wide election. Most of the remaining States faced delays that would preclude final action lowering the voting age before that date. Ratification of a Federal constitutional amendment, on the other hand, appeared to be a realistic possibility by 1972. At least 40 State legislatures were scheduled to meet in 1972 alone, in the absence of any special sessions, and the reapportionment required by the 1970 census seemed likely to make the fall of 1971 and the spring of 1972 an active period for special sessions. As the Survey noted, the three amendments proposed by Congress in the 1969s-the 23rd, 24th and 25th-were ratified in an average time of approximately 15 months; it was thought that an amendment lowering the voting age to 18 would stand an excellent chance of ratification within a similar period.

In the Senate

ACTION IN THE 92D CONGRESS

Senate Joint Resolution 7 was introduced on January 25, 1971, by Senator Jennings Randolph, together with 86 cosponsors. The proposed resolution was referred to the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senate Joint Resolution 7 was substantially identical to resolutions introduced by Senator Randolph in the 91st Congress (S.J. Res. 7; S.J. Res. 147) and in earlier Congresses.

On March 2, 1971, the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments met and reported out Senate Joint Resolution 7 with several technical amendments.

On March 4, 1971, the full Committee on the Judiciary met and, after adopting the technical amendment, ordered Senate Joint Resolution 7, as amended, reported favorably to the Senate, with amendments, and recommended that the resolution, as amended, should pass. On March 8, 1971, Senate Joint Resolution 7 was reported to the Senate favorably, with amendments, by Mr. Bayh. See S. Rept. 92-26. On March 9 and 10, 1971, the Senate debated Senate Joint Resolution 7 as reported from the Committee on the Judiciary. See 117 Congressional Record S2662-94, S2751-53 (daily ed. Mar. 9, 1971); 117 Congressional Record S2858-86 (daily ed. Mar. 10, 1971).

On March 10, 1971, after two hours of debate, the Senate tabled a Kennedy amendment relating to representation for the District of Columbia in the Congress by a vote of 68 yeas to 23 nays. See 117 Congressional Record S2872 (daily ed. Mar. 10, 1971). Then, after additional debate, it proceeded to approve unanimously, by a 94-0 vote, Senate Joint Resolution 7, without further amendment.

In the House of Representatives

House Joint Resolution 223 was introduced on January 29, 1971 by Congresman Celler on behalf of himself and others.

On March 2, 1971, the full Committee on the Judiciary approved House Joint Resolution 223 in executive session and ordered it favorably reported without amendment by a vote of 32 yeas, 2 nays.

On March 23, 1971, the House of Representatives opened debate on House Joint Resolution 223, which was identical to Senate Joint Resolution 7 as approved by the Senate. For the debate see 117 Congressional Record H1819-57 (daily ed. Mar. 23, 1971). By a 400-19

vote, the House overwhelmingly approved House Joint Resolution 223, without further amendment. At this point Senate Joint Resolution 7, an identical measure, was brought up and passed after a third reading. House Joint Resolution 223 was then laid on the table. See 117 Congressional Record H1856-57 (daily ed. Mar. 23, 1971).

RATIFICATION BY THE STATES

On March 23, 1971, after final passage by the House, the joint resolution was duly enrolled, signed by the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate, and sent to the Administrator of the General Services Administration for transmission to each of the 50 State legislatures.

On the next day the Administrator of G.S.A., Mr. Robert L. Kunzig, sent a letter to the governor of each State, enclosing a certified copy of the joint resolution of his State's legislature for ratification. He also requested that certified copies of any action taken by each legislature be sent to him, as required by section 106b of Title 1 of the United States Code.

The Amendment became part of the Constitution when ratified by the 38th State. See Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 376 (1921).

The list of the States ratifying the 26th Amendment, as complied by the General Services Administration, follows:

List of States ratifying the 26th amendment to the Constitution of the

The National Archives has received no information from the other States.

