vol. 39, no. 8

Volume XXXIX

November-December 1974, San Francisco

| No. 8

THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION

On Sunday, December 15th, at 7:30 p.m., the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California will celebrate the 183rd anniversary of the Bill of Rights at the Geary Theater, 415 Geary Street, in San Francisco. The second annual Earl Warren Civil ‘Liberties Award will be presented to Roger J. Traynor, Chief Justice, Ret., of the California Supreme Court. Chief Justice Traynor will be honored for his leadership of the state’s High Court between the years of 1964 and 1970. He had served on the Court as an Associate Justice since 1940. While he presided over the Court, many decisions which significantly advanced civil liberties in this state were handed down.

Guest speaker for the event will be noted civil rights advocate and Georgia state legislator, Julian Bond. Bond is active in a variety of organizations working to ‘‘change the color of Southern politics’’ in his words. Among these are the Southern Elections Fund, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Voter Education Project and the Editorial Advisory

JULIAN BOND

cordially invites you to the second annual Bill of Rights Day Celebration

Board of Southern Voices. Judge Earl Warren, Jr. will present the award named for his father to Chief Justice Traynor. Also, Edison Uno, ACLU-NC Board member, and a teacher at several Bay Area colleges and universities on Japanese-American History will also speak. Uno, who received the Alexander Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Award in 1971 for his efforts to repeal the World War |! detention camp laws, will offer a personal perspective of | the life of former Chief Justice Earl Warren. Foundation Board Chairman Howard Jewel will chair the event.

Other ‘‘stars’’ of the evening will be the distinguished national leaders in the field of civil liberties who will be present in the audience, the entertainers who will contribute their time and talent, and the supporters of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California during 1974.

For the event, the Foundation will be publishing a commemorative program, each ‘page of which will contain phrases from the $1,000 tax-deductible contribution to the ACLU Foundation of Northern California. While tickets to the celebration will be sold for $3.50 ‘each, it is those who agree to become program sponsors of the Bill of Rights celebration who will make this benefit a success. There are four sponsoring categories: $1,000 (one listing of an individual or organization per page); $500 (two listings per page) ; $250 (four listings per page) ; $100 (ten listings per page). These donations will go toward the support and expansion of the Foundation’s legal program in Northern California.

if you would like to be listed, or know of any — invidual or organization that might wish to be listed, please contact Sarah Beserra at (415) 781-2597. Also, order your tickets right away. Last year’s event was sold out and it is not expected that there will be tickets available at the door this year.

Please join us on December 15..and join those other men and women who make possible the continued defense of our precious heritage, the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States.

ROGER TRAYNOR

[ Enclosed is my check. [ |Please send me a pledge reminder. As a courtesy, two tickets will be reserved for you at the Geary Theater. deductible. Contributionsto the ACLU Foundation of Northern California are tax Bill of Bigs Also, each page will represent a f | wish my name to be listed as a: $1, 000 sponsor = [ | i | wish to attend the Bill of Rights Day Celebration and first annual 0) =ponsor | | presentation of the Ear! Warren Civil Liberties Award at the Geary Theater [ $250 | sponsor | | in San Francisco on Dec. 16th at 7:30 p.m. | ee | | Please send metickets at $3.50 each. Enclosed Is my check for

| NAME 1 NAME | | ADDRESS =O CITY. . | ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP | STATE | ZIP |). PHONE 1} PHONE

‘Nov. 1974 aclu news

ORGANIZATION

Six new members join ACLU Board of Directors

With the September, 1974 meeting of the Board of Directors, this year’s new members and officers officially began their terms of service. Richard DeLancie began his second year as Chairman of the Board of ACLU-NC. He also replaces Howard Jewel as their year’s delegate to the National ACLU Board.

Jewel, who was Chairman of the NC Board before DeLancie, replaces Ralph Atkinson as Chairman of the Board of Governors for the ACLU Foundation.

Three vice-chairpersons were also elected for the Board: Nancy McDermid, Dorothy Patterson and Helen Salz. The

RICHARD DeLANCIE

~ HOWARD JEWEL

For those hard to please relatives and friends, the Street Musicians album offers a unique surprise. We can mail the records directly to you, or we can mail them fo the people you want to give to with gift cards enclosed, or we can send new Secretary-Treasurer, replacing Warren Saltzman whose term expired, is Davis Riemer. Also, Coleman Blease, former legislative advocate for ACLU of Southern California will join Paul Halvonik and Ephraim’ Margolin as General Counsel. Six new members of the Board also attended their first meeting in September. Barbara Babcock is a law professor at Stanford University and a former director of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. A specialist in feminist law, Barbara was a co-author of Sex Discrmination and the Law: Causes and Remedies (1974) and Defense of a Homocide Case (1969).

Alvin Baum is an attorney and a Fellow of the ACLU-NC Foundation. He was formerly the Director of Planning for the City and County of San Francisco and is currently involved in securing rights for the gay community. - Vilma Martinez Singer is President and General Counsel for the Mexican- American Legal Defense and Education Fund and a consultant to the Commission on Education of Mexican-Americans. Vilma is also a member of the editorial board of Civil Liberties Review. Fran Strauss was the. Board’s representative from the San Francisco

COLEMAN BLEASE

The San Francisco Street Musicians

you the records and easy-to-use mail packages for you to use. Long Playing Stereo Record Album is a great holiday gift idea

Send $3.50 (plus 50c mailing and handling) * to: ACLU-NC Record Sales 593 Market Street, San Francisco, Ca. 94103

EDISON UNO

Chapter before being elected as an at-large member. She organized the ACLU-NC volunteer complaint desk operation two years ago and was instrumental in the — development of the Foundation Fellows Program and the Bill of Rights Day Celebration. She also developed a list of cooperating attorneys for the legal department.

Edison Uno is a long time member and supporter of ACLU who received the Northern California Civil Liberties Award in 1972. He is Assistant Dean of Students at the University of California Medical Center. Edison served on the Mayor’s Crime Commission for three years which made many excellent recommendations on victimless crimes and as a member of the San Francisco grand jury, was a leader in grand jury reform.

Robert Young is Director of United Bay Area Crusade. He is a long time ACLU supporter and now a member of the Development Committee. He was a member of the Board of ACLU of Dlinois for five years. He helped triple that Af- filiates budget by working to secure in-

“BARBARA BABCOCK

ROBERT YOUNG

dividual, corporate and foundation grants. In addition to the six new members elected to the board, eight incumbents were re-elected. They are: Anthony Amsterdam, Ralph Atkinson, Alice Daniel, Paul Halvonik, Marshall Krause, Norvel Smith, Fay Stender, and ~Ger- maine Wong. A new Executive Com- mittee was also named to serve along with the Board officers. They are Irving Cohen, Alice Daniel, Howard Jewel, and Marilyn Patel.

aclu news ; 9 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in March-April, July-August, ' and November-December Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California Richard DeLancie, Chairman of the Board Jay Miller, Executive Director Mike Callahan, Editor and Public Information Director |

593 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105 — 433-2750 Membership $15 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee for aclu News.

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION

fActof August 12.1970 Section 08S Tithe 4% United States Code “TYIYLE OF PUBLICATION.

