State of Idaho v. Freeman
529 F. Supp. 1107 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state has the power under Article V to rescind a prior ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment at any time before three-fourths of the states have ratified it. Congress cannot extend a ratification deadline it has previously set, and any attempt to do so by a simple majority, rather than a two-thirds vote, is an unconstitutional exercise of its Article V powers.
Facts:
- In March 1972, Congress proposed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and, in the proposing resolution, set a seven-year deadline for state ratification.
- On March 24, 1972, the Idaho Legislature passed a joint resolution ratifying the ERA by a two-thirds super-majority vote.
- On March 29, 1972, the Idaho Secretary of State certified the ratification and sent the official notice to the Administrator of General Services Administration (GSA).
- On February 8, 1977, the Idaho Legislature passed a concurrent resolution by a simple majority vote to rescind its prior ratification of the ERA.
- The Idaho Secretary of State certified the rescission to the GSA, which acknowledged receipt but questioned the rescission's legal validity.
- As the original March 22, 1979 deadline neared, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 638 by a simple majority vote in both houses to extend the ratification deadline to June 30, 1982.
- The State of Arizona had consistently rejected the ERA and opposed the deadline extension.
- Legislators from Washington, which had ratified in 1973, argued their ratification was conditioned on the original seven-year timeline and became void upon its expiration.
Procedural Posture:
- The States of Idaho and Arizona, along with state legislators, sued the Administrator of the General Services Administration in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.
- Legislators from the State of Washington were granted leave to intervene as plaintiffs.
- The National Organization for Women (NOW) was granted leave to intervene as a defendant.
- The defendant and defendant-intervenors filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
- The plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The district court heard oral argument on the competing motions for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state have the power under Article V of the Constitution to rescind its prior ratification of a proposed amendment, and is a congressional resolution extending the ratification deadline, passed by a simple majority, a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority?
Opinions:
Majority - Callister, Chief Judge.
Yes, a state has the power to rescind its prior ratification, and No, the congressional extension of the ratification deadline is not a constitutional exercise of authority. The structure and purpose of Article V require that a constitutional amendment be supported by a contemporaneous consensus of the people, expressed through the states. A state's ratification is not final or irrevocable until three-fourths of the states have ratified; until that point, a state must be free to reconsider and withdraw its consent to reflect the current will of its people. To hold otherwise would allow an amendment to be adopted on a technicality without genuine, contemporaneous support. Furthermore, Congress's authority under Article V is to 'propose' amendments and the 'mode of ratification' by a two-thirds vote. Once Congress sets a time limit as part of its proposal, that limit becomes an integral part of the proposed mode of ratification and cannot be subsequently altered. The attempt to extend the ERA's deadline by a simple majority was an unconstitutional act, as all congressional functions under Article V require a two-thirds super-majority.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant judicial interpretation of the mechanics of the constitutional amendment process under Article V. It establishes the principle that ratification is not a one-way ratchet, affirming a state's right to rescind its approval before an amendment is officially adopted, thereby strengthening the role of states in reflecting contemporaneous popular will. The ruling also curtails congressional power by clarifying that the two-thirds vote requirement applies to all of Congress's Article V functions, including setting the mode of ratification, and that once a ratification deadline is proposed, it cannot be changed. This precedent creates a more rigid and predictable framework for future amendment efforts, limiting Congress's ability to alter the terms of ratification mid-process.
