Expert Testimonies

Expert Testimony - 2019

House File 13 (HF13) was introduced by chief-author Representative Mary Kunesh-Podein to the Government Operations & Veterans Affairs Committee on Thursday, January 24, 2019.

The amendment simply states:
"Equality under the law shall not be abridged or denied on account of gender."

House File 71 (HF 71) was also introduced by Representative Rena Moran and testimony was heard from Betty Folliard. (Regrettably we do not have a video of that testimony at this time, but the transcript it below.) This bill asks that the deadline for the Federal ERA be removed.

Experts Testifying:

Lisa Stratton

Co-Founder of Gender Justice
Directed Workers’ Rights Clinic
Gender discrimination in employment law expert

Jettie Ann Hill

MAPE member
Pay equity speaker on women of color

Pheng Thao

Statewide Coordinator, Men and Masculine Folks Network
Expert on men's socialization that leads to rape culture

Trista MatasCastillo

Ramsey County Commissioner
Veteran of 3 military branches
National speaker on women veterans' issues

Ruben Vazquez

Vice President, Racial and Public Policy, YWCA
Equity and paternity issues

Deb Fitzpatrick

Co-Director, Center of Women & Public Policy, Humphrey Institute U of MN
Research expert

Written Testimony of our Experts

Lisa Stratton

Testimony of Lisa C. Stratton

Minnesota House of Representatives
Government Operations & Veterans Affairs Committee
Thursday, January 24, 2019

HF 13: A bill proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution, article I,
by adding a section providing for gender equality under the law.

I am a graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School, a former member of its faculty, and the co-founder of a non-profit organization dedicated to eliminating gender barriers to the full advancement of all people. Since 1997, I have consistently litigated cases of gender discrimination in our courts. I’m here today to provide a legal perspective on why we need an Equal Rights Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution.

The only explicit right to gender equality in either our state or federal constitutions is women’s hard-won right to vote in the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Given this absence of legally-protected equality for women in the federal constitution, a then-sitting justice of the U.S. Supreme Court could remark in 2011, “Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.”

At present, this statement could also be made about the Minnesota Constitution, which brings us here today. Why do we need an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution now?

We need explicit statement of gender equality in our state constitution because gender inequality stubbornly persists in our state, and it hurts all of us, regardless of our gender.

What difference might a state Equal Rights Amendment make?

Enshrining the basic principle of gender equality in the Minnesota Constitution would make it clear that the citizens of this state expect the courts to apply a very high level of scrutiny to laws that create or reinforce gender disparities. It would make it clear that such laws must be justified by a “compelling” state interest and the law under review must be found to be “necessary.” This standard would place gender equality on the same footing as racial and religious equality. The current federal constitutional standard only requires that sex-based differences meet a vaguely-defined “intermediate scrutiny” standard. Under this type of review, government’s interest must only be “important” and the law under review must merely be “substantially related” to that interest.

The ERA would establish a backdrop to the hodge-podge of anti-discrimination laws in our state, ensuring there are no gaps that allow continued gender discrimination. Minnesota has several laws that provide protection from discrimination for women in schools and in employment, but these laws are not comprehensive in their scope or their application. As you will hear from experts also testifying today gender disparities persist in pay inequity and workplace accommodations, gender-based violence (including domestic violence and sexual assault) and in our court system.

An ERA based on gender equality would protect men as well as women from laws and policies grounded in unfounded gender stereotypes. As a law professor noted in the film Equal Means Equal, an ERA is not just a women’s rights amendment; it’s an equal rights amendment. Men would also benefit from the principle of gender equality, especially when it comes to their private lives and roles in their families and with their children.

The ERA would give this legislature clear guidance for future legislation and a mandate from the citizenry. A Minnesota ERA for the twenty-first century would be another tool for disrupting the remaining manifestations of gender inequality, such as pay inequity, women’s economic disadvantages related to pregnancy, maternity, and caregiving, women’s underrepresentation in positions of economic and political power, and violence against women.