ACLU NEWS

. ,Monthly 9 issue @ LOCATION OF KNOWN

593 Market St., San Francisco, “BE LOCATION OF THE HEADQUARTERS OR GENERAL BUSINESS OFFICES OF THE PUBLICS RS Not printers 593 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94105

6 NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PUSLISHER EDITOR AND MANAGING EDITOR

"PUBLISHER (Name and address American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, 593 Market St. 5S. fF ess

S POSTAL SERVICE

| SEE INSTRUCTIONS | ON PAGE 2(REVERSE)

13 DATt OF Fi November

sexcept bi-monthly in March-April, July-August, December FEICE OF PUBLICATION

Michael Callahan, 5°93 Market St., San Francisco, CA 105 ame and address

KNOWN BONDHOLDERS. MORTGAGEES ANU OTHER SECURITY HOLDERS OWNING OR HOI DING | PERCENT OR MORE OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF BONDS MORTGAGE OR OTHE and SECURITIES

9 FOR OPTIONAL COMPLETION BY PUBLISHERS MAILING AT THE REGULAR RATES

“10 FOR COMPLETION 6Y Sees ORGANJZATIONS AUTHORIZED TO MAIL AT SPECIAL RATES (Secon 162722 octal Sunuat)

1) EXTENT AND NATURE OF C:RCULATION A TOTAL NO COPIES PRINTED (Ner Press Run)

PROJECTS Novl 1974 aclu news

Women’s Project to coordinate rights work

ELLEN LAKE | On November 4, after nearly two years of labor by the ACLU-NC Women’s Rights Committee, the Women’s Rights Project has finally come to life. The San Francisco Foundation approved a major grant of $19,100 last March to get the Project off the ground. The Syntex Corporation provided a smaller grant and other funds came through private donations. Once the money was in hand, the Committee began a search for staff lasting nearly six months.

selected from the numerous women who applied for the positions of Project At- torney and Program Developer to staff the Project.

Ellen Lake, an attorney and graduate of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio will direct the litigation program of the Project. During the past year and a half, she has been serving as an attorney for the United Farm Workers throughout the San Joaquin Valley. In addition, Ellen has worked as a law clerk in the California Supreme Court and as a Staff Attorney for the Legal Aid Society of Alameda County.

The Project’s Program Developer is Eve Reingold, a graduate of Lone Mountain College in San Francisco. Eve has been extremely active in various community organizations including the Bay Area Urban League, the United Bay Area Crusade, Black Women Organized for Action, and the Bay Area Women’s Coalition. Her primary responsibilities are to serve as the liaison to other organizations working in the area of women’s rights, and publicize the project through public information, educational programs, speaker’s bureau and publications.

Committee, chaired by Board member — Nancy McDermid, has incorporated a unique and profound staffing principle in the Project. Instead of the traditional attorney and positions, the Committee, and sub- sequently the Board, adopted a vanguard “‘equal’? pay concept for both staff positions. Inherent in this plan is the principle that in the field of women’s rights, not all battles are won in the courtroom. Much of the task will rely on women being made aware of their rights through continuing education, discussion and direct action.

secretary /assistant —

Ellen and Eve are both highly en— / thusiastic and eager to undertake the Foundation’s major assault on sex. discrimination in Northern California. Women’s Rights was established as a priority for ACLU at the 1972 Chapter Conference along with victimless crimes, prison rights and equality. A special project will allow staff to concentrate on this area and hopefully achieve some major breakthroughs that regular staff would be less able to focus on.

Among the objectives of the Project will be to serve as a clearinghouse for pleadings and other information relevant to the establishment of women’s rights and to maintain an up-to-date docket of sex discrimination cases in Northern California.

Of course, the Project will also receive complaints of sex discrimination from the public, determine which cases should be litigated or referred to other agencies, and develop a program of public education.

The gains made by the ACLU Women’s Rights Project will affect the lives not only of every woman living in California but also, by implication, of Ellen Lake and Eve Reingold have been

The ACLU-NC Women’s Rights

EVE REINGOLD

every woman in the nation.

Prison Project reports many litigation gains Almost 100 years ago Dostoevski, himself a prisoner in czarist Russia, wrote that the “‘degree of civilization in a society can be judged best by entering its prisons.’’ California, with institutions such as San Quentin and — Folsom, and with archaic ‘‘civil death’’ statutes derived from the middle ages, would do well to avoid being judged . by such a standard. During its 14 month existence the ACLU-NC Prison project attempted by litagation to remove at least a few of the most outrageous practices and laws followed in California’s prisons.

One principal area of the Project’s concern has been the First Amendment rights of prisoners, especially the right to receive publications through the mail even though both the First Amendment and a state statue guarantee that prisoners be allowed to receive publications are either ““unofficially censored’’ (i.e., lost or destroyed by prison personnel) or officially excluded by the prison. Since it is virtually impossible to litigate every individual instance of censorship the Project in CPH]J v Craven, selected the California prison featuring the most outrageous censorship practices and sought relief that would prevent the continuation of that practice. The case is in the late stages of discovery.

In Malone v. United States the Project is seeking to have the United States Supreme Court establish, for the first time, standards by which to measure restrictions on probationers and parolees First Amendment rights.

A major and to date unsuccessful effort of the Project has been to eliminate some of the disabilities created by California’s “‘civil death’’ statute which deprives prisoners and parolees of their basic human rights. In a series of cases (one of which is still pending) the Project has challenged the civil death statute’s denial of pri- soners’ right to marry. In Messina v. Brown the Project unsuccessfully challenged another aspect of the civil death statute — the disfranchisement all paroled ex-felons. Unfortunately the approval of Proposition 10 on the recent November ballot may result in prisoner and parolees having no judicial relief against their disfran- chisement.

The Project had more success in the area of prisoner legal assistance. In the Project’s case of In re Jordan II the California Supreme Court held two CDC regulations unlawful. The first regulation dealt with the reading of enclosures in attorney-prisoner mail while the second did not afford confidential status to out of state attorney prisoner mail. Jordan II may just amount to a ‘‘paper victory’’ however as it is not clear whether the Depart- -ment of Corrections will abide by it.

Prison Project Cases June 1973 — August 1974

United States Supreme Court Malone v. U.S., petition for writ of certiorari pending. California Supreme Court a. Decisions

In re Jordan, In re Sturm, ; In re Walker, (Project amicus breif attorney Charles Marson) b. Pending or under submission People v. Coleman (amicus support urging California. Supreme Court to hold that probation revocation proceedings must follow criminal proceedings whenever tactual allegations of the petition to revoke probation concern same conduct as perding criminal charge against probationer) (oral argument: October, 1974) Gee v. Brown (Project ee brief filed by Joel Zeldin and Peter Sheehan arguing that counsel should be af- forded at in-prison hearings which could result in rescission of unexecuted grant of parole) (Oral argument: November, 1974)

People v. Superior Court, (amicus support asserting that a Fourth Amendment waiver signed by out-patient ot the California Rehabilitation Center cannot be used to justify a search of the possessions of premises of cotenants in the out-patient’s living quarters) (oral argument: September, 1974) (attorney: Charles Marson)

c. Denied :

1. Habeas pettition denied: I” re Ortiz (right to marry) (Wright, C. J., Most, J., Tobriner, J., dissenting from denial of petition)

2. Petition for hearing denied: A.F.S.C. v. Pro cunier (amicus brief attorneys Charles Marson, B. E. Bergesen). Messina v. Brown (voting rights of parolees). — U.S. Court of Appeals

Malone v. U.S., (Government’s appeal dismissed in case involving exclusion of attorney from San Quentin State Prison). U.S. District Courts

1. Northern District California

Walker v. Procunier (challenge to prison transfer and classification procedures) (discovery stage) 3 Hillery v. Procunier, reversed sub nom Pell v. Pro cunier, (amicus support at District Court level on behalf of Nicholas Von Hoffman, Tom Wicker , and other representatives of the press arguing that California ban on individual inmate-press interviews violated First Amendment right of press) ss

Prisoners Union v. Procunier (1983 action seeking appointment of master to handle all future disputes between prison officials and Prisoners Union concerning validity of exclusion of the Prisoners Union monthly publication from California prisons). State’s moetion for summary judgment granted in District Court. Case presently on appeal to Ninth Circuit. Peter Sheehan co- counsel with Robert Fries and Paul Halvonik.

