vol. 48, no. 1

Primary tabs

Volume XLVIIl

Random strip searching of visitors at

the Martinez Jail is now prohibited by an

order issued by Contra Costa Superior

Court Judge Martin Rothenberg as a re-

sult of an ACLU lawsuit. _

The ACLU suit, Luke v. Contra

Costa, was filed in June on behalf of two

women visitors to the jail who were strip

searched without their consent and with-

out cause. Karen Luke was seven months

pregnant at the time of the search.

Shirley Banks was forced to submit to a

body cavity search.

"Because visitation is a right, subject

to necessary security restrictions, prison

officials may condition visitation on a

strip search only when such search meets

reasonable standards under the Fourth

Amendment,'' Judge Rothenberg wrote

in his December 1 decision.

He issued an injunction enjoining pri-

son officials from conducting strip

searches of jail visitors without reason-

able `suspicion that the visitor is conceal-

ing contraband or weapons and

mandated the following requirements:

-a written statement of the facts war-

ranting `reasonable suspicion' be pre-

pared by jail officials at the time of the

search;

clu new:

January-February 1983

Jail Visitors Strip Searches Halted |

-consent be given by the subject of the

strip search; and

-all evidence and consent forms be kept

as part of the official records of the

Sheriff's Department.

The case is being handled by ACLU-

NC cooperating attorneys Gary Green-

field and Charles Rice of the San Fran-

cisco law firm of Shartsis, Friese and

Ginsburg and ACLU staff counsel Alan

Schlosser.

"The procedural requirements neces-

sary for a strip search as outlined by the

superior court will be a monitor on the

conduct of jail officials,' Greenfield

explained.

"The very fact that jailers have to

meet all these conditions before they

conduct a strip search will probably serve

to limit strip searches only to situations

where they really have adequate consti-

tutional grounds,'' he added.

The ACLU is also asking $1 million in

damages for each woman. The claim for

damages and for a permanent injunction

is still pending :

The ACLU-NC still has two other

strip search cases pending in the courts,

Penny v. Fremont and Scott v. Oakland.

Both cases challenge the practice of strip

Michael Mille

Shirley Banks was strip searched whe

she visited her fiance at the Martinez

Jail. Random strip searches are now pro-

hibited as a result of an ACLU challenge.

searching persons picked up for minor

infractions and without reasonable

suspicion `to assume that they are carry-

ing contraband.

Marchers Sue over Police Fee

Can demonstrators be charged for police services?

On December 9, the ACLU filed a suit

in U.S. District Court demanding that a

fee for police services imposed on or-

ganizers of a march for disarmament in

Novato be refunded and that the ordin-

ance under which the fee was charged be

declared unconstitutional.

Imposing such fees on First Amend-

ment activities, the suit claims, not only

illegally limits free speech rights but also

places an unfair burden on groups which

cannot afford to pay such fees. The No-

vato ordinance contains no provision to

exempt indigent groups.

Last spring, the Ad Hoc Committee

for Nuclear Disarmament, a grassroots

organization in Novato, scheduled a

march and rally for June 5 to express

support for the United Nations Special

Session on Disarmament and _ bilateral

nuclear weapons freeze.

When Committee members applied

for a permit from the City of Novato to

use the public sidewalks for their peace-

ful march, they were told that they

would be required to cover the costs of

paying police officers overtime to moni-

tor the march, and for a rider to the

city's insurance policy.

In order that the march proceed as

scheduled, two representatives of the

Committee delivered, under protest, a

check to cover the police services of

$201.80 and insurance payment of $125.

The march and rally took place as

scheduled on June 5, with approximately

100 people in attendance. It was entirely

peaceful, and there was no obstruction

of traffic, property damage or violation -

of the law. Subsequently, the City of

Novato refunded $42 of the police ser-

vices fee and $70 of the insurance fee,

thus leaving $214 unrefunded.

continued on p.3

Lanse

= CC : io

OT" (c)

Derik

"my 1

a Oto

a= oe TX - .

Oe. a

Ct et

pee Te (c)

ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1970.batch ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1971.batch ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1972.batch ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1973.batch ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1974.batch ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1975.batch ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1976.batch ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1977.batch ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1978.batch ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1979.batch ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1980.batch ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1983.batch ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh copy-create-manuscript-batch.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log

Ale

fet bo

Te Ph

GItb6 VO

(1983 :

Board

Elections

As provided by the ACLU-NC by-

laws, revised in 1980, the ACLU-NC

membership is entitled to elect its

1983-84 Board directly. The Nominat-

ing Committee is already seeking sug-

gestions from the membership to fill

at-large positions on the Board.

_ ACLU members may participate in

the nominating process in two ways:

1. They may send suggestions for

the Nominating Committee's consi-

deration before April 1, 1983. (Ad-

dress suggestions to Nominating

Committee, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mis-

sion St., S.F., CA 94103. Include

your suggested nominee's qualifica-

tions and how the nomineee may be

reached.)

2. They may submit a petition with

the signatures of 15 current ACLU

members. Petitions for nominations,

which should also include qualifica-

tions, must be submitted to the Board

of Directors by Wiay 23, 1953 (20 Gays

after the May Board meeting.)

(Current ACLU members are those

who have renewed their membership

during the last 12 months. Only cur-

rent members are eligible to submit

nominations, sign petitions of nomin-

ation and vote.)

ACLU members will elect Board

members from the slate of candidates

nominated by petition and by the

Nominating Committee. The ballot

will appear in the June issue of the

ACLU News.

The following by-laws govern the

ACLU-NC Board of Directors nom-

inating process:

ARTICLE VII, SECTION 3: The

final report of the Nominating Com-

mittee to nominate members-at-large

to the Board shall be presented at the

May Board meeting. Members of the

Board may propose additional nom-

continued on p. ey

Lair Smyser

aclu news

jan-feb 1983

by Evvie Rasmussen

On January 19 the ACLU-NC will

argue in U.S. District Court that the

Adolph Coors Company has no legal

right to obtain membership information

from Solidarity, a San Francisco-based

gay rights organization which is active in

the boycott against Coors.

In December, a district court magis-

trate ruled that Solidarity must provide

the Coors Company with the names of

all members who have been active in

boycott activities, in Coors' $145,000

antitrust suit against Solidarity and the

AFL-CIO Coors Boycott Committee.

The magistrate also granted Coors the

right to obtain the identities of contri-

butors to Solidarity, minutes of Soli-

darity's meetings, and other information

concerning the group and its activities.

