State Rescissions of Constitutional Ratifications
If the ERA ever does come back before Congress, one issue that will almost certainly come up is whether three-fourths of the states have ratified given that some repealed their ratifications in the 1970s. While Congress is free to disregard state rescissions and has never recognized such a state right, I cannot see why a state should be precluded from rescinding a ratification under Article V.
There has to be some logical consistency. If Congress can change its mind about the time limit for ratification, then why can a state not change its mind about ratifying? Finality in the process, you might say, only comes when the amendment is ratified. None of the arguments made against state rescissions are persuasive in my view, though I’m open to hearing counterarguments.
Are there circumstances where Congress should ignore a clear state rescission? Maybe they are the same considerations that drive whether an amendment is timely ratified in the absence of a clear deadline. Or maybe they are different. I’m not sure.