Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, STATE
`OF ILLINOIS, and STATE OF NEVADA,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`DAVID S. FERRIERO, in his official capacity
`as Archivist of the United States,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Case No. _____________________
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`The United States Constitution now declares, once and for all, that equality of rights
`
`under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. For nearly 150 years, our
`
`Nation’s foundational document did not acknowledge the existence of women. In 1920, the
`
`concept of equality among the sexes appeared in the Constitution for the first time, but was
`
`limited to the right to vote. Now—after 231 years and on the centennial of the 19th
`
`Amendment—the American people have committed to equality regardless of sex by adopting the
`
`Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
`
`On January 27, 2020, the Commonwealth of Virginia became the 38th State to ratify the
`
`Equal Rights Amendment. At that moment, the process set forth in Article V of the U.S.
`
`Constitution was complete. Plaintiff States Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia—the three States to
`
`most recently ratify—ask this Court for an order: (1) directing the Archivist of the United States
`
`to perform his purely ministerial duty under 1 U.S.C. § 106b to “cause the amendment to be
`
`published, with his certificate, specifying . . . that the same has become valid, to all intents and
`
`purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States,” and (2) declaring that the Equal
`
`Rights Amendment has become the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`After generations of effort, the women of this country are entitled to their rightful place in
`
`the Constitution. This Court should compel the Archivist to carry out his statutory duty of
`
`recognizing the complete and final adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff Commonwealth of Virginia is a State of the United States of America.
`
`Plaintiff State of Illinois is a State of the United States of America.
`
`Plaintiff State of Nevada is a State of the United States of America.
`
`Defendant David S. Ferriero is the Archivist of the United States. In that role, he
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`oversees the operations of the National Archives and Records Administration. The Archivist is
`
`sued in his official capacity.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this
`
`5.
`
`suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. This Court also has subject-
`
`matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 because this is an “action in the nature of mandamus
`
`to compel” a federal officer “to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because the Archivist is sued in his
`
`official capacity and, for purposes of that capacity, the Archivist resides in this District.
`
`THE PROCESS FOR AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION
`
`Article V of the United States Constitution establishes the process for adopting
`
`7.
`
`constitutional amendments. As relevant here, it provides:
`
`The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
`necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
`Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall
`call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall
`be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
`ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of
`Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.
`
`The Constitution assigns particular tasks to Congress and the States in the
`
`amendment process that reflect a careful balance between state and federal power. Congress is
`
`given the powers to “propose Amendments to this Constitution” and to select between one of
`
`two “Mode[s] of Ratification”—ratification by state legislatures or via state “Conventions.”
`
`States, in turn, are given the power to “ratif[y]” the amendments proposed by Congress. In the
`
`words of James Madison in The Federalist No. 39, the amendment process set forth in the
`
`Constitution is “neither wholly federal nor wholly national.”
`
`9.
`
`Article V was not merely an afterthought in the creation of the American
`
`constitutional scheme. To the contrary, the amendment process generated significant debate
`
`among the Framers and was carefully designed to balance the need for stability in our governing
`
`document with flexibility to adapt that document as needed. As James Madison explained in The
`
`Federalist No. 43, Article V’s procedure for making “useful alterations” to the Constitution
`
`“guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable;
`
`and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults.”
`
`HISTORY OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT
`
`10. Women have been fighting for equality in the United States since the Founding
`
`generation. In 1776, Abigail Adams famously told her husband, John, to “Remember the Ladies”
`
`when drafting “the new Code of Laws.”
`
`11.
`
`The original text of the United States Constitution did not include—or even refer
`
`to—women. In fact, the only known use of the pronoun “she” in the Framers’ deliberations
`
`appeared in an ultimately rejected clause referring to fugitive slaves.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 4 of 18
`
`12.
`
`The first women’s rights convention was held in Seneca Falls, New York, in
`
`
`
`1848.
`
`13.
`
`It was not until 1868 that the first federal legislation was introduced proposing
`
`equal suffrage for men and women on the basis of citizenship. The resolution was not even
`
`debated.
`
`14.
`
`After the Civil War, suffragists advocated for universal suffrage and hoped the
`
`Reconstruction Amendments would protect women and grant them the right to vote.
`
`15.
`
`In March 1913, thousands of women marched in favor of women’s suffrage in
`
`Washington, D.C., where they were met with bitter resistance and could proceed only with the
`
`assistance of the U.S. Army.