The company contends that Solidarity,

the Northern California Chapter of the

AFL-CIO Coors Boycott Committee

and two of the Committee's employees

violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by

conspiring to restrain trade and reduce

competition in the brewing industry.

Coors is suing to restrain the parties

from: interfering with Coors' business

and is claiming punitive and compen-

satory damages of $145,000.

ACLU-NC cooperating attorney

Arthur Brunwasser and staff counsel

Margaret Crosby are representing

Solidarity. Union attorneys are repre-

senting the boycott committee and its

agents.

At the December hearing, Coors also

asked for and was granted reimburse-

ment for the cost of asking the magis-

trate for a ruling on the constitutional

issues of privacy and associational free-

The Adlolph Coors Company is suing to get the names of members of Solidarity,

So.

So;

a gay rights organization, who are active in the Coors boycott.

dom. The ACLU-NC had refused to

turn over Solidarity's records without a

court order.

"These sanctions punish people for

raising consitutional issues,'' said

Crosby. Agreeing that it sets a dangerous

precedent, Brunwasser added that if the

order holds, anyone who raised a consti-

tutional defense could be held liable for'

the opponent's attorneys fees.

Privacy threat

The privacy issue is central to the case.

"We knew when we took the case that

Coors was asking for this type of in-

formation,'' Crosby said. ``We felt that

this probe, totally apart from the rest of

the case, presented a real threat to

as associational freedom.

"People won't join controversial or-

ganizations if they feel threatened in this

Professor Fights Stanford over Free

The case of Bruce Franklin, the first.

and only tenured professor at Stanford

University to be fired for speeches made

during the height of campus anti-Viet-

nam war protests, has reached the Court

of Appeal after a decade of arbitration

and litigation.

The ACLU's 150-page brief, filed in

December in the First District Court of

Appeal, claims that the University's

firing of Franklin was in violation of his

First Amendment rights.

According to ACLU staff counsel

Margaret Crosby, who with staff counsel

Alan Schlosser is representing Franklin,

`*This is a significant stage in the case as

it is the first time that the constitutional

issue of free speech will be debated be-

fore an appellate court.

"During a decade of litigation, before

university faculty committees and in Su-

- perior Court, the Stanford administra-

tion has attempted to create a false his-

tory concerning the events that triggered

Professor Franklin's dismissal,'' she

continued. ``Indeed, Bruce Franklin has

been depicted in Stanford's briefs as

something of a mythic figure, an armed

warrior single-handedly turning a tran-

quil campus into a charred battleground.

"But this is not a case about violent

action. This is a case about free speech.

This is a case about academic freedom,"'

Crosby added.

The ACLU's representation of Frank-

lin began in 1972 after the University's

faculty Advisory Board recommended

that Franklin be fired for four speeches

that he made during campus protests and

the University implemented that deci-

sion. The ACLU filed suit for his rein-

statement, declaratory relief, back pay

and damages in Santa Clara Superior

Court.

In 1978, Superior Court Judge John

A. Flaherty ruled that two of the four

speeches were protected by the First

Amendment and ordered that the Ad-

visory Board rehear the case and _ re-

evaluate the punishment of dismissal.

In May, 1980 the Advisory Board,

after a perfunctory rehearing in which

only written testimony was allowed,

unanimously recommended that Frank-

lin's firing be reaffirmed. Finally, in

May, 1981 the superior court judge

entered his final judgment - determin-

ing solely whether the University abused

its discretion in dismissing Franklin.

Professor Bruce Franklin's firing was

legal, the court stated.

"The record in this case compels the

conclusion that Franklin was fired for

his constitutionally protected speech and

ideas,"' Crosby said, ``and it is the duty

- of the court to bar punishment for dis-

_sident speech and controversial beliefs."'

The ACLU brief also contends that

the disciplinary rules which Stanford

used to dismiss Franklin ``utterly lacked'

clarity and specificity as applied to

speech,'' and are therefore unconstitu-

tionally vague. In addition, the brief cites

testimony of Stanford faculty members

way,'' she said. ``Gay rights organiza-

tions are the type of group particularly in

need of protection.

"Upon disclosure of homosexuality,

people often lose their jobs and some-

times custody of their children. Society

continues to discriminate,'' Crosby said.

Solidarity officer Timothy Moore

agreed. To surrender the membership list

would be a violation of what the group

represents, he said. ``People came to

Solidarity because they felt' frustrated

with the system. It would be unwise of us

as leaders to release our members' names

-if they saw it was that easy to be ex-

posed, they'd be unlikely to join a group

again."'

- The action arose out of a successful

effort by the AFL-CIO Coors Boycott

Committee to discourage KQED tele-

Speech Firing

that the standards were never intended to

permit firing for political speech.

In upholding Franklin's termination,

the brief claims, the trial judge failed to

scrutinize the record under the stringent

standard demanded of courts which have (c)

found that a firing resulted in part from

constitutionally protected speech.

Rather, the judge essentially ruled that

Stanford did not act irrationally in its

second decision to discharge Franklin in

1980. se

`Firing is a common, though illegal,

fate for speakers whose political views

are anathema to their employers,"'

Schlosser said. ``Ironically, the motto of

Stanford University is `the wind of free-

dom blows.'

"In the case of Bruce Franklin, it

seems the wind of freedom blew too hard

for the Stanford administration,"' he

added.

| Furor Brews over Coors Suit Against Gay Group

vision from holding a special ``Coors

Day'' as part of its annual auction. The

suit names Howard Wallace, who repre-

sented the boycott committee at a meet-

ing with KQED officials in May 1981.

The KQED event was subsequently

cancelled.

`Solidarity, which supports the Coors

boycott because of its disapproval of the

company's labor policies and right-wing

political activities, produced a leaflet

urging the boycott of Coors products.

Wallace brought a copy of the leaflet to

the KQED meeting. Although a member

of the group, Wallace was not repre-

senting Solidarity at the meeting.

The leaflet was Solidarity's sole in-

volvement in the KQED incident. The

ACLU-NC is arguing that the First

Amendment protects individuals and

groups who produce a publication from

liability for its use by others.

Wallace did nothing that was not pro-

tected by the First Amendment, Crosby

explained, but even if he had, Solidarity

would not be responsible. A unanimous

Supreme Court decision recently de-

clared the NAACP could not be held

liable for illegal acts by a few of its

`members in support of a boycott during

the civil rights movement.

