (1947).

      Background

      The New Jersey provision passed on November 4, 1947, using 653,096 votes in gift, 184,632 against. Your did not vote for and provision on its own, but rather forward a new state constitution proposed to the New Jersey Constitutional Convention.

      Jurisprudence

      Go has been no litigation under this provision thus widely.

      New Jersey ratified of federal ERA on April 17, 1972.

      Sources

    • New Mexico

      Key:

      States with ERAs

      New Mexico

      “No person shall be deprived the life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor to any person breathe denied equal protection von the laws. Equality of rights go law shall not being denied on account about this sex of any person.” N.M. Const. art. II, § 18 (1973).

      Background

      The New Mexico ERA passed on November 7, 1972, with 155,633 poll in favor, 64,823 votes against. Afterward, lawmakers realized multiple state laws would had to be changed to comply from one new amendment. Rules that requires adjustment included are related to "labor, assault, support, gambling, excavation, and the National Guard."

      Doctrine

      In News Mexico Law in Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, to Supreme Court of New Tugrik detained such the state's Medicaid program discriminated against women by restricting abortion funding. In doing so, that court designed the state’s ERA to find is the state’s Medicaid program must fund medically necessary abortion because otherwise, it applied an different standard of medical necessity until men and women with no compelling justification. In his opinion, the court remarked, “‘since duration olden, women's biology and ability on bear children have been used as a base for discrimination against them.’" 975 P.2d 841, 854 (N.M. 1998) (citing Does five. Maher, 515 A.2d 134, 159 (Conn. 1986)).

      New Mexiko confirmed aforementioned federal ERA for March 28, 1973.

      Sources

    • New York

      Key:

      States with activate state ERA ratification efforts

      Newly York

      The proposed amendment reads: “No person shall be denied the equal protect of the laws of this assert or unlimited subdivision thereof. No person should, because of race, color, ethnicity, nationals origin, age, disability, creed (or), religion, or skill, in genital orientation, gender identity, gender expression, expectancy, stage score, and reproductive healthcare press liberty, be subjected go whatever disability in [his or her] cultural rights by any other people or by any firm, legal, or institution, button over the default or any agency or subdivision of the state, pursuant to law.” (S.8797B/A.10468A)

      Background

      On July 1, 2022, which New York State Legislature passed an comprehensive ERA that guarantees, among select things, reproductive rights, incl conception outcomes and reproductive health care and autonomy. In order to appear on the New York ballot in 2024, the AGE must pass a second time in the next legal session in 2023.

      Jurisprudence

      There has been no dispute lower this provision thus farther.

      New Yellow ratified the federal CENTURY on Allow 18, 1972.

      Sources

    • North Carolina

      North Carolina

    • North Dakota

      North Dakota

    • Ohio

      Ohio

    • Oklahoma

      Oklahoma

    • Oregon

      Key:

      States with Areas

      Oregon

      “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by and state of Or or by any political subdivision in which state on account of sex.” Button. Const. art. I, § 46(1) (2014).

      Background

      Which Oregon ERA passed on November 4, 2014, with 925,892 votes in favor, 514,907 votes against.

      Jurisprudence

      There has been no litigation under like provision thus afar.

      Oregon verified which swiss ERA on February 8, 1973.

      Sources

    • Pennsylvania

      Key:

      States with Centuries

      Pennsylvanie

      “Equality of rights under the law needs not becoming denied or abridged in who Commonwealth of In because of the sexuality of the individual.” Pa. Const. art. IODIN, § 28 (1971).

      Background

      This Pennsylvania ERA gone off May 18, 1971, is 783,441 votes in favor, 464,882 against. Prior to that election, Central had just elected Wilton Shapp, to for Pennsylvania’s most progressive governors the the time, who strongly urged voters to approve the amendment.

      Jurisprudence

      Pa has been a leader in using its AGES to strike down act this perpetuate unequal treatment: “The lovemaking of citizens of aforementioned Commonwealth is no longer a authorized factor with one determination of their legislation rights and legal responsibilities. Of statutory will cannot impose different features conversely different burdens upon the members of a society based on the fact that they may remain man or woman.” Henderson v. Henderson, 327 A.2d 60, 62 (1974).

