SPECULATION ON what effect the death of Mayor Richard J. Daley will have on the passage of the federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in Illinois has been abundant. Daley's passing and the turnovers in the nation's and state's top executive posts may have some effects, but the most important factor in determining the fate of ERA in Illinois is how the new legislators in the 80th General Assembly will line up on the question. In January, after a period of nearly two years in which no state had ratified, Indiana became the 35th state to approve the ERA, and Virginia narrowly rejected it. As it stands now, two more years remain of the seven-year ratification period. By March 1979 three more states must approve the ERA amendment or it is dead. Illinois is listed among the key states which ERAmerica, the national lobbying organization, considers having the "best chances" of passing the amendment. Others include Florida, Missouri, Oklahoma, Nevada and North Carolina.
ERA supporters were delighted to see the extent to which President Jimmy Carter got involved as president-elect in the struggle for passage during the December session of the 79th General Assembly. They were disillusioned, however, at the minimal effect he had. Carter not only sent a member of his family to lobby for passage, but he and his staff also made at least eight calls to key senators and Mayor Daley. But those who were contacted were not swayed and the Senate turned down the measure 29 to 22, which was 7 votes short of the 36 needed for the three-fifths majority required by Senate rules.
Peg Blaser, chief coordinator of the ERA lobbying effort for the past three years, contended, "Legislators preferred to have Carter mad at them than Mayor Daley." After three years, Blaser is giving up. "It's time for new faces and new leadership," she said. "I've pulled every chip. I'm not effective anymore. I'm just burned out." One "new face" was Judy Carter's, President Carter's daughter-in-law. "She was a superlative person," exclaimed Blaser, "you should have seen her eyeballing those senators!" Blaser is not out of the picture. She was named assistant to Gov. James Thompson.
Other supporters contend the measure would have passed if Senate President Cecil Partee (D., Chicago), chief sponsor of ERA in the Senate, would have called the bill on Wednesday night, December 15, instead of the following day. "The votes were out there," said Blaser. "But he was under terrible pressure. I guess the mayor did not want it. And he's the mayor's man." Some other supporters thought the loss was more due to the tactical error of not keeping Judy Carter in Springfield one more day to watch the actual voting of the legislators she had spoken to on Wednesday.
Ironically, Blaser's assessment was made on December 19, the day before Mayor Daley died. Just what effect would his death have on ERA? "We have no idea of how it will affect us," said Doris Conant, president of ERA-Illinois, a coalition of more than 40 organizations working for ERA ratification. "We really have no idea of how he affected us when he was alive. He said he was personally in favor of it, but there was no evidence of his helping us. He may in fact have been a detriment." Daley may have personally supported ERA, but never made it mandatory for his Democratic loyalists in the legislature to vote for it. ERA-Illinois had counted on the votes of all the Daley loyalists except Sen. Richard S. Clewis (D., Chicago), who voted "present" is December and Sen. Leroy Lemke (D., Chicago), who was absent.
On this point, the opposition — in the name of Phyllis Schlafly, chairman of Stop ERA — agrees. "I don't think Mayor Daley's death would have much effect," she said. "He did not do much for it anyway." As for Gov. James Thompson, Schlafly advises him to stay out of the controversy. "He's got enough other problems to tackle. He'd be smart to stay out."
Thompson indicated his personal support of the amendment during the campaign. After his election, he also told a meeting of the Task Force on Women in Government that he would work for passage of the measure. "Thompson said he is in favor," said Conant, "but maybe he won't be able to deliver. Walker was in favor too, but he wasn't much help either."
Supporters are not counting on a great deal of help. "His [Thompson's] priorities are not clear," said Warren Copeland, secretary of ERA-Illinois. "He's not going to get support for ERA just by saying he's the governor and wants a legislator to vote for it. It's going to be a matter of what he is willing to trade off, and I question what he is willing to do in return for their support."
One of the big problems in getting the ERA through has been its entanglement with other issues such as school aid funding and the creation of the Regional Transit Authority. "It's been around so long," said Copeland, "I think some legislators want to keep it alive just so they can bargain off of it." Supporters are working for a vote early in the session to avoid it being used as a bargaining chip. "As the session drags on, it just gets harder and harder," said Conant.
22 / March 1977 / Illinois Issues
The federal amendment keeps losing in the Illinois Senate. The rules require a three-fifths majority to ratify. Proponents may try to change rule to require only majority
ERA forces will probably start the
measure in the Senate because that is
where it has become bogged down in the
past. If the Senate goes for it, undecided
House members are much more likely to
vote for it, explained Copeland.
Both chambers will probably have
new sponsors. Partee, last session's
Senate sponsor, gave up his seat in his
unsuccessful bid for attorney general.
There is divided opinion among ERA
supporters as to the merits of having the
sponsor from the leadership. "A lot of
people think they did not get as much of
his [Partee's] support as they might have
if he had not been president. A president just has a lot of other pressures,"
said Copeland. Copeland said the new Senate sponsor will be consulted as to his choice for
a House sponsor. He said, "It's traditional to find someone he can work
with." Last year's House sponsors, Rep.
