vol. 43, no. 8

Primary tabs

aclu new


Volume XLII


November-December 1978


"In the struggle for equal rights"


`Bil of Rights Day Honorees Carey McWilliams and Harriet Pilpel.


Prop. 6 and 7 campaigns


By Michael P. Miller


ACLU Field Representative .


`""We'll never win our civil liberties at


the voting booth," is an often repeated


ACLU maxim.


`This fall, however, there was an


alternative to this conventional wisdom,


"When your rights are on the ballot, get


your feet on the street."'


That is just what many ACLU


members in Northern California did in


response to state Propositions 6 and 7.


The old maxim eventually proved to


be 50 percent wrong - or 50 percent


right. Proposition 7 passed,


whelmingly, but contrary to many early


political pundits' predictions,


Proposition 6 lost - and decisively.


Measuring ACLU inpact on the


campaigns, especially the stop 6


campaign, is difficult.


The ACLU started to warn about 6


over a year ago when Briggs first an-


nounced his campaign. The Legal


Over- .


Committee first considered 6 in


October, 1977. Articles appeared in the


ACLU News beginning last January.


' The anti-homosexual `teacher measure


was also the subject of workshops at the


Board/Chapter Conference in April.


ACLU attorneys joined other groups


and filed suit to move the measure off


the ballot in May. This challenge failed


and the decision was left to the voters. -


At its May meeting, the ACLU-NC


Board of Directors voted to oppose


Props. 6 and 7. A full time field


representative was hired to co-ordinate


ACLU election activities in August. The


result of all the activity was the ACLU.


members were better educated on the


issues and prepared to respond long


before either proposition became


important in the press.


In a campaign survey, the Associated


Press commented about opposition to


Proposition 6, `The ACLU and


teachers' groups lead the opposition."


continued on page 7


Ehrlich named director


After a nationwide exhaustive search


for the selection of the fourth Executive


Director in the history of ACLU-NC,


the Board of Directors has announced


the appointment of Dorothy M. Ehrlich


to the post.


Executive Director Dorothy M. Ehrlich


Ehrlich, the first woman to hold the


position in the Northern California


affiliate's 52-year history, began


her career with the ACLU in 1972 when


she served as a statewide coordinator in


the campaign Against Proposition 17,


the death penalty initiative. ACLU was


one of the chief sponsors of the


Coalition.


Ironically, her first public ap-


pearance as the head of ACLU-NC was


to speak out against the 1978 death


penalty initiative, Proposition 7,


sponsored by Senator John Briggs.


Starting in 1973, Ehrlich joined the


staff of the ACLU of Southern


California, where she remained for four


years. During the same period, she was


awarded a Coro Fellowship in public


affairs and worked toward a Masters


`Degree at Occidental College in Urban


Studies. While in the Southern


California office, her duties included


developing the `"`civil liberties lobby''


continued on page 7


S


No. 8


' Mimi Gina and her Men, a favorite San Francisco Jazz


of $


City


Please send me


additional tax-deductible contribution to the ACLU Foundation


-_Name


Address


Please make checks payable to ACLU-Foundation, NC, and mail


to 814 Mission Street, Suite 301, San Francisco, CA 94103. Please


enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope.


On Sunday evening, December 10, 1978


The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation


of Northern California


invites you to attend the


Sixth Annual Bill of Rights Day


Celebration


and presentation of the


Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award to


Carey McWilliams


an historian and former editor of The Nation, who


has been concerned with the issues of racism and


social injustice in his prolific and inspired writings


Harriet Pilpel


an ardent leader of the legal fi i for reproductive


freedom - from her efforts on behalf of the right


to birth control information to her work


establishing the constitutional right for


women to choose an abortion.