A Minnesota ERA would continue the great tradition of Minnesota serving as an example of global leadership on women’s human rights and gender equality. Our country is one of only seven in the world that has not ratified the international bill of rights for women, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. One of the reasons our federal legislators have given for failing to ratify that treaty is that the federal government is one of limited authority, and Congress cannot mandate that states eliminate gender inequality. Let’s remove that objection by making Minnesota one of the half of the states that has its own state-level equal protection clause.

The proponents of this amendment do not tout it as a panacea; in fact, it would have no immediate effect. Linda Wharton, a professor of political science and an expert on the impact of state ERAs has concluded that “the presence of an ERA significantly increases the likelihood of a court applying a higher standard of review of gender disparities.” And one empirical study of constitutional sex discrimination litigation in all 50 states finds a statistically significant higher likelihood of a decision favoring an equality claim in states that have ERAs. See Lisa Baldez, Lee Epstein, & Andrew Martin, Does the U.S. Constitution Need an Equal Rights Amendment? 35 J. LEG. STUD. 243 (2006.)

No one can predict exactly what effect the addition of an ERA to our state constitution would have, except to say it will not be immediate. It will be incremental, and it will happen as a result of legal challenges that will invoke a deliberate process of evaluation governed by rules of evidence and procedure. But that is the point—it is a broad statement of principle, a goal by which we commit to judging governmental actions.

We are a state that has more women serving as justices on our state Supreme Court than men. We are the state that passed a groundbreaking law in 2014 that aimed at improving women’s economic security, and passed a Women of Color Opportunities Act in 2016. We are the only state in the nation that has had a pay equity law in place for government employees since the mid-1980s. Surely Minnesota has little to fear from enshrining this paramount principle in our highest statement of public purpose, our state constitution.

I urge this Committee to pass HF 13. This body and the Minnesota Senate alone have the power to allow the citizens of Minnesota to demonstrate with their votes on the 2020 ballot that we believe men and women are equal before the law.

Jettie Ann Hill

Pheng Thao

Pheng Thao Testimony before the Government Operations & Veterans Affairs Committee on Thursday, January 24, 2019.

Pheng Thao, MLS, MA
Statewide Coordinator, Men and Masculine Folks Network
Testimony for Equal Rights Amendment
Thursday, January 24, 2019

We live in a culture that assumes gender equality exists because of the few visible examples of women achieving whether economically or socially. But this is far from creating a society that has gender equity…the fact that we still a high rate of women and girls being impacted by violence still says that we are far from gender equity – 1 in 3 women and girls in MN experience gender violence in their lifetime.

In my 15 years of work in in the field of trauma and violence at the local, state, national and international level, which includes domestic violence, sexual violence and sex trafficking as a trainer; mental health practitioner; program director; and direct service provide. I know this to be true based on the work with men who have committed sex offenses – rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment; domestic violence homicides where wives are killed by their husbands; sex trafficking of young girls.

Many of the men that go through these domestic violence and sex offender programs shared deeply held beliefs about how men are supposed to see and relate to women and girls. These men are just a mere reflection of the larger problem of gender inequity. We live in a culture where we are still teaching our boys and young men rigid ideas about manhood – dominant, strong willed, emotionless, etc. – and that women and girls are there to serve their needs.

For example: We have asked men why they use violence towards their partners. After some exploration, most of them understand not to hit women, but realize that choosing violence towards their partners is because they know they can hit women and get away with it or that it is their “right” to do so. This comes from the belief that men are to be in charge and are to be the sole head of their households.

My son came home a few months back at the age of 7 years old sharing this rhyme – “Boys go to college to get more knowledge and girls go to Jupiter to get stupider.” Both of these examples, demonstrate that there are still ideas about women’s and girls’ places in society and where they belong taught at a young age.

The Women’s Foundation’s 2018 report on the status of women and girls in MN says that on any one given day, Minnesota providers serve an estimated 2,400 victims of domestic violence, most if not all of these folks are women.

The report also says that the CDC (center for disease control) estimates there are 684,000 women in Minnesota in a year who are survivors of rape, physical violence and stalking (in what time frame?). What does this translate to? Target Field has about 39,000 seats. That means filling that stadium up to 17 times.

Many survivors of gender violence have some access to relief and protections, but still many do not. If they can access those protections, they must consistently prove that they resisted the violence and that they did not participate in their own victimization.