`
`16.
`
`The House of Representatives eventually passed a resolution guaranteeing women
`
`the right to vote in 1918, and President Woodrow Wilson supported the amendment in a
`
`presidential address that he delivered on the Senate floor. The resolution, however, failed in the
`
`Senate twice. Finally, in 1919, the resolution passed both chambers of Congress, and the
`
`proposed women’s suffrage amendment was sent to the States for ratification.
`
`17.
`
`The 19th Amendment was formally adopted as part of the U.S. Constitution in
`
`1920, upon ratification by the requisite number of States. Even so, some States ratified the
`
`amendment decades later. Virginia did not ratify until 1952. Alabama waited until 1953.
`
`Louisiana only ratified in 1970. And Mississippi did not ratify the 19th Amendment until 1984.
`
`18.
`
`Over time, a patchwork of constitutional and statutory provisions has been found
`
`to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in certain circumstances. The relevant standards
`
`typically call for only intermediate scrutiny of sex-based distinctions. Many of the statutory
`
`provisions have been changed, undermined, and even repealed. Until the Equal Rights
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 5 of 18
`
`
`
`Amendment was ratified in 2020, American law did not include a broad and definite prohibition
`
`on sex discrimination.
`
`19.
`
`The first proposal for an equal rights amendment was drafted by Alice Paul and
`
`introduced in Congress in 1923. Initially known as the “Lucretia Mott Amendment,” that
`
`proposal was introduced in the House by Representative Daniel Read Anthony of Kansas, a
`
`nephew of Susan B. Anthony.
`
`20.
`
`Between 1923 and 1946, proposals to amend the Constitution to prohibit
`
`discrimination on the basis of sex were taken up by congressional committees more than 30
`
`times.
`
`21.
`
`In 1946, an equal rights amendment proposal came to the Senate floor for the first
`
`time. Although that proposed amendment received majority support, it failed to achieve the
`
`necessary two-thirds majority, by a vote of 39-35.
`
`22.
`
`The Senate passed versions of a proposed equal rights amendment in 1950 and
`
`1953, but the House took no action. Although equal rights amendment proposals continued to be
`
`introduced in every Congress, none of these proposals received floor consideration in either
`
`chamber for more than 15 years.
`
`23.
`
`Support for an equal rights amendment was a bipartisan cause. For many years, it
`
`was endorsed by both major political parties. In September 1960, then-Vice-President Nixon
`
`issued a statement encouraging “widespread support for our [party’s] platform declaration in
`
`behalf of an equal rights amendment to our Constitution which would add equality between the
`
`sexes to the freedoms and liberties guaranteed to all Americans.”
`
`24.
`
`Throughout this period, the precise terms of the proposed amendment continued
`
`to evolve. Changes were made to both the language prohibiting discrimination and the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
`enforcement provision, and amendments were introduced, debated, adopted, and removed as
`
`Congress considered different iterations of the proposed amendment.
`
`25.
`
`The House first passed an equal rights amendment in 1970. In January 1969,
`
`Representative Martha Griffiths of Michigan introduced H.J. Res. 264. After that resolution was
`
`referred to the Judiciary Committee, Representative Griffiths filed a discharge petition to bring
`
`the proposed amendment to the House floor. On August 10, 1970, the House approved the
`
`motion to discharge, and proceeded to adopt the proposed amendment by a vote of 334-26.
`
`26.
`
`Although the proposed equal rights amendment passed the House in 1970, the
`
`Senate did not follow suit. The amendment was considered on the Senate floor in the fall of
`
`1970, but the Senate adjourned without voting on the resolution and failed to bring it to the floor
`
`in the following session.
`
`A.
`
`
`Congress Proposes the Equal Rights Amendment to the States in 1972
`
`27. When
`
`the 92nd Congress convened, Representative Griffiths began
`
`the
`
`constitutional amendment process again. In 1971, she introduced H.J. Res. 208, which would
`
`ultimately become the Equal Rights Amendment proposed by Congress. The full text of the
`
`resolution (as adopted) states:
`
`JOINT RESOLUTION
`
`Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative
`to equal rights for men and women.
`
`
`Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
`
`States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House
`concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
`amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid
`to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the
`legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from
`the date of its submission by the Congress:
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`“ARTICLE —
`“SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or
`abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
`“SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by
`appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
`“SECTION 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date
`of ratification.”
`
`Both the House and the Senate approved H.J. Res. 208 by far more than the
`
`
`28.