Joining us on the program to celebrate the


187th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights will be:


Kay Boyle _- Poet and litterateur


Presenting the Earl Warren Civil


Liberties Award to Carey McWilliams


David Perlman -_ City Editor, San Francisco Chronicle


Presenting the Earl Warren Civil


Liberties Award to Harriet Pilpel 7


DrucillaS. Ramey Chairperson of the Board of Governors


ee , of the ACLU Foundation of Northern ~


California


"Gale Sondergaard _A Poetry reading


"Conversations with A documentary


Earl Warren" |


Band will entertain at the no-host cocktail party beginning


at 6:30 p.m. |


Program begins promptly at 8:00 p.m.


Grand Ballroom Sheraton Palace Hotel


New Montgomery and Market Streets, San Francisco


$5.00 donation to attend the Celebration


(Please remember, this is not a dinner)


Bill of Rights Day Celebration


Ticket Order.


|


tickets at $5 each. I am enclosing an


. Enclosed is my check for $


State Zip


Nov.-Dec. 1978 2 s :


acl LETTERS and LEGAL


were treated in our editorial columns me the facts. affirmative action involves the


Nate calling and stories the other groups might be I am a long-time member of the misapprehension that affirmative


forgiven for worrying when we say, ACLU and I believe in affirmative actions means that unqualified people


Dear Editor, "The ACLU will defend your civil action short of quotas, but I opposed will be admitted to medical schools,


I would like to bring up the ap-


parently common practice of ACLU


newspaper and newsletter editors


simultaneously defending a group's


civil liberties and reviling the mem-


bership of that same group when its


philosophy is disagreeable to the editor


or the ACLU membership at large. I


feel that the ACLU should be con-


cerned only with the rights of an in-


dividual or group if they are violated


and we help defend those rights from


abuse. The ACLU should not concern


itself with the popularity or ac-


ceptability of the individual or group in


question.


Apparently many editorials were


written last year doing just that. As an


editor of an ACLU newsletter | pledge


not to do any name calling in my


editorials. I will try my best to only


concern myself with the civil liberties


issues involved in a particular case. I


call on all other editors of ACLU


newspapers and newsletters to pledge


likewise. This does not mean letters


should not be printed expressing a


member's personal opinion. However,


we should be a good example for the


rest of the media when civil liberties of


unpopular organizations are com-


mented on.


After the shameful way the "nazis".


liberties. Don't worry, we are on your


side.'' They just might wonder if we


would turn on them to appease our


membership's dislike for them. That


is why I`m pledgeing no name calling,


to strengthen the ACLU's ability to


defend civil liberties no matter what


group is involved.


Michael Dutton


Editor, Santa Clara Valley Chapter


Newsletter


Bakke queries


Dear Mr. Rosen:


`In your recent article in the ACLU


News, you state that "16 seats in each


entering class were set aside for


qualified applicants who are members


of minority groups. . . they, like Bakke,


in fact also were qualified for admission


My understanding (based, as I


remember, on an article in Time) is that


the 16 minority group members were in


fact not qualified by the standards used


for the other 84, but had scholastic


averages as low as C- and test scores in


the 300's.


My information may be incorrect,


and since you state that the 16 were


qualified, I assume that you must know.


I would appreciate it if you would tell


the ACLU's position in the Bakke case


primarily because I understood that a


double standard of academic


qualifications was used by the UC Davis


medical school. Was it?


Sincerely yours,


Alan M. Winslow


Pleasanton, California


.and answers


Dear Mr. Winslow:


I was pleased to receive your letter of


September 7, 1978, concerning my


Bakke article in the ACLU News.


To the best of my knowledge, the


minority group members who occupy


the sixteen seats at the U.C. Davis


Medical School set aside for minority


group person, were each ``qualified"' for


admission for medical school. Their


grade point averages and test scores


were lower than those of many white


applicants who were denied admission.


However, no one has suggested that


these minority group members were


particularly bad risks with respect to


their ability to successfully complete


medical school and become functioning


`physicians. That is all I meant by my (c)


statement that they were "qualified."