**You can't put a whole movement out

of business because of activities of some

of its members,"' she said. `"That would

be a great tool - enemies of an organi-

zation could infiltrate and cause trouble.

It's important that associations not be

penalized."' -

"This suit is simply a means for

- Coors to learn details of the boycott of

its products,'' Brunwasser said. The

issue, he added, is whether members of

the community can advocate an econom-

ic boycott without fear of being sued for

large sums of money - whether a large,

wealthy corporation `"`can try to sniff

out members of the community who

don't like their labor practices."'

``Antitrust laws certainly shouldn't be -

used to impose huge fines for the publi-

cation of a leaflet,' Crosby commented.

`The laws are designed to prevent com-

petitors from predatory or monopolistic

practices. Coors is using them to silence

a community group which is protesting

what it sees as unfair labor practices and

the use of profits for right-wing causes.

Solidarity only wants to ask people not

~ to spend their money to subsidize those

activities. This is classically what the

First Amendment was designed to

protect.

`*As the courts have recognized, con-

sumer boycotts for political purposes

have a long-standing tradition in

America - going back to the Boston tea

party,'' Crosby said.

ACLU News volunteer Evvie Rasmus-,

sen is a local public information

specialist.

aclu news

8 issues a year. monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July,

August-September and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Davis Riemer, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director {

Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page iy)

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)

1663 Mission St., 4th floor, San Francisco, California 94103. (415) 621-2488

`Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news

and 50 cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

Elaine Elinson, Editor

aclu news

jan-feb 1983

High Court Affirms Inmates' Free Press Rights .

The California Supreme Court ruled

in December that Department of Correc-

tions regulations concerning prison

newspapers must take prisoners' First

_-Amendment rights into account.

The long-awaited ruling came in the

case of Bailey v. Loggins, a dispute over

prison officials' censorship of the Sole-

dad Prison's inmate-run newspaper, the

Star News, which began in 1977. The 4 -

3 favorable high court decision had an

immediate impact in a separate ACLU

prison news censorship suit concerning

the Vacavalley Star at the California

Medical Facility in Vacaville.

The ACLU's amicus brief in Bailey

was written by ACLU cooperating at-

torneys Zak Taylor and Peter Goodman

of the San Francisco law firm of Bro-

beck, Phleger and Harrison and staff

counsel Alan Schlosser. The same team

of attorneys is representing Vic Diaz,

editor of the Vacavalley Star.

The Supreme Court decision based the

parameters of prison news censorship on

Penal Code 2600, the statute governing

the rights of inmates in California pri-

sons. ``By [this] statute,'' the opinion

states, ``prisoners retain all rights en-

compassed under the heading of the free-

dom of the press in the First Amendment

to the U.S. Constitution and Article I,

Section 2 of the California Constitution,

except to the extent that such rights must

be curtailed for institutional security and

public safety.

"The state, having opened a forum

for the expression of ideas, may not pre-

vent members of its public from using

the forum because the state disapproves

of their beliefs or the content of their

expression,"' the court states.

Noting that the current Department of

Corrections guidelines and institutional

practices are so vague as to unconsti-

tutionally limit inmates' expression, the

high court calls for ``regulations to be-

drafted with sensitivity to First Amend-

city HUSA 84

"Sy

POR `| | l

Salen Wi m= 5 i

Sen)

HER

{ |

it iD

; fae i ih eer

53 SSP i Naa rm

ment values, and with a view to avoiding

restrictions unnecessary to any institu-

tional or penalogical purposes."'

The Supreme Court in Bailey also up-

held the lower court's ruling that the ad-

ministrative appeal process for censored

articles must be expedited, so as not to

unnecessarily delay publication of the

newspapers.

The December 10 decision was written

by Justice Allen Broussard, and signed

by Justice Cruz Reynoso. Chief Justice

Bird and Justice Frank Newman filed

brief concurring opinions. Justices Frank

Richardson and Stanley Mosk argued in

dissent that inmates have neither a

constitutional nor a statutory right to

publish their articles in a prison news-

Paper Defeats Police Libel Suit

Eight years ago, San Leandro police

officer Goerge Gomes sued The Friday

Observer for allegedly libeling him in an

editorial critical of local police.

The $170,000 libel judgment awarded

to Gomes after a six-day jury trial would

have put the small family-run newspaper

out of business - had the ACLU not

stepped in to appeal.

The appeal was handled by ACLU-

NC cooperating attorney Steven Barnett,

a law professor at Boalt Hall and ACLU

staff attorney Amitai Schwartz.

In December 1982, the California

Supreme Court refused to hear Gomes'

appeal of the appellate court's October 1

reversal of the libel judgment, and the

case of The Friday Observer chalked up

another ACLU victory for freedom of

the press.

Staff attorney Schwartz explained that

the case was significant for several

reasons.

"At an early stage of the appeal,"'

Schwartz said, ``we were able to obtain a

stay of the payment of the judgment

while the appeal was pending. Everyone.

knew that if the father-and-son team

which publishes the paper was forced to

pay the judgment or put up a bond for

double the amount of the judgment, they

would have been put out of business.

`"We argued that payment of damages

in a libel suit before all appeals are ex-.

hausted is an unconstitutional prior re-

straint of the press.

``The October decision of the Court of

Appeal,'' Barnett said, ``reached two

important conclusions. For the first

time, a California appellate court ruled

that street-level police officers are con-

sidered public officials for the purposes

of a libel suit. This means that they, like

other public officials, must prove that

false statements were made knowingly or

`in reckless disregard of the truth - in

order to recover for libel,'' he said.

The Court of Appeal, citing an Illinois

case, stated, `"The abuse of a patrol-

man's office can have great potentiality

for social harm; hence public discussion

and public criticism directed towards the

performance of that office cannot

constitutionally be inhibited by threat of

prosecution under state libel laws."'

Barnett noted that the appellate

court's decision that an individual who

attempts to sue a newspaper for libel

must make a specific demand for retrac-

tion or else forfeit the claim was also

significant.

The Observer had run an editorial

"Keeping the Peace,"" accompanied by

several captioned photographs, including

one of Gomes. The appellate court wrote,

"The request for a retraction referred

only to statements [in the editorial], and

did not mention either the photograph

or its caption. Under these circum-

stances, the publisher could not be ex-

pected to comprehend from the letter

that Gomes also was requesting a retrac-

tion of an admittedly accurate photo-

graph and its caption.

``We conclude that since the demand

for retraction failed to specify with par-

ticularity the only potentially libelous

part of the article, the photograph and

its caption, Gomes... could not re-

cover general damages,'' the court

added.

paper. Justice Otto Kaus wrote a

separate dissent.

