ing those which would make it possible for states to rescind their ratifications. We further encourage you to vote for cloture on the first cloture vote in case of filibuster. When you vote, make your vote a vote for human rights. PA MORGAN. S. JOYCE ROTHERMEL. MARY ANN BROWNELL. THE UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CHURCH OF GREATER BRIDGEPORT, DEAR SIR: The eight members of the Social Action Committee of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Greater Bridgeport and I would like to go on record with regard to E.R.A. as follows: We urge the support of any cloture votes to override anticipated filibuster. We urge you to vote against an amendment that would allow recession by those states that have already ratified the E.R.A. amendment. We urge you to vote against an amendment that would require two-thirds of the Senate to vote "yes" for the passage of the extension. Sincerely, FLORENCE KING, Chairman, Social Action Committee. UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST WOMEN'S FEDERATION, Senator JAMES EASTLAND, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR EASTLAND: As the Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation Advocate for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment I want you to know we favor the extension compromise as reported by the House of Representatives. Our constituency are women and men in every state who have worked not just the past 7 years for the E.R.A. but 55 years since it was first introduced into Congress in 1923. We believe that the March 1979 deadline will come before most states legislators will have time this session to consider the amendment. We urge you to vote for extension, vote against any amendment which would permit rescission by those states which have already affirmed the E.R.A. and against any amendment requiring two-thirds of the Senate to vote for extension. If filibuster ensues, we would ask that you support a cloture vote to override it. The Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation, as a religious women's organization, believes that equal rights for men and women is essential for human dignity and the respect for the individual. Sincerely, UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, DEAR SENATOR: In June, 1975, the Tenth General Synod of the United Church of Christ voted to support the Equal Rights Amendment and urged "local churches, conferences and associations ... to actively work for the immediate ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment." In 1977, the Eleventh General Synod reaffirmed this action and urged national bodies within the Church to support ERA ratification efforts. The 1.8 million member United Church of Christ was the first Protestant denomination in America to ordain women to the Christian ministry. It therefore has a long standing and deep commitment to the biblical imperative which calls for an end to the present injustice against women in this country. It is my sincere hope that you will urge the Senate to support extension of the time consideration of the ERA. A vote for extension (S.J. Res. 134) is a vote for securing the basic legal rights of women. This possibility is far too important to not be considered at this time in our history by the public, our state legislatures, and the U.S. Senate. I also ask your support for cloture so that the American people may know the stand of their Senators on this important issue. I especially ask your support of ERA extension for those men and women in the United Church of Christ in North Carolina, Florida, Illinois, Nevada and elsewhere whose unwavering commitment to basic human rights for women knows no time limit as they work for ratification efforts in their states. Their determination is worth our support through passage of the ERA extension. Sincerely, AVERY D. POST, President. THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, BOARD OF GLOBAL MINISTRIES, DEAR SENATOR: The Women's Division of the United Methodist Church, a national policy making body, urges Senate extension of ERA. Our concerns are reflected in H.J. Resolution 638, voted by the House Judiciary Committee. We request support without further amendments. We also ask for your affirmative vote on cloture feeling that this is an issue on which the Senate should be allowed to vote after reasonable time for debate. Sincerely yours, THERESSA HOOVER, Associate General Secretary, Women's Division. WOMANSPACE, Rockford, Ill., September 13, 1978. DEAR SENATOR: I am writing to you not only as a Catholic Sister, but as the Executive Director of WOMANSPACE Center, an interdenominational Center for women's development. Over and beyond the obvious justice and equality issues at stake in the passage of the ERA, we, as a group, are deeply concerned about the moral and religious values underlying attitudes toward its passage. Some people have accomplished the task of creating confusion in the minds of many, identifying the ERA with the abortion issue. The two issues are distinct in the minds of WOMANSPACE members. Equal opportunity does not necessitate irresponsible actions and unethical behavior in people. The very nature of choice, however, is essential to free and responsible actions. We are requesting that you strongly consider the following actions: (1) Support of the extension of time for ERA, H.J. Res. 638 (2) Vote against all crippling amendments such as the possibility to rescind (3) Vote to limit debate in case of filibustering. The issues shoud have a fair time for a vote. Catholic people, by 60 percent support the ERA; Christian people of the Protestant churches here support to 85 percent. The