Lipp v. Procunier (amicus support in suit challenging prison authorities denial of inmates’ rights to gather for ‘feligious services) (under submission)

Teese v. Procunier (issues similar to Walker v. Procunier. Dismissed at plaintiff-prisoner’s request).

Gong v. Bork (press access suit; dismissed by stipulation) Attorney: Joe Remcho

Morris v. Griggs (Fourth Amendment parolee search case) (District ourt awaiting Ninth Circuit opinion on similar issue)

Bly v. Procunier, Direct representation by Project of attorney prevented from visiting her clients at San Quentin Stat Prison. T.R.O. and preliminary injunctions granted prohibiting prison officials from continuing to bar attorney from San Quentin. Government’s appeal dismissed by Ninth Circuit.

Crosier, et al v. Procunier (1983 action seeking on equal protection and due process grounds to credit time spent in county jail prior to conviction against, maximum sentenece. Dismissed by stipulation following reversal of plaintiff’s conviction).

2. Eastern District of California Committee for Prisoner Humanity and Justice v. Craven. (Publication censorship suit; in late stages of discovery) California Court of Appeal In re Sangsland (right to marry suit)

Magee v. Nelson (amicus ssupport on behalf of various members of press supporting trial court’s order per- mitting press to interview prisoner). cot on page 7.

Nov. 1974

aclu news

LEGAL

Confidentiality of attorney-inmate mail upheld In 1972, ACLU-NC filed an amicus curiae bref in the California Supreme Court in support of a petition for a - writ of habeas corpus. ACLU Board Member Alice Daniel was handling the case directly for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Inc.

The case, In re Jordan, challenged regulations of the California Department of Corrections which dealt with the handling of prison correspondence. The regulations were supposedly based upon Penal Code Section 2600 which provides that prison officials may not read attorney inmate correspondence but that they can open the mail and inspect it for contraband. The Supreme Court knocked out previous prison regulations and ordered the Department not to read the mail wile inspecting it and to develop new regulations.

Early in 1973, the Department came out with its new regulations. These rules (a) required attorneys to sign a loyalty oath as a condition to the exercise of the right of confidential mail status, (B) allowed the Department to read alj ‘‘enclosures’’ in attorney-prisoner mail, in- cluding draft pleadings and affidavits and, (c) did not provide for confidential mail status to out-of-state at- torneys. In other words, the only concession gained by winning the first Jordan case was that the prison in- spectors won't read the actual sent by California attorneys.

Following several threats of litigation, the Department dropped the loyalty oath requirement. The other regulations, however, were in effect for more than one and a half years after the first Jordan decision. As if these rules were not bad enough, prison authorities admit that mail from California attorneys is often read due to *‘administrative error.’’ :

In November, 1973, the ACLU-NC Prison Project filed In re Jordon II in the California Supreme Court to challenge the new regulations. Prison Project Director Peter Sheehan told the court that “‘if the pattern of the Department’s promulgation of unlawful regulations gives this Court the impression that the Jordan decision is not being observed by the Department, the suspicion is well founded.”’ :

He argued that the regulations at issue in this case are a *“blatant violation of the letter and spirit of the Jordan decision. It is difficult to fashion a solution for such conduct because we are not use to a government agency treating opinions of this Court in such a contemptuous manner.

In the petition for habeas corpus, Sheehan argues that the reading of portions of confidential attorney-inmate mail and the reading of correspondence between inmates and out of state attorneys violate Jordan’s constitutional rights to freedom of expression, to petition for redress of grievances, to access to the courts, to assistance of counsel, and to equal protection of the laws.

On a statutory basis, Sheehan also charged that the Department regulations violated Penal Code Section 2600, the evidence code, the attorney-client privilege, and the Court’s decision in Jordan I.

In the petition for habeas corpus, Sheehan argues that the reading of portions of confidential attorney-inmate mail and the reading of correspondence between inmates and out of state attorneys violate Jordan’s constitutional rights to freedom of expression, to petition for redress of grievances, to access to the courts, to assistance of counsel, and to equal protection of the laws.

On a statutory basis, Sheehan also charged that the Department regulations violated Penal Code Section 2600, the evidence code, the attorney-client privilege, and the Courts decision in Jordan I.

The Department of Corrections defended its regulations on the grounds that contraband included ‘‘the published article, the newspaper and the book’’ and ‘‘any writings . . . expressing inflammatory views or beliefs.’’ Sheehan noted that if the Department’s interpretation of contraband went unchallenged, there would be virtually no confidentiality. Besides, he pointed out that the Court already rejected this interpretation in Jordan I.

On the matter of confidentiality for out-of-state at- torney-inmatecorrespondence, Sheehan presented an affidavit from Alvin Bronstein, Director of the National ACLU Prison Project. He stated that his office ‘ ‘received over three hundred letters from prisoners in California State Prisons seeking legal representation or advice and that many of these prisoners have indicated they sought the Project’s aid because they were unable to obtain legal ' help from attorneys in California.’’

Bronstein added that his efforts to provide legal advice and representation to California prisoners has been “substantially hindered by the knowledge that our letters are read by. the prison authorities.. .this has a serious chilling effect on our communications.’

Last month, the Supreme Court decided that Jordan’s claims were justified and that the relief he sought should be granted. By order of the court, all communications between inmates and attorneys are to be confidential. Prison authorities can only inspect the mail for physical contraband which cannot encompass any written, or printed communications. Also, the confidentiality is not limited to California State attorneys and the only requirement to secure the confidentiality is the designation ‘‘Legal Mail’’ and the attorney’s signature on the envelope.

Unless the Department of Corrections decides to ignore the instructions of the Supreme Court in Jordan II, at- torney-inmate mail may at last be free of ee and censorship.

Thousands of war resisters may not need clemeacy

Pentagon and Justice Department officials estimate that there may be as many as 200,000 men living in exile or underground in this country because they resisted the draft. Only 5,755 of them are wanted by the government, however as a result, many of the others may be con- sidering acceptance of President Ford’s limited clemency program for war resisters when they do not even need it.

Since the vast majority of war resisters - have never been charged with violaions and since very few of those prosecuted result in convictions, very few of the ‘resisters would ever face any sentence. Furthermore, for the small number of persons who are convicted, the average sentences have been 3 years of probation and 2 years of alternative service — about the same deal an individual would get if he accepted Ford’s plan.