Immediately following the Bailey

decision, the Department of Corrections

sought to overturn the preliminary in-

junction which kept CMF officials from

censoring the Vacavalley Star. They ar-

gued that as the Supreme Court had in-

dicated that a prison ``need not establish

any publication whatsoever,'' there was

no need for further court supervision or

protection of the newspaper.

However, at a hearing on January 11,

Judge William Jensen of Solano County

Superior Court, refused to vacate his

earlier order preventing the Star from

being closed or censored.

According to cooperating attorney

Goodman, ``Judge Jensen ruled that the

Star will continue to publish under the

protection of court order. We are very

pleased that the judge interpreted Bailey

in a manner consistent with ours - and

did not agree with the state's tortured

reading of that decision as a basis to

close down prison newspapers."

Editor transferred

There was one setback, however, in

the case of Diaz v. Watts which occurred

at the January 11 hearing. For many

months, the prison administration has

been attempting to have Victor Diaz, the

inmate editor of the Vacavalley Star

transferred from CMF to another state

prison.

The ACLU has consistently fought the

transfer, arguing that the transfer would

be another form of harassment of the

inmate newspaper which officials have

Novato Marchers

from p. 1

When the Committee applied for a re-

fund of the entire fee paid, the City of

Novato informed them on September 28

that their claim had been rejected.

ACLU-NC cooperating attorney Eric

Neisser, who with ACLU staff coun-

sel Margaret Crosby is handling the case

for the Committee, said, ``The Novato

ordinance authorizing the imposition of

fees for insurance and police coverage as

a condition of the Committee's right of

free speech and assembly is clearly

unconstitional.

`"`Moreover,'' he added, ``the city's

practice of charging higher rates for in-

surance and police coverage to groups

holding `political' rallies than to groups

involved in less political or less contro-

versial types of activities is a violation of

the equal protection clause of the

Constitution."

Neisser, a professor of law at Stanford

University who was assisted by students

at Stanford's Civil Litigation Clinic,

pointed out that the Novato case is

particularly important because there are

no published judicial precedents which

directly decide whether a police services

fee may be imposed on groups for First

Amendment activities. There have been a

few decisions on the insurance issue,

most notably the ACLU's Skokie case

where the insurance requirement was

struck down by the federal courts. |

`"`This case is significant as a barom-

eter for the ability of political activists to

freely demonstrate to air their grievances

-particularly in this period of economic

distress,'' Neisser commented. ``We are

already witnessing that as the economy

worsens, political dissent becomes more

widespread - and protection of free

shut down, censored, and delayed over a

- two-year period.

At the January hearing, Judge Jensen

finally approved the transfer of Diaz

from CMF.

`*We understand the reluctance of the

judge to interefere with Diaz' transfer,

but we still wish he had done otherwise,"'

Goodman said. It is clear to us that Diaz'

transfer was treated differently than

other prisoners' and we fear that the -

transfer will give the state the oppor-

tunity to indirectly muzzle the Star now

that they have been denied the ability to

directly close it down or censor it.

`"We.are confident, however, that the

judge will continue to hold the paper

under protection of the law. Now that

the inmate population and other Star

subscribers are used to the outspoken

newspaper, we know that they won't

take any official harassment of the paper

lightly,'" Goodman added.

Ironically, editor Diaz is being trans-

ferred to Soledad.

ACLU's defense of the Star began two

years ago when the paper was shut down

by prison officials. Although the ACLU

won an injunction to reopen the paper,

prison officials have continually delayed

and interfered with production of the

paper. In August, a Department of Cor-

rections directive shut down the Star and

all other state prison newspapers claim-

ing financial considerations. As a result

of work by the ACLU and Assembly-

man Art Agnos, that directive was lifted

within a week and the prison papers

reopened.

Sue

speech rights becomes increasingly

- crucial.

"The government cannot doubly

burden people who want to express their

dissent by putting an expensive price tag,

on freedom of expression.

`Unless the Novato ordinance is

~ struck down, the prospect of having to

pay similar fees as a condition to

gathering in a public forum in Novato

will surely deter the Committee for Nu-

clear Disarmament and others from or-

ganizing such gatherings in the future,'':

Neisser concluded.

The ACLU suit asks the court to de-

clare the Novato ordinance unconstitu-

tional and to issue an injunction pro-

hibiting the City from requiring the pay-

ment of police services or the purchase of

insurance as a condition of the exercise

of the rights of free expression and

assembly.

In addition, the suit seeks a refund of

$214.80, the amount paid under protest

to the City of Novato by the Committee

for Nuclear Disarmament as a condition

to obtaining the march permit.

The defendants named in the suit are

the City of Novato, the members of the

Novato City Council, the Novato Police

Chief and the Public Works Director.

The case will be heard by U.S. District

Court Judge William Ingram.

aclu news

jan-feb 1983

ACLU-NC LEGISL

AISKAIAG PREQICTIONS

There's little cause for rejoicing over

the 1981-82 Legislative Session. Some of

the worst attacks were turned back. For

example, overt attacks on the indepen-

dence of the judiciary - on which the

defense of the rights of individuals is

keyed - were defeated. Similarly, vir-.

_ tually all attacks on the right of procre-

ative choice were blocked, as was most

of the Moral Majority agenda, which

had seemed such a potent force after the

1980 election.

On the other hand, Prop 8, passed by

the voters in June, wiped out two years'

successful effort turning back the most

egregious ``anti-crime"' proposals affect-

ing evidence, proof of guilt and pre-

sumption of innocence. Though the

- courts may trim that measure's worst ex-

cesses, for the moment the legal nihilists

dance their fool's jig in the light of day.

The ACLU also spent a great deal of

effort trying to turn back irresponsible

efforts by police organizations to stifle

citizen complaints. One bill which would

have made it a crime to file a ``false''

complaint was stopped. But a second bill

allowing civil retaliation for complaining

passed in the last minutes of the session.

_Most ``successes'' are qualified. The

ACLU spent two years in negotiations

trying to stop a dangerous attack on free

speech by people whom we normally

count as friends. Senator Diane Watson

introduced SB 267 for use against the

KKK and other hate groups, but in its

earliest forms it gave the Attorney Gen-

eral and district attorneys the authority

to seek injunctions against any group

from ever meeting - impacting not only

the Klan, but also environmental organ-

izations, anti-nuclear and anti-draft

efforts, and anyone feeling compelled by

Reaganomics to organize in defense and

protest. Senator Watson amended the

bill to avoid that result, after persistent

lobbying. The bill which passed allows

courts to issue injunctions against spe-

cific speech which a court is persuaded

will imminently lead to violence. Even

that measure will inevitably lead to

trouble down the line for ACLU liti-

gators. But, like Pac-Man, our success

this past session is measured by the

amount of white dots we were able to

gobble before being zapped.

