vol. 43, no. 6

Volume XLIII -

_ Free expression on the job

The First Amendment guarantees the.

right of postal workers to express a

political message by wearing buttons

and badges while on the job, according

to an order issued on August 1 by

_ Federal District Judge William Orrick.

A dozen workers at the Oakland Post

Office were disciplined or threatened

with disciplinary action last July for

expressing their support of striking

workers at the Richmond Bulk Mail

Center by wearing buttons and paper

badges. ACLU attorneys claimed that .

such discipline violated the workers'

First Amendment rights and went to

federal court to obtain the order which

in effect stopped Postal Service officials

from taking any further un-

- constitutional action.

Judge Orrick agreed with

plaintiffs' claim that the First

Amendment protects political ad-

vocacy, and granted a temporary

restraining order claiming that, "these

plaintiffs have been denied the most

precious right which Americans have -

to speak freely."

- Buttons worn by the plaintiffs carried

slogans which said `Support BMC

(Bulk Mail Center) Wildcats! Stop the

Sellout!"' and `I support the Worker's

the

August-September 1978 | :

Judge lifts state ban on

~ abortion funds

Rights to Wear Badges, Labels, Pins as

Long as it Doesn't Interfere With Mail

Delivery."

The workers who are plaintiffs in the

ACLU's legal action all carried out

their employment duties while ex-

pressing their support for the Rich-

mond strikers and their own

dissatisfaction with a tentative contract.

When asked by superiors to remove

their badges many of the plaintiffs

refused and were suspended for a

period of seven days. Other workers

complied, but desired to continue

expressing their discontent with the

continued on page 4

~ Challenge to possible Prop 6 blacklist

Jane Doe opposes proposition 6, the

Briggs School Employee-Homosexuality

initiative. She is a teacher, and has taught in

California for more than twenty years. Jane

Doe believes that Prop. 6 violates the rights

of teachers and limits the rights of students

to a wide variety of competent teachers. To

express her opposition she wishes to make a

contribution of $50 or more to campaigns

working to defeat it. That contribution,

however, would become a public record

which could become a blacklist of suspect

individuals who will suffer intense scrutiny,

and reprisals if proposition 6 is approved by

the voters in November. Her contribution of

550 or more could jeopardize her job.

California's Political Reform Act re-

quires. disclosure of campaign

contributions of $50 or more. That is

the "Catch 22" situation exposed by the

ACLU in a suit now before the Califor- _

nia Supreme Court. The ACLU re-

quested the court to recognize the

situation and exempt proposition 6 op-

ponents from the requirements of the

Political Reform Act.

The California Court of Appeal re-

fused to hear the ACLU's request on

August 16 and the case then went to the

Supreme Court. The request before the

Supreme Court asks that it exempt in-

dividuals who make contributions to

defeat Proposition 6 from disclosing

their names, addresses, occupations,

and employers as required by the

present law. :

Along with Jane Doe, plaintiffs are

continued on page 4

_ A Special report from Congress

While the 95th Congress has exhibited a "mood of growing hostility toward

minority rights," according to the ACLU's Washington, D.C. office, the ex-

ception to the rule appears to be the northern California Representatives, who

cast the most consistent pro-civil liberties votes on the floor of the House.

A preliminary report from Washington, analyzing voting records on selected

civil rights and civil liberties issues, reflected a cool and sometimes hostile

congressional view of civil liberties. Nearly half, or 46 percent of all members of

the House voted unfavorably on at least three out of every four civil liberties

issues surveyed in the report.

Consistent supporters of civil liberties - those with voting records of 75

percent and above - comprise only 16.1 percent of all House members. In

sharp contrast,

more than three-fourths of the Northern California

continued on page 2

A virtual ban on. Medi-Cal funding

for abortions for poor women in

California was lifted August 10, five

days before the restrictions were to be

implemented, when a San Francisco

Superior Court Judge granted a

temporary restraining order in a law-

suit brought by the ACLU and five

other public interest law firms.

The legal challenge came as a direct

response to the state Legislature's

abrupt decision in July to eliminate

nearly all funding for abortions from

the 1978 Medi-Cal budget. Eleven

plaintiffs joined the law-suit including

physicians and Medi-Cal recipients.

Judge Francis W. Mayer granted the

order to temporarily suspend the new

restrictions until a full hearing can be

held on the plaintiffs' request for a pre-

liminary injunction. That hearing is

scheduled for August 30 and will

spirit and depresses the mind.

