WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HCR 57

Clarifying that the 1972 ratification by the 62nd Texas Legislature, 2nd Called Session, of the proposed 1972 Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was only valid through March 22, 1979.

89th Legislature (2025) Introduced by David Lowe

Texas resolution retroactively declares its 1972 Equal Rights Amendment ratification expired in 1979, blocking current ERA ratification efforts.

Referred to State Affairs
#equalrightsamendment(nc03i) #resolutions--legislativepolicy(i0685) #resolutions--memorializingcongress(i0675) #resolutions--unitedstatesconstitution(i0670)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HCR 57

Legislative bill overview

HCR 57 is a concurrent resolution that seeks to clarify and retroactively limit Texas's 1972 ratification of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution, declaring that ratification valid only through March 22, 1979. The bill essentially argues that Texas's ratification expired when the original federal deadline passed, preventing the state from being counted in any current ERA ratification efforts.

Why is this important

The ERA has experienced renewed interest in recent years, with additional states attempting to ratify it after the original 1979 deadline. This resolution directly impacts whether Texas can be counted toward the three-fourths state majority (38 states) needed to add the ERA to the Constitution. The outcome could determine whether the ERA ultimately becomes constitutional law, making this a high-stakes procedural question with major implications for gender equality protections.

Potential points of contention

  • Retroactive application: The bill attempts to impose a deadline limitation decades after the original ratification occurred, raising questions about whether legislatures can retroactively limit prior ratifications
  • Constitutional authority: Legal scholars dispute whether states can "unratify" or set expiration dates on constitutional amendments, as the Constitution itself contains no such mechanism
  • Political motivation: The bill appears designed to block ERA ratification momentum rather than address a genuine legal ambiguity, raising concerns about using procedural maneuvers for substantive policy goals

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.