That is not to say that civil libertarians

did not have some clear victories. Re-en-

actment of a criminal libel law was

stopped; another attempt to facilitate

DA use of criminal law for collection

efforts against AFDC recipients was

blocked; and renewed attempts to lock

up juvenile runaways and truants in jail

facilities bit the dust after intense state-

wide lobbying.

The Coming Session |

Predicting what the coming Session

will be like is risky. Almost the entire cast

of characters in California government

will change.

Governor Jerry `Biown will be re-

placed by George Deukmejian. Deuk-

by Brent Barnhart

ACLU Legislative Advocate

mejian will be replaced as Attorney Gen-.

_ eral by John Van de Kamp. Assembly

Speaker Willie Brown and Senate Presi-

dent pro tem David Roberti remain the

legislative leaders, but otherwise the

legislative scene will be significantly dif-

ferent. Fully a fourth of the Assembly

membership will be. new to the Legis-

lature, the Senate will see many new

faces, and many of civil liberties' most

dependable supporters - Alan Sieroty,

Howard Berman, and Mel Levine - will

no longer be in Sacramento.

On those occasions that Governor

Brown was an adversary, it was either to

avoid political repercussions (such as

being labeled ``soft on crime''), or be-

cause his role as state government's ex-

ecutive: officer placed him in the path

between state agencies and civil liberties'

interests. There was never any doubt that

Jerry Brown firmly believed in freedom

of expression, that he was pro-choice,

and that he was intrinsically resistant to

overt use of government power as a re-

pressive instrument.

Deukmejian, on the other hand, holds.

very sincere views antithetical to those of

the ACLU in almost every sphere. He is

best described as Reagan without a sense

of humor. ``Deuk'' has been one of the

death penalty's most ardent proponents,

and believes sophisticated electronic spy-

ing and surveillance devices are just the

thing to eradicate crime and political

dissention. He is anti-choice and thinks

most welfare recipients are unworthy

parasites who should be cut from the

public dole.

Deukmejian shows no patience with

restraint upon government, and no indi-

cation that he has any grasp of how

fragile personal freedoms are. As A.G.

he showed no more concern for the re-

ligious freedom of the largely conserva-

tive membership of the Worldwide

Church of God, than he showed for

Mendocino property owners who were

the objects (or bystanders) of Deuk's

flack-vested helicopter-borne marijuana

attack teams.

Rumors emanating from Deuk's

transition team indicate that they'll move

immediately to implement the death pen-

alty as speedily as possible, and that they

would like to reinstate ``midnight raids"'

on AFDC mothers (to catch men in their

homes) which both the U.S. and Cali-

fornia Supreme Courts condemned 15

years ago.

With solid Democratic majorities in

both houses, Deukmejian should be able

to make very little significant change

through legislation. The most outra-

geous proposals (like those of former-

Governor Reagan) can be blocked.

More dangerous for civil liberties will

be his control of California's state

agencies such as Health Services, Mental

Health, Social Services, Employment

Development and Fair Employment and

Housing. By executive order and by

regulation, Deuk's appointees can slowly

and insidiously chew away at civil liber-

ties protections. With Washington con-

trolled by Reagan, Deukmejian's being

in control in Sacramento is especially _

bad news at a time when so many are

homeless, unable to pay outrageous

health costs and out of work.

New Attorney General

John Van de Kamp should be a com-

petent and professional attorney general,

who uses that office to good advantage

in the sorely neglected area of civil rights.

But from the standpoint of ACLU's

legislative program, Van de Kamp will be (c)

a tougher opponent than his predecessor.

Deukmejian's legislative program was so

ideologically rigid, that his lobbyists had

very little success.

As L.A. District Attorney, Van de

Kamp was no stranger to Sacramento,

lobbying legislators personally and by

phone. He came to testify often on in-

creased determinate sentences, limiting

the diminished capacity defense, and

limiting use of the exclusionary rule.

We can expect, therefore, the Attorney

General's legislative efforts on criminal

matters to be far less ideological, and far

more telling. While Democratic legis-

lators were seldom disposed to vote for

A.G. packages which would help the po-

litical aspirations of Younger and Deuk-

mejian, they will be much more reluctant

to run down one of their party's most

important elected officials. The effect is

to short-circuit much of the built-in resis-

tance of liberal Democrats to law en-

forcement proposals which erode the

rights of individuals.

Likely Proposals

On the top of the legislative agenda will

be implementation of Prop 8. Dry and,

complex stuff - but it forms the blue-

print for civil liberties for decades. May

police use evidence they secure by bug-

ging people's homes and offices? May

cops use surreptitious cameras and two-

way mirrors to spy on people in public

restrooms? May polygraph evidence be

used in court? May motorists be strip-

searched when stopped for routine traf-

fic violations?

On the abortion front, pro-choice ad-

~ vocates will be confronted with a hostile

Administration, but the Assembly ma-

jority remains staunchly pro-choice. And

even the Senate, which has rivaled the

federal forum for the stridency of anti-

choice rhetoric, has seen significant

changes.

One danger zone in the coming session

will be civil liberties reverses impacting

poor people. With the state in severe

economic distress, and with Deukme-

jian's Administration drawing up the

Budget, those most likely to be kicked

~ aside will be the poor and disabled. In

past years, attempts to peel away essen-

tial rights and protections have been

countered very effectively by the legisla-

tive staffs of CRLA and other publicly

funded poverty law organizations. But

the Reagan Administration may have

demolished their legislative presence in

the state capitals, leaving the work to.

ACLU, the Friends Committee on Legis-

lation and other private groups.

AB 732 (Montoya) - Informed Consent

Would have imposed ``informed con-

sent'' requirements which amount to a

check-list of dissuasion as a prerequisite

to performing an abortion. Also would

have prohibited the performance of an

abortion until 24 hours after giving writ-

ten consent.

Action: Passed Senate; died awaiting ac-

tion in Assembly Judiciary.

