Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118570030
label
[50 States Project] End of the Year Report
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118570030
contentType
document
title
[50 States Project] End of the Year Report
citationUrl
identifierLocal
137
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff (Reagan Administration)
Michael Deaver's Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118570030
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1985-12-31
year
1985
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
4ff2e64bdc5e8572
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual
collections.
Collection: Deaver, Michael
Folder Title: [50 States Project] End of
the Year Report
To see more digitized collections
visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories
visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives
Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Fle
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
August 29, 1983
TO:
JAMES A. BAKER, III
FRW
FROM:
FAITH RYAN WHITTLESEY
SUBJECT:
50 States Project Status and Plan for Action
Background
President Reagan's 50 States Project "Status of the States" 1982
Year-End Report indicates that forty-two states have undertaken
searches. Of these, twenty searched their entire code for both
gender-specific terminology and discriminatory effect of laws,
while eighteen states identified only gender-based terminology.
Four states searched specific issue areas. Eight states have done
no official statute searches. Of these eight, Alaska and Colorado
have passed a state ERA, although neither state has taken an
official search. Twenty six states have already revised their
rules and regulations or are in the process of doing so. They
are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois,
Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri
New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Phode Island,
South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and
Wyoming.
Current Activities
We are in the process of communicating with the states to determine
the current accurate status of the project in each state. It has
become necessary to re-identify Governor's representatives due to
new administrations in 1982.
The Project Director has visited Iowa and found their code review
complete in identifying three forms of sex discrimination; gender-
based language, discriminatory on its face when a surface reading
of the language contained in the statute applies differently to per-
sons based on sex or martial status, and disparate impact when code
sections appear to be neutral on their face but in actual applica-
tion the effect of the statute differs depending upon the sex of the
person to whom it is applied.
page two
Iowa is a good model for all states because it has had continuity
in leadership, commitment from Governor Terry E. Branstad, in-
volvement of its Commission on the Status of Women, public/private
sector cooperation, involvement of department heads, comprehensive-
ness in Code review, and was inexpensive and completed in a re-
latively brief period of time.
To highlight Iowa's success, the Project Director has scheduled a
press conference on Wednesday, September 28 with Governor Branstad
and Iowa's 50 States Committee.
The Project Director visited Louisiana on Thursday, August 25 to
meet the 50 States representative. As a result of "the gender gap"
issue raised earlier that week, the Project Director spoke before
a group of women, assembled by the Louisiana representative, on the
project and Reagan record. The Project Director has been requested
to revisit Louisiana on September 21 to announce with Governor David
Treen at a press conference the formation of a 50 States Commission
comprised of his representatives and selected attorneys. The Pro-
ject Director is scheduled to appear on one television talk show and
give three radio interviews on the particulars of the Governor's
newly formed 50 States Commission.
Projected Travel Schedule
A meeting with 10-15 women legislators and ALEC officials has been
scheduled for September 13 to develop a pamphlet of suggested pro-
cedures based upon the activities of exemplary states. This pam-
phlet will be distributed to each state.
- Illinois, September 1-3
- Indiana, September 8-9
- Colorado, September 14-17
- Louisiana, September 21
- Pennsylvania, September 22-23
- Colorado, October 9
- Kentucky, October 11
- Tennessee, October 14
- Vermont, October 17
- Delaware, October 20
- New Jersey, October 24
- South Dakota, November 2
- North Dakota, November 3
- Missouri, November 9
- Washington, November 17-18
- Oregon, November 21-22
- California, December 19-22
During these trips, the Project Director will determine the status
of the statute search, offer procedural assistance in running a
computer search, organize 50 States review commissions to examine
page three
Codes and Administrative Rules, foster cooperation among 50 States
commissioners and Commissions on the Status of Women, other in-
terested women's groups and the Governors' offices. A dialogue will
be initiated with legislators urging enactment of legislation to
eliminate sex discrimination in regulations, statutes and rules.
As
recd. 8/17/83
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 16, 1983
Fle.
MEMORANDUM FOR FAITH RYAN WHITTLESEY
from
FROM:
TRUDI MICHELLE MORRISON
SUBJECT:
50 States Project
Dee and I just returned from an on-site review of Iowa's
50 States Project. I am extremely impressed procedurally
with the States effort and the support given it by Governor
Terry E. Branstad, with whom we also met. Accordingly, I would
like the President to announce Iowa as the exemplary model
for the project at a luncheon for project representatives in
October (see attached schedule proposal).
In Iowa, a process for review and training session were planned
by a governor's liaison to the 50 States Project, the Chairperson
of Iowa's Commission on the Status of Women, the Executive Director
of Iowa's Commission on the Status of Women, and 50 States Project
Director. To implement the plan, the Governor's office secured
the half time release of nine attorneys employed in state govern-
ment for a period of six weeks. The Project Director joined the
attorneys in each reviewing approximately 400 pages of the Iowa
Code.