In addition, accepting the clemency plan carries with it some dangerous liabilities. Besides serving 24 months of alternative service, returnees must waive several important rights including the right to be free of double jeopardy, the right to a speedy trial, the right to due process and the protections of the statute of limitations and the right to have an indictment presented to the grand jury.

This last waiver is especially critical since in the majority of cases, the Justice Department probably could not or would not even try to get an indictment since the original induction procedures which were evaded were possibly improper. Many men don’t need amnesty because, unknown to them, the courts have established principles which make their inductions illegal.

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Welsh v. United States that religious beliefs were not necessary to obtain conscientious objector classification. The court said that denials of CO claims they were ‘‘non-religious’’ were illegal. The devision was retroactive and therefore could exonerate thousands of men who fled the draft before 1970. Also, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has ruled that persons who were deterred from filing CO claims because

feiffer

Reprinted with permission Copyright Jules Felffer, 1974 :

they were non-religious and not liable for prosecution.

Several other court decisions and an act of Congress have established the principle that draft boards could not deny CO claims without giving good reasons for doing so. Many men left the country when there claims were denied but could readily assert the impropriety of those draft board rulings as a defense today.

Countless others may not need amnesty because there inductions were not legal for other procedural infirmities. Many draft boards did not properly review every claim for deferment though they were supposed to. These included medical as well as other types of deferment claims. Also, the courts have found that draft boards often imposed illegal sanctions on. inductees such as reclassifying them to 1- A, accelerating their inductions out of normal order, or not inducting them without reinduction physical exam- inations. In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled these sanctions to be continued on page 5

Ip ee Te PANTAGOH USED THE IN WHICH OS. NIP ee HEN MONEY

LEGAL

Nov. 1974 aclu news |

ACLU challenges Berkeley campaign law

By MIKE CALLAHAN Editor

ACLU surprised a lot of people last month by filing an amicus curiae brief in Alameda County Superior Court in the case of Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. City of Berkeley. ACLU sided with P.G. and E. in urging the court to find the Berkeley Election Reform Act of 1974 unconstitutional. Unfortunately, news media accounts of the action left many ACLU members as well as the general public somewhat confused.

First, it is important to know the facts of the case. Earlier this year, Berkeley voters. approved an initiative which provides in part: ‘‘No proprietorship firm, part- nership company, corporation or labor union shall make a contribution to any committee ...’’ The city law further describes a ‘“committee’’ as ‘‘any person or combination of persons that directly or indirectly receives contributions or makes expenditures or contributions for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence . . . the passage or defeat of any measure ...”’

The Reform Act further provides a total spending limit of $7,500 or 10 cents per voter, whichever is less, on expenditures by each side in election campaigns in the City of Berkeley. It. also sets a limit of $250 on individual contributions.

Last week, Berkeley voters had before them another initiative which would authorize and require the institution of a commission whose purpose is to study and begin to implement condemnation proceedings against P.G. and E. with the goal of municipalizing the delivery of. electric power in the City of Berkeley.

P.G. and E. obviously opposed the. initiative, but would have been prohibited by the Election Reform Act from ex- pending corporate funds to oppose its passage.

When these facts were presented to ACLU’s Legal Committee, several ques- tions had to be decided. The major one was whether an outright prohibition on corporate campaign spending was con- stitutional. The committee then had to go on and decide whether spending limits imposed equally against all sides are constitutional; whether limits should apply identically to corporations, associations, and individuals; and, how can limits be judged for their reasonableness. “

Volunteer attorney Marshall Krause delivered ACLU’s views to the court. Actually, since ACLU did not enter the case until the hearing for a permanent injunction, P.G. and E already having won a preliminary injunction, there was no time to file a full brief so Krause only submitted a petition for leave to file a full legal document and he outlined ACLU’s arguments orally.

He stated that first of all, the outright prohibition on corporate campaign ex- penditures is an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech and press clauses of the federal and state constitutions. Secondly,

spending for individuals and corporations- — and total spending limits in campaigns are not per se unconstitutional but the burden is on the government agency imposing the limits on - limits to establish their reasonableness on a constitutional basis. This second argument, by the way, departed from P.G. and E.’s view of spending limits since the utility company was claiming that all limits are un- constitutional infringements of First Amendment freedoms. P.G. and E. also disagrees with ACLU’s position that while corporations cannot be prevented from campaigning, they should be treated. identically to individuals. In Berkeley, the individual limitation is $250.

Krause’s final argument is perhaps the most important in understanding why ACLU entered this case. He said, ‘‘the ordinance in question must be tested by its general effect on all individuals, cor- porations and associations in all election campaigns as well as its specific effect in this case.’’ In other words, as far as ACLU is concerned, the fact that P.G. and E. is the plaintiff in this case is unim- portant. The crucial consideration is that here is a law which affects everyone and it if violates the rights of P.G. and E., it can equally well violate the rights of anyone else.

If, for instance, there were a death penalty initiative on the Berkeley ballot, ACLU would be prhibited from ‘‘directly or indirectly’’ campaigning by expending money to defeat the measure since ACLU is a corporation. Countless other groups would be affected by the campaign reform ordinance and it must be judged by its affect on them.

Following the hearing, Superior Court Judge Gordon Minder issued a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Berkeley ordinance as it applies to P.G. and E. and its opponents. He agreed that the law is ‘‘an unlawful interference with plaintiff’s right of freedom of speech and expression.’’ Judge Minder’s order also noted that the court is convinced of the point raised by Krause that ‘‘it would be incumbent on the defendant (City of Berkeley) at the least to demonstrate by evidence. the reasonableness of the monetary limits set forth in the or dinance.”’

The actual effect of the injunction was that P.G. and E. and its opponents were not constrained by the Election Reform Act in the November 5 election. Final declaratory judgment on the reform act is due on November 15. At that point, Berkeley officials will have to decide whether to appeal the decision to the California Cout of Appeal. That prospect leads to another factor which convinced . ACLU that it should be in the case. If the Berkeley Election Reform Act is eventually reviewed by the California Supreme Court, crucial constitutional questions affecting other campaign reform laws will be decided. It is safe to assume that P.G. and E. will be less interested in salvaging portions of the reform laws which may be constitutional than ACLU will be. Since important civil liberty questions will be judged in the Supreme Court, it is vital that ACLU’s views be presented. However, ACLU will certainly be having more problems in the future with these types of reform.

Earlier this year, the ACLU-NC Board of Directors discussed taking a position on Proposition .9. After several meetings, i ACLU-NC Executive Director Jay A. Miller and volunteer attorney Marshall Krause explain First Amendment issues in P.G. and E. suit at press conference.

they concluded that no position should be — taken because it was impossible to determine whether there would be constitutional problems prior to its im- plementation. Once the law goes into effect in January, however, the Board will almost certainly be asked to study it again.

ACLU-NC is not alone in this balancing act. The Watergate scandal has given rise to countless hastily devised reform measures, pushed by possibly overzealous reformers and adopted by the citizens in a flurry of post Watergate repugnance against politicians. Unfortunately, history tells us when such factors come together , some people are going to get hurt.