sector of Jewish people in this area support up to 68 percent. The strong body of Unitarian Universalists support it to the extent of 96 percent. The freedom and opportunity promised us through a Democracy seems, to us, in great harmony with the Gospel call to true freedom. Clouding the real issues of equality is oppressed to us and not deserving of the diverting attention that it's receiving. Sincerely yours, Sister DOROTHY BOCK, SSSF, Executive Director of WOMANSPACE. CITIZEN CORRESPONDENCE WASHINGTON, D.C., Monday, July 31. Senator BIRCH BAYH, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Russell Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR BAYH: I have learned that your Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution will hold hearings later this week on the proposed extension of time for the Equal Rights Amendment. Enclosed are legal research papers, state legislative voting records, correspondence, etc. all relating to the fact that at least one more state, Illinois, and possibly a second, South Carolina, deserve legal recognition as ratified states. Illinois is a ratified state because the three fifths rule adopted by the state legislature is unconstitutional, as a restriction or impediment, to the ratification process as described by Article V of the United States Constitution. Illinois has constitutional majority votes on record at least seven times, two in the Senate and five in the House of Representatives, but most importantly majority votes by both houses during the 1973-1974 legislative session. South Carolina is a ratified state on the basis of legislative action in 1972. The South Carolina House ratified the ERA on March 22, 1972 and the State Senate approved the ERA on second reading on April 26th, 1972. According to the South Carolina Senate rules, that action is tantamount to ratification. I have previously filed this information with the Administrator of the General Services Administration, Mr. Jay Solomon, the responsible official for certifying proposed federal constitutional amendments according to Section 106b of the United States Code. This was a new responsibility assigned by the Congress in 1950 under Reorganization Plan 20 which transferred to the certification duties from the Secretary of State to the Administrator of the GSA. The memo from the General Counsel of GSA to the Administrator dated October 21, 1963 further clarifies the responsibilities of the Administrator. There is no question that Congress has jurisdiction over proposed federal constitutional amendments up until the time the three-fourths state acts favorably on the proposed amendment. Once that occurs, however, it may be that the Administrator of GSA is the only official left with any responsibility over proposed amendments. Congress did get involved with the 14th Amendment when Ohio and New Jersey had voted to recind their prior approval. However, following the approval by the necessary number of states to ratify the 15th and 19th Amendments, when questions were raised about a few of the states, Congress did not get involved. In the case of the 15th Amendment, New York had recinded but Secretary of State. Hamilton Fish, went ahead on his own, and certified the Amendment on March 30th, 1870, without review by the Congress. In the case of the 19th Amendment. Tennessee, the last state to ratify, had a questionable section in its state constitution limiting action of the state legislature on a proposed federal constitutional amendment until after a majority of the state legislature had been elected following the date of approval by the Congress. This same provision is currently in the constitutions of Illinois and Florida. The Secretary of State, Bainbridge Colby, certified the Amendment on August 26, 1920, also without review by the Congress. The controversial section was taken to Court and struck down by the United States Supreme Court, thereby, allowing the amendment to stand as a validly ratified amendment to the Constitution. Since the Administrator of the GSA has been the responsible official, five amendments have been certified, all without review by the Congress. My interest in the Equal Rights Amendment is not to debate the role of the GSA, but rather to clarify the status of the unratified states, particularly Illinois and South Carolina. Earlier this year I reviewed the files containing the ratification documents in the Office of the Federal Register. I discovered to my surprise and disappointment the poor status of these critically important documents. Several factors came to my immediate attention. They are as follows: (1) Three states; Georgia, Louisisana, Mississippi, never acknowledged receipt of the official transmittal letter from the GSA dated March 24th, 1972 containing the exact language of H.J. Res. 208 as approved by the Congress on March 22, 1972. (2) The GSA on May 4, 1972 sent individual letters to at least seven states: Alaska, Idaho, New Jersey, Tennessee, Colorado, West Virginia, Wisconsin, etc. requiring their ratification documents which had not been forthcoming following their reported ratification votes. (3) Illinois, which has voted on the ERA several times, under three Governors and three Secretary of State's, had never forwarded any of the legislative records on the ERA to the GSA. (4) At least three states: South Dakota, Maryland and Ohio, sent their ratification documents to the Secretary of State still believing the Secretary to be the responsible official. (5) There were few or no records in the files of all the unratified states, even though as a group, they had over 60 roll call votes on record. I then wrote a letter to the