A Nasty Triumph

In voting to deny virtually all state abortion aid to poor women, the Legis-

lature has committed an act of willful brutality.

The harsh and arbitrary conditions that it has imposed on abortion eligi-

bility for women under the Medi-Cal program smack of political gutlessness,

medical ignorance, social irresponsibility and moral vindictiveness. By its

retrograde action the Legislature has shamed itself, and shamed California .

As for Medi-Cal women who might seek abortions not permitted under the

restrictive new law, their options are few: They can seek county help, which is

by no means assured; they can seek illegal abortions, with all the risks

involved, or they can give birth to unwanted children, adding to their own

unhappiness and to society's burden. a

There is a fundamental and inescapable injustice in this situation, an

injustice that in its flagrancy and contempt for individual rights sickens the

(Reprinted from the Los Angeles Times, July 7, 1978)

No.6

determine whether funding will be

maintained pending a trial on the

merits of the suit.

State Health Services Director Bever-

lee Myers, named as the defendant in

the legal action, estimated that only 5%

of the approximately 100,000 abortions

routinely funded by Medi-Cal would be

funded in the next budget year under

the proposed regulations which the

court has temporarily suspended.

Currently Medi-Cal reimburses

physicians for performing medical

services for eligible patients. The

August 10 order temporarily restrains

the Health Service Department from

_ cutting off these payments for abortions

66

when, according to Judge Mayer, "a

physician and patient conclude that this

is proper medical treatment."'

_ The controversial restrictions were

continued on page 4

No on Prop. 6 and 7

Efforts are underway to organize

campaigns to defeat two initiatives at

the ballot box this November -

Propositions 6 and 7 - which are both

opposed by the ACLU.

State Senator John Briggs sponsored

the two initiative measures which both

received the requisite number of

. signatures for inclusion on the up-

coming ballot.

Proposition 6 is an attempt to ban

homosexual employees, as well as any

discussion of homosexuality from the

schools. Proposition 7 repeals the

current death penalty law in California

and replaces it with an expanded

statute under which a far greater

number of convicted felons can be

sentenced to death.

The ACLU, along with the Gay

Rights Advocates, unsuccessfully

challenged the inclusion of proposition

6 on the ballot in a law-suit brought

before the State Supreme Court in June

on behalf of the California Federation .

of Teachers. The high court decided in

July not to hear the challenge. The

teachers union made the extraordinary

request to have the measure removed

from the ballot before the voters could

consider it, claiming that those most

effected by proposition 6 - school

employees feared reprisals for

speaking out in opposition to the

measure in the course of the campaign,

and thus their First Amendment rights

were violated.

The Supreme Court did not consider

whether the measure was un-

constitutional, but instead decided to

simply not hear the pre-ballot

challenge. ACLU volunteer attorney

Stephen Bomse indicated that the court

followed an established precedent to

allow ballot measures to go before the

voters before they consider its con-

stitutionality. aS

ACLU members are urged to par-

ticipate in campaigns being organized

in communities throughout northem

California to defeat these measures.

continued on page 3

August-September 1978

aclu news

- Division over Bakke- - - What does it mean?

By Sanford Jay Rosen

In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court of the

United States unanimously declared a resounding con-

stitutional principle: Government may not require the

segregation of black from white people. That was in 1954, 24

years ago, and a much simpler time. Besides, compulsory

segregation was/is abominable with the obvious purpose and

effect of stigmatizing blacks or other racial and ethnic.

minorities. Despite the persistence of the `"`separate but equal

doctrine,"' such segregation was and is neither constitutionally

nor democratically tolerable. :

Procedurally, factually and legally, the Bakke case really

stood Brown on its head.

In Brown and its progeny members of "discrete and insular"'

(i.e., historically powerless) minority groups asked the courts to

remedy government-compelled and _ stigmatizing

discrimination often in the form of segregation. Minority

group members thus successfully asked the courts to "`deal

them in" by breaking down government-imposed barriers that

kept them out, for example, of many schools and jobs.

After Brown, some progress toward a racially more just and

equitable society was made - but slowly. As Pete Seeger sings:

"You'll get pie in the sky, bye and bye - when you die."

_ Minority groups had been systematically locked out from

fair and equal participation in "goods" of society far too long.

They could not be "`dealt in" either "`in our time"' or that of our

children or our children's children merely by eliminating overt

compulsory segregation and other such crass acts of race or

ethnic prejudice and discrimination.