ACLU: Opposed

SB 1807 (Speraw)

AB 3766 (Sebastiani) - Student re-

strictions

Each would have prohibited school

employees from allowing a minor pupil

to leave school for the purpose of having

an abortion. The effect would have been

to require schools to impose a sweeping

surveillance of female students to avoid

liability.

Action: SB 1807 was defeated in Assem-

bly Education. AB 3766 died awaiting

action in Senate Judiciary.

ACLU: Opposed

SB 2065 (A. Garcia) - Fetus viability

Would have established ``viability'' of

fetus at 20 weeks, effectively prohibiting

`all abortions after 20 weeks except to

e save the life of the mother. (c)

Action: Defeated on Senate floor.

ACLU: Opposed

Workers'

Rights

AB 1985 (Johnston) - Harassment

Makes it an unlawful employment

practice to harass an individual, know-

ingly permit, or fail to take precautions

to prevent harassment on the basis of |

sex, race, age, etc.

Action: Signed by the Governor.

ACLU: Supported

AB 2694 (M. Waters) - Whistleblowing

Would have made it an unfair labor

practice for an employer to retaliate

against an employee for communications

with a public agency.

Action: Passed Assembly; died in Senate.

ACLU: Supported

Juveniles

SB 396 (Nielson)

AB 3156 (Konnyu) - Juvenile detention

. Current law prohibits putting run-

aways, truants and incorrigibles (i.e.,

non-criminal juveniles) in locked facili-

ties. These bills would have allowed

``bootstrapping,''(R) - status offenders

could be placed in locked facilities if they

violate any juvenile court order.

Action: SB 396 defeated in Assembly

Ways and Means; AB 3156 defeated in

Seante Judiciary.

Action: SB 396 defeated in Assembly

Ways and Means; AB 3156 defeated in

Senate Judiciary.

ACLU: Opposed

SB 649 (Ellis) - Raising penalties

Raises current assault and battery pen-

alties from a misdemeanor to a ``wob-

bler'' (felony-misdeameanor) if the as-

sault victim is a school teacher, counselor

or administrator.

Action: Signed by the Governor.

ACLU: Opposed

SB 1351 (Presley) Marijuana penalties

Enhances penalties for possession of

marijuana on school grounds while

school is open. Prevents the destruction

of arrest and conviction records for

marijuana-related offenses occurring

prior to January 1, 1976.

Action: Signed by Governor.

ACLU: Opposed

Mental

Health

AB 351 (D. Stirling) - 6 month Com-

mitment

Amends LPS Act to expand court-or-

dered commitment from a maximum of

90 days to 6 months. Also changes the

standard from ``imminent threat of sub-

stantial harm to others'? to ``demon-

strated danger of substantial physical

harm to others."'

Action: Signed by the Governor.

ACLU: Opposed

Church/State

SCA 40 (Robbins) School textbooks

The California Supreme Court recent-

_ly held that loans of public school text-

books to private schools violates

Church-State provisions of the Cali-

fornia Constitution. This resolution

would amend the state Constitution to

make it permissible.

Action: Passed both houses; defeated on

November ballot.

ACLU: Opposed

Police

AB 2579 (Konnyu) - Cruising ordin-

ances

An appellate court recently held in an

ACLU case that cities and counties are

preempted by state law from enacting

anti-cruising ordinances which are more

restrictive than the state Vehicle Code.

This bill empowers local authorities to

enact ordinacnes which prohibit ``repeti-

tive driving'' past a control point after

written notice to drivers.

Action: Signed by the Governor.

ACLU: Opposed

AB 3348 (Weyman) - Mandatory testing

Expands California's implied consent

law to include mandatory testing for any

_ drug whatsoever. The person arrested is

required to submit to either a blood or |

urine test to determine unspecified

``drug'' content of his or her blood.

Action: Signed by the Governor.

ACLU: Opposed

SB 63 (Presley) - Police complaints

Would have made it a misdemeanor to

file a ``false'' complaint against a police

officer.

Action: Died awaiting reconsideration in

Assembly Criminal Justice.

ACLU: Opposed

SB 1025 (Robbins) - Police complaints

Amends current absolute privilege

from defamation lawsuits for remarks

made in official proceedings, to create an

exception for ``communication'"' alleging

police officer misconduct on a complaint

form, or in any administrative or court.

proceeding concerning discipline or em-

ployment of that officer.

Action: Signed by the Governor.

ACLU: Opposed

First

Amendment

ACA 74 (Agnos) - Political defamation

This bill asks voters to pass a law

which would provide for an elected of-

ficial to be removed from office upon a

judicial finding that he or she attained

the office by defaming his or her oppo-

nent. The removal would occur after all

appeals had been exhausted.

Action: Passed both houses and enrolled

for ballot.

ACLU: Opposed

SB 267 (Watson) - Violent groups

Empowers individuals to seek an in-

junction against advocacy of violence if

that advocacy is likely to produce im-

minent and unlawful infliction of serious

bodily injury or death.

Action: Signed by Governor.

ACLU: Opposed

SB 393 (Russell) - Obscenity standard

Replaces current statutory obscenity

standard (proof that the writings or film

be ""`utterly without redeeming social

importance'') with a broader standard -

that the matter be "`lacking in serious

literacy, artistic, political or scientific

value."'

Action: Passed Senate; died awaiting

consideration in Assembly Criminal e

Justice.

ACLU: Opposed

SB 1847 (Maddy) - Criminal libel

Under current law, there are no crim-

inal penalties for defamation. All sanc-

tions are civil sactions sought by the indi-

vidual. This bill was an attempt to reen-

act a criminal libel statute.

Action: Passed Senate; defeated on As-

sembly floor.

ACLU: Opposed

Voting Right

AB 2949 (Alatorre) - Bilingual Ballots

Contains provisions exempting re-

quests _ for bilingual ballots from the

operation of the Public Records Act.

Action: Signed by the Governor.

ACLU: Supported

Webfare

Rights

AB 2953 (Wray) - Criminal Prosecu-

_ tion

(R)

criminally without first having to seek

; Action: Defeated in Assembly Ways and

Means.

e ACLU: Opposed

Under current law AFDC recipients

must be given the opportunity to make

restitution for overpayments. This bill

would have allowed DA's to prosecute

' Justice

aclu news

jan-feb 1983 -

AB 610 (Berman) - Patients records

Guarantees patient access to medical

records upon presentation of a written

request and payment of reasonable cleri-

cal costs. Amended in Senate to limit in-

spection of mental health records to li-

censed M.D.'s or licensed psychologists.

