Lucille Roybal-Allard on Civil Rights Democratic Representative (CA-34)

Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

Amends the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) to add or expand definitions of several terms used in such Act, including :
1. "culturally specific services" to mean community-based services that offer culturally relevant and linguistically specific services and resources to culturally specific communities;
2. "personally identifying information" with respect to a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
3. "underserved populations" as populations that face barriers in accessing and using victim services because of geographic location, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; and
4. "youth" to mean a person who is 11 to 24 years old.

Opponent's Argument for voting No (The Week; Huffington Post, and The Atlantic): House Republicans had objected to provisions in the Senate bill that extended VAWA's protections to lesbians, gays, immigrants, and Native Americans. For example, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) voted against the VAWA bill because it was a "politically–motivated, constitutionally-dubious Senate version bent on dividing women into categories by race, transgender politics and sexual preference." The objections can be grouped in two broadly ideological areas--that the law is an unnecessary overreach by the federal government, and that it represents a "feminist" attack on family values. The act's grants have encouraged states to implement "mandatory-arrest" policies, under which police responding to domestic-violence calls are required to make an arrest. These policies were intended to combat the too-common situation in which a victim is intimidated into recanting an abuse accusation. Critics also say VAWA has been subject to waste, fraud, and abuse because of insufficient oversight.

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. CASTOR: The march towards equality under the law for all of our citizens has sometimes been slow, but it has been steady. Over time, Congress has outlawed discrimination in the workplace, based upon a person's race, gender, age, national origin, religion and disability, because when it comes to employment, these decisions are rightly based upon a person's qualifications and job performance. This legislation that outlaws job discrimination based upon sexual orientation was first introduced over 30 years ago. A broad coalition of businesses and community organizations strongly support this landmark civil rights legislation, including the Human Rights Campaign; the Anti-Defamation League; and the NAACP.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. HASTINGS: Federal law bans job discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or gender. In addition, 19 States have passed laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I strongly oppose discrimination in the workplace. However, I do not think it is the place of the Federal Government to legislate how each and every workplace operates. A number of States have enacted State laws in this area. That is their right. Many businesses have chosen to adopt their own policies. That is appropriate as well. This bill as written would expand Federal law into a realm where PERCEPTION would be a measure under discrimination law [which I consider inappropriate].

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman.

Proponents support voting YES because:

The overwhelming majority of the American people support traditional marriage, marriage between a man and a woman. The people have a right to know whether their elected Representatives agree with them about protecting traditional marriage.

Every child deserves both a father and a mother. Studies demonstrate the utmost importance of the presence of a child's biological parents in a child's happiness, health and future achievements. If we chip away at the institution which binds these parents and the family together, the institution of marriage, you begin to chip away at the future success of that child.

Opponents support voting NO because:

This amendment does not belong in our Constitution. It is unworthy of our great Nation. We have amended the Constitution only 27 times. Constitutional amendments have always been used to enhance and expand the rights of citizens, not to restrict them. Now we are being asked to amend the Constitution again, to single out a single group and to say to them for all time, you cannot even attempt to win the right to marry.

From what precisely would this amendment protect marriage? From divorce? From adultery? No. Evidently, the threat to marriage is the fact that there are millions of people in this country who very much believe in marriage, who very much want to marry but who are not permitted to marry. I believe firmly that in the not-too-distant future people will look back on these debates with the incredulity with which we now view the segregationist debates of years past.

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent.

• Assigning three judges to hear individuals' petitions concerning improper requests by the FBI for library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, book customer lists, and other records
• Reporting every year the number of library records orders that are granted, modified, or denied
• Allows Internet service providers to disclose their subscribers information and the contents of their communications to a government entity, if they believe there is “immediate danger of death or serious physical injury”
• Requires that any court that allows a “roving wiretap” under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) must describe in great detail the intended target whose identity is not known
• Allows individuals and businesses to seek legal counsel if they have received a National Security Letter from the FBI requiring them to disclose financial information and records

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration.

Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC.

Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.

Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender.

Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women. Summary: States that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Establish a national holiday honoring Native Americans.

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that schools across the Nation should teach about the role of Native Americans in American history and culture and lead community service projects that further that education; and that there should be a legal public holiday honoring Native Americans.