Hence, affirmative action was born of necessity - essen-

tially to "deal in'' minority groups now rather than decades

from now. Ze

Under affirmative action or reverse discrimination,

"discrete and insular'? minority group members were given

apparent preferences. Sometimes affirmative action quotas or

goals were imposed.

But the handwriting was on the wall. The principle of race or

group justice was now seemingly colliding with the individual

merit principle. Inevitably, some majority group members

were disappointed when they did not get jobs or were not

admitted to some school because apparently less-qualified

minority group members got the jobs or the places in school.

Some of these disappointed majority group members sued,

_ charging unconstitutional race discrimination. That is the nut

of the Bakke case. : 2

Allan Bakke was qualified for admission to medical school;

but like many other qualified applicants, he was rejected by

the U.C. Davis Medical School. He contested the Medical

School's quota system whereby 16 seats in each entering class

were set aside for qualified applicants who are members of

minority groups, many of whom had traditional admissions

credentials that were not as good as his. (Of course, they, like

Bakke, in fact also were qualified for admission to the medical

school.) Clearly, race or ethnicity were controlling factors in

making admissions to these 16 slots. With much cause, the

Medical School had decided that such race consciousness was

necessary to make certain that minority group members are

included in the student body in numbers worth counting.

In a confusing opinion, the Supreme Court of California

ruled that the U.C. Davis Medical School's special admissions

program was unconstitutional because race or ethnicity was

Sanford Jay Rosen is a member of the Board of Directors of the

ACLU of Northern California. He was part of the "briefing team"

which prepared the-ACLU's amicus curiae brief in the Bakke case,

and as national staff counsel, in 1974 he represented the ACLU's po-

sition in the De Funis case, a predecessor to Bakke. Mr. Rosen is a

artner in the San Francisco law firm of Rosen, Remcho and Henderson. -

considered in making the special admissions decisions. The

question of whether Allan Bakke was entitled to be admitted to

the medical school was remanded to the Superior Court.

Justice Tobriner dissented, basically on the grounds that

within our society's historic and cultural context of systematic

discrimination against "discrete and insular' minority groups,

the only hope for meaningful integration and race justice lies

in benign "race consciousness' affirmative action approaches.

The University of California took the case to the United

States Supreme Court. There, Bakke and the University were

joined by scores of friends of the court, including the ACLU

and the Government of the United States, on the side of the

University.

The nine members of the United States Supreme Court

divided basically three ways, and issued six opinions. ==

Four of the Justices (Stevens, Burger, Stewart and

Rehnquist) would have affirmed the decision of the California

Supreme Court but on the newly asserted ground that "the

University's special admissions program violated Title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by excluding Bakke from the

medical school because of his race." Thus, according to these

justices, Congress, in effect, has prohibited the benign race

consciousness of many affirmative action programs. (The

remaining Justices either did not reach that question or

concluded that Title VI does not sweep so broadly.)

Four of the Justices (Brennan, White, Marshall and Black-

mun) would have reversed the decision of the California

Supreme Court that the Medical School's special admissions

program was unconstitutional. Under their approach, Allan

Bakke would not have been admitted to the medical school.

They would have held that `Davis' articulated purpose of

remedying the effects of past societal discrimination is ...

sufficiently important to justify the use of race-conscious

admissions programs (which include a minimal quota of places

to be filled by minority group members) where there is a sound

basis for concluding that minority underrepresentation is

substantial and chronic, and that the handicap of past

discrimination is impeding access of minorities to medical

school."'

Justice Powell cast the deciding vote. He concluded that the

quota element of the Medical School's special admission

program ``is not a necessary means'' to achieve the con- |

stitutionally permissible goal of promoting medical school -

admissions of minority group persons. Hence the medical

school's special admissions program was unconstitutional, and _

Allan Bakke was to be ordered admitted to the medical school.

As Justices Brennan, White, Marshall and Blackmun ob-

served, however, Justice Powell agreed that affirmative action

is permissible, at least where race or ethnicity is not the sole

determining criterion: `""Government may take race into ac-

count when it acts not to demean or insult any racial group,

but to remedy disadvantages cast on minorities by past

prejudice, at least where findings have been made by judicial,

legislative, or administrative bodies with competence to act in

this area."

What does it all mean? Well... I suppose it means that the

Bakke case presented issues that are still too tough for decision

pursuant to a single-minded principle. The United States

Supreme Court is as divided on proper resolution of the

conflict between the group justice and individual merit notions

as is the general society. Benign race consciousness is per-

missible when government allocates its scarce resource, such as

jobs and slots in medical schools. But race and ethnicity

cannot be the be-all and end-all of the decision.