Action: Signed by the Governor. _

ACLU: Supported |

AB 2735 (Moore) - Cable TV Privacy

Prohibits cable television systems

from violating the privacy rights of their

subscribers using interactive cable services

such as ``two-way'' communications,

and from disclosing names and addresses

of subscribers without their consent.

Action: Signed by the Governor.

ACLU: Supported

_ AB 2897 (Roos) - Cable TV Privacy

Prohibits cable television companies

from monitoring individual viewing

practices or disclosing individually iden-

tifiable information about a subscriber

without express written consent.

Action: Signed by the Governor. (c)

ACLU: Supported

Criminal

AB 2340 (D. Stirling) - Jury Selection

Would have abolished attorney voir

dire in picking criminal juries, and re-

_placed it with judge voir dire as in the

federal system.

Action: Failed Assembly Criminal Jus- :

tice upon reconsideration.

ACLU: Opposed

AB 2426 (Lehman) - Discretionary

appeals

Would have reversed the automatic

appeals process and made appeals from

criminal convictions discretionary.

Action: Died awaiting interim study

from Assembly Criminal Justice.

ACLU: Opposed

SCA 7 (Presley) - Exclusionary rule

Would have amended California Con-

stitution to provide that evidence could

not be excluded in a criminal action un-

less required by decision of the U.S.

Supreme Court or by statute.

Action: Passed Senate; died awaiting

action in Assembly Criminal Justice.

ACLU: Opposed

SCA 10 (Presley) - Preventive detention

Would have expanded provisions of

the recently enacted Proposition 4. Bail

could be denied upon proof of ``danger-

ousness'' of anyone accused of any fel-

|ony, not just violent felonies or those in

`which a witness is threatened.

e Action: Passed Senate; died awaiting ac-

tion in. Assembly Criminal Justice.

(R) ACLU: Opposed

Privacy

6 aclu news

jan-feb 1983

Martinez Honored, Wicker Keynote at Rights Day

"One thing that we-must not fall err

to,'' warned Bill of Rights Day keynote

speaker Tom Wicker, ``is the notion that

we can solve the crime problem with a

quick fix or a short cut.' With a

thoughtfulness and depth that has been

honed by over twenty years of analysing

political and social problems as colum-

nist and Associate Editor of the New

York Times, Wicker blasted some of the

"neoconservative myths'? about the

causes of crime and asked that we ``ap-

proach the crime problem with the idea

that there really is something wrong with

our society."'

Tom Wicker - Keynote speaker.

The ACLU-NC's tenth annual Bill of

Rights Day Celebration at the Sheraton

Palace Hotel on December 5 attracted

more than 800 ACLU members and sup-

porters. The ACLU presented Vilma

Martinez with the Earl Warren Civil

Liberties Award for her decade of lead-

ership of the Mexican American Legal

Defense and Education Fund

(MALDEF) and ACLU-NC volunteer

Miriam Rothschild was honored with the

Lola Hanzel Advocacy Award.

person be an extraordinary human being

just to have a job and a decent life.''

Wicker also laid out a substantial ar-

gument against the death penalty, noting

that the only proven deterrent to crime is

swift and certain punishment. ``Nothing

is less swift and less sure than the death

penalty,'' he said.

Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich

gave a sobering rundown of the work of

the ACLU-NC in 1982 and the chal-

lenges facing the organization in the

coming years with ``two hostile adminis-

trations, one in the White House and one

in Sacramento.

`*This government which promised to

get off the backs of the people, is

actually turning its back on the people,"'

Ehrlich said, adding that the coming

period will ``test our 62 years of experi-

ence, and business will surely boom at

the ACLU."'

When ACLU Vice-Chair Dick Criley

presented the Lola Hanzel Advocacy

Award to Miriam Rothschild, he called

her ``indefatigable, creative, versatile."'

Rothschild, a tireless activist against

the death penalty whose battle against

political repression dates back to the Mc-

Carthy era, paid tribute to Lola Han-

zel's decade of volunteer service to the

ACLU-NC and encouraged ``anyone

with a moment to spare'' to `spend it

volunteering for the ACLU.

President and General Counsel of

MALDEF Joaquin Avila introduced the

Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award win-

ner, his predecesser at MALDEF Vilma

Martinez. Citing Martinez as a ``tough,

smart, dedicated: leader,'' he. noted :that

her work at MALDEF ``made a lot of

people proud, and a lot of oppo-

nents angry."'

Among Martinez's accomplishments,

Avila said, were her victories in bilingual

education, voting rights, employment

opportunities, and a long and difficult

fight against widespread police brutality

in Latino communities.

Miriam Rothschild, congratulated by ACLU Vice-chair Dick Criley and Frank

Wilkinson, Executive Director Emeritus of the National Committee Against

Repressive Legislation, (1.-r.) for winning the Lola Hanzel Advocacy Award.

Calling for ``drastic changes in the

economy,'' Wicker asked people to

recognize that there is a `low-grade, un-

admitted class war in this country."'

"This is not a classless society,'' he

said. ``There is a constant juxtaposition

of poverty with so much visible afflu-

ence. This leads to people thinking, "This

is not a society in which I have a stake,'-

and if those conditions continue, crime

will continue to grow."'

To overcome conditions of poverty, a

person ``has to be extraordinary,"

Wicker added, ``It's a lot to ask, that a

Spirited American folk tunes from the

Bluestein Family closed the evening

celebration.

The Bill of Rights Day Celebration is

the culmination of the annual fund-rais-

ing drives of the ACLU-NC. The funds

raised will support the continuing legal

program of the ACLU-NC Foundation.

as ACLU-NC Chairperson Davis

Riemer told the Bill of Rights Day cele-

brants, `"Today we can look back at the

past decade - at our successes and set-

backs - and once again rededicate our-

selves to the task that lies ahead."'

Vilma Martinez (r.), former president of MALDEF, was honored with the Earl

Warren Civil Liberties Award. Former ACLU chair Drucilla Ramey presented

the award.

Saving a Voice for Women

by George Kelly

The ACLU is fighting an effort to

muzzle the California Commission on

the Status of Women.

In a friend of the court brief filed with

the state's Third District Court of

Appeal in Sacramento, the ACLU-NC

and Equal Rights Advocates, Inc., argue

that the Commission should be able to

take positions on public issues, dissemin-

ate its views to the public, and lobby the

Legislature. The friend of the court brief

was written by ACLU cooperating at-

torney Sandra Tichenor of the San Fran-

cisco law firm of Morrison and Foerster.