Rated 86% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve protections and guarantees America’s original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
• Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
• Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
• Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

Our ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 HRC scores as follows:

• 0% - 20%: opposes gay rights (approx. 207 members)
• 20% - 70%: mixed record on gay rights (approx. 84 members)
• 70%-100%: supports gay rights (approx. 177 members)

The Human Rights Campaign represents a grassroots force of more than 700,000 members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, HRC envisions an America where GLBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.

Ever since its founding in 1980, HRC has led the way in promoting fairness for GLBT Americans. HRC is a bipartisan organization that works to advance equality based on sexual orientation and gender expression and identity.

Rated 94% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 NAACP scores as follows:

• 0% - 33%: anti-affirmative-action stance (approx. 177 members)
• 34% - 84%: mixed record on affirmative-action (approx. 96 members)
• 85%-100%: pro-affirmative-action stance (approx. 190 members)

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has worked over the years to support and promote our country's civil rights agenda. Since its founding in 1909, the NAACP has worked tirelessly to end racial discrimination while also ensuring the political, social, and economic equality of all people. The Association will continue this mission through its policy initiatives and advocacy programs at the local, state, and national levels. From the ballot box to the classroom, the dedicated workers, organizers, and leaders who forged this great organization and maintain its status as a champion of social justice, fought long and hard to ensure that the voices of African Americans would be heard. For nearly one hundred years, it has been the talent and tenacity of NAACP members that has saved lives and changed many negative aspects of American society.

ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays.

Prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity by covered entities (employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees). Prohibits preferential treatment or quotas. Allows only disparate treatment claims. Prohibits related retaliation.

Makes this Act inapplicable to:
1. religious organizations; and
2. the relationship between the United States and members of the Armed Forces.

Constitutional Amendment for women's equal rights.

JOINT RESOLUTION: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women. Constitutional Amendment: Prohibits denying or abridging equality of rights under the law by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives: That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4ths of the several States:
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.
2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

[Explanatory note from Wikipedia.com and OnTheIssues.org]:

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress, but failed to gain ratification before its June 30, 1982 deadline. This new proposed amendment is identical in wording to the original 1972 proposed amendment. It was proposed in Congress in every session from 1923 through 1970 prior to passing in 1972; and has been re-introduced in Congress in every session since 1982 after its failure at ratification. The current version removes the Congressionally imposed deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, so that if the bill passes Congress, states have no deadline as they did in 1982.

Prohibit sexual-identity discrimination at schools.

Student Non-Discrimination Act of 2011:
• Prohibits public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates.
• Considers harassment to be a form of discrimination.
• Prohibits retaliation against anyone for opposing conduct they reasonably believe to be unlawful under this Act.
• Authorizes federal departments and agencies to enforce these prohibitions by cutting off the educational assistance of recipients found to be violating them.
• Allows an aggrieved individual to assert a violation of this Act in a judicial proceeding and recover reasonable attorney's fees should they prevail.
• Deems a state's receipt of federal educational assistance for a program to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity for conduct prohibited under this Act regarding such program.

Endorsed as "preferred" by The Feminist Majority indicating pro-women's rights.

The Feminist Majority endorses candidates for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. In addition to the stronger "endorsement," the organization also determines "preferred" candidates in races where they do not endorse. Their mission statement:

"Our mission is to empower feminists, who are the majority, and to win equality for women at the decision-making tables of the state, nation, and the world. The Feminist Majority promotes non-discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, religion, ethnicity, age, marital status, nation of origin, size or disability. The purpose of Feminist Majority is to promote equality for women and men, non-violence, reproductive health, peace, social justice and economic development and to enhance feminist participation in public policy. Feminist Majority supports workers’ collective bargaining, pay equity, and end of sweatshops. We encourage programs directed at the preservation of the environment."

Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools.

Congressional Summary:

• Prohibits public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates.
• Considers harassment to be a form of discrimination.
• Prohibits retaliation against anyone for opposing conduct made unlawful under this Act.
• Authorizes federal departments and agencies to enforce these prohibitions by cutting off the educational assistance of recipients found to be violating them.
• Allows an aggrieved individual to assert a violation of this Act in a judicial proceeding and recover reasonable attorney's fees should they prevail.