After the amendment was ratified, the subcommittee issued a committee print entitled "Passage and Ratification of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment." This committee print recounted all the circumstances surrounding legislative action on the amendment. In addition, the print had a detailed section concerning the process by which amendments are ratified, with a complete description of the role of the Gen

eral Services Administration and an analysis and interpretation of the Supreme Court cases construing article V. See Passage and Ratification of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, Report of the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee by Senator Birch Bayh, Chairman (Committee Print 1971).

(The 26th Amendment is reprinted in Appendix D of this report.)

PASSAGE OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

The purpose of Senate Joint Resolutions 8, 9, 79, 138, 150, and 159, together with House Joint Resolution 208 was to secure equal rights for men and women and forbid denial or abridgment of equality of rights on account of sex.

Senate Joint Resolutions 8 and 150, introduced by Senator Bayh, Senate Joint Resolution 9, introduced by Senator Cook, and Senate Joint Resolution 79, introduced by Senator Hartke, proposed adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment. As introduced by Senators Bayh and Cook, it provided as follows:

"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.

"SEC. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

"SEC. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.”

Senator Hartke's proposal differed in relation to the enforcement provisions, ratification provisions, and effective date. Senate Joint Resolution 150 was never referred to the subcommittee because it was placed directly upon the Senate Calendar upon introduction (Aug. 6, 1971). Senate Joint Resolution 138, introduced by Senator Miller, guaranteed "equality of rights and responsibilities under the law with respect to opportunities and conditions of education and employment" without regard to sex; as to other matters the States were not to deny, on account of sex, the equal protection of the laws. The article was not to impair laws essential to the exercise of a woman's rights and responsibilities as homemaker and mother.

Senate Joint Resolution 159, introduced by Senator Javits, prevented the denial of the "equal protection of the laws" on account of sex.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Proposed constitutional amendments providing for equal rights for men and women have been introduced in every Congress since 1923, shortly after the ratification of the 19th Amendment extending the right to vote to women. Resolutions were reported favorably by the Subcommittee in the 88th, 89th and 90th Congresses, as well as a number of earlier Congresses. Resolutions were reported favorably by the Committee on the Judiciary in the 80th, 81st, 82d, 83rd, 84th, 86th, 87th and 88th Congresses.

In the 81st Congress, and again in the 83rd Congress, resolutions passed the Senate with a floor amendment. This floor amendment or "rider" provided that the language set out above "shall not be con

strued to impair any rights, benefits or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon members of the female sex." In both instances, the House of Representatives failed to act. The same floor amendment was added to an equal rights resolution during Senate consideration in the 86th Congress. Upon the motion of the resolution's principal sponsors, it was recommitted to the Judiciary Committee.

On May 5, 6, and 7, 1970, the Subcommittee held hearings on the equal rights amendment. It received testimony from 42 witnesses, five of whom opposed passage, received 75 additional insertions of material, and compiled a hearing record of almost 800 pages. (The Equal Rights Amendment, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, 91st Congress, second session.) The Subcommittee met and reported S.J. Res. 61 to the full Committee on August 10, 1970. Soon thereafter the full Committee held a further series of hearings on the amendment, on September 9, 10, 11, and 15, 1970. It listened to 25 witnesses and compiled a 430 page record of hearings. (Equal Rights 1970, Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary, 91st Congress, second session.)

After voting to discharge its Judiciary Committee from further consideration of the bill, the House of Representatives passed the Equal Rights Amendment, H.J. Res. 264, on August 10, 1970, by a vote of 350 to 15. The House-passed joint resolution was not referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee but placed on the Calendar pursuant to the request of the Senate leadership. H.J. Res. 264 became the pending Senate business on October 6, 1970. After several days of debate, on October 13, 1970, the Senate adopted by a vote of 36 yeas to 33 nays Senator Ervin's amendment, No. 1049, to ensure the continued validity of laws exempting women from compulsory military service. Amendment 1049 added a second sentence to the first section of the joint resolution as follows: "This article shall not impair, however, the validity of any law of the United States which exempts women from compulsory military service." Amendment 1049 also imposed a sevenyear time limit on the ratification process and made the joint resolution effective two years-instead of one year-after ratification.