`
`required two-thirds majority. The House adopted the resolution in October 1971 by a vote of
`
`354-24, and the Senate adopted the resolution in March 1972 by a vote of 84-8. In both
`
`chambers, the Equal Rights Amendment passed with strong bipartisan support.
`
`29. While Congress was considering the Equal Rights Amendment, President Richard
`
`Nixon endorsed it, noting in a letter to Senate Republican leadership that he had co-sponsored
`
`the equal rights amendment as a Senator in 1951 and remained committed to its adoption.
`
`30.
`
`Once approved by two-thirds of each chamber, the Equal Rights Amendment was
`
`formally proposed to the States as provided in Article V.
`
`31.
`
`By the end of 1972, 22 States had ratified the Equal Rights Amendment: Hawaii,
`
`New Hampshire, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Idaho, Nebraska, Texas, Tennessee, Alaska, Rhode
`
`Island, New Jersey, Colorado, West Virginia, Wisconsin, New York, Michigan, Maryland,
`
`Massachusetts, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and California. The total number of ratifications
`
`reached 35 by the end of 1977, as Wyoming, South Dakota, Oregon, Minnesota, New Mexico,
`
`Vermont, Connecticut, Washington, Maine, Montana, Ohio, North Dakota, and Indiana each
`
`ratified the amendment.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`Recent Ratifications by Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia Bring the Total Number of
`Ratifying States to 38
`
`32.
`
`In recent years, three more States have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`i. Nevada
`
`Nevada ratified the Equal Rights Amendment in 2017.
`
`The Equal Rights Amendment was introduced in the 79th Nevada legislature on
`
`February 13, 2017. The Nevada Senate’s joint resolution stated that the Equal Rights
`
`Amendment “is meaningful and needed as part of the Constitution of the United States and that
`
`the present political, social and economic conditions demonstrate that constitutional equality for
`
`women and men continues to be a timely issue in the United States.”
`
`35.
`
`The Nevada Senate ratified the Equal Rights Amendment on March 1, 2017 with
`
`bipartisan support.
`
`36.
`
`On March 20, 2017, the Nevada Assembly ratified the Equal Rights Amendment,
`
`after amending the joint resolution to specify delivery of the ratification to the Archivist of the
`
`United States in accordance with federal statute. Again, the Nevada Assembly did so with
`
`bipartisan support.
`
`37.
`
`On March 22, 2017, the Nevada Senate completed the ratification process by
`
`passing the amended joint resolution in bipartisan fashion. As stated by then-Senator Ford on the
`
`Nevada Senate floor: “This is long overdue. The fact that we are still having this conversation is
`
`very perturbing. We should all be clapping about equality, and I am happy to be doing so now.”
`
`38.
`
`The joint resolution was subsequently enrolled and delivered to the Nevada
`
`Secretary of State, who transmitted the ratification to the Archivist in accordance with federal
`
`statute.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Nevada thus became the 36th State to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
`
`The National Archives and Records Administration has recorded Nevada as
`
`ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 9 of 18
`
`
`
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`ii.
`
`Illinois
`
`Illinois ratified the Equal Rights Amendment in 2018.
`
`The Equal Rights Amendment was introduced in the 100th Illinois General
`
`Assembly on February 7, 2017. The Illinois Senate’s proposing resolution stated that
`
`“[c]onstitutional equality for women and men continues to be timely in the United States and
`
`worldwide, and a number of other nations have achieved constitutional equality for their women
`
`and men[.]” On April 11, 2018, the Senate ratified the Equal Rights Amendment by the three-
`
`fifths majority required under the Illinois Constitution and with bipartisan support.
`
`43.
`
`The bill arrived in the Illinois House of Representatives that same day. On May
`
`30, 2018, the Illinois House voted to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment by the required
`
`constitutional three-fifths majority and with bipartisan support. Recognizing the historic gravity
`
`of the issue, one representative observed: “I don’t think that I will have debated a more important
`
`Bill than this Bill. This is about who we are as a people. This is about who we believe the State
`
`of Illinois is and should be going forward. But it’s more than just the State of Illinois; it’s about
`
`the United States of America[.]”
`
`44.
`
`On May 30, 2018, the Illinois Secretary of the Senate recorded the Equal Rights
`
`Amendment as officially adopted in both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly.
`
`Ratification by the State of Illinois was complete.
`
`45.