The Commission's advocacy role was

challenged over six years ago when indi-

vidual taxpayers and the ``Women's

Committee for Responsible

Government'' sued, claiming the

creation of the Commission deprived

male plaintiffs of equal protection, and

that the Commission' overstepped its

bounds by using public funds to promote

ratification of the Equal Rights Amend-

ment. :

In 1978, the Court of Appeal held it

would have been unlawful for the

Commission to use public funds to pro-

mote ERA ratification. It bounced the

case back to superior court to determine

the source of funding for particular

Commission communications, and to

consider whether those communications

were informational or promotional.

At trial, the plaintiffs attacked all of

the Commission's advocacy of feminist

causes, such as reproductive freedom,

child care centers, and textbooks show-

ing women in nontraditional roles.

Tichenor explained, ``The plaintiffs

asked the superior court to enjoin the

Commission from taking any position

on women's issues, and from dissem-

inating any information on women's

issues without presenting all sides to the

question.

`Thus, for example, information on

reproductive freedom would have to be

coupled with pro-life brochures, and

data on child care centers would accom-

pany pamphlets denouncing working

mothers,'' she added.

In March, 1982, a Sacramento Super-

ior Court judge rejected the ``equal pro-

tection'' argument and various other at-

tacks on the Commission, but found that

the Commission's use of public funds

was not completely impartial and

exceeded the authority granted by the

Legislature. The judge told the Com-

mission to refrain from proposing or

recommending specific legislation and

from ``presenting any particular view--

point with respect to information

gathered or disseminated."

Both sides appealed.

Meanwhile, in September, 1982 the

Legislature passed a bill spelling out in

no uncertain terms the Commission's

right to lobby the Legislature on any

pending bills and to ``urge the introduc-

tion of legislative proposals."'

Citing that bill, ACLU's amicus brief

declares that the Commission has statu-

tory authority to speak out. The bulk of

the ACLU agrument, however, is

devoted to explaining why the Commis-

sion is constitutionally permitted to take

positions and advise the public of the

positions it takes.

"Government must be allowed to

speak if government is to lead,"' the brief

states. Although there are constitutional

limits on government's ability to speak

- to guard against ``big brother''

propaganda - the Commission is not

forcing anyone to subscribe to any par-

ticular dogma, but merely advising the

Legislature on subjects within its area of

expertise, the ACLU argues.

The Commission's lobbying efforts,

the brief argues, are well within the

mainstream of government agencies'

functions. The Attorney General's

office, for example, maintains a staff of

six full-time lobbyists to spread law-and-

order gospel.

Tichenor points out, ``there's a big

difference between lobbying for legisla-

tion and taking part in government

financed. electioneering, which is off-

limits because it raises the spectre of

government officials perpetuating their

_ Own power.

"Lobbying, on the other hand, merely

helps carry out governmental policies

and programs,"' he added.

George Kelly, a San Francisco attorney

and journalist, is a volunteer with the

ACLU News.

aclunews =

- jan-feb 1983

`by Marcia Gallo

ACLU-NC Field Director

Ten years ago, on January 22, the

U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions in

two cases, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bol-

ton, which affirmed the right of every

woman to decide, in consultation with

her doctor, whether to have a child or

obtain an abortion.

The Court's courageous rulings legal-

ized reproductive choice for all women,

regardless of economic status, age, or

race. The rulings also spurred the op-

ponents of reproductive freedom to step

up their campaign to eliminate choice

from childbearing.

Anti-Choice Reaction

Since the Court's decisions, the ad-

vocates of ``mandatory motherhood''

have succeeded in eliminating federal

funds for abortion, thus denying poor

women access to services available to

women of means.

In California, the ACLU's fight to in

sure state funding for abortions has

lasted for five years, despite a March

1981 California Supreme Court ruling

that denial of Medi-Cal funds for abor-

tion is unconstitutional. Each year, anti-

choice forces have persuaded legislators

to cut abortion funds from the state bud-

get, and each year, the ACLU has gone

to court to block those cuts from taking

effect.

Pro-Choice Week Calendar of Events

JANUARY 21

DISTRICT VISITS throughout

northern California, coordinated by

ACLU's Pro-Choice Task Force.

Contact: Dick Grosboll, 415/387-

0575 (evenings)

SAN FRANCISCO

TEN YEARS OF CHOICE CELE-

BRATION sponsored by the North-

ern California Pro-Choice Coalition

- comedy, music, dancing.

Contact: Marcia Gallo, 415/621-2494

JANUARY 22

MARIN COUNTY

PUBLIC FORUM sponsored by

ACLU and other Marin reproductive

rights groups.

Contact: Leslie Paul, 415/381-1088

JANUARY 23

SAN FRANCISCO

EDUCATIONAL FORUM

In collections

ACLU-NC News: 1983

Details

Title: vol. 48, no. 1 (February, 1983)
Creator: American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Date: 1983 January-February
Identifier: ACLUN_0516
Genre: newspapers
Physical description: 40.5 x 28 cm
Publisher: San Francisco (Calif.): American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Preferred citation: ACLU of Northern California News vol. 48, no. 1, 1983 January-February; PER ACLUN; California Historical Society.
Rights statement: In Copyright
Publication rights: Copyright (or related rights to publicity and privacy) for materials in this collection, created by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, was not transferred to the California Historical Society (CHS). Permission for reproduction or publication of materials in this collection beyond that allowed by fair use must be secured from the copyright holder.
Topical subject(s): Public welfare
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
Church and state
Voting rights
Freedom of information
Freedom of expression
Educational equity
Criminal justice
Capital punishment
Academic freedom
Reproductive rights
Cruising (driving)
LGBTQ rights
Immigrant rights
Named subject(s): AFL-CIO
Barnhart, Brent
Jerry Brown
Crosby, Margaret
Dellums, Ronald V., 1935-2018
George Deukmejian
Criley, Richard L.
Ehrlich, Dorothy
Franklin, Bruce
Gallo, Marcia
Grosboll, Richard
Hitchens, Donna
Mosk, Stanley
Ramey, Drucilla
Riemer, Davis
Schlosser, Alan
Schwartz, Amitai
Warner, Douglas
Warren, Earl
Asian Law Caucus
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Geographical subject(s): Sacramento (Calif.)
Monterey (Calif.)
Santa Rosa (Calif.)
Vacaville (Calif.)
Fresno (Calif.)
San Leandro (Calif.)
Oakland (Calif.)
Collection identifier: PER ACLUN