Ballot Measure 89, the Oregon Equal Rights Amendment, is a solution in search of a problem. Its supporters have yet to make a solid case for adopting it, and because that is so, it should be rejected.

The constitutional amendment would grant Oregon women specific equality, though the current Article I Section 20 does the same thing for “all citizens.” The understanding that “all citizens” includes women has been bolstered by court decisions over the years, as well.

Supporters of the amendment argue that it would shore up women’s rights, should they ever be in jeopardy, though they admit that is not the case today. Nor are they able to point to a single Oregon court case in recent memory that would have been changed had the Oregon ERA been part of the state constitution.

At the same time, there’s at least the possibility that by specifically granting rights to women, the rights of other identifiable groups will be eroded because they are not specifically identified. Oregon’s broad Section 20 language includes all citizens, not just those charging that discrimination is somehow based on sex. Where rights are concerned, broad is better.

In the end, we don’t believe in amending Oregon’s constitution just because it feels good to do so. Without a substantive argument in favor of Measure 89, and we have not heard one, voters should reject it.