Yet if race and ethnicity can be considered at all, how can we

ever tell whether such consideration has or has not been

dispositive?

_ It all seemed so much simpler in 1954.

`LEGAL

| continued from pagel

| Congress

Representatives supported ACLU's po- -

| sitions 75 percent of the time.

On the Senate side, the picture is

brighter, with ten votes recorded on civil

liberties issues, slightly more than half .

the Senate (51 percent) supported

ACLU's positions at least 60 percent of

the time. California Senator Alan Cran-

ston was the only member who had a

100 percent civil liberties voting record

on the issues covered in the ACLU's

survey. . aes es

ACLU's Washington analysis

indicated that the 95th Congress

weighed principles against politics, with

politics, and particularly the much pub-

licized `"`taxpayer's revolt,' coming out

ahead.

"Civil rights are perceived as expen-

dable when their enforcement has a

price,'' according to John Shattuck,

director of the ACLU's Washington of-

fice. "`This anti-minority mood has car-

ried away some legislators who have

previously had good voting records on

civil rights issues."" oe

For example, Shattuck cited

situations where, "`some liberals in both

the House and the Senate have assumed

leadership roles in successful efforts to

restrict the federal funding of abortions

or the busing of children to achieve ra-

cial balance in public schools. Others

have jeopardized desegregation efforts

and threatened religious freedom by

pressing for the enactment of a broad

`tuition tax credit' scheme to help

middle class taxpayers send their child-

ren to private schools. Tuition tax cred-

its, of course, are infinitely more costly

than desegregation enforcement pro-

grams, but they are popular because

they would benefit the majority rather

than the minority interests."'

Meanwhile the House has voted over-

whelmingly to bar the use of any federal

| funds to promote or enforce affirmative

action programs in federally funded in- .

stitutions. It has also denied homosexu-

als access to federal legal aid attorneys

in anti-discrimination cases.

In response to these recent develop-

ments, according to Shattuck, the

ACLU has participated actively in civil

`rights lobbying, devoting much of its

| energies in the 95th Congress to the de-

ifense of abortion rights for the poor,

federal mechanisms for promoting de-

segregation and affirmative action, and

the enactment of a legislative scheme

for ending discrimination against preg-

nant workers.

" .

Bakke developments

In Congress

_ Attempts may be made on the Senate floor to re-enact

Affirmative Action Amendment, which prohibits the enforcement of federal

anti-discrimination policies and the implementation of affirmative action

programs by recipients of federal funds. The amendment was defeated, after a

targetted ACLU lobbying effort, in the Senate Appropriations Committee in

June, thereby permitting the Departments of HEW and Labor to continue to

enforce civil rights laws and affirmative action programs.

ACLU's Washington office is now working to stop the

0x00B0 reaching the floor of the Senate. In 1977, on the same appropriations measure,

Senator Helms and Hayakawa introduced this amendment on the Senate floor

and it was defeated.

ACLU members should contact Senators Hayakawa and Cranston at the

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510 urging them to oppose any Walker-

type amendment which would strip federal administrative agencies of these

procedural tools to remedy past discrimination and could render these civil

rights statutes unenforceable.

In the courts

Possibly warning that it is taking another look at the whole question of af-

the Walker Anti-

action order.

amendment from decision in Bakke.

court had held the program invalid,

firmative action, the California Supreme Court will soon hear arguments on a

case involving the, Sacramento County Civil Service Commission's affirmative

The ACLU of Northern and Southern California have joined in the lawsuit

(Price vy. Sacramento County Civil Service Commission) as a friend of the court

to argue that the affirmative action program in Sacramento, which requires the

District Attorney's office to hire more minorities, is constitutional. The lower

citing the California Supreme Court

Before the U.S. Supreme Court had finally decided the Bakke case the state

Supreme Court had granted this hearing. At issue in the case, according to the

ACLU's argument, is the suggestion by the U.S. Supreme Court that quotas are

as suitable, constitutional remedies.

constitutional if an employer is guilty of past discrimination. In Price a proof of

past discrimination was found by the civil service commission before the

preferential hiring system was implemented. Such evidence of past

discrimination appears to be the signal calling for affirmative action programs

LEGISLATIVE

August-September 1978 3

aclu news

How they voted in the House Field Reo. to spark ACLU action

The "box scores' or each. member of the House

- from northern California appears below. Part II of the

survey will appear in the October issue of ACLU News

with an analysis of the attitudes in Washington

regarding federal criminal laws and intelligence

agency reform, as well as the "`box scores" from the |

Senate side.