One of the major problems with the


Bakke case and the whole subject of


etc., or employed in particular jobs.


That is not what affirmative action


means. It means that minority group


people who can clearly perform suc-


cessfully or acceptably will be given a


preference even though their traditional


qualifications are not as good as those


- competing majority group members.


They will receive this preference for two


reasons: (1) to ensure an accelerated


rate of integration and race justice; (2)


because traditional qualifications and


criteria are, to some extent, suspect. If


this be a double standard, we must live


with such a double-standard, at least


until we achieve a better measure of


integration and race justice and/or


traditional qualifications and criteria


are validated.


I hope that the foregoing helps to


clarify my article. As you know, the


subject of preferential treatment,


quotas, etc., is a very difficult one which


yields with much trouble to elaborate


and careful analysis. Indeed, treatises


have been written on the subject and


still there is no resolution.


Be well.


Sincerely yours,


/s/ Sanford Jay Rosen


Rosen, Remcho and Henderson


Leegal briefs


Campana signs


~The American Civil Liberties Union


of Northern California has appealed a


San Mateo County Superior Court


decision upholding a city ordinance


banning the posting of any signs on


public property.


Cooperating attorney Neil O'Donnell


filed a notice of appeal in Condon v. .


San Mateo on October 25, and will


seek to overturn the ruling of Superior


Court Judge Preston Devine. In a


decision handed down on June 19,


Devine upheld a San Mateo ordinance


prohibiting the posting of signs,


handbills, posters, or notices of any


kind, including "campaign signs', on


any public property within the city.


The ACLU position is that this


represents an unconstitutional in-


fringement of the First Amendment


right to free expression.


During the campaign prior to the


May, 1977, San. Mateo city council


- election, John Condon, an incumbent (c)


city councilman, and Eugene Sussli, a


city council aspirant, both had com-


paign signs posted atop unused street (c)


signs in the city's downtown district.


When supporters of other candidates


complained that the posting violated a


: city ordinance, the city ordered that the


signs be removed. Both Condon and


Sussli refused, and a temporary


restraining order was issued. In the


ensuing trial, Devine found that ``the


problems of distraction of drivers, of


gaining equality of display for all


candidates, and also of aesthetic


preservation' took precedence over the


plaintiffs' First Amendment claims,


Although Condon died recently,


Sussli remains as a plaintiff and has


authorized the ACLU to pursue the


case.


By Andrew Mosher


ACLU Staff Counsel Alan Schlosser


pointed out that "the ability of people


to post signs on public property is


particularly significant in that it is one


of the few ways to communicate in-


_ formation to the public without having


to spend a great deal of money."


"The California Supreme Court has


explicitly left open the question of


whether a municipality can `close the


public forum' by totally prohibiting the


posting of signs on public property.


This challenge attacks what we feel is


an unconstitutionally broad city or-


dinance, and addresses the question of


the availability of all public property -


not merely some unused street signs,


but the entire range of such property. It.


is quite likely that this litigation will


create a significant precedent on the


scope of free speech activities."


Leafletting


A state criminal statute prohibiting


the distribution of anonymous election


material was challenged by the ACLU


of Northern California in People v.


Drake in San Mateo County Municipal


Court on September 27.


In a recent Brisbane City Council


election, a leaflet was distributed that


_attacked three incumbent candidates


for their voting records. The leaflet,


signed by "Citizens for a _ Better


Brisbane," charged that the three


Andy Mosher, a senior history major


at the University of San Francisco, is


spending a semester as a full-time


ACLU intern. He is contributing to the


organization as a researcher, writer,


and lay-advocate on the `complaint


desk."' Andy also assisted in campaigns


against propositions 6 and 7.


| supported high-rise developments and


other building projects, and thus


represented the interests of the


Chamber of Commerce and not the


taxpayers. The leaflet urged those


wanting to keep Brisbane `"`a safe little


village'' to vote against the three


candidates.