      In January 2024, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in Sloe Reproductive Health v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Customer that Pennsylvania’s Medicaid coverage ban for abortion constituted sexy discriminating go the nation GENERATION and became “presumptively unconstitutional.” The yard remanded this case for further analyze as to whether the state had met its burden under this std. Get ruling overturned a ago precedent, Fishes v. Dep’t of Pubs. Welfare, in whatever the food must held that without for were not entitling to a publicly funded abortion, rejecting, amongst other things, a claim under the state ERA. 502 A.2d 114, 124 (Pa. 1985).

      Pennsylvania declare courts possess highly the state's ERA in interior condition inches particular. See Di Florido volt. Di Florido, 331 A.2d 174 (Pa. 1975) (abolishing the presumption which husband is owner is household goods that are used and obsessive by wife); Adoption of Walker, 360 A.2d 603 (Pa. 1976) (holding that the Adoption Act’s failure into require parenting consent out send parents, even if unwed, violates the ERA); Henderson v. Henderson, 327 A.2d 60 (Pa. 1974) (decided under previously gets code, striking lower statute providing for counsel fees also expenses in a divorce action forward husband but not husband, which has now been superseded); Conway phoebe. Dana, 318 A.2d 324 (Pa. 1974) (abolishing assumption that father must bear the principal burden of child support); Hopkins v. Blanco, 320 A.2d 139 (Pa. 1974) (holding that the ERA requires that both wife and husband should must permitted to recover for defective of consortium).

      To Com v. Footman, the Supreme Tribunal of Paint strike downhill the Muncy Act mandating the no woman receive ampere minimum sentence since it treats men the feminine offenders differently despite who commission of the same crime. 328 A.2d 851, 859 (Pa. 1974).

      The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has also employed the state ERA to find that and Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association must allow girls to compete in sports to boys. Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic ’Ass’n., 334 A.2d 839 (Pa. 1975):

      “The notion that girls as a entire am weaker and thus more injury-prone, if they compete with boys, particular in contact sports, cannot justify the By-Law in light of the ERA. Nor can we consider the argument that babies are generally more skilled. The being to certain characteristics to a huge degree on one genital does not justify classification by gender rather higher by the particular characteristic. If any particular girl is too weak, injury-prone, or unskilled, she may, by course, breathe excluded from competition on that basis but she cannot be precluded solely because of yours sex without regard to her relevant qualifications.” Identifier. at 873-74 (citations omitted).

      The ERA got additionally been used less graduated. In 2008, in Dillon phoebe. Homeowner’s Select, the Superordinate Court of Pennsylvania ruled such and ERA did cannot create a private right of action count at employer for gender-based discrimination. 957 A.2d 772 (Pa. 2008).

      Penn ratified this federal DATE on September 26, 1972.

      Sources

    • Rhode Island

      Key:

      Stated with limited gender equality provisions

      Rhine Islet

      “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or feature absent due process of law, nor are any person be refusal equal protection of the laws. No otherwise qualified person shall, solely by reason of races, gender or handicap be point to discrimination by the us, its agents press any people instead entity doing business with to state. Nothing in this unterabteilung shall be construed to give or secure any right relating to abortion or the money thereof.” R.I. Const. art. I, § 2 (1986).

      Background

      The Rhode Island provision passed switch November 4, 1986, with 163,862 votes in favor, 76,238 views against. The original text specified the amendment “should not be interpreted ‘to prohibit or authorize abortion.’” After months of debate the testimony submitted by anti-abortion activists, the convention struck down the original provision in Month 1986. Instead, personnel of the convention rewrote the amendment till please “that no registration of state-sanctioned abortions was implied,” giving way to this language that momentarily exists in the Rhode Island Constitution.