1. Labor-HEW Appropriations Bill FY 78 (H.R. 7555).

Hyde Amendment prohibiting use of federal Medic-

aid funds for abortions. |

Adopted 201-155. Aye - No + June 17, 1977

2. Labor-HEW Appropriations Bill FY 78 (H.R. 7555).

Stokes motion to instruct House conferees to agree

to Senate-passed amendment permitting use of

~ federal funds for abortion where the mother's life is

endangered, where medically necessary, or in cases

of rape or incest.

Defeated 252-164. Aye + No- September 27, 1977.

3. Labor-HEW Appropriations Bill FY 79 (HR 12929).

_ Stokes Amendment to delete prohibition on federal

funding of abortions.

Defeated 287-122. Aye + No- June 13, 1978.

4. Labor-HEW Appropriations Bill FY 79 (H.R. 12929).

Wright Amendment to permit federal funding of

abortions wherever the mother's life is endangered,

or severe and long- lasting health damage to mother

would occur, or in cases of rape or incest (FY 78 com-

promise).

5. Labor-HEW Appropriations Bill FY 78 (H.R. 7555).

Mott Amendment prohibiting HEW from withholding

funds from school districts which refuse to pair or

merge to achieve integration.

Adopted 225-157. Aye- No + June 16, 1977.

6. Legal Services Bill (H.R. 6666). Wylie Amendment

prohibiting legal services attorneys from providing

legal assistance in desegregation cases involving

elementary or secondary schools.

Adopted 208-174. Aye- No + June 27, 1977.

7. Labor-HEW Appropriations Bill FY 79 (HR 12929).

Walker.Amendment prohibiting HEW and the Depart-

ment of Labor from using funds to enforce affirma-

tive action programs which utilize any form of quota

system.

Adopted 232-177. Aye- No + June 13, 1978.

8. HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill

FY 78 (HR 7554). Beard Amendment prohibiting

veterans benefits. for Vietnam-era veterans whose

less than honorable discharges are upgraded under

the President's review program.

Adopted 273-136. Aye - No + June 15, 1977.

9. Legal Services Bill (HR 6666). McDonald Amend-

ment prohibiting legal assistance in gay rights

cases.

Adopted 230-133. Aye- No + June 27, 1977.

10. Institutionalized Persons Bill (H.R. 9400). Amend-

-ment deleting provision authorizing Justice Depart-

ment to bring suit on behalf of prisoners claiming

violations of constitutional rights.

Adopted 227-132. Aye- No + May 1, 1978.

11. Institutionalized-Persons Bill (H.R. 9400). Amend-

ment permitting Justice Department to intervene in

suits on behalf of prisoners where a complaint alleg-

ing unconstitutional prison conditions has been filed

with a court ae! referred by the court to the Depart-

ment.

Adopted 178- 109. Aye + No- May 25, 1978.

12. D.C. Representative Bill (H.J. Res. 554).

Establishing full representation in Congress for the

District of Columbia.

_ Passed 289-127. Aye + No- March 2, 1978.

13. Tuition Tax Credit Bill (HR 12050). Vanik Amend-

ment providing for a tuition tax credit for parents

whose children attend private elementary or

secondary schools.

Adopted 209-194. Aye- No + June 1, 1978.

14. Public Disclosure of Lobbying Bill (H.R. 8494).

Flowers Amendment requiring disclosure of grass-

roots lobbying activities and expenditures.

Adopted 245-161. Aye- No + April 19, 1978.

15. Public Disclosure of Lobbying Bill (H.R. 8494).

Requiring organizations which contact Congress to ;

register and file quarterly reports on wide range of |

lobbying activities and expenditures.

Adopted 259-140. Aye- No + April 26, 1978.

16. CIA Budget (H.R. 12240). Fiscal Authorization for 0x00A7

CIA without disclosure of the amount.

Adopted 322-48. Aye- No + June 6, 1978.

| CALIFORNIA

| Clausen (R

(c) Stark

An experienced bay area organizer and journalist, |

i Michael P. Miller, has been selected as the ACLU of

Northern California's field representative, a position

created by the Board of Directors in May.

Miller will coordinate ACLU volunteers and

chapters in fighting Propositions 6 and 7 as his first

task. After the election, he will continue working with

them on developing grass roots projects.