National ACLU is currently challenging the Federal Campaign Practices Act of 1971 in the case of ACLU v. Jennings. The law requires any group or individual that attempts to influence an election to reveal the names and oc- cupations of every contributor over $10. In ACLU’s case, that means virtually every member. ACLU had attempted to place an adin the New York Times stating the organization’s opposition to several anti-busing bills pending in Congress at the time. The ad listed the 103 Representatives who were already opposed to the bills. For that reason, ACLU was judged to be a political committee, which required disclosure of the membership and, ACLU was ordered to supply a verification to the Times that the expense of the ad would no cause any of the 103 Representatives to exceed their campaign . spending limits. ACLU got the Act declared an unconstitutional prior restraint of free speech in the D.C. Circuit Court and the case is now before-the U.S. Supreme Court.

New Jersey ACLU is currently challenging the disclosure provisions of a Common Cause supported initiative very similar to Proposition 9. Also, National ACLU and ACLU of Southern California are challenging federal and state campaign disclosure laws on behalf of the Socialist Workers Party. The SWP is claiming that it can document invasions of privacy, government harassment and loss of jobs as a result of the forced disclosure of names and occupations of their contributors.

No one doubts that campaign reform is necessary but we cannot sacrifice con- stitutional rights and individual liberties in our zeal to clean up politics. In that these reform measures seem to currently have wide support, ACLU may once again find itself on the unpopular side of a major issue. That predicament is hardly a new or unusual one, however.

Clemency plan questioned

continued from page 4

‘‘blatantly lawless’? which means that many exiles have an absolute defense because of such treatment.

For these and a variety of other reasons, cooperating with the amnesty program May net a prison term where none is wafranted, or 24 months of alternative service where none is justified. To help advise and counsel men on the program, ACLU has joined with the United Church of Christ to sponsor a Clemency In- formation Network.

Persons seeking information on the program and the options open to them may call toll-free from Canada or collect from the United States. In Canada, the number is (800) 665-8885 and in: the US., (317) 635-8259.

Henry Schwarzchild, Director of the National ACLU Project on Amnesty, said ““full information is crucial in preventing thousands of war resisters from being unnecessarily shanghaied into the punitive clemency program’’. Simply walking into the U.S. Attorney’s office and surren- dering may — according to a directive by Attorney General William Saxbe — result ' in prosectution, if a draft dodger doesn’t agree to the clemency program’s requirements, even if'no charges are pending against him.

“Nov. 1974 aclu news

Volunteer attorneys record several wins

By NANCY RUSSELL Legal Assistant As was bound to happen, an important friend was left off last month’s list of ACLUNC volunteer attorneys. | EPHRAIM MARGOLIN, ACLUNC general counsel and a volunteer on many cases over the years, wrote the amicus — brief for the affiliate in La Raza Unida v. Volpe, urging discretionary award of attorneys’ fees in cases brought by “‘private attorneys general’’. The at- torneys’ fees question came up when the USS. District Court awarded fees to Public Advocates, Inc., who won a lawsuit for La Raza Unida against the California High- way Commission and federal highway officials who forcibly displaced over 5000 low income Mexican-Americans in connection with a proposed freeway project in southern Alameda County. The Highway Commission appealed the fees award, and the case is under submission in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Since the last issue there has been significant action in several cases handled by ACLU-NC volunteer attorneys.

In Kaku v. Felix the contentions of volunteers ROD BUSHNELL and MICHAEL KELLEY (who wrote the amicus brief for ACLU-NC, the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, and Congressman Ron Dellums) prevailed. The brief argued on First Amendment religious freedom and equal protection grounds that conscientious objectors issued orders to alternative service in December 1972 should be treated in the same fashion as persons issued orders for induction in December 1972. U.S. District Court Judge Robert F. Peckham agreed, and on September 18 granted a preliminary injunction ordering release from alternative service for the affected conscientious objector plaintiffs. Volunteers ALICE DANIEL and MARSHALL GOLDBERG contributed amicus support for ACLU-NC in two cases which were favorably decided in recent weeks. See p. 6 for discussion of

Ramirez v. Hoff and Solomon Lieber- mann's petition for naturalization.

ELLEN LAKE, who joined the ACLU- NC staff this month as attorney for our new Women’s Rights Project (see p. 3), ‘wrote an amicus brief for the affiliate last February in In re Janice Christensen Banks. Attorney Lloyd Crenna appealed from a Superior Court refusal to grant Ms. Banks’ request for restoration of her maiden name upon dissolution of her marriage. The judge felt that assumption of her maiden name would be harmful to Ms. Banks’ minor children. ACLU-NC was one of several local organizations with particular interests in women’s rights to file an amicus brief. Ellen argued tht the judge’s decision was a violation of Ms. Bank’s due process rights and an improper use of judicial discretion. On October 24 the California Court of Appeal ruled that no evidence was presented to substantiate any harmful effect on her children and restored Ms. Banks’ maiden name.

MICHAEL SORGEN’s novel petition for mandamus in Mathews v. Gray was decided by the Sonoma County Superior Court on September 16. The petition asserted tht the Sonoma Valley Unified School District abused its discretion by excluding a student from school for three months as punishment for cutting selected classes, and contended that the school district has an affirmative obligation to provide compensatory education for the schooling she missed. Sorgen and ACLUNC won a limited victory when the Court overruled the school district’s demurrer and partially granted the writ of mandate, ordering that the District erred in excluding Ms. Mathews from classes for such an extended period of time and directing the District to delete any reference to the suspension from her student records.

MARTIN SPIEGEL continued his winning streak for ACLU-NC in Sep- tember. Numerous students at Sonoma State College were denied the right to -fegister for classes for the fall semester unless they would ‘agree to sign promissory notes to the school for alleged financial aid overpayments made by the school. The students had provided truthful information on their applications for

LEGAL

Woman inmate retains custody of her children

Sandra R., the mother of two minor children, Thomas and Evangeline, was convicted and sentenced to prison in 1969 for possession of marijuana. Her children were declared dependants of the Alameda County Juvenile Court and were placed in a foster home. In 1972, the Alameda County Human Resources Agency moved to have the children declared free of their parent’s custody and available for adoption. The county was claiming that Sandra R.’s incarceration constituted abandonment and neglect of the children.

Alameda County Superior Court or- dered tht the children be put up for adoption. After a trial, the court con- cluded that Sandra R. had abandoned the |} children because she only made ‘‘token’’ attempts to communicate with them, she neglected them for more than one year, and since she was sentenced for up to five years, she would be unable to provide an adequate home for them.

Sandra was. being represented by Alameda County Legal Aid Society. The trial court’s findings were appealed to the California Court of Appeal and ACLU joined the case as amicus curiae.

} Volunteer attorney Alice Daniel prepared ACLU’s brief. Last month the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, thereby returning custody of the children to their mother. The Alameda County counsel has already filed a petition for a hearing before the California Supreme Court to have the adoption order reinstated.

In the Court of Appeal, protested that she had not abandoned her children. The law defines abandonment as leaving the child ‘‘in the care and custody of another without any provision for his Sandra — support, or without communication from such parent or parents, for a period of six months with the intent to abandon such | person.

Evidence developed at the trial, however, shows that Sandra wrote to the - children at least twice a month throughout her imprisonment. The court’s opinion noted that “‘it is obvious that she was utilizing the only means of com- munication available to her.’’ The ap- pelate court therefore concluded that there is ‘‘no evidentiary support for the trial court’s finding that defendant abandoned her children by failing to communicate with them.”’

On the issue of neglect, the appellate court determined there was no basis for such a finding since the record shows that she was not cruel to her children but rather that ““she was a good and loving mother who gave excellent attention and supervision to her children.’’