An orientation and training session was needed for all involved
in the project. The agenda included a history of the 50 States
Project, an overview of Iowa's progress to date in eliminating
sex discrimination, remarks by the Governor affirming his support,
and procedures for Code review. Each individual received a note-
book which outlined the process to use and contained examples of
the different forms of gender discrimination: gender-based
language, facia, and impact. Supplementary material included
guidelines for reviewing and excerpts from Drake Law Review and
The Yale Law Review ( I have these if you are interested).
The session included a "practice review" of an excerpt from the
Iowa Code. Individual analyses were compared, followed by large
group discussion. A sample of the format for reporting was pre-
sented and discussed. In addition, each individual was given a
computer print-out of his/her section of the Code containing 230
page two
words to be used as a cross-check. Weekly meetings were held
to discuss findings, answer questions, and check progress.
During the time the Code was reviewed, plans were made for re-
view of the Administrative rules. Fifteen attorneys in private
practice volunteered to each review 215 pages. An orientation and
training session for the group was held using a format similar to
that used for the Code. Bi-weekly meetings were held for the
attorneys to react to one another's findings for the 50 pages
assigned each time. Reports were turned in for these pages at
each meeting.
These procedures were apparently effective and resulted in a
thorough and accurate review of the Code and Rules for gender
discrimination. I am told that the process was both expedient
and cost-effective.
I would also like the President to urge the states to address
programmatically their need for child support and enforcement.
CC: Jonathan Vipond, III
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
SCHEDULE PROPOSAL
August 16, 1983
TO:
FREDERICK J. RYAN, JR., DIRECTOR
PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS AND SCHEDULING
FROM:
FAITH RYAN WHITTLESEY
REQUEST:
Reception for 50 States Representatives
PURPOSE:
To reiterate the Administration's commitment
with the Governors and their representatives
to help assist in identifying and correcting
state laws which discriminate against women.
PREVIOUS
PARTICIPATION:
Luncheon for representatives held October 1981.
DATE:
September 7, 1983
DURATION:
15 minutes
LOCATION:
East Room
PARTICIPANTS:
The President and First Lady
Vice President and Mrs. George Bush
50 States representatives
OUTLINE OF EVENT: The President will greet and make brief remarks.
REMARKS REQUIRED: Talking Points
MEDIA COVERAGE:
Full press
RECOMMENDED BY:
Faith Ryan Whittlesey
PROJECT OFFICER: Trudi Michelle Morrison
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 10, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR BILL SITTMANN
Imm
FROM:
TRUDI MICHELLE MORRISON
SUBJECT:
Status Report: 50 States Project
Pursuant to your urgent request, the 50 States Project implements
President Reagan's campaign commitment to the governors to assist
in identifying and correcting state laws which discriminate on
the basis of sex.
The goals and objectives of the 50 States Project are to identify
discriminatory state laws and guide the governors toward insti-
tuting corrective legislation; to collect and make available
information on the status of corrective legislation enacted within
the 50 states: to assist the governors and legislatures in the
development of state specific strategies; and to maintain an
information clearinghouse for all states.
The 50 States Project must now also take the lead in showing the
states how to improve enforcement of child support laws and to
encourage private child care programs by: (1) serving as a
clearinghouse for more effective child support enforcement, and
(2) identifying state and local restrictions which unduly inhibit
private day care programs.
BACKGROUND
The 50 States Project concept was proposed at the 1980 Republican
National Convention. Judy Peachee was appointed Director of the
Project in May of 1981, at which time the groundwork for the
program was laid with a Presidential letter to the governors
requesting that they appoint a representative from their office
to coordinate efforts with the White House. By September 1981,
all the governors had appointed such a representative.
In October 1981, the governors' representatives met at the
White House to discuss the 50 States Project, exchange information,
and promote cooperation between the states. During this conference,
the representatives attended workshops to discuss such issues as
"Research and Review of State Statutes", "Legislative Support for
Corrective Legislation" and "Creating Positive Perceptions and
Community Support". The highlight of the conference was a luncheon
hosted by the President and Mrs. Reagan, at which the President
reconfirmed his commitment to the 50 States Project.
-2-
Due to the resignation of Judy Peachee, responsibility for the
Project was transferred in July 1982 to Ms. Thelma Duggin who
was appointed Special Assistant to the President and Director
of the 50 States Project. The Honorable Catherine Bedell was
named as a consultant and Mary Elizabeth Quint as Deputy Special
Assistant to the President. Trudi Michelle Morrison was named
Director in July 1983.
The Project has been subject to frequent public attacks, has been
termed "a sham", and has never received adequate funding or staff
resources. The identification of substantive gender discrimination
has been labeled "empty" because ERA states generated their own
statutory searches independent of this Project.
PLAN
A. The Director establishes a "Suggested Legislation Committee"
to review data already obtained from the states. Ten
legislative areas, i.e., family support laws, banking and
insurance laws, education laws, etc., will be examined and
provide the framework for a booklet of proposed legislation
which will be given to each legislator during the November 9
event discussed below. The committee will consist of 10-15
legislators who will come to Washington on September 13 for
a morning working session and luncheon.
B. The President and Mrs. Reagan, and the Vice President and
Mrs. Bush will host a luncheon for 300 women legislators on
out of
of
November 9, 1983. The luncheon will follow a morning briefing
on the 50 States Project and will urge the legislators to enact
legislation to eliminate gender based terminology in their
town
states' regulations and statutes.
