The Equal Rights Amendment
If ratification comes up IT APPEARS that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) may lose some of its support in the next legislative election. In district races where incumbents have retired or been beaten in the primary, some likely replacements are less favorable toward ERA than their predecessors. This is especially true in the downstate House, where it looks as if two or three pro-ERA seats could be lost, according to our candidate opinion survey combined with a projection of likely winners. In the 45th District, for example, George A. Saal, Jr., a Pekin Democrat against ERA, is the leading candidate to replace Rep. Richard Luft (D., Pekin), who is retiring after losing his bid for the comptroller nomination. Luft has voted for ERA, but Saal says there is "too much time spent on it," and if the vote were held today he would vote against ERA. A similar situation exists in the 55th District race for the seat held by retiring Rep. Harold D. Byers (D., Highland), an ERA proponent. Both the Republican and leading Democratic candidate for his seat are opposed to the amendment. The Democrat is Michael Slape of Pocahontas, who is "against" ERA. The Republican is Frank C. Watson of Greenville, who explains, "I am for equal rights for women and would do all I could to change legislation on the state level. But I would vote 'no' on ERA. It takes much of the decision making away from states and local government [the people], and places it in the hands of our courts, which I do not favor." A third downstate district where one pro-ERA vote may be lost is the 59th, where the pro-ERA incumbent is not running for reelection. Rep. Richard O. Hart (D., Benton) may be replaced either by Democrat James F. Rea of Christopher, who is apparently undecided on ERA, or Republican James E. Eatherly of Galatia, who is opposed to ERA. The 30 House districts in Cook County appear stable so far as ERA vote totals are concerned. Supporters may pick up 10/October 1978/ Illinois Issues one more vote in the 30th District, where Rep. Frank Giglio (D., Calumet City), a "no" vote on ERA, was narrowly beaten in the primary by a decidedly pro-ERA candidate, Miriam Balanoff. She won by 478 votes over Giglio, with the backing of pro-ERA forces. In short, if the House is to lose ERA votes, it will probably be in only about three downstate districts offset by a gain of one vote upstate. But this could be disastrous for overall chances of the amendment's passing since it fell two votes shy of adoption June 22 on an unofficial 105-71 roll call vote—the most votes it has ever received in the House. Of course there is the possibility that the House could change its self-imposed 3/5 majority to a simple majority requirement. To change the House rule would also take a 3/5 majority vote, but 3/5 might be easier to obtain on a rule change than on the amendment itself. The strength for adoption on a simple 89-vote majority has always existed in the House, ever since the first ERA roll call in 1972. But the House has been reluctant to change the traditional 3/5 requirement for constitutional amendments since anti-ERA forces say the move would be unfair and inconsistent. Meanwhile, in the Senate November election, ERA supporters stand to lose two pro-ERA votes. In the Republican 1st District, Rep. Roger A. Keats (R., Wilmette) is running and is favored to win the Senate seat of former Sen. Bradley M. Glass (R., Northbrook), who is retiring after he lost his bid for nomination for state treasurer. Glass was a consistent supporter of ERA while Keats is on record against it, both in our poll and in his voting record in the House. In the 16th District, incumbent Sen. Robert J. Egan (D., Chicago), a past ERA backer, has a tough race against the Republican anti-ERA challenger, William K. Dammeier of Norridge. Dammeier is capable of unseating Egan since Republicans are concentrating on this as a swing district. But even without a win by Dammeier, anti-ERA forces may profit by a vote in this district, since Egan told us in July, "I'm going to reassess my position." He added that he would like to see the question put to a statewide referendum. Egan voted against ERA in 1972 and 1975 before switching to vote for it the last time it came before the Senate in 1976. It was then 8 votes short of a 3/5 majority on a 28-21 roll call. During the 1978 spring session, ERA backers in the Senate refused to call it for a vote, since they feared it was 3 to 5 votes short of the needed 36. Next session the prospect may be worse by one or two votes. It is not known what effect the proposed extension of the federal deadline for ratification by states will have on the vote in Illinois. Some may consider an extension unfair, and vote against ERA as a result. The U.S. House has already passed and the Senate is considering 39-month extension to ratify the amendment. Thirty-five states have ratified it so far and three more are needed to make it part of the U.S. Constitution. The seven-year deadline expires March 22, 1979, unless Congress grants an extension. Illinois is the only major industrial state which has not ratified ERA and is considered the key to national adoption. It is possible proponents will call the amendment for a vote in the upcoming November session before the current General Assembly winds up its business. October 1978/ Illinois Issues/11
|
|||||||||||||||