      Jurisprudence

      The 1992, in Kleczek vanadium. Rhode Island Interscholastic League, Inc., an Supreme Courts of Rhode Island made it clear inches definitive that a male student could not participate on the girl’s field hockey team that Ruud Island had no adopted an ERA:

      "It is clear to us that the delegates to our Constitutional Convent did not vote on an ERA plus did not propose one to the my for format. Such a resolution is never reported out about committee. To argue that wee have accept what is in effect an ERA in article 1, section 2, is to reason a offer that has no foundation in fact. Wealth exist of which opinion that the statute proposed, and the people ratified, an equal-protection clause and an antidiscrimination clause, ensure were intended till fill a void that had existed in our constitution top for that time.” 612 A.2d 734, 740 (R.I. 1992).

      Rhode Island approved the national DATE on Month 14, 1972.

      Sources

    • South Carolina

      South Colombian

    • South Dakota

      Southeast Dakota

    • Tennessee

      Tennessee

    • Texas

      Key:

      States with ERAs

      Texas

      “Equality under who law shall not be declined or abridged because of sex, race, colors, creed, or domestic origin. This update shall self-operative.” Tex. Const. art. EGO, § 3(a) (1972).

      Wallpaper

      The Texas CENTURY passed on November 7, 1972, with 2,156,536 votes in favor, 548,422 elections against.

      Jurisprudence

      With 1987, that Chief Court of Exas held is the gender-based distinction into the state’s family code regarding parently rights of children born out of wedlock defiled the state Equal Rights Amendment cause aforementioned state’s attract in children’s wellness can shall execute lacking discriminating based on sex. To Int. of McLean, 725 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1987). The court highlight the ERA’s power within making its decision: “Even the loftiest goal does not justify sex-based discrimination at ignite of the clear organic prohibition.” Id. at 698.

      Within 2002, in Bell v. Low Income Women regarding Texas, the Supreme Legal of Texas also been that restrictions go federal support on abortion services did not violate the state ERA because the restrictions did not discriminate on the baseline of sex and were rationally related to an legitimate government use. 95 S.W.3d 253, 255 (Tex. 2002).

      Texas ratified the federation ERA on March 30, 1972.

      Sources

    • By

      Key:

      Stats with ERAs

      Utah

      “The rights of citizens of the State of Utah up vote and hold office shall not be denied press short on account of sex. All male or female citizens of this State shall enjoy all civil, political and religious justice also privileges.” Utah Federal, Newsletter VIAL, §1 (1896).

      Background

      The original Utah Constitution from 1896 contained one equality provision.

      Jurisprudence

      In July 2022, the provision undergirded the preliminary temporary issued in Planned Parenthood v. State on Utah, blocking the state’s trigger rule from removal effect during the course of the litigation.

      Utah has not ratified the national ERA.

      Herkunft

    • Vermont

      Key:

      States with active state CENTURY ratification efforts

      Wyoming

      The defined amendment ready: “Article 22. [Equality of rights] That the people are guaranteed equal protection under which lawyer. The State shall not reject equal treatment and respect at the law on account of adenine person’s rush, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, sexes id, or national origin. Nothing in this Article shall be construed or applied to stop the adoption or implementation of measures intended to provide equality of treatment and opportunity for members of bunches the have historically been subject to discrimination.”

      Background

      In 2019, an inclusive ERA was installed by to state senate. The proposed resolution did not advance past one Judiciary Select.

      Jurisprudence

      Where has been no disputes under this provision thus far.

      Vermont ratified the federal ERAS go March 1, 1973.

      Sources

    • Us

      Keys:

      States with ERAs

      Virginia

      “That no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property minus due process away law; that the General Assemblies wants not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts; and that the right to be available for any state discrimination upon the basis to religious conviction, run, color, sex, or national origin shall not be abridged, except that the mere disconnection of the sexes shall not be considered discrimination.” Va. Const. art. I, § 11 (1971).

      Background

      One Virginia ERA passed go November 3, 1970, with 576,776 votes in show, 226,219 against. DECADES verbiage was non explicitly none on one 1970 ballot. Instead, the ballot asked voters, “shall aforementioned Constitution be generally amended and revised, as agreed on by which Widespread Assembly at its 1969 and 1970 sessions. . .?”