The three judge appellate panel con- cluded “‘The relationship of a natural parent to her children is a vital human relationship which has far reaching im- plications for the growth and development of the child. Thus, the involuntary ter- mination of that relationship by state action must be viewed asa drastic remedy which should be resorted to only in ex- treme cases of neglect or abandonment.

Sandra R. is now out of prison and has custody of her children. She will retain that custody until or unless the Supreme Court again orders them adopted. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, ACLU will again appear as amicus on her behalf.

financial aid and contended that over- payments were the result of mistakes by the financial aid oficers. BILL SWEGLES, third-year law student at Stanford assigned to ACLU-NC for the fall semester, was dispatched to Santa Rosa to work with Spiegel and they filed a petition for writ of mandate (Sanchez v. Wagner) on Sep- tember 19 in the Sonoma County Superior Court. On September 26 the Court issued a peremptory writ instructing the college to permit the students to register and attend classes as usual while the school’s financial aids mess is cleaned up.

‘Liebermann gains citizenship in federal court Saloman Liebermann has lived in Marin County for more than 28 years. He helped organize the Marin Chapter of ACLU and the Mill Valley Center for the Performing Arts. He has also been active in the PTA and the Boy Scouts. By nearly all standards, Sali Liebermann would be considered a good citizen and an asset to his community. :

The problem was, however, that Sali Lieberrmann was not a citizen until last month. After six years of legal fighting with the Immigration and Naturalization Ser- vice, U.S. District Court Judge Lloyd Burke granted him citizenship over the objection of INS. Liebermann was represented by Doris Walker, an East Bay attorney, and ACLU cooperating attorney Marshall Goldberg represented ACLU as amicus cufiae.

Swiss born Liebermann had unsuccessfully tried to - apply for citizenship in the 1950’s. His petition was denied because Herbert Philbrick, the FBI undercover communist hunter of the 1940’s and °50’s, testified that Liebermann had attended several Communist Party meetings at which he was present in Massachusettes. Liebermann’s denials that he was ever a communist were ignored however and his citizenship was denied. Several years ago, Liebermann again petitioned for citizenship. He has not been back to Switzerland since coming to this country largely because he has been convinced that if he leaves, INS will not allow him to return. His brother, who is very ill, still lives there and Liebermann would like to visit him. ;

The immigration service has delayed his petition for years and Philbrick has continued to insist that Lieber- mann is a Communist, or at least that he was 28 years ago. The service presented no other adverse evidence for denial of citizenship. Goldberg’s brief pointed out that even if Liebermann had attended the meetings, that is no constitutional barrier to citizenship.

Nevertheless, the immigration service delayed action on Liebermann’s petition for nearly two years because ““grave questions concerning petitioner’s alleged association with the Communist Party’’. had arisen. — Apparently, the service did not notice these “‘grave questions’’ until flearly a year and a half after the petition was originally filed. They had relied on other delays prior to that.

Finally, the service claimed it had to delay so that it could get a sworn statement from Philbrick and in- vestigate his charges. The service somehow failed to note - that it knew about these ‘‘grave charges’’ long before they said so and that they already had Philbrick’s statement in their own files since 1957.

Walker argued to the court that the immigration service is “‘wilfully and in bad faith delaying their processing and recommendation on this petition for naturalization.’’ She added that. ‘‘whatever grave questions may have existed concerning petitioner’s eligibility, those questions were known to immigration authorities through Philbrick’s 1957 statement at the time petitioner filed this petition in 1971 and at all times thereafter.

When the immigration service was finally forced to present it’s recommendation to the court, they stated that Liebermann’s citizenship should be denied because of his‘‘equivocal testimony concerning activities, associations, and affiliations with suspect organizations.’” After the government attorneys presented their argument, Judge Burke ruled from the bench that there was no real proof of the immigration service’s case and that Liebermann should be naturalized.

Sali Liebermann’s legal fight is finally over and he is now free to go to Switzerland to visit his relatives.

LEGISLATIVE

Civil liberties ir . Sacramento - During the 1973-74 Legislative Session, ACLU followed more than 1000 bills. Many of these merely required watching to make sure. onerous amendments were not attached somewhere during the legislative process. Others, required extensive work, including testimony and even drafting. The bills discussed below represent some of the major proposals ACLU took positions on this year.

One significant trend found in the final dispositions of many ACLU supported bills is that they met a disproportionate number of gubernatorial vetoes. Ac- tually , few of the major bills ACLU supported were killed by the legislature. Despite the vetoes, however, many important bills were signed by the Governor and became law, especially in the areas of women’s rights and rape laws.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

SB 39a (Grunsky) — This bill would have made ex- tensive revision of the criminal codes and would have redefined many major crimes. The revised codes included many crimes which ACLU opposes such as non-victim sex acts and various drug offenses. SB 39 passed in the Senate but died in the Assembly Criminal Justice Committee. It will be resurrected in next year’s session.

SB 1678 (Robbins) — This was one of the most con- troversial bills to come out of the ’73-74 session and it became law over ACLU-NC’s opposition. In its amended form, the measure prohibits the introduction into rape trials any evidence of past sexual conduct by the com- plaining witness either by cross-examination or ex- traneous evidence. The law provides for one exception: the defendant may produce such evidence if it challenges the credibility of the witness and only after he has sup- plied the judge with an adequate offer of proof that the evidence is relevant.

Five other bills relating to rape and authored by the Assembly Criminal Justice Committee were supported by ACLU and became law. AB 3657 provides that rape victims shall not be charged with the costs of medical examinations for the purpose of gathering evidence for possible prosecution. AB 3658 prohibits the use of the *““unchaste character’’ juries in rape trials. ACR 218 requests the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement training programs for special rape investigative units. ACR 219 requests local law enforcement agencies to place policewomen in positions which will enable them to respond to rape cases. ACR 220 recommends that rape victims be given thorough examinations for physical and emotional trauma and be informed of available resources.

SB 56 (Carpenter) — This measure would have attached | state criminal process to a matter already covered by federal laws. In essence, the bill would have made it a state felony to carry a concealed weapon on an aircraft ACLU opposed it and it died in the Assembly Criminal Justice Committee.

AB 1291 (Keene) became law and was supported by ACLU. It provides that a person committed to a state hospital because of a criminal offense must be granted a hearing before a court to approve or disapprove the recommendation of the hospital medical director as to the. person’s parole.

SB 2246 (Roberti) provides that all opinions of the Supreme Court, the courts of appeal and the appellate departments of the superior courts may be cited as precedents regardless of whether they are published in the official reports. ACLU supported the measure but it was killed in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

MENTAL HEALTH

AB 4481 (Vasconcellos) gives patients confined under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act in mental institutions the right to refuse any psychosurgery. Civil penalties and license revocation are provided for any physician violating the provisions. ACLU supported the law and it was passed.

SB 1706 (Biddle) was opposed by ACLU and it died in the Assembly Health Committee. It would have allowed an Privacy Act’’ instruction previously given to additional 14 days ee the present 72-hours for which a person could be held for involuntary commitment without the certification of two psychiatrists.

SB 1705 (Biddle) also was fought by ACLU and was killed in the Assembly Criminal Justice Committee. It would have included persons considered dangerous to themselves or others as a class of people who may have conservators appointed under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act.

