Montana Constitutional Convention records, 1971-1972.

              yXVTlQy.
il»m fflliimill. CMIill
STATE CAPITOL
'/97i.vfi^
Vice Chairman
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
VIRGINIA H. BLEND, DELEGATE, DISTRICT THIRTEEN
February X ^972
Re: Proposal #10, providing for Equal Rights.
Member
STYLING, DRAFTING & REVISION
COMMITTEE
To:   Bill of P.ights Committee
My  proposal reads "Equality of rights under the laws shall not be abridged by the state of
Montana on account of sex."
I have underlined "under the laws" for this is the crux of the proposal. My proposal
is an exact copy of the proposed amendment to the constitution of the U.S., with the
words "state of Montana" inserted instead of "by any state".
The proposed amendment has been passed by the U.S. House of representatives and is now
in the Senate. It seems imminent it will be passed and soon, for the time is now, after
many years of discussion.
For this reason I propose the same amendment be included in our state constitution now
being revised. It would eliminate time spent by our state legislature on the subject
when the amendment is passed by  the Senate and presented for ratification. The U.S.
Congress will accept any reasonable modification of a similar amendment necessarily
presented to the Montana Constitution if the word "sex" is not deleted.
The amendment abd"isi|?ppFopos;al is for the purpose of creating a new basis for the U.S.
Supreme Court, and of course, the entire judicial system to take a fresh approach to the
interpretations which began when the U.S. Supreme Court organzed. In this era, I do
not think we would but that "persons" mentioned so often in both federal and state
constitutions Bills of Rights would include the knowledge that both sexes are "persons"
and therefore eligible for the benefits and rights thereunder. Since women had no
contractual rights at that time, but were governed by indentured persons in all matters
by their husbands, the judicial interpretations implied and limited the application of
the word "persons" to males. So it is at this time.
The crux of the Federal amendment and my amendment is that until specifically the
Judiciary have a basis for considering all citizens of the U.S. as persons eligible
for the rights guaranteed to them, its tenor will not change, but continue to be based
on the accumulated renderings excluding women.
The general effect on federal and state laws and offcial practices would not nullify all
distinguishments on the basis of sex, but would require that the law treat men and women
equally. Equal treatment can be accomplished either by extending the law which applies
only to one sex to the other sex, or by rendering the law unconstitutional fis denying
equality of rights to one sex.
I am not sure that this premise is fully understood by all women involved in what is
referred to as "Women's Lib", nor to men not involved in the practice of law or the
dispensing of it. However, it is my opinion that freedom involves responsibility, and
so that no one on this committee will be left in doubt as to the full effect of this