  Opponent's argument against bill:(by Cato Institute reported on Fox News): A bill in Congress that would prohibit discrimination in public schools based on sexual orientation or gender identity could stifle free speech and even lead to "homosexual indoctrination" in the nation's classrooms, critics say.

  "The real danger is how this will be interpreted," said the associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute. "The definition of harassment could be broadly interpreted that anybody who expressed a totally legitimate opinion about homosexual behavior could be made illegal. That's a violation of those kids who want to express opposition to LGBT opinions or behavior. People have a legitimate reason to be concerned about this--not because they're 'haters' but because you're now trying to balance different rights."

  Proponent's argument for bill: (Rep. Jared POLIS, House sponsor): "Hatred has no place in the classroom. Every student has the right to an education free from harassment and violence. This bill will protect the freedoms of our students and enshrine the values of equality and opportunity in the classroom."

  Source: H.R.1652 / S.1088 13-H1652 on Jul 8, 2013

  Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender.

  Roybal-Allard co-sponsored Paycheck Fairness Act
  Congress finds the following:
  1. Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over the past 50 years.
  2. Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the private and governmental sectors. In many instances, the pay disparities can only be due to continued intentional discrimination or the lingering effects of past discrimination.
  3. The existence of such pay disparities depresses the wages of working families who rely on the wages of all members of the family to make ends meet; and undermines women's retirement security.
  4. Artificial barriers to the elimination of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. These barriers have resulted because the Equal Pay Act has not worked as Congress originally intended.
  5. The Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have important and unique responsibilities to help ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.
  6. The Department of Labor is responsible for investigating and prosecuting equal pay violations, especially systemic violations, and in enforcing all of its mandates.
  7. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the primary enforcement agency for claims made under the Equal Pay Act.
  8. With a stronger commitment [to enforcement], increased information on wage data and more effective remedies, women will be better able to recognize and enforce their rights.
  9. Certain employers have already made great strides in eradicating unfair pay disparities in the workplace and their achievements should be recognized.
  Source: S.84&H.R.377 13-HR0377 on Jan 23, 2013

  Protect LGBT families from illegal immigrant deportation.

  Roybal-Allard signed Letter on UAFA on LGBT immigrant rights

  Press release from office of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-10)

  Rep. Nadler, lead sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), was joined by 68 Members of Congress in pushing to protect LGBT binational families from unnecessary deportations. The 69 Members sent letters to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder requesting that LGBT family ties be considered in pending deportation cases involving binational same-sex couples:

  Wrote the Members. "We ask that you ensure that recognition of LGBT family ties is reflected in the work of DHS and DOJ employees. Without specific guidance, it is unlikely that agency officers, agents, and attorneys making decisions about individual cases will be aware that LGBT family ties are a factor for consideration."

  Some background on UAFA:
  • UAFA would add the term "permanent partner" to sections of the Immigration and Naturalization Act that apply to married heterosexual couples.
  • This legislation would afford equal immigration benefits to permanent partners as exist for married heterosexuals, and it would impose the same restrictions.
  • Because [federal law] does not legally recognize gay and lesbian couples and their children as families, many same-sex binational couples are torn apart.
  • Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) also introduced UAFA in the Senate.
  Argument in opposition: (in Huffington Post, Feb. 5, 2013)

  Several Republican lawmakers have expressed strong opposition to granting same-sex couples equal immigration rights, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). McCain has criticized including same-sex couples in comprehensive immigration reform, saying that such a provision would kill the bill. "Which is more important: LGBT or border security?" McCain asked. "I'll tell you what my priorities are. If you're going to load it up with social issues, that is the best way to derail it, in my view."

  Source: Letter from 69 Members of Congress 14_Lt_LGBT on Sep 27, 2011

  Recognize 1961 Freedom Riders against segregated buses.