`
`On June 15, 2018, the Illinois Secretary of State certified in writing that the Equal
`
`Rights Amendment had been ratified by the State of Illinois and mailed official certification to
`
`the Archivist.
`
`46.
`
`Illinois thus became the 37th State to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`47.
`
`The National Archives and Records Administration has recorded Illinois as
`
`ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment.
`
`
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`iii. Virginia
`
`Virginia ratified the Equal Rights Amendment in 2020.
`
`Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment was one of the first measures
`
`introduced in the 2020 Session of the Virginia General Assembly. The ratification resolutions,
`
`Senate Joint Resolution 1 and House Joint Resolution 1, noted that “over 80 percent of
`
`Virginians approve the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment by the Virginia General
`
`Assembly.” The resolutions also explained that the Equal Rights Amendment had already been
`
`“ratified by 37 state legislatures,” acknowledging Virginia’s role as “pivotal to incorporating
`
`fundamental rights into the Constitution of the United States” throughout American history—
`
`both today, as to the Equal Rights Amendment, as well as during the Founding era, when
`
`“Virginia’s ratification of 10 amendments in 1791 established the Bill of Rights.”
`
`50.
`
`In floor remarks in support of House Joint Resolution 1, the chief patron in the
`
`Virginia House of Delegates acknowledged the significance of Virginia’s action as the 38th State
`
`to ratify: “Very rarely the votes we take matter to people around the nation and the world, but I
`
`want to be unequivocally clear that this is a vote of a lifetime. Never again will you be able to
`
`affect the United States Constitution and solidify and enshrine women’s equality into our
`
`founding document.”
`
`51.
`
`A chief patron of Senate Joint Resolution 1 has described why ratification is an
`
`important turning point for our nation, stating: “By adding the Equal Rights Amendment to the
`
`Constitution, we have taken an imperfect document and made it closer to perfect. We can tell our
`
`children that they are all equally represented in the Constitution and that we are one step closer
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`to achieving liberty and justice for all.” Demonstrating the bipartisan support in favor of
`
`ratification, another supporter stated on the Senate floor that ratification of the Equal Rights
`
`Amendment “is an issue that we all agree on,” and the “principle . . . that women and men are
`
`equal . . . is worthy of being elevated to a constitutional priority.”
`
`52.
`
`On January 27, 2020, the Virginia House of Delegates and the Senate of Virginia
`
`adopted the ratification resolutions. The House adopted the resolution by a vote of 58 to 40, and
`
`the Senate adopted the resolution by a vote of 27 to 12. In both chambers, the Equal Rights
`
`Amendment was ratified with bipartisan support.
`
`53.
`
`Also on January 27, 2020, the Clerk of the Virginia House of Delegates and the
`
`Clerk of the Senate of Virginia transmitted certified copies of Virginia’s ratification resolutions
`
`to the Archivist. Virginia’s ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment was complete.
`
`54.
`
`Virginia thus became the 38th State to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`55.
`
`The recent ratifications by Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia bring the total number of
`
`ratifying States to 38, satisfying Article V’s requirement of ratification by “three fourths” of all
`
`States.
`
`56.
`
`Public support for the Equal Rights Amendment remains consistently strong. A
`
`survey conducted by CBS News in 1999 showed that 74% of respondents supported the Equal
`
`Rights Amendment, while only 10% were opposed. In recent years, support for the amendment
`
`has become nearly universal. A 2016 poll found that 94% of respondents were in favor of a
`
`constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights for men and women.1
`
`
`1 That same poll found that 80% of respondents mistakenly believed that men and women
`are already explicitly guaranteed equal rights in the U.S. Constitution.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 12 of 18
`
`
`
`THE DUTIES OF THE ARCHIVIST
`
`57.
`
`Under Article V, a proposed constitutional amendment automatically becomes
`
`“valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of th[e] Constitution” as soon as it is “ratified by the
`
`Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.” For that reason, the Equal Rights Amendment
`
`became part of the U.S. Constitution immediately upon Virginia’s ratification.
`
`58.
`
`Congress has enacted legislation that imposes ministerial duties on the Archivist
`
`involving the publication of duly enacted constitutional amendments. That statute, 1 U.S.C.
`
`§ 106b, reads:
`
`Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and Records
`Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the
`United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the
`Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith cause the
`amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by
`which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become
`valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the
`United States.
`
`59.