In order to end, or at least curb these violent acts, behaviors and deep beliefs about women and girls must change; the culture must change. Therefore, we strongly ask that MN become a state that allows for full gender equity under the law and is not just assumed.

Trista MastasCastillo

Trista MatasCastillo Testimony before the Government Operations & Veterans Affairs Committee on Thursday, January 24, 2019.

My name is Trista MatasCastillo, and I am here today to testify to the enormous importance of the Equal Rights Amendment and the lasting significance of the vote that is before you.

Like many in our society, I am known as much by the titles I have been given as by my actions and accomplishments. I am a lifelong Minnesotan, a proud descendant of the farmlands around central Minnesota. I am a mother of five boys, including one who is severely and permanently disabled. I am a former First Lieutenant in our nation’s armed forces, serving in three branches over sixteen years. I am a survivor of military sexual assault, including one incident which led to the birth of my disabled child. I am a local elected official, serving on the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners. But most of all, I am known by the title that was given to me at birth, the title which has defined and limited so many of the opportunities I have had throughout my life.
I am a woman.

To be a woman in this country is to know, at every stage of your life and in every pursuit you undertake, that your actions, your successes and failures, will be understood primarily through the lens of your gender. When I served in the military, I was among the first women to serve in every job I had. I was proud to blaze a trail that others could follow, but if I am honest, I never asked to serve as an exemplar of my gender, but only to serve. They call that a privilege, but it would be a far greater privilege to live in a world where women did not need to prove the worth of their gender to earn the respect given as a matter of course to men.

When I was raped, by a fellow service member during my officer training program, I knew that the consequences and judgement I would face if I reported would have permanent impacts on my career so I stayed quiet for nearly 10 years. I knew because I had heard the things said about other women who reported that they couldn’t lead if they couldn’t protect themselves. That somehow they knew the risks of the job. That it was our fault to be in a situation in which a man would be tempted or provoked to rape. It sounds absurd but the harsh reality is true even today.

In public service, we hear all the time the words of our nation’s Founding Fathers and illustrious statesmen. Often my mind returns to the words of Abraham Lincoln, who declared America to be a land “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” We have trained ourselves not to hear that word men except as a universal, a description not of a gender but of mankind. Yet the nation they “brought forth on this continent” was one governed not by the consent of all the people but of men alone; and although the work of many generations before us have brought women closer to the ideal, our laws and our society still enshrines inequality in deed if not in word.

It is for this reason that it is so important for you to advance this amendment. The search for true equality before the law is the great effort of American history, the singular thread that runs through so many of our nation’s seminal moments. Our Constitution is the truest and most lasting statement of our fundamental values, and it is not only fitting but crucial that equality for all be enshrined there. It is only by these means that we can live up to our rhetoric and build the future ALL of our children deserve.

Ruben Vazquez

Rubén Vázquez Testimony before the Government Operations & Veterans Affairs Committee on Thursday, January 24, 2019.

Good morning,

I speak before you not only as a representative of an organization whose mission is to eliminate racism, and to empower women and young girls, but also as a father. A father of two children. Isaiah who is 14 and Jasmine who is 11. Both of these kids are smart, kind, with lots of opinions, resilient, and very persistent.

A few years ago, when I worked for a different organization, we were at the end of our annual
fundraising campaign. Two days before the end of the campaign, I was discussing this at the dinner table. My daughter Jasmine, asked, “Papa, why do you need to raise so much money?” I told that by raising this money, it would give us an opportunity to fight the fights we needed to fight. She asked for clarification on what this meant. I used the following example. . .

I said, honey, both you and your brother want to become engineers. Both you and your brother, want to attend MIT. You are both smart and I am sure you will both be very successful. Yet, we currently have a system that does not pay equitably. So, simply because you are a woman, you will get paid less than your brother for doing the same type of work. She responded by saying, “well, that is stupid!” I said, “Yes honey, it is stupid. That is why we need this money. So we can fight this fight and ensure that everyone gets paid the same for the same type of work.” If an 8 year old girl can realize this inequity, how is it that we, as adults refuse to fix this problem? How is it that it is 2019 and we are still having this discussion?