Immediately before coming to the ACLU, Miller

developed a manual on the uses of public records in

California. At the same time he was a fund raising and_

organizational consultant to social change groups in

California and Nevada. He also worked extensively

organizing journalists for the Media Alliance which

just negotiated the nation's first contract for freelance

writers with a national news service.

A native of Washington state, the new field

organizer came to the Bay Area eight years ago and

found work with several small newspapers, including

the Bay Guardian. n 1973, he helped put together the

San Francisco Study Center (still going strong) which .

helps community organizations with research and

other technical assistance. Following a brief stint as

an aide at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors,

Mr. Miller moved to the staff of Electricity and Gas

for People (now Citizens Action League) where he

helped with the passage of the state "`lifeline"' utility

act.

Before taking on the public records project, Mr.

Miller assisted in organizing over 100 San Francisco

community organizations into a special neighborhood

improvements program sponsored by the Mayor's

office and the Department of City Planning.

Miller gained an early appreciation for civil liberties

Voting records

Key:

(+) indicates a vote or pair in favor of the ACLU

position

(-) indicates a vote or pair cola to the ACLU

position :

(A) Absent or abstaining

| house votes -

1 |2 13/4 1516 |7 (8 {9 | 10) 11] 12/13)14/15)1

nson cae

Moss

tt

urt

urton

er

ae

A

a

aE

se

+

A

+

aE

aE

ums

a

an

os

neta

cFa

s

PEP EEE EL

+[+]+]4+]+}+14+}+ 1+ }+]4/+/+

+

Michael P. Miller

growing up during the McCarthy era in Spokahe

Washington, where his parents were part of a small

liberal community. `"My parents' friends kept ending

up on lists - and it wasn't for being the best dressed.

Book were pulled from my school library shelves.''

As a published freelance political writer, Miller has

a special passion for First Amendment issues.

In addition to organizing, Miller combines skills in

research, administration, fund-raising and teaching.

The last he says is particularly important in working

with the ACLU and its chapters. "I can't organize

Northern California for the ACLU, only the people

who live in each community and work through the

chapters can do that. But, I can be a resource person

and help develop some of the technical skills they may

need to do this work."'

continued from page 1

No on 6 and 7

For better or worse civil liberties battles are now

being taken to the streets - through the initiative

process - and to the ballot booth in November.

That's where the ACLU will be joining new and old

friends-in campaigns against Proposition 6 and 7,

taking this opportunity to educate the public about

civil liberties issues and increasing the ACLU's visi-

bility in communities throughout northern California.

Proposition 6 will join together public employee

unions and professional associations, gay rights acti-

vists, and in some communities republicans and

democrats to knock on doors and reach voters

.through the media.

Proposition 7, the ``murder-penalty initiative," will

find ACLU along with the Coalition Against the

Death Penalty increasing its network of support

among opponents of capital punishment throughout

the state. Literature is being developed, speakers are

being trained and a grass roots movement is being

mobilized.

Both campaigns offer ACLU's 18,000 members an

opportunity to have a real impact on these critical civil

liberties issues. ACLU Chapters throughout northern

California are planning strategy to defeat 6 and 7 in

their communities. To participate in these efforts

please use the form below.

Take some initiative

Sign -up today. Join the ACLU i in campaigning egainst Prop. 6 and 7.

wee

ADDRESS. CITY. ZIP

PHONE(day)_ (eve)

Clip and return to the ACLU, Attention: Campaigns, 814 Mission Street, Suite 301, S.F. 94103.

a. August- eee 1978

aclu news

Santa Clara Valley Gay Rights

On June 9 the Santa Clara Valley

Chapter elected the following members

to serve on its Board of Directors: _

Lynne Alper, Mike Chatzky, Michael

Dutton, Thomas J. Ferrito, Lawrence

Fleischer, Ben Giden, George Green,

Diane Hickman, Daniel B. Hood,

Katherine Houston, Phil Jacklin, Paul

Jensen, Lisa Kavelage, Bea Olender,

Aurora Sallitto, Emerson Street, Victor

Ulmer, Mary Wallace, Murry

Whitaker, Catherine Wiehe, Lydia

Woods, Brad Yamauchi, Lynne Yates-

Carter, and Robin Yemans.

Marin :

The Marin County Chapter has

elected the following officers to serve for

the next year: Chairman, Lawrence

Grauman, Jr.; Vice-Chairwoman,

Virginia Franklin; Secretary, Connie

Birkie; Treasurer, Daniel Beittel.

