State of Idaho v. Freeman
| Decision Date | 25 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 79-1097. |
| Citation | 529 F. Supp. 1107 |
| Parties | The STATE OF IDAHO, et al., Plaintiffs, and Claude L. Oliver, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. Rear Admiral Rowland G. FREEMAN, III, Administrator of General Services Administration, Defendant, and National Organization for Women, et al., Defendants-Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Larry K. Harvey, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., State of Idaho, Boise, Idaho, Robert Corbin, Arizona Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., Max Miller, Mountain States Legal Foundation, Denver, Colo., David Wm. West, West & Bliss, Phoenix, Ariz., John Runft and Terry Coffin, Runft & Longeteig, Boise, Idaho, for plaintiffs.
Dennis G. Linder, Elisa V. Vela, Thomas Millet, R. Lawrence Dessem, Betsy Grey, Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Guy G. Hurlbutt, U. S. Atty., Deborah A. Bail, Asst. U. S. Atty., Boise, Idaho, for defendant.
Michael Farris, Eberle, Farris & Nelson, P. A., Spokane, Wash., for plaintiffs-intervenors.
Michael E. Donnelly, Susan Powell Mauk, Boise, Idaho, Thomas J. Hart and S. G. Lippman, Washington, D. C., Lucia Fakonas, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendants-intervenors.
Judgment Stayed January 25, 1982. See 102 S.Ct. 1272.
This matter comes before the Court on defendant's motion to dismiss and the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. In an extensive stipulation filed with the Court, all the material facts in this case have been agreed to by the parties. This proceeding calls into question the validity of Idaho's act of rescinding its prior ratification of the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" to the Constitution of the United States, and the constitutionality of Congress' act in extending the time period in which ratifications may be received. The plaintiffs bringing this suit consist of the State of Idaho, the leadership of the Idaho State Legislature, and individual legislators of that body; the State of Arizona, legislative leadership of both houses and individual legislators from the Arizona legislature. These plaintiffs are joined by the plaintiff-intervenors, legislators from the State of Washington. They seek from this Court a declaration that, as a matter of federal constitutional law, Idaho's act of rescinding its prior ratification is valid and effective; that Congress' extension of the seven-year time limitation in which to present ratifications is unconstitutional in that it violates the grant of power given Congress under article V of the Constitution, and that the running of the seven-year time limitation tolls and terminates any ratifications enacted by the states to that point. Furthermore, the plaintiffs seek a mandatory injunction directing the defendant, the Administrator of General Services Administration, Rear Admiral Rowland G. Freeman III, to remove the name of the State of Idaho from all official records which would indicate that Idaho has adopted the proposed twenty-seventh amendment and return its prior ratification documents. Finally, the plaintiffs petition for an order enjoining the Administrator of General Services Administration from taking further account of any purported ratifications after the expiration of the original ratification period.
On May 13 and 14, 1981, oral argument was presented by the defendant, represented by the Department of Justice, and defendant-intervenors, the National Organization for Women, on their motions to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment; plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors' cross-motion for summary judgment was also considered at that time. These motions present the Court with essentially questions of first impression necessitating consideration of the premises of one of the pivotal provisions of the United States Constitution, the article V amending clause. In addition, the Court is confronted with the perennially perplexing problem of the legitimate relationship of the courts with the coordinate branches, particularly the Congress, in determining whether the questions presented here are proper for judicial resolution. After careful consideration of the difficult issues presented, it appears that the weight of constitutional precedent dictates that the defendant and defendant-intervenors' motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment should be dismissed and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment should be granted in accordance with the principles discussed below.
In March of 1972 Congress passed a resolution proposing the "Equal Rights Amendment," as the twenty-seventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and submitted it for ratification to the legislatures of the states:
H.J.Res. 208, 86 Stat. 1523 (1972). From the advent of the amendment and until 1978, 35 of the requisite 38 state legislatures took action ratifying the amendment and sent official certifications of their actions to the General Services Administrator pursuant to 1 U.S.C. § 106b.1 But, in that same time period five states, Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, and South Dakota, while initially assenting to ratification, passed resolutions of rescission withdrawing their prior consent.2 The original seven-year ratification restriction set in the resolution proposing the "Equal Rights Amendment" would have expired on March 22, 1979, had not Congress taken action to extend the time period.
On October 6, 1978, an extension resolution, House Joint Resolution 638, was presented to Congress for consideration. It read:
While a majority of both Houses favored the extension resolution, proponents of the measure could not generate a two-thirds concurrence as had been the case when the original time period had been enacted. Therefore, the House acting by a vote of 253 to 189 and the Senate acting by a vote of 60 to 363 enacted the extension resolution by a simple majority. The resolution was later signed by the President.
The State of Idaho, which requires a super-majority, two-thirds, of the legislature to act in adopting an amendment, took action the first year the Equal Rights Amendment was proposed. The Idaho House of Representatives adopted Senate Joint Resolution No. 133 on March 24, 1972, by a vote of 31 to 4 and later that day the Senate passed it by a vote of 39 to 5. A certificate of ratification was duly issued by the Idaho Secretary of State and dispatched on March 29, 1972.
A JOINT RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES RELATIVE TO EQUAL RIGHTS FOR MEN AND WOMEN.
In February of 1977 the state legislature of Idaho took action to rescind its prior ratification of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. On February 4, 1977, House Concurrent Resolution 105 was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equal Means Equal v. Ferriero
...the ERA was Idaho, whose rescission, along with Congress's 1978 extension, became the subject of a lawsuit, Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107, 1146-50 (D. Idaho 1981). The district court in Freeman held that Congress's 1978 extension was unsuccessful and states may rescind their ratificat......
-
Virginia v. Ferriero
...a few states and individual state legislators challenged the move, a district court sided with the challengers. See Idaho v. Freeman , 529 F. Supp. 1107 (D. Idaho 1981), vacated as moot , 459 U.S. 809, 103 S.Ct. 22, 74 L.Ed.2d 39 (1982). It held that Article V did not permit Congress to ext......
-
American Federation of Labor v. Eu
......v. . MARCH FONG EU, as Secretary of State, etc., et al., Respondents; . Lewis K. UHLER, Real Party in Interest. . S.F. 24746. . Supreme ...Miller is consistent with the criteria established in these later cases. (See State of Idaho v. Freeman (D.Id.1981) 529 F.Supp. 1107, vacated as moot, 459 U.S. 809, 103 S.Ct. 22, 74 L.Ed.2d ......
-
Mead v. Arnell, 18231
...and standards." We view this as a mandatory duty. On the adoption of HCR-29, this issue was ripe for adjudication. State v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (1981), (stayed, 455 U.S. 918, 102 S.Ct. 1272, 71 L.Ed.2d 458) (vacated, 459 U.S. 809, 103 S.Ct. 22, 74 L.Ed.2d 39). Thus, District VII has t......
-
Justice Ginsburg's Cautious Legacy for the Equal Rights Amendment
...lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration of the validity of rescission. Although a district court validated rescission, Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107, 1155 (D. Idaho 1981), and the Supreme Court granted certiorari, the Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot after the June 30, 1982 rat......
-
Necromancing the Equal Rights Amendment.
...L. Rev. 875 (1980). Before the expiration of the extension, one district court held that the extension was void. See Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107 (D. Idaho 1981). Once the extension had passed without the ERA obtaining the requisite number of states for ratification, however, the U.S......