`
`That statute does not grant the Archivist any discretion in deciding whether to
`
`publish and certify a newly adopted amendment. Instead, the duties imposed upon the Archivist
`
`are mandatory and purely ministerial.
`
`60.
`
`In 1992, then-Archivist Don Wilson published and certified the 27th Amendment
`
`shortly after Michigan ratified the proposal. As Mr. Wilson noted, the votes by three-fourths of
`
`the States—not the Archivist’s signature or any action by his office—formally added the
`
`amendment to the Constitution.
`
`61.
`
`Virginia transmitted a certified copy of its ratification of the Equal Rights
`
`Amendment to the National Archives and Records Administration on January 27, 2020. Because
`
`the National Archives and Records Administration has received “official notice” that the Equal
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 13 of 18
`
`
`
`Rights Amendment has been adopted pursuant to Article V, the Archivist is required to publish
`
`the amendment and certify its validity.
`
`62.
`
`As of the date of this filing, the Archivist has neither published nor certified the
`
`Equal Rights Amendment. On January 8, 2020, the National Archives and Records
`
`Administration announced that the Archivist will refuse to do so “unless otherwise directed by a
`
`final court order.” Following Virginia’s ratification, the Archivist confirmed that he will take no
`
`action to certify the adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment. The Archivist has therefore failed
`
`to execute the obligations imposed on him by federal law.
`
`ARGUMENTS DISPUTING THE VALIDITY OF THE
`EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT HAVE NO MERIT
`
`A.
`
`No Binding Ratification Deadline Has Lapsed
`
`63.
`
`The preamble of H.J. Res. 208 (1972) states that the proposed amendment “shall
`
`be valid . . . as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the
`
`several States within seven years from the date of it submission by the Congress.” This language
`
`did not strip the Plaintiff States of their power to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
`
`64.
`
`First, the purported limitations period on the time for ratification was not part of
`
`the actual “Article” that was “proposed” to the States. The text of that article—which is set out in
`
`full above—neither includes a deadline for ratification nor provides consequences if ratification
`
`occurs after a particular time. Because no timeframe was part of the “amendment[]” that
`
`Congress “propose[d]” to the States for ratification under Article V, it does not limit a State’s
`
`discretion about whether—or when—to ratify Congress’s proposal.
`
`65.
`
`Second, Article V does not empower Congress to dictate when a State may
`
`consider—much less ultimately ratify—a proposed amendment. The Constitution grants
`
`Congress two specific powers regarding amendment: (1) to “propose Amendments to this
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 14 of 18
`
`
`
`Constitution”; and (2) to designate whether the “Mode of Ratification” will be through state
`
`legislatures or via conventions.
`
`66.
`
`Because Article V carefully sets out the balance between Congress and the States
`
`in the amendment process, congressional authority to limit the States’ role in ratification should
`
`not be presumed where the Constitution is silent. And given the Framers’ concern for protecting
`
`state prerogatives against federal intrusion, any doubts about the scope of congressional authority
`
`should be resolved in favor of the States. Indeed, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the United
`
`States Constitution, any “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
`
`prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
`
`B.
`
`There Is No Implied Time Limit on Ratification
`
`67.
`
`Under Article V, there is no time limit for how long Congress may deliberate
`
`before proposing an amendment to the States. The same is true of a State’s decision about
`
`whether or when to ratify a proposed amendment.
`
`68.
`
`Nothing in Article V suggests—much less clearly requires—that States take
`
`action on proposed constitutional amendments within any particular amount of time. Reading
`
`additional requirements into Article V that appear nowhere in its text would upset the important
`
`balance the Framers struck between congressional and state authority.
`
`69.
`
`The ratification process for the 27th Amendment confirms the point. Congress
`
`originally proposed that amendment—which prohibits pay changes for members of Congress
`
`from taking effect until after the next set of congressional elections—along with the Bill of
`
`Rights in 1789. Ratification of the 27th Amendment stalled after 1792, and the requisite three-
`
`fourths of state legislatures did not ratify it until 1992. Despite the passage of more than 200
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 15 of 18
`
`
`
`years between Congress’s proposal and the final State’s ratification, the Archivist published and
`
`certified the 27th Amendment in May 1992.
`
`C.
`
`A State’s Ratification Is a One-Time Event
`
`70.
`
`The recent ratifications of the Equal Rights Amendment by Nevada, Illinois, and
`
`Virginia bring the total number of ratifying States to 38. Although a small number of States have,
`
`at various times and in various ways, purported to “rescind” their earlier ratifications, these
`
`efforts are constitutionally unauthorized and without legal effect.