NARCOTICS

SB 1552 (Marks) would have provided that the identity of patients or records containing identifying information shall not be disclosed to the Department of Health for approval of methadone programs. ACLU supported the measure and it passed the legislature but Governor Reagan vetoed it.

AB 726 (Sieroty) would have sealed the criminal records of certain marijuana offenders. It too passed the legislature but was vetoed.

AB 2758 (Sieroty), also vetoed by the governor, would have made possession of four ounces or less in a private residence and two ounces or less elsewhere a misdemeanor rather than a felony.

PRIVACY

AB 2644 (Greene) became law and was supported by ACLU. It prohibits an employer from requiring that a prospective employee’s arrest record be provided on an intial employment application.

AB 1609 (Sieroty) was possibly the most important -ACLU-supported bill to be vetoed by the Governor. It would have enacted the “‘California Right to Financial which would have put significant limits on the state’s ability to examine the bank records of citizens.

SB 1858 (Song) became law and protects newsmen from contempt-of-court proceedings if they refuse to disclose unpublished information obtained in the investigation of material to be communicated to the public.

SCHOOLS

$B 566 (Marler) was opposed by ACLU but became law anyway. It prohibits non-students from entering school premises without first receiving permission from school authorities 48 hours in advance.

AB 1739 (B. Greene) also became law over ACLU’s objection. It makes specific provisions for misdemeanor loitering around schools.

SB 1845 (Stull) was passed and gives parents or guardians the right of access to all written records maintained by the school. Methods are provided for removing improper material from student records.

DISCRIMINATION

AB 2415 (McCarthy) would have made the Fair Em- ployment Practices Act applicable to discrimination because of marital status. It also would have expanded coverage of the Rumford Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in public housing. Supported by ACLU, AB 2415 was vetoed by the Governor.

ACA 40 (Brown) is supported by ACLU. It removes the constitutional restriction that any low-rent public housing must be first approved by the voters. The con- stitutional amendment passed the legislature and is on the November ballot.

ACA 103 (Berman) provides that cities may not ‘impose residency requirements on their employees except to require that they reside within a reasonable distance from their place of employment. ACLU supported this bill and it was passed.

WOMEN’S RIGHTS

AB 312 (Waxman) was passed in 1973. Supported by ACLU, the bill prohibits the arbitrary denial of credit to a woman on the basis of her sex or marital status. Nov. 1974 aclu news ‘74

SB 1380 (Petris) alo became law and it extends the Unruh Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in accommodations, facilities, and services in all business establishments and real property transactions.

AB 1774 (Dixon) makes every person licensed by the — State of California subject to disciplinary action if he or she discriminates on the basis of sex. This bill also passed with ACLU support.

SB 1909 (Nejedly) orders county jails to provide equal availability of facilities, programs, services and privileges to female inmates. It too became law in 1974.

AB 3514 (Berman) repeals the 30-year age limit for applying for state scholarships. This law will mainly effect women who interrupted their education for child-rearing and now want to resume studies. ACLU supported this law.

SB 1227 (Dymally) was vetoed iby the Governor. It would have required schools to provide athletic programs on an equal basis for male and female students. SB 1228 (Dymally) would have required the same equal op- portunity in athletics at State Colleges and Universities. It, too, was vetoed.

AB 472 (Berman) would have allowed public school teachers to use accumulated: sick leave for pregnancy - leave of absence. Governor Reagan also vetoed this measure.

SB 1466 (Moscone) prohibits state schools from con- ducting classes for the benefit of one sex to the exclusion of the other or from requiring students of one sex to be enrolled in courses not required of the other sex. This bill became law and was supported by ACLU.

SB 2392 (Whetmore) was signed by the Governor but ACLU opposed it. It provides that spousal support can be discontinued upon proof that the spouse receiving the support is living with a person of the opposite sex.

Legislative Director needed

‘The ACLU of Northern California is looking for a full ffa) criminal trial experience;

time legislative representative in Sacramento. We seek an attorney with all or some good combination of the following skills and experience:

b) strong interest in civil liberties — preferably some experience with or knowledge of ACLU policy;

c) legislative experience ;

d) membership in the California bar.

The right person can have a substantial effect upon California law. Although the primary job is legislative, the representative can expect to spend at least one-fourth of her or his time litigating — either in Sacramento or San Francisco.

Salary is $12,000 to $15,000 per year, depending on experience.

Please send resumes to Nancy Russell, ACLU-NC, 593 Market St., Suite 227, San Francisco 94105.

continued from page 7

Sawyer v. Healty (suit seeking to restore vote to ex-felons who have been discharged from parole) Favorable decision rendered based on (since reversed) California Supreme Court decision in similar case. ok Charles Marson.

Messina v. Brown (challenge to California statute ns all felons currently on parole) Unfavorable ision

Ramirez v. Hoff (amicus support in challenge to deprivation of children from parent on basis of conviction and incarceration for possession of marijuana) Under submission. Attorney: Alice 2 —

Superior Courts

Solano County:

In re Mitchell (In re Doe) (Abuse of discretion and procedural due process challenge to Adult Authority — failure to parole inmate) Favorabble decision. Attorneys: Peter Sheehan and Alice Daniel.

Nov. 1974 aclu news

THANK YOU

our desperate appeal 1,897 members of ‘the Northern California Affiliate con- tributed over $19,000 to date, with more.

$60,000 that would have resulted if every member had contributed an average of $5, but it is 50 percent more than we have ever received in a special fund appeal — including the one for impeachment.

To those who gave thank you. You have | helped to save us from cutting too deeply into our programs.

To those who have not yet contributed there is still time and if you all do, we will not have to cut any of our critical ac- tivities. Take a moment today and write a check if you haven’t already.

In response to the National ACLU and still coming. That is a long way from San Francisco

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors last month, passed a resolution urging the police department and the San Francisco District Attorney’s office to consider adopting and implementing a procedure similar to that implemented in Sacramento County with respect to possession of small quantities of Marijuana, and a procedure to implementing issuance of citations for misdemeanor non commercial sex offenses involving consenting adults.

The chapter supported this resolution and commends the Board of Supervisors for their action.

The recent fund raising theater party for Evolution of the Blues was a smashing success. Thanks to members, friends who -worked so hard to insure its success.

Oakland

Work is already well under way in several Chapter sub-committee areas. The coming year will see a new level of activity and public exposure as chapter members tackle several vital issues in the Oakland- Alameda area.

One recent ACLU-Oakland action has already generated considerable publicity: the newly-formed sub-committee on Prostitution has filed a suit in Alameda County challenging on constitutional grounds the legality of anti-prostitution ordinances and quarantine policies. The suit resulted in the headline **Prostitutes Sue’? in one edition of the Oakland Tribune; committee members, who have no association with prostitution activities, are contemplating action against that paper.

The sub-committee on Data Banks and Privacy, formed initially out of concern’ over Alameda County’s new multi- million dollar CORPUS Criminal Justice computer system, has been making great progress. Four of the ten members of the County’s committee on computer ethics were recommended by the local chapter. The County Board of Supervisors is considering upgrading the proposed code of ethics to regulation status. The ACLU sub-committee is preparing a report to the County Board on ACLU views regarding the acquisition, use and disposal of computerized criminal data. Meanwhile the sub-committee is hoping to organize as an information source on data banks and privacy issues for the Affiliate, since Oakland’s is the only fully organized ACLU committee on this subject in Northern California.