  Roybal-Allard co-sponsored Congressional Gold Medal for the Freedom Riders

  Congressional summary:: A BILL to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the Freedom Riders, collectively, in recognition of their unique contribution to Civil Rights, which inspired a revolutionary movement for equality in interstate travel. The Congress finds the following:

  • In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled in Boynton v. Virginia that segregated bus and rail stations were unconstitutional.
  • The rigid system of racial segregation that prevailed in the United States during the 1960s did not permit a Black person to sit next to a White person on any bus traveling through interstate commerce and in most locations in the South. Bus stations had 'Whites Only' waiting areas and Blacks were not permitted to wait in those areas despite the Supreme Court making it the law of the land.
  • The Freedom Riders, with the intent to end segregation in public transportation throughout the South, paved the way for full racial integration of the US transit system. They overcame prejudice, discrimination, and violence. They sparked a movement that changed our Nation.
  • The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) selected 13 volunteers for nonviolent response training. The Freedom Riders used their strategies of nonviolence to challenge the South's Jim Crow laws directly by riding from Washington DC to New Orleans.
  • On the morning of May 4, 1961, the 13 Freedom Riders, comprised of 7 Blacks and 6 Whites, boarded two buses, with Blacks and Whites seated together.
  • Initially, the Freedom Riders had encountered only minor clashes until a stop in South Carolina. In Rock Hill, an angry mob severely beat John Lewis, now a Congressman from Georgia, when he entered the bus station. Additional mobs fought the group in Alabama and Mississippi.
  Congress shall present a gold medal of appropriate design to the Freedom Riders, collectively. The gold medal shall be given to the Smithsonian Institution, where it will be available for display & research. Source: H.R.4041 14-H4041 on Feb 11, 2014

  Don't elevate gender identity as a protected class.

  Roybal-Allard voted YEA H.Amdt. 1128 to H.R. 5055

  Heritage Action Summary: The Maloney Amendment would ratify President Obama's 2014 executive order barring federal contractors from what it describes as "discrimination" on the basis of "sexual orientation and gender identity" in their private employment policies. In practice, it would have required federal contractors to grant biologically male employees who identify as women unfettered access to women's lockers, showers, and bathrooms.

  Heritage Foundation recommendation to vote NO: (5/25/2016): Congress should not be elevating sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class garnering special legal privileges, which is the intent of the Maloney Amendment. The Maloney Amendment constitutes bad policy that unnecessarily regulates businesses. It risks undoing longstanding protections in civil rights law and makes clear that the president's orders are not exempt from them.

  ACLU recommendation to vote YES: (5/11/2016): We see today claims to a right to discriminate--by refusing to provide services to LGBT people--based on religious objections. Claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion is not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It's no different today.

  Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to impose those beliefs on others.

  Legislative outcome: Amendment passed by the House 223-195-15 4/26/16; overall bill H.R.5055 failed 112-305-16 on 5/26/2016

  Source: Congressional vote 16-H5055 on May 25, 2016

  Let states recognize same sex marriage.

  Roybal-Allard signed Respect for Marriage Act

  Congressional Summary: Amends the Defense of Marriage Act to let states recognize same sex marriage. Defines "marriage" to provide that an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the state or country where the marriage was entered into. Removes the definition of "spouse" (currently, a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife).

  Wikipedia and GLAAD history: In United States v. Windsor (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) struck down the act's provisions disallowing same-sex marriages to be performed under federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court case did not challenge Section 2 of DOMA. Section 2 declares that all states have the right to deny recognition of the marriage of same sex couples that originated in states where they are legally recognized.

  Heritage Foundation recommendation to vote NO: (3/20/2013): Americans respect marriage, not only as a crucial institution of civil society but the fundamental building block of all human civilization. This is why 41 states and the federal government affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman. The government isn't in the business of affirming our loves. Rather it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose. And contrary to what some say, there is no ban on same-sex marriage. In all 50 states, two people of the same sex may choose to live together, and choose to join a religious community that blesses their relationship. What's at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages--and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages.

  Legislative outcome: Died in Committee (never came to a vote).

  Source: S.29 & H.197 17-H0197 on Jan 6, 2015

  Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.

  Roybal-Allard co-sponsored providing benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees

  Sen. LIEBERMAN: This legislation would require the Government to extend employee benefit programs to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees. It is sound public policy and it makes excellent business sense.

  Under our bill, Federal employee and the employee's domestic partner would be eligible to participate in benefits to the same extent that married employees and their spouses participate. Employees and their partners would also assume the same obligations that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.