C. The President and Vice President will host a reception for
the National Association of Attorneys General on November 10,
out
1983. The reception will follow a one hour briefing update
on the 50 States Project where they will be urged to assist
of tour
in formulating appropriate corrective legislation.
D.
The President formally reiterates the importance of the Project
to the 50 governors and their representatives. In a letter
he inquires as to the progress of legislative reform in each
similare Veeter
state and offers assistance to State Legislatures. Draft
legislation could be offered to each state using its own
statute search.
bit The White House Senior Staff approves the funding and staff
resources for the Director of the Project to travel to key
(defined as the Sunbelt and the West as equated to needed
electoral votes) states to demonstrate the viability of the
Project.
-3-
F.
The Director of the Project attends national and regional
conferences sponsored by organizations with a heavy multiplier
effect; e.g., National Conference of State Legislators,
American Legislative Exchange, National Governors' Association,
Federation of Republican Women, etc., and urges the enactment
of legislation to nullify identified gender discriminatory
statutes.
G.
The Department of Justice runs a comprehensive key-word
search on requested state statutes and regulations on a
priority basis to aid states with actual legislation.
Bill, a formal memo from Faith Ryan Whittlesey to Michael Deaver
will follow this outline. Also, please note that the attached
schedule proposals are my first very rough drafts. The language
has yet to be cleaned up and they have not been seen by Jonathan,
Faith or anyone else on the Public Liaison staff.
CC: Jonathan Vipond, III
Nancy Risque
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 23, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR WILLIAM F. SITTMAN
RE:
50 States Project "Status of the States"
1982 Year-End Report
This document is an inventory of actions taken by states to eliminate
discrimination on the basis of sex.
The 50 States Project has five goals for itself:
1. "Collect and make available various
information on the nature and status
of specific corrective legislation in
the 50 states.
2. "Assist the states in the development
of strategies designed to meet their
individual needs.
3. "Maintain an information clearinghouse.
4. "Provide regular information releases
on activities in the states.
5. "Initiate briefings and meetings de-
signed to keep an open line of communi-
cation between the parties involved in
efforts to remove sex discrimination
in state laws. "
Of these five goals, the 1982 Year-End Report realizes only partially
the first goal. The stated purpose of the 1982 Year-End Report is
extremely minimal:
1. "Determine the legislative schedule of
each state.
2. "Obtain specific information on the status
of activity and legislation in each state.
3. "Obtain research information on past
activities on sex discrimination."
The information used in this Report appears to be whatever was made
available to the 50 States Project by each governor's designated
liaison. The result of this uncoordinated and decentralized approach
is the hodge-podge of information included in this Report. There is
great diversity in the quantity and quality of data. For example,
the section on Oregon's efforts includes 15 pages of charts analyzing
discriminatory laws, while the majority of states provided just a
few paragraphs of generalized description of their activities. The
cut and paste quality of this report makes detailed comparisons
between states nearly impossible.
The Report shows weak editorial control. Basic terms are left unde-
fined and are used interchangeably. There is no footnoting of sources
for key sections. There is no adequate discussion of the methodologies
used by states to root out discriminatory language. The Report is
unnecessarily long. The key results of the survey can be found on
eight pages--11 to 19--of this 140-page book.
The Report does not offer any indication of what the Administration
supports or opposes. In fact the Report includes a disclaimer that
it in fact has no opinion as to the merits of any state's effort.
There is no focus, no conclusion, no translation of the data into any
sort of action plan or agenda. There is not even an executive summary.
We should ask ourselves how much attention we want to draw to such a
modest achievement.
This document would be useful as a history of the states' efforts to
eliminate sex discrimination. But since only one state--Tennessee--
acknowledges that the 50 States Project inspired any action, its
value as a catalyst for action will be open to question; at least
until the Project produces something more substantive. A minimum of
eight states have taken no or almost no action whatsoever, according
to the Report. The Report could be used to prod those states into
action, though no mention is made of this possibility.
This Report should be presented as a first step, an inventory, with
more rigorous analysis and recommendations still to come. The Report
could embarrass the Administration because it is so haphazard and be-
cause it is clear we are not yet ready, after two-and-one-half years,
to actually provide guidance or assistance to states with discriminatory
laws or regulations.
Below are some action items:
The liaisons to the 50 States Project from
each state could meet with the President.
We could pursue Governor Jim Thompson's
idea--cited in the Report-of convening a
50-state conference to exchange ideas and
information. A more ambitious agenda would
include coordinated studies on methodology
and model laws and a specific action agenda.
The President could address such a conference.
2
The President could kick off "Phase Two"
of the 50 States Project action plan by
dedicating the facilities for the planned
information clearinghouse, attending a
briefing, etc.
An obvious idea that must be studied care-
fully is to award some special honor to a
"winner," i.e. the state which has made
the greatest effort to reform its laws.
The drawback to this is that the likely
winner would be a state that passed its
own ERA a decade ago, e.g. Colorado.
3