Both my son and daughter looked at each other, they simultaneously got up from the dinner table, went into their bedrooms and came back with their piggy banks. They offered me the money they had saved – a total combined savings of $23. I said, “no, I am not asking for your money.” My daughter said to me, “you need to take this money, we want to be part of this fight.”

That night as I was put my son to bed, he said to me, “Papa, I feel bad that I am a boy and because of
"that reason, I will have more opportunities than Jasmine.

This experience I share with you is an example of how this inequity is dehumanizing everyone. Women have to continuously fight for the same right as their male counterpart. While some men, like my son, feel guilty for gaining privileges solely based on the assigned gender he received at birth.

According to the Minnesota Constitutional Amendment for Equity Coalition, currently, the Courts hold sex or gender discrimination to a lower standard than discrimination based on race, religion or national origin.

I urge this committee, this Legislature, this Governor, this state, to stop talking about how unfair
inequality based on sex or gender is and start taking some action. Not only for the sake of my children, but for the sake of our younger generation, I ask you to approve H.F. 13. Let’s truly make this a better One Minnesota!

Thank you.

Rubén Vázquez
Vice President of Racial Justice and Public Policy
YWCA Minneapolis

Deb Fitzpatrick

Debra Fitzpatrick Testimony before the Government Operations & Veterans Affairs Committee on Thursday, January 24, 2019.

Debra Fitzpatrick
Co-director
Center on Women, Gender and Public Policy
Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota

In ongoing partnership with the Women’s Foundation of Minnesota

Testimony before the House Government Operations committee, January 24, 2019
Discrimination is an inefficiency that our state can’t afford.

With severe and growing labor shortages, we cannot afford to leave any talent on the sidelines. Yet, there are almost 50,000 young Minnesota women aged 23-30 that are not currently in our paid labor force. Seventy-two percent of them have education beyond high school. While young women are doing their part to get educated, incurring disproportionate levels of student loan debt, this has not translated into economic parity.

Ongoing pay inequities between men and women in the state are hurting our state and its families. Increasingly Minnesota women are the primary breadwinner in their family and overtime their earnings have become an instrumental part of economic stability for most families. Yet, pay inequities persist in our state at every stage of a women’s career; short-changing them and in many cases children as well.

While the ERA is not the only solution or overt discrimination the only cause, it is certainly one important part of the picture. Strict scrutiny of gender-based discrimination claims can help urge everyone to look more deeply at and reassess how and why gender–based inequities remain in our state.

While Minnesota has been a national leader in the arena of gender equity with important steps forward like the 2014 Women’s Economic Security Act, progress has plateaued. We need new tools and encouragement to further reduce bias in our hiring, promotion and compensation systems.

Betty Folliard

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, this is a simple bill asking Congress to remove the deadline on the ERA.
Why do we still need the ERA?

Because women make on average 78 cents to a man’s dollar, with much, MUCH larger inequities for women of color;
because twice as many women as men over the age of 65 live in poverty;
because two-thirds of minimum-wage earners are women;
because only 3 percent of rapists will ever spend a night in jail;
because we are still fighting the battle for voting rights for all;
because one in five college women will experience sexual assault;
because women still get fired for being pregnant;
because child care can cost more than college;
because some bosses deny workers birth-control coverage;
because we’re 1 of only 3 industrialized countries in the world that have no paid maternity leave;
because women can fight & die for their country but don’t have equal rights; and
because women are not willing to wait another 243 years for equality.

Written testimony submitted by others

Mary Jo Czaplewski

Committee: Government Operations & Veterans Affairs Committee (House)
Date: January 24, 2019
Testimony from: Mary Jo Czaplewski, member of ERAMN
Regarding:

H.F. #13 -Proposing a Minnesota Constitutional Amendment providing for gender equality under the law.
H.F. #71 – Relating to ratification of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Memorializing Congress to remove the deadline for ratification of the amendment by the states.

Honorable members of the House Committee on Government Operations, and Sponsors of these two bills. I thank you for taking on this important issue of Equal Rights for ALL regardless of gender under the law.

I speak in favor of these two bills as I have been working on this important issue since the 1970s when among many national leaders including: Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, and Betty Friedan we sought to have the amendment written by Alice Paul in 1923 added to the U.S. Constitution. It is now time after 96 years to make equal rights a reality for all.