  The Federal Government is our Nation's largest employer and should lead other employers, rather than lagging behind, in the quest to provide equal and fair compensation and benefits to all employees. That thousands of Federal workers who have dedicated their careers to public service and who live in committed relationships with same-sex domestic partners receive fewer protections for their families than those married employees is patently unfair and, frankly, makes no economic sense.

  I call upon my colleagues to express their support for this important legislation. It is time for the Federal Government to catch up to the private sector, not just to set an example but so that it can compete for the most qualified employees and ensure that all of our public servants receive fair and equitable treatment. It makes good economic and policy senses. It is the right thing to do.

  SUMMARY: Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007

  Employees and their domestic partners will have the same benefits as married employees and their spouses under--
  • Employee health benefits
  • Retirement and disability plans
  • Family, medical, and emergency leave
  • Group life insurance
  • Long-term care insurance
  • Compensation for work injuries
  • Death, disability, and similar benefits
  • Relocation, travel, and related expenses.
  Source: Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S.2521/H.R.4838) 2007-S2521 on Dec 19, 2007

  Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment.

  Roybal-Allard co-sponsored re-introducing the Equal Rights Amendment
  A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women, which shall be part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the States:
  • 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.
  • Section 2.The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
  • Section 3.This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.
  Sen. KENNEDY. "It's a privilege to join my colleagues in reintroducing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. The ERA is essential to guarantee that the freedoms protected by our Constitution apply equally to men and women. From the beginning of our history as a Nation, women have had to wage a constant, long and difficult battle to win the same basic rights granted to men. That battle goes on today, since discrimination still continues in many ways.

  "Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act & the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, discrimination against women continues to permeate the workforce and many areas of the economy. Today, women earn about 77 cents for each dollar earned by men, and the gap is even greater for women of color. More than 60% of working women are still clustered in a narrow range of traditionally female, traditionally low-paying occupations, and female-headed households continue to dominate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.

  "A stronger effort is clearly needed to finally live up to our commitment of full equality. The ERA alone cannot remedy all discrimination, but it will clearly strengthen the ongoing efforts of women across the country to obtain equal treatment.

  "We know from the failed ratification experiences of the past that amending the Constitution to include the ERA will not be easy to achieve. But the women of America deserve no less."

  Source: Equal Rights Amendment (S.J.RES.10/H.J.RES.40) 2007-SJR10 on Mar 29, 2007

  Sponsored bill for ratifying Equal Rights Amendment.

  Roybal-Allard co-sponsored Removing deadline for ERA ratification

  H.J.Res.17: Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment: This joint resolution eliminates the deadline for the ratification of the ERA, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The amendment was proposed to the states in House Joint Resolution 208 of the 92nd Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972. The amendment shall be part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

  Opinion to vote YES (Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL-7): The ERA was first proposed in 1923, shortly after women gained the right to vote. [The original] 1979 deadline was later extended before it expired. By the end of 1982, 35 of the 38 required state legislatures had voted to ratify the ERA. Nevada ratified the ERA in 2017, Illinois in 2018 and, in January 2020, Virginia became the 38th and final state required to ratify it. If passed in the Senate, H.J. Res. 79 would remove the arbitrary 1982 deadline.

  Opinion to vote NO (Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA-1): H. J. Res 17 would retroactively remove the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Regardless of your thoughts on the ERA, the deadline for the states to ratify the amendment expired four decades ago. By passing this resolution, House Democrats are virtue signaling and trying to take a shortcut around what is required in our constitutional amendment process. Those who want to pass an ERA will need to start this process from the beginning. Today's vote mocks the intentionally high bar set by our Founders to make changes to our precious Constitution.

  Legislative Outcome: Passed House 222-204-4 on 03/17/2021; received in the Senate and read on 3/23. [OnTheIssues notes on the duration for ratification that the 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed by Congress in 1789 and was ratified by 3/4 of the States and became law in 1992, a ratification period of 202 years].

  Source: H.J.Res.17 21-HJR17 on Jan 21, 2021

  Supported legislation on violence against women & safety.

