The ERA was Re-introduced in the Senate for Ratification Yesterday

[Jim Lane]

23. The linked article is confusing on that score. There are two different approaches.

One approach is for Congress to extend or eliminate the deadline. Then advocates could try to get more states to ratify so as to reach the necessary total of 38. Advocates call this "the three-state strategy" but that may be overoptimistic. I think there are 35 states that ratified the ERA at one point or another but some of them later rescinded their ratifications. Advocates take the position that rescission is not allowed. I think that there's no clear precedent on the question. From the extremely sparse language of the Constitution, one could make a colorable argument either way.

The other approach is to begin the process anew. This is embodied in a bill introduced by Congressmember Carolyn Maloney:

Maloney's House bill, along with sister legislation to be introduced in the Senate, proposes that the ERA process start from scratch -- with Congress first voting to pass it by two-thirds, followed by a new push to ratify the amendment in 38 states.

(from "The politics of feminism: An unlikely partnership" on the CNN website)

Maloney may be taking that tack because she wants a more sweeping ERA than the one that Congress ratified in 1972. According to that CNN article, Maloney's proposed amendment reads:

"Women shall have equal rights in the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

The second sentence is the ERA that's already passed Congress and is the subject of the three-state strategy. The first sentence is new. It gives me the impression that Maloney intends her version of the ERA to go beyond government action and govern private conduct. For example, her Republican ally, Cynthia Lummis, says that the ERA would protect against sex-selective abortion. In other words, it would restrict abortion rights. It would also arguably prohibit private men's clubs. For that matter, if some guys get together every Friday night for a poker game, and they'd be open to admitting new male players but not women because they want to keep it stag, that might violate this version of the ERA, even though there's no state action involved (so it clearly would not violate the 1972 version). A desire to be broader than the 1972 version would be the obvious reason to advocate starting from scratch instead of pursuing the three-state strategy.