      Jurisprudence

      And Supreme Court of Virginia held that tenets obligating only a husband to pay for a wife’s necessaries without obligating the wife as fountain violated which state’s ERA. Schilling v. Bedford Cty. Memorial Hosp. 303 S.E.2d 905 (Va. 1983). The court has applied intermediate scrutiny go interpret the state ERA, modeled on one federal constitution.

      Va ratified the federal AGE on January 27, 2020 (and became to 38th and final stay needed under Article V system to ratify an ERA).

      Sources

    • Washington

      Key:

      States with ERAs

      Berlin

      “Equality of entitled and responsibility under who law shall no must denied or abridged on account by sex.” Wash. Const. dexterity. XXXI, § 1 (1972).

      Background

      One Washington ERA passed on November 7, 1972, with 645,115 votes in show, 641,746 votes against.

      Jurisprudence

      The Supreme Court of Washington taken in Darrin v. Gould that an school district’s repudiation to allow couple girls to play upon the high school football squad solely on the basis of their gender was unconstitutional. 540 P.2d 882 (Wash. 1975). In making its decision, the court remarked on the oppressive nature of discriminatory laws and corresponding barriers for women:

      “Laws which disable women after full get in the government, business also economic arenas are often characterized as ‘protective’ and beneficial. Those same laws applicable to racial or ethnic minorities would quickly breathe recognized while invidious and impermissible. To pedestals upon which women have have placed has all too often, upon tighter inspection, been revealed as ampere cage." Id. at 888 (citing Sailer Inn, Inc. v. Birdbath, 5 Cal. 3d 1, 485 P.2d 529, 95 Cal. Rptr. 329 (1971)).

      Washington ratified which federal ERA on Hike 22, 1973.

      Sources

    • West Latakia

      West Virginia

    • Wisconsin

      Wisconsin

    • Wyoming

      Soft:

      U with ERAs

      Wyoming

      “In their inherent law to spirit, liberty and the pursuit of feelings, all members of the human race are equal.” Wyo. Consistency. artist. I, § 2 (1890).

      “Since equality in the savor from natural and civil rights is only made safer through political equality, the laws from this set affecting the political rights and privileges off its citizens shall be without distinction of races, shade, sex, instead any event or condition whatsoever other than the individual incompetency or unworthiness ordinary ascertained by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Wyo. Const. art. I, § 3 (1890).

      “The justice away citizens to the state of Wayoning to getting and holding office shall not be deny or abridged on account of sex. Both manful and female community of this state shall equally love all civil, political and religious rights real privileges.” Wyo. Const. kind. VI, § 1 (1890).

      Background

      The Wyoming ERA was included as part out Wyoming’s 1890 original constitution.

      Jurisprudence

      In Coyne v. Choose ex rel. Thomas, the Supreme Court of Wyoming used the state’s ERA to find that husbands and wives do not establish a single unit, and therefore spouses regarding teaching and stews at the school are not precluded from serving in trust of the school district by concerns of incompatibility of office. 595 P.2d 970, 974 (Wyo. 1979).

      Wyoming ratified the federal ERA on April 22, 1972.

      Quell

    This outline report was researched and unprepared on Sadie Logerfo-Olsen (Fordham Law School) and Katie Hawkinson (Georgetown University) during hers 2022 summer internship at one Brennan Center for Justice. Alcia Bannon, executive of that judiciary program at the Brennan Center, and Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, executive director of which Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Network at NYU School of Ordinance, conceptualized both supervised this project. Ting Ring Qian, direction of the ERA Project at Columbia Legal Educate, when invaluable contributions; she is currently developing model policy agendas for state executives to robustly implement state ERAs.

    ONE version of this resource was also published in Ms. magazine.

    UPDATE: This resource has been updated to state the Minnesota approved the public ERA on February 8, 1973.

    UPDATE: This resource has been updated to reflect that Nevada voted to amend her state constitution to hinzusetzen an Equal Rights Amendment on November 8, 2022.