After accepting the Ervin amendment, the Senate also adopted, 50 yeas to 20 nays, Senator Baker's amendment, No. 1048, which added to the pending joint resolution a second section proposing an additional constitutional amendment which would allow all persons lawfully assembled in public buildings to participate in nondenominational prayer. The second proposed article read as follows:

Nothing contained in this Constitution shall abridge the right of persons lawfully assembled, in any public building which is supported in whole or in part through the expenditure of public funds, to participate in nondenominational prayer.

After further debate the Senate laid aside the joint resolution, as amended, on November 19, 1970, and proceeded to the consideration of other business. No further action was taken in the 91st Congress. In the 92d Congress, Subcommittee No. 4 of the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on H.J. Res. 208-which was identical to S.J. Res. 8 and 9 in the 92d Congress-on March 24, 25, and 31;

and April 1, 2, and 5, 1971, hearing testimony from 35 witnesses. (Equal Rights for Men and Women, Hearings Before Subcommittee No. 4 of the House Judiciary Committee, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 1971). On April 29, 1971 the Subcommittee by a voice vote ordered the measure reported to the House Judiciary Committee. The full Committee amended the joint resolution on June 22, 1971 by a vote of 19 to 16 by adding a section which provided that the Amendment would "not impair the validity of any law of the United States which exempts a person from compulsory military service or any other law of the United States or any State which reasonably promotes the health and safety of the people." It then, by vote of 38 to 2, ordered the joint resolution reported favorably. The Committee Report, H.R. Rep. 92-259, was filed on July 14, 1971. Separate views were filed by 14 Representatives; Minority views were filed by 3.

On October 12, 1971 the House rejected by vote of 104 to 254 the Committee amendment to H.J. Res. 208. After further debate, it approved the resolution in its original form by vote of 354 to 23 (117 Cong. Rec. H. 9392 (Daily ed. Oct. 12, 1971)).

In the Senate, the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, after repeatedly failing to get a quorum earlier in the year, met on November 22, 1971, and adopted by vote of 6 to 4 a motion by Senator Ervin, to substitute the following language for sections 1 and 2 of S.J. Res. 8, and S.J. Res. 9, and H.J. Res. 208:

SECTION 1. Neither the United States nor any State shall make any legal distinction between the rights and responsibilities of male and female persons unless such distinction is based on physiological or functional differences between them.

SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this article by appropriate legislation. The Subcommittee then voted unanimously to report all three joint resolutions, as amended, to the full Judiciary Committee.

By vote of 15 to 1 of February 29, 1972, the Senate Judiciary Committee ordered S.J. Res. 8, S.J. Res. 9, and H.J. Res. 208 reported favorably to the floor in their original form.

The full Committee's report on the Amendment, Senate Report 92689, was submitted on March 14, 1972 together with minority views. Senate debate on the Amendment took place on March 15, 17, 20, 21, and 22, 1972. Final passage of the Amendment, by a vote of 84 to 8, occurred on March 22. See 118 Cong. Rec. S4612 (daily ed.) Mar. 22, 1972. Prior to final passage, the Senate took the following action on the Amendment: rejected by 18 yeas to 73 nays Senator Ervin's amendment # 1065 dealing with military service; rejected by 18 yeas to 71 nays Ervin amendment #1066 dealing with service in combat units; rejected by 11 yeas to 75 nays Ervin amendment #1067 dealing with protective legislation; rejected by 14 yeas to 77 nays Ervin amendment #1068 dealing with exemptions for wives, mothers and widows; rejected by 17 yeas to 72 nays Ervin amendment #1069 dealing with child support; rejected by 11 yeas to 79 nays Ervin amendment #1070 dealing with privacy; rejected by 17 yeas to 71 nays Ervin amendment #1071 dealing with sexual offenses; rejected by 12