Recently elected to the Board of

Directors were Alan Cilman, Ideale

Gambera, and Lee Trucker.

Members of the Board hope to invest

more of their energy during the coming

year in issues of substantive concern,

and less in the mere maintenance and |

perpetuation of the chapter.

San Francisco

A discussion of civil liberties issues

which will appear on the November

ballot will be the focus for the San

Francisco. Chapter's annual meeting

which has been rescheduled for Sunday,

October 22, at the Unitarian Church.

- Plans are underway for the gathering

which will include dinner as well as the

election of the Chapter's officers.

"Further details will appear in the

October ACLU News. _

At the July Board meeting a decision

was made to organize the Chapter's

support for campaigns to defeat

propositions 6 and 7 in November.

The Chapter is also investigating the

question of voters' booths in San

Francisco - and the issue of privacy, or

lack of it, which they afford. Several

complaints have been received from -

voters who feel that the right to a secret

ballot has been abridged by the cur-

tainless voting machines, which are

crowded together at the polls.

No. Peninsula

Formal organization of the North

Peninsula Chapter took place on July 18

when its Board of Directors met at the

home of Marlene De Lancie in San

Mateo. Chapter status had been

granted by the Affiliate SOE on July

1S.

Board meetings will be held regularly

on the third Tuesday of each month.

For at least the balance of this year they

will be held at Allstate Savings, 1820

South Grant in San Mateo.

A Chapter meeting focusing on the

November election issues is being

planned for October. A date will be

announced.

Publication of a Chapter newsletter

was authorized. The first issue will be

edited by Monroe Sweetland and

Sherman Grant.

The Chapter will be working, in

cooperation with other groups, against

Proposition 6 (School Employees

Homosexuality Initiative) and with a

coalition against Proposition 7 (Death

- Penalty Initiative).

The Boards of Directors of the

Northern and Southern California Gay

Rights Chapters held a joint meeting in |

San Francisco on Saturday and Sunday,

August 26th and 27th.

Among the subjects discussed were

statewide Chapter coordination, ACLU

participation in the campaigns against

Proposition 6 (School Employees and

Homosexuality) and Proposition 7

(Death Penalty Revision), and learning

from our sibling chapters to strengthen

our Gay Rights Chapters, leadership,

volunteers, financial resources and

programs. :

The formal meetings were led by

Peter T. Judge, President of the

Southern California Gay Rights

Chapter, and Paul F. Newton, President

of the Northern California Gay Rights

Chapter.

Monterey

The Bakke Decision was the main

subject for the Chapter's regular

August meeting. Discussion leaders

wete Francis Heisler, our chapter's

veteran civil liberties attorney and Dr.

John H. Rivers,

Officer, Monterey Peninsula College.

The chapter's Annual Celebration of

Civil Liberties will be celebrated at the

Hunt Club on the Monterey County

Fair Grounds on Sunday, October 8 at

1:30pm. Former State Supreme Court

Chief Justice Phil S. Gibson will be

presented the Chapter's Ralph

Atkinson Civil Liberties Award for

1978. A buffet dinner will be served.

Reservations are $12.50 (donation) per

person.

The chapter is in the process of

developing a Police-Community

Committee to monitor police services

and discuss complaints with the police

departments of our several com-

munities. A number of the chapter's

"complaint line" calls relate to rude,

arbitrary and sometimes brutal en-

counters with the police. Elizabeth

Leeper is the acting chairperson of the

"new committee. A first meeting has

`been held with the Monterey Police

chief.

Sacramento

The election for next year's Board of

Directors will be on Tuesday, Sept. 12

at 8pm. The meeting will be in the

community room of the San Diego

Savings and Loan Company, 316

Alvarado St., Monterey (night entrance

on Del Monte Blvd., upstairs on 2nd

floor).

Board meetings.

Ballots for board members and

officers will soon be mailed to all ACLU

members. They will contain in-

structions for voting by mail or at the |

general meeting in September. Under

our new by-laws, nominations were

completed by July. No nominations will

be allowed from the floor as was our

past practice.

The general meeting will include a

no-host wine-and-cheese tasting party.

Date and place of the meeting will be

announced in the ballot mailer.

Affirmative Action.

Abortion continued from page 1 :

described by plaintiff Sadja Goldsmith,

M.D. ``as having been hurriedly

assembled by medically incompetent

persons, without true regard for the

health and well-being of the women and

future mothers of the state. The

restrictions are alien and antithetical to

the practice of medicine."'