Eugenia Chapman (D., Arlington
Heights) and Rep. Goudyloch Dyer (R.,
Hinsdale), have indicated they are not
interested in sponsoring the measure
again. "They said they've carried the
load for awhile and that it was time for
someone else to do it," said Copeland.
He added they were leaning toward
getting sponsors from both parties in
both chambers. Despite a November election gain of
several votes in the Senate and a loss of
several in the House, ERA-Illinois is
still concentrating most of its efforts on
the Senate. The House voted 95-72 in
favor of ratifying ERA in 1973 and 113-62 in 1975, but the Senate rejected the
proposal both times. Copeland sees the
votes as "razor thin" in both chambers
of the 80th General Assembly — especially if a three-fifths vote is still
required. The three-fifths majority vote is 36 in the Senate; simple majority
would need 30 votes. Last December, 29
Senators voted for it. Copeland said he was "fairly confident" of 35 votes. He figures on the 29
"yes" votes cast in December roll call,
plus the three "yes" votes elected in
November to replace "no" votes, plus
the three senators' votes who voted
"present" in December. The final vote
could come from Sen. Robert Guidice
(D., Chicago) who is presently undecided on ERA. He was selected by the
Democratic Party to replace Sen.
Harold Nudelman (D., Chicago). It
could also come from some of the shaky
"no's." Among those listed by Copeland
were Sen. John Davidson (R., Springfield), Sen. Harber Hall (R., Bloomington), Sen. Kenneth McMillan (R.,
Bushnell), Sen. Terry Bruce (D., Olney),
Sen. Gene Johns (D., Marion) and Sen.
John Nimrod (R., Park Ridge). ERA-Illinois figures some of these
senators, especially Davidson and Hall,
won reelection by significantly smaller
margins than previous elections partly
because of their positions on ERA. Both
legislative races were targeted for work
by ERA, including the hiring of a
campaign worker. ERA-Illinois is
proud of its hand in the election of Sen.
George Sangmeister (D., Mokena) over
James Bell of Joliet, a Republican and
outspoken opponent of ERA. Sangmeister specifically attributed his victory to ERA support. Mrs. Schlafly views ERA'S gains
differently. "They did not lose on that
[ERA] issue," she said. "They lost for
different reasons."
The other two Senate votes picked up
by ERA were Earlean Collins (D., Oak
Park) who defeated incumbent Raymond Welsh (D., Oak Park) in the
primary, and John Grotberg (R., St.
Charles) who won the seat of former
Sen. William C. Harris (R., Pontiac).
Harris ran unsuccessfully for secretary
of state instead of running for reelection
to the Senate.
One other "no" vote switched to a
"yes" when Sen. Sam Romano (D.,
Chicago) died in 1975 and his seat was
filled by a representative, John D'Arco
(D., Chicago). There were no switches in
the other direction as a result of the
election. Five "pros" and six "anti's"
were elected to replace senators who had
the same positions on the issue. Despite the loss of several "yes"
House votes in the fall, ERA-Illinois is less concerned about the House approving the amendment. They figure they
have about 106 votes with 10 yet to be
"nailed down." The three-fifths majority
requires 107.
Six new women were elected to the
House in November, three for ERA and
three against it. All 12 incumbent
women House members were reelected.
Rep. Eugenia Chapman (D., Arlington
Heights), a leader of the pro-forces in
the House, said an effort would probably be made to change House and
Senate rules so that only a majority vote
is required for ratification of federal
constitutional amendments. Current
rules, which are about as controversial
as the amendment itself, call for the
three-fifths majority.
Although the 1970 state Constitution
requires a three-fifths majority to ratify
an amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
there has been a court ruling holding
that requirement invalid. On February
19, 1975, a three-judge panel in the U.S.
District Court of Illinois, Eastern
Division, ruled in Dyer v. Blair that the
power to determine the vote required to
ratify a federal amendment rests with
the General Assembly itself.
The court said the power was granted
to the General Assembly and all other
state legislatures by the U.S. Constitution, and therefore the three-fifths
requirement of the Illinois Constitution
was invalid because it bound the General Assembly to a particular number of
votes to ratify an amendment. The
three-fifths requirement as a rule of the
legislature is valid, although it is not
required by the state Constitution. Only
one other state requires an extraordinary margin from both houses, and 42
of the states require a simple majority.
Legislators are confused on the
controversial question, explained Diane
Greenholdt, 50th District coordinator
of ERA-Illinois. They don't know
whether to believe the panel since the
U.S. Supreme Court didn't hear the
case, and they want to uphold the
Illinois Constitution. They also want to
keep the margin tough for other amendments that might come along. ERA is the only constitutional
amendment brought before the General
Assembly that has needed this extra
margin. Supporters are hoping that this
is the end of its uniqueness. Since
becoming a state in 1818, the General
Assembly has never turned down a
constitutional amendment.
March 1977 / Illinois Issues / 23