`
`71.
`
`Article V grants States the authority to “ratif[y]” amendments proposed by
`
`Congress, and nothing in Article V suggests that a State may definitively reject a proposed
`
`amendment or rescind a previous ratification. To the contrary, Article V specifically provides
`
`that a proposed amendment “shall be valid . . . , as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by . . .
`
`three fourths of the several States” through whichever mode of ratification (state legislatures or
`
`convention) selected by Congress. According to that mandatory language, once a State has
`
`ratified a proposed amendment, that State has had its final say on the question.
`
`72.
`
`Any other interpretation would read additional state authority into Article V
`
`where none exists. Allowing States to offer a non-final, or conditional, ratification contradicts the
`
`clear language of Article V, which specifically provides that proposed amendments shall be
`
`finally adopted upon ratification by the requisite number of States—with no mention of a State’s
`
`authority to withdraw or otherwise modify its ratification once given. It would also be contrary to
`
`the Framers’ intent that constitutional provisions be adopted “in toto, and for ever,” as described
`
`in a letter from James Madison to Alexander Hamilton on July 20, 1788.
`
`73.
`
`Historical practice confirms that States have no power to rescind prior
`
`ratifications. On the few occasions where States have attempted to withdraw ratification with
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 16 of 18
`
`
`
`respect to other constitutional amendments, those purported rescissions had no effect. For
`
`example, the 14th Amendment was adopted despite two States’ attempts to rescind their
`
`ratifications.
`
`74.
`
`Because 38 States have performed the ratification role assigned to them by Article
`
`V, the Equal Rights Amendment has become the 28th Amendment to the United States
`
`Constitution.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF STATES ARE ENTITLED TO MANDAMUS RELIEF
`
`The previous allegations are repeated and realleged herein.
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, this Court has jurisdiction over “any action in the nature
`
`of mandamus to compel an officer . . . of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a
`
`duty owed to the plaintiff.”
`
`77.
`
`The Archivist has a clear and indisputable duty to publish and certify the Equal
`
`Rights Amendment as part of the U.S. Constitution.
`
`78.
`
`The Archivist has failed to execute those duties and has made clear that he will
`
`not publish and certify the Equal Rights Amendment unless ordered to do so by a court.
`
`79.
`
`The Plaintiff States have no adequate alternative remedy. Under Article V, the
`
`Equal Rights Amendment has been added to the U.S. Constitution. The Plaintiff States have
`
`already fulfilled their constitutional role in the amendment process—ratifying an amendment that
`
`has been proposed by Congress. But the Archivist refuses to carry out the ministerial duties
`
`required by statute to publish and certify the amendment.
`
`80.
`
`The duty is owed “to the [Plaintiff States]” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1361. As separate sovereigns, the States are full and necessary partners in the constitutional
`
`amendment process. The Plaintiff States have fulfilled their assigned role by ratifying an
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00242 Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 17 of 18
`
`
`
`amendment that has been proposed by Congress. The Archivist’s failure to carry out his
`
`ministerial duties to acknowledge the adoption of the amendment harms the Plaintiff States by
`
`creating widespread confusion regarding the effect of their ratifications.
`
`81.
`
`The Plaintiff States also have a significant interest in this case because the
`
`Archivist’s delay continues to thwart the will of the people, as expressed by the lawful and valid
`
`adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment. As States that have ratified the Equal Rights
`
`Amendment, the Plaintiff States have a particularly acute interest in ensuring that the amendment
`
`is properly recognized as the law of the land.
`
`DEMAND FOR RELIEF
`
`The Plaintiff States request that the Court enter judgment against the Archivist and award
`
`the following relief:
`
`a)
`
`Declare that the Equal Rights Amendment is “valid” and “part of th[e]
`
`Constitution” within the meaning of Article V;
`
`b)
`
`Declare that the Archivist’s refusal to publish and certify the Equal Rights
`
`Amendment violates federal constitutional and statutory law;
`
`c)
`
`Order the Archivist to execute his statutory duties under 1 U.S.C. § 106b as soon
`
`as practicable, by instructing him to “cause the [Equal Rights Amendment] to be published, with
`
`his certificate” stating that the Plaintiff States are among those that have ratified and that the
`
`amendment “has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the
`
`United States”;
`
`d)
`
`Grant Plaintiffs reasonable cos