I am now retired, but in my professional career, I served as CEO of a national professional organization for 16 years, and spent 7 years as an administrator at 2 universities after a 17 year career in secondary education. During that time I lived the truth that I was paid less for doing the exact same jobs as my male colleagues whose degrees and experiences were the same as mine.

Two examples:

As Associate Dean of the College of Professional studies – with 5 academic departments, 700 undergraduate students and 125 graduate students. I discovered that my salary was $10,000 less than the Associate Dean of the Business School who was hired the same day that I was, and whose years of experience and degrees were the same, but his departments and enrollments were less than mine.
As CEO of the national organization for 16 years. I was shocked to learn that my male replacement was given over $10,000 starting higher salary than my highest salary at the time of retirement. I retired leaving the organization with a $2 million surplus which he then took less than 4 years to deplete and was subsequently dismissed.

Both of these cases highlight the injustice of gender bias that has been so prevalent in our society for many years.
Therefore, I strongly urge both Minnesota houses to pass this legislation for insertion into the November 2020 election ballot and to protect the rights of BOTH men and women.

Why?

Minnesota is one of 26 states that does NOT have ERA in its constitution. Therefore Minnesotans are NOT guaranteed that ALL rights are protected without regard to gender.
ERA protects BOTH women and men by providing a constitutional basis for all claims of gender discrimination. (Almost ½ of sex discrimination cases in the courts for review have male plaintiffs.)
ERA is NOT a partisan issue. It is a HUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. Therefore bi-partisanship is essential to the success of its final passage and appearance on the MN ballot for November 2020.
ERA is an economic issue because it clarifies women’s legal rights to economic and employment parity with men. With 75% of our women in the workplace, they deserve the same dignity as men when providing for their families without having to rely on government assistance to backfill the wage and opportunity gaps.
ERA has no effect on the Court’s Roe V. Wade decision. That article only insures the right to privacy and does not include equality under the law which is a civil rights issue. ERA would also raise the judicial scrutiny of sex discrimination cases from the current “intermediate” scrutiny to the highest level of “Strict” judicial scrutiny.
The 14th amendment to the Constitution does NOT protect gender equality for women as section 2 specifies only males. If women had been included, the 19th amendment granting women voting rights would not have been necessary.

Thank you, to committee members and sponsors of these two bills for the work you are doing to ensure equal rights for all citizens, but especially for women.

Rosemary Rocco

Committee: House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law
Date: February 20, 2019
Testimony from:   Rosemary Rocco, member of ERAMN
Regarding:  H.F. #13 -Proposing a Minnesota Constitutional Amendment providing for gender equality under the law.

Chair and Members of the committee--today you are considering a simple proposition--Equality for all enshrined in our State Constitution. " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That sentence of course is the lead in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Today, 243 years after that declaration, women's unalienable rights remain absent from the Constitution of the United States and the State of Minnesota. Today I ask that this body to pass HF13 and send it to the floor of the Minnesota House of Representatives for a vote.

I have no illusions about the opposition that faces us in the other body. It is clear that the gentle people of the Republican caucus are going to stand against my equality based on a false narrative. I could cite facts, figures and legal precedents to refute that narrative and bolster the case for equal rights, but there are many more qualified than I to do that so I will stay to the simple proposition.

We are not asking you to decide on full equality under the law for all genders, we are in fact asking only that the question be put to the voters of Minnesota? We who support this amendment to our Constitution that equality will prevail, those opposed are obviously less confident--it is the only reason I can see that they are fighting so hard to keep HF13 from advancing. I ask that you pass HF13 and stand for putting the power of deciding on equal rights for all in the hands of the electorate. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Expert Testimony - 2010

In 2010 a special meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee was convened to hear about an Equal Rights Amendment. Senator Dick Cohen introduced Senate File 3191 -- Constitutional Amendment Providing for sexual equality under the law.

His introduction was followed by expert testimonies that were heard in 2010 before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This info is very educational. Each video clip is marked with the speaker, the organization and how long it is. Feel free to choose the ones most appropriate/interesting to your group (or all of them!) and discuss.