According to Margaret Crosby,

ACLU staff attorney, lawyers represent-

ing the plaintiffs will seek to have the

new restrictions permanently restrained _

from taking effect. `"We will argue that

the new restrictions are illegal, because

they violate women's constitutional

rights to privacy and to equal protection

of the law and because they violate Title

XIX of the Social Security Act' (which

establishes the federal Medicaid

program). Crosby explained that Title

XIX of the Social Security Act

mandates that states pay for all

``medically necessary treatment,"'

which includes abortions, whenever a

physician determines that a woman will

suffer physical or psychological injury.

from carrying a pregnancy to term.

"In 1973, the United States Supreme

Court ruled that the constitutional

guarantee of privacy encompasses a

woman's fundamental right to decide

whether she will bear a child. The Court

has vigilently protected that right in

subsequent decisions striking down

laws imposing cumbersome- medical

requirements on abortions or granting a

spousal or parental veto over a woman's

decision to terminate her pregnancy,"'

Ms. Crosby said. =

``These decisions,'' according to

Crosby, ``compel the conclusion that

the State may not use the purse to

coerce poor women to give up their

fundamental right to privacy."' The

plaintiffs will argue at the August 30

hearing that the statute violates equal

protection by denying indigent women

- especially minority women and

teenagers - the rights granted to more

affluent women. Additionally, plaintiffs

will show that the Legislature passed

the law to further no legitimate purpose

of the medical assistance program, but

rather to promote the theological tenets

of certain religious organizations,

which believe that life begins at the

moment of conception and that

abortion is therefore illegal.

9

The San Francisco Neighborhood

Legal Assistance

Women's Litigation Unit, the National

Center for Youth Law, Equal Rights

Advocates and the Mexican-American

Legal Defense and Education Fund

were joined by the ACLU of Northern

and Southern California in the legal

challenge.

Foundation's

CHAPTERS

continued from pagel

the Bay Area Committee Against the

Briggs Initiative (BACABI) and the

East Bay Area Committee Against the

Briggs Initiative (EBACABI). Both are

active in organizing campaigns against

proposition 6. EBACABI Treasurer

Jone Lemos explained that, "potential

contributors to their campaign effort

are afraid to come forward for fear of

losing their jobs, if they are school

workers, because the Briggs initiative

allows for filing charges against school

employees for advocating or promoting

sexual relations between people of the

same sex. A contribution to EBACABI

could jeopardize the job of a con-.

tributor who could be considered, an

`advocate of homosexuality' ."

In asking the high court to lift the

disclosure requirement ACLU attorney

Amitai Schwartz argues that "if

plaintiffs exercise their First

Amendment rights by campaigning

against proposition 6 their activities are

unavoidably transformed into job-

endangering conduct."

The purpose of the Political Reform

Act is to insure that ``the voters may be

fully informed and improper practices

be inhibited," Schwartz stated. `The |

_effect of this law, however, in relation-

ship to proposition 6 will be to diminish

the information available to the elec-

torate because many members of the

public will not contribute the money

which will make effective dissemination _

of information possible."'

Without an immediate exemption

from disclosure for individuals who

wish to make a contribution to defeat

proposition 6, the plaintiffs' First

Amendment rights: and their tight to

limited, according to ACLU's petition

before the Supreme Court.

Workers

proposed contract settlement.

An Assistant U.S. Attorney, arguing

on behalf of the Postal Service claimed .

that the officials had taken disciplinary

action in order to stop the spread of the

wildcat strike. ACLU attorneys Alan

Schlosser and Amitai Schwartz asserted

that `"`in their effort to stop the strike

from spreading the officials had

decided to suspend the First Amend-

ment. There was no evidence to in-

dicate that the buttons incited any

illegal activity."'

The Federal Court order allows

postal workers to express their political

views without fear of disciplinary ac-

tion. Judge Orrick set an Oct. 6 date for

a hearing on a permanent injunction

against the officials from. further

violating the employees' constitutional

rights, and to resolve plaintiffs claims

for back pay and damages.

continued from page 1

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 3

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Warren Saltzman, Chairperson David M. Fishlow, Executive Director

Dorothy Ehrlich, Editor

Publication Number 018040

814 Mission St. - Ste. 301, San Francisco, California 94103 - 77 7-4545

: 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 pepiiceneh Civil Liberties. |