States, starting back in the 1960's, passed their own Equal Rights Amendments (ERAs) to formally and legally give women the same rights as men. The adoption of these State ERAs perhaps offers some guidance regarding the impact of efficacy of furthering women's equality should a federal ERA ever be ratified. This article examines the general effectiveness of state ERAs by examining factors that may lead to their passage, correlations between ERAs and gender inequality, outcomes of cases brought under ERAs, and the language they employ. Analysis demonstrated that few factors lead to a higher likelihood of ERA passage. Moreover, once an ERA is passed, the amount of litigation under it has been small, but the outcome of the litigation is generally unfavorable to women's rights. To evaluate correlations between ERAs and inequality, every existing case brought under a state ERA (as of July 2019) was collected, briefed, categorized, analyzed, and compared to data measuring gender inequality. Examples of such data includes Human Development Indices, pay inequity, female representation in state and federal legislatures, and abortion rights on a state-by-state basis. Outcomes of cases were categorized into groups based on which gender(s) the outcome favored or disadvantaged. Trends and implications of these outcomes were identified. In total, the observations made in this study indicate that State ERAs may not have advanced the women's rights movement like many advocates had hoped they would. On this basis, it is recommended that advocacy groups and state legislatures allocate their funds and time towards more effective methods of advancing gender equality and representatives in the federal government reevaluate the need for new state or federal ERAs.