  Roybal-Allard adopted the Women's Caucus policy agenda:
  The teams of the Women’s Caucus are charged with advancing action on their designated issues in a bipartisan manner. Legislation from Team 1: VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN/SAFETY ISSUES:
  • HR764—Child Abuse & Prevention Enforcement (CAPE) Act—To reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect, and for other purposes. (Pryce) STATUS: Passed House, 10/5/99
  • HR1248—Violence Against Women Act of 1999 (VAWA Reauthorization)—A bill to prevent violence against women. (Morella) STATUS: Hearing held, 9/29/99
  • HR1352—Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victims’ Housing Act—A bill to provide housing assistance to domestic violence victims. (Schakowsky) STATUS: Amended version added to HR 1073 (Homeless Housing Programs Consolidation and Flexibility Act), which passed Banking Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, 4/15/99
  • HR1869—Stalking Prevention and Victim Protection Act of 1999—A bill to expand the prohibition on stalking, and for other purposes. (Kelly) STATUS: Hearing held, 9/29/99
  • HR2130—Date-Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999—A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to add gamma hydroxybutyric acid and ketamine to the schedules of control substances, to provide for a national awareness campaign, and for other purposes. (Upton/Stupak/Jackson-Lee/Bliley) STATUS: Passed House, 10/12/99
  • Protection of Women in Prison Act of 1999—A bill to require that facilities receiving federal funding develop and implement policies to restrict the role of male staff with regard to female inmates, address the particular health needs of female inmates, prohibit the routine shackling of pregnant women and women in labor, and provide additional protections to female inmates who report violations in order to protect them from retaliation. (Waters)
  • HR3083—The Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 1999—A bill to provide protection for battered immigrant women. (Schakowsky/Morella/Jackson-Lee)
  Source: Women's Caucus Agenda-106th Congress 99-WC1 on Jul 15, 1999

  Supported funding for women's and disadvantaged businesses.

  Roybal-Allard adopted the Women's Caucus policy agenda:
  The teams of the Women’s Caucus are charged with advancing action on their designated issues in a bipartisan manner. Legislation from Team 9: WOMEN IN BUSINESS:
  • HR413—PRIME Act—Grant program. Authorizes qualified organizations to provide technical assistance and capacity building services to microenterprise development organizations and programs and to disadvantaged entrepreneurs using funds from the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (Rush/Leach)
  • HR1496—Small Business Access and Choice for Entrepreneurs (ACE) Act—A bill to help reduce the number of uninsured self-employed persons, and their employees, by giving them better access to affordable health care options. This bi-partisan bill includes Association Health Plans (AHPs) and 100% tax deductibility of health care costs for the self- employed. AHPs allow the small businesses to join together through their trade associations to obtain the purchasing clout and administrative efficiency that employees of large employers currently enjoy. The ACE Act also includes a provision for 100% deductibility of health insurance costs for the self-employed. Currently, the self- employed are allowed only a 60% deduction, while large businesses enjoy a full 100% deduction. (Talent/Dooley)
  • HR1497—Women’s Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999—A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the women’s business center program. (Udall-NM) H.RES. 15—A resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding Government procurement access for women-owned businesses. (Kelly)
  • HR2334—Access to Contract Equity Act (ACE)—A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to extend and make improvements to the provisions relating to procurement contract goals for small disadvantaged businesses and certain institutions of higher education, and for other purposes. (Velazquez)
  Source: Women's Caucus Agenda-106th Congress 99-WC12 on Jul 15, 1999