Administrator of GSA on March 20, 1978 requesting him to write a letter to the unratified states asking for their legislative records on the ERA. As part of the staff evaluation of my request, the GSA General Counsel in a memo to the Archivist of the United States, stated directly, "In addition, I would again recommend that NARS publish procedures regarding GSA's role in the ratification of Constitutional amendments." The Administrator's office called me on May 26th to indicate he would write a letter to all 50 states. It was another four weeks before the letters were sent on June 22 to the 50 Governors. At the present time at least 31 states have responded. Enclosed are the critical records from the Illinois and South Carolina legislative journals. I hope this information is helpful to your Subcommittee on the Constitution in its consideration and evaluation of the Equal Rights Amendment at this point in time. I respectfully request that the entire file on my correspondence with the GSA be included in the hearing record. In conclusion, I want to thank you personally for the continuous and courageous support you have given to the Equal Rights Amendment. Hopefully, at least one more state will act favorably on the ERA before March 22, 1979 so that the ERA will in fact become the 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Respectfully, BILL HARRINGTON, WASHINGTON, D.C., June 28, 1978. JAY SOLOMON, Administrator, General Services Administration, DEAR MR. SOLOMON : I want to thank you for your June 22, 1978 letter indicating you have agreed to act favorably on my recommendation to write to the states requesting their legislative records on the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. Enclosed are two research papers concerning the legislative histories of two states, Illinois and South Carolina. We think they offer compelling evidence to warrant status as ratified states for both Illinois and South Carolina. We are still researching other states records and may submit more information to you at a later time. As I stated in my March 20th letter to you, I fully realize you will not comment on the status of any state until there are 38 in number. However, I hope this information is helpful to you in your personal evaluation of the number of ratified states. I believe there is now a convincing case for a total of 37 ratified states, just one short of the necessary 38 states, as required by Article V. After reading the enclosed research papers, I hope you will agree. I want to again indicate my appreciation to you for agreeing to send the letter to the states. The records of state legislative action on the ERA will now be complete. I hope future Administrators will be more active and thorough in monitoring the legislative action of states on proposed constitutional amendments. We anxiously await your certification of the Equal Rights Amendment as a ratified amendment to the United States Constitution following the favorable action of just one more state. Sincerely, BILL HARRINGTON. Mr. BILL HARRINGTON, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 1019 E. Capitol Street, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HARRINGTON: Thank you for your letter of May 8, 1978 concerning the role of the Administrator of General Services as the responsible official in determining the status of the Equal Rights Amendment. After careful consideration, I have decided to write a letter to the Governors of the 50 states. A copy of my letter is enclosed. Thank you for your interest on this subject and if I could be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, JAY SOLOMON, Adminisrator. Enclosure. Hon. GEORGE C. WALLACE, Montgomery, Ala. DEAR GOVERNOR WALLACE: On March 24, 1972, the Acting Administrator of General Services sent to your State a certified copy of House Joint Resolution 208, entitled "Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women," passed during the second session of the Ninety-second Congress of the United States. In that letter, the Acting Administrator requested that this Joint Resolution be submitted to the Legislature of your State "for such action as it may take, and that a certified copy of such action be sent to the Administrator of General Services, as required by Section 106b, Title 1, United States Code." In carrying out its responsibilities in connection with Constitutional amendments, the General Services Administration develops and maintains a file of action documents from States acting on a proposed amendment. This file is invaluable in keeping the public aware of the status of a proposed Constitutional amendment. It becomes even more valuable in an historic sense since it is preserved for the use of future generations researching the record of our nation and the Constitution on which it rests. Therefore, we are requesting that you provide us with information of all actions taken by either House of your Legislature on H.J. Res. 208, including records of Committee action, Committee votes and floor votes. Your cooperation in sending us this information will be a substantial contribution to helping us maintain a complete file of State actions for contemporary use and perhaps more importantly, for historical researchers in the years ahead. Sincerely, JAY SOLOMON, Administrator. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES RELATIVE TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES Article V of the Constitution provides in pertinent part as follows: 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 of 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 conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: . . . |