The Kaiser Study of the confinement situation in Alameda County and proposals for an ambitious program of jail construction was presented to the County Board of Supes last month and is now under study by both the County and the ACLU. The Oakland Chapter | is closely monitoring County work sessions on the proposals and plans to make a formal presentation regarding the Kaiser recommendations. The County currently lacks any overall philosophy of corrections on which to base policies, plans and procedures before spending millions on new confinement facilities.. The ACLU also seeks to link consideration of the Kaiser proposals to a serious study of alternatives to confinement and an ex- pansion of current release programs. The Jail Sub-committee meanwhile is making plans for active work in the area jails, beginning with the establishment of some kind of permanent liaison with the confinement facility at Santa Rita. The next few months will be crucial for the Jail committee and the Oakland ACLU in regard to the criminal justice system in the county, and more active membership participation is greatly needed.

Fresno

An early fall hamburger cook out drew 85 eaters including eight new members and earned the Fresno Chapter $200.00. The fun and good times occurred Saturday, September 14 at the home of John Crosby.

Joe Remcho spoke about. the Legal Program that ACLU will attempt to enact in the areas of jail standards and Af- firmative Action. Legislative Analysis will continue to be very important.

Laurel and Hardy and W. C. Fields’ movies were shown. The opportunity to swim was available.

The Fresno Chapter ACLU distributed literature on Marijuana Decriminaliza- tion, Where Do You Stand on Civil Rights, Amnesty and the death penalty during the first two weeks of October at the Fresno County District Fair.

Fresno ACLU joined with Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, UNICEF and Amnesty In- ternational in an attempt to make known our presence and purpose in the com- munity.

Sonoma

The Sonoma County, ACLU will hold its annual dinner at the Los Robles Lodge Friday, Nov. 22.

Marshall Krause, TV commentator and former Chief Counsel for Northern California ACLU, will be the guest speaker. Krause, currently in private practice, has been seen frequently on Channel 9 analyzing U.S. Supreme Court decisions and other civil liberties issues.

No-host cocktails start at 6:30 p.m. with dinner planned for 7:30.

Cost of breast of capon dinner is $6, tax and tip included. Reservations are desirable and may be made by phoning Rye Torliatt, 545-7507, or Lynn Young, 546-3080.

A good turnout is expected since this is the first weekend date we’ve been able to land in several years for the annual dinner, thanks to the good planning of chairperson Lynn Young.

There will be a short business meeting to nominate board members for the coming years. A slate .of nominees will be presented but other members interested in running for the board are urged to phone | Nominating Committee chairman Lee Torliatt.

ACLU gained its second major court victory of the year in Sonoma County in a case involving California State College, Sonoma.

ACLU Legal Representative Martin Spiegel filed suit in behalf of three students at the college who were denied admission because of their questionable financial aid status. The students were not permitted to register for the fall semester unless they agreed to -pay federal aid funds allegedly - overawarded to them, or until the college completed accumulating information about the alleged over awards.

Judge Josephy Murphy of Soren County Superior Court ordered the school to register all students who had been denied admission because of the overawards.

The judge cited ‘‘denial of due process’? by the school in denying ad- mission if the student refused to furnish financial records.

**The school should register the student and establish an internal administrative procedure to resolve and give the student time to get his documents together and have a hearing before designated school officials,’’ he said.

Spiegel said officials at the college were ‘‘passing the buck down and down and down...so that the students are taking a fall for the errors of the administration.’’

Sonoma County ACLU voted in September to pay filing fees for the case and in October voted to keep pressing the issue to make sure the school did not find other technicalities to discourage students from registering and getting the services of the instutution.

The other case won by ACLU involved illegal use of a prayer in a Rohnert Park school.

In another case, ACLU has received and increasing number of complaints about questionable police practices in ‘*hassling’’ young people in downtown Santa Rosa on Friday and Saturday nights.

Efforts are being made to contact Police Chief Sal Rosano for a conference on the matter.

ACLU has made several moves in the education area recently.

The board agreed to purchase the Stanford jail experiment color slides for distribution to interested individuals and groups in the county.

The slides depict an experiment con- ducted by Dr. Philip Zimbardo at Stanford to test how men react under the stress of a jail situation. About 20 ‘‘normal’’ volunteers divided up — half as inmates, half as jailers. The incredible strains created by the situation are vividly shown. Anyone interested in the show may call Lee Torliatt, 545-7507, for more in- formation. We'd like lots of showings around the county — it’s a devastating study.

Sacramento

At its last meeting, the Chapter Board decided to embark on two major projects. A committee has been formed to study the proposal for a new criminal information computer system being sought by the County Sheriff. Preliminary funding for the project has already been approved by the Board of Supervisors. The Chapter hopes to inform the Supervisors of the civil liberties problems and potential abuses inherent in the system.

Also, the Board has decided to begin implementation of a legal complaint and referral service operated by Chapter volunteers. Target date for the new project is January.

Both of these programs will be discussed. further at the next Board meeting to be held Wednesday, November 20 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Chamber, Rm. 101 of the County Ad- ministration Building, 827 Seventh St., Sacramento. Board meetings are always open to ACLU members so persons interested in these two projects should plan to attend.

Marin

The Marin chapter has had success on several fronts this fall, notably through helping to defeat two measures not in the interest of civil liberties in Marin. These were the revival of a county-wide narcotics squad and a proposed ‘‘licensing’’ plan for hitch-hiking. The narc squad, which was disbanded several years ago after a series of abuses, was to be re-formed and given quasi-independent status. The chapter opposed this on the ground that previous experience showed that such a unit did not deal effectively with hard drugs or major pushers, but was widely open to abuse of power and harassment of individuals. The idea of police checks on, and licenses for, people wishing to give or take rides within the county, was opposed as ineffective as a safeguard and constituting an additional source of data on individuals that ought not be encouraged. The narc squad seems dead, at least for the present, and the hitch-hiker ordinance is now dormant.

Chapter activity at present is focused on raising money and recruiting new. members. All Marin ACLU members are strongly urged to make the greatest effort possible to add new members to the chapter in view of the present financial crisis of ACLU on both the national and Northern California levels.

Mt. Diablo

The Mt. Diablo Chapter has elected new officers for the coming year. President of the Chapter will be Johnson Clark and Paula Schiff will serve as Vice-President. Kalma Baren is the new Secretary and Geraldine Raff .the Treasurer. Rose Bonhag will remain as the Chapter’s representative on the ACLU-NC Board.

Several new program coordinators were also named at the Chapter Board meeting. Dave Bortin is the legal coordinator, and . Bev Bortin is in charge of publicity. Paula Schiff will be responsible for library resources and the women’s rights committee. Rose Bonhag and Al Schiff will share the membership duties. Joyce Timmons will be in charge of the speakers’ bureau while the new telephone coordinator is Helen Grensted.

Mark your calendars for the ACLU Benefit Night at the Theater which will be held Friday, January 17 at 8:30 p.m. The theater evening will take place at the Layfayette Town Hall at School St. and Moraga Rd. The production of ‘‘Tom Jones’’ by the Dramateurs will be preceeded by a wine-tasting reception. Plan to attend. Donation: $5.00.

Editor’s note: unfortunately, we had to skip the October issue of ACLU News mainly because of a shortage of funds. I know this inconvenienced some chapters for which I must apologize. This November-December issue will be the last until January, 1975.