  Click here for definitions & background information on Civil Rights. Click here for HouseMatch answers by Lucille Roybal-Allard. Click here for a summary of Lucille Roybal-Allard's positions on all issues. Click here for a summary of Lucille Roybal-Allard's positions on the AmericansElect.org quiz. Click here for contact information for Lucille Roybal-Allard. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Lucille Roybal-Allard. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Lucille Roybal-Allard. Click here for other CA politicians. Click here for CA primary archives. Click here for CA secondary archives.
  2021-22 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Civil Rights:			Lucille Roybal-Allard on other issues:
  CA Gubernatorial: Antonio Villaraigosa Caitlyn Jenner Carly Fiorina David Hadley Delaine Eastin Doug Ose Eric Garcetti Eric Swalwell Gavin Newsom Hilda Solis Jerry Brown Jerry Sanders John Chiang John Cox Kamala Harris Kevin Faulconer Kevin Paffrath Larry Elder Laura Smith Neel Kashkari Travis Allen Xavier Becerra CA Senatorial: Dianne Feinstein Duf Sundheim Greg Brannon Kamala Harris Kevin de Leon Loretta Sanchez Michael Eisen Rocky Chavez Tom Del Beccaro	Republican Freshman class of 2021: AL-1: Jerry Carl(R) AL-2: Barry Moore(R) CA-8: Jay Obernolte(R) CA-50: Darrell Issa(R) CO-3: Lauren Boebert(R) FL-3: Kat Cammack(R) FL-15: Scott Franklin(R) FL-19: Byron Donalds(R) GA-9: Andrew Clyde(R) GA-14: Marjorie Taylor Greene(R) IA-2: Mariannette Miller-Meeks(R) IA-4: Randy Feenstra(R) IL-15: Mary Miller(R) IN-5: Victoria Spartz(R) KS-1: Tracey Mann(R) KS-2: Jake LaTurner(R) LA-5: Luke Letlow(R) MI-3: Peter Meijer(R) MI-10: Lisa McClain(R) MT-0: Matt Rosendale(R) NC-11: Madison Cawthorn(R) NM-3: Teresa Leger Fernandez(D) NY-2: Andrew Garbarino(R) NY-22: Claudia Tenney(R) OR-2: Cliff Bentz(R) PR-0: Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon(R) TN-1: Diana Harshbarger(R) TX-4: Pat Fallon(R) TX-11: August Pfluger(R) TX-13: Ronny Jackson(R) TX-17: Pete Sessions(R) TX-22: Troy Nehls(R) TX-23: Tony Gonzales(R) TX-24: Beth Van Duyne(R) UT-1: Blake Moore(R) VA-5: Bob Good(R) WI-5: Scott Fitzgerald(R)	Incoming Democratic Freshman class of 2021: CA-53: Sara Jacobs(D) GA-5: Nikema Williams(D) GA-7: Carolyn Bourdeaux(D) HI-2: Kai Kahele(D) IL-3: Marie Newman(D) IN-1: Frank Mrvan(D) MA-4: Jake Auchincloss(D) MO-1: Cori Bush(D) NC-2: Deborah Ross(D) NC-6: Kathy Manning(D) NY-15: Ritchie Torres(D) NY-16: Jamaal Bowman(D) NY-17: Mondaire Jones(D) WA-10: Marilyn Strickland(D) Republican takeovers as of 2021: CA-21: David Valadao(R) defeated T.J. Cox(D) CA-39: Young Kim(R) defeated Gil Cisneros(D) CA-48: Michelle Steel(R) defeated Harley Rouda(D) FL-26: Carlos Gimenez(R) defeated Debbie Mucarsel-Powell(D) FL-27: Maria Elvira Salazar(R) defeated Donna Shalala(D) IA-1: Ashley Hinson(R) defeated Abby Finkenauer(D) MN-7: Michelle Fischbach(R) defeated Collin Peterson(D) NM-2: Yvette Herrell(R) defeated Xochitl Small(D) NY-11: Nicole Malliotakis(R) defeated Max Rose(D) OK-5: Stephanie Bice(R) defeated Kendra Horn(D) SC-1: Nancy Mace(R) defeated Joe Cunningham(D) UT-4: Burgess Owens(R) defeated Ben McAdams(D) Special Elections 2021-2022: CA-22: replacing Devin Nunes (R, SPEL summer 2022) FL-20: replacing Alcee Hastings (D, SPEL Jan. 2022) LA-2: Troy Carter (R, April 2021) LA-5: Julia Letlow (R, March 2021) NM-1: Melanie Stansbury (D, June 2021) OH-11: Shontel Brown (D, Nov. 2021) OH-15: Mike Carey (R, Nov. 2021) TX-6: Jake Ellzey (R, July 2021)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare/Poverty Candidate Information: Main Page Profile CA politicians Contact info: Fax Number: 202-226-0350 Official Website Phone number: (202) 225-1766

  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: Feb 06, 2022