For allegedly distributing the leaflet,


Luman Drake was charged with a


criminal violation of Section 29410 of


the California Elections Code, which


makes it a misdemeanor for a person to


print, reproduce, or distribute any


written material or poster "having


reference to an election, to any can-


didate, or any measure" without the


name and address of ``person


responsible for it."'


ACLU Staff Counsel Alan L.


Schlosser stated that ``on its face, the (c)


statute is clearly an abridgement of |


Drake's freedom of speech and


association as guaranteed by the First


Amendment."': Schlosser __ filed


demurrer to the criminal complaint,


challenging the statute as an un-


constitutionally overbroad prohibition


of anonymity in political expression.


Such anonymity was firmly established


as a constitutional right by the United


States Supreme Court in 1960 in Talley


v. California, which struck down a city


ordinance that banned the distribution


of anonymous leaflets.


"The right to anonymity is an


essential part of freedom of speech,"'


said Schlosser, `in that it is important


to those individuals with controversial


or unpopular views or who are members


of dissident organizations. These are


the people who frequently have a


legitimate fear of reprisals for the


expression of their views. Because of


. this, anonymity is necessary and critical


to promote the widest possible diversity


of viewpoints in the public arena."


a-


-aclu news


`helpers.


While the ACLU of Northern Calif-


ornia gained a new Executive Director,


it lost its ACLU News editor. Therefore,


contributors to this November/Decem-


ber issue came forward in droves to help


meet the press deadline. (c)


Mike Callahan, ACLU Editor Emeri-


tus (1972-1976) volunteered his


experienced hand at putting together


this issue. Law intern Dee Goodman;


U.S.F. intern Andy Mosher; Coro


Foundation Fellow Walt Speivak;


ACLU staff members Michael P.


Miller, Brent Barnhart, Marci Gallo,


| Pat Nicholson, and Les Schmidt; and


| Monterey Chapter Chairperson Dick


| Criley all have made contributions to


this collective effort at pues the


ACLU News.


"aclu news


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


August-September and November-December


Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California


Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California


Drucilla Ramey, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director


Mike Callahan, Editor


Publication Number 018040


814 Mission St. - Ste. 301, San Francisco, California 94103 - 777-4545.


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 publication, Civil Liberties.


CELEBRATION


Nov.-Dec. 1978


aclu news


1978 Bill of Rights Celebration


This year's


~ Celebration, to be held December 10 at


the Grand Ballroom of San Francisco's


Sheraton Palace Hotel, is as much a


celebration of the unique people who


have devoted their lives to the defense of


- civil liberties as it is a commemoration


of their specific acheivments, according


to Frances Strauss, ACLU-NC board


member and six-time organizer of the


annual event.


The program will specifically honor


recipients of the Earl Warren Cilvil


Liberties Award: Carey McWilliams, |


former editor of THE NATION; and


Harriet Pilpel, long-time women's


rights advocate and attorney.


McWilliams will recieve his award


from poet and author Kay Boyle, and


Pilpel will recieve hers from David


Perlman, city editor of the San


Francisco Chronicle. Actress Gale


Sondergaard will present a reading of


civil liberties poems.


In addition, through the cooperation


of KQED, exerpts from the Public


Broadcasting System's feature, "A


Conversation with Earl Warren, " will


be presented in honor of the late Chief


David Perlman


Justice, whose name has graced the


ACLU-NC's Civil Liberties award since


its inception in 1973. oe


In the midst of the final planning and


fundraising crush that always precedes


such events, Strauss took time to ex-.


plain the many intangibles that serve to


make the Celebration enjoyable,


enlightening, and deeply moving.


"Tt's really rather marvelous,'' she


said simply. "Of course, the program is


quite important because people want to


see and hear the heroes and heroines of


the civil liberties movement. But more


than that, the event is a coming


together of a thousand or so people who


meet in a convivial brother-and-


sisterhood, publically professing their


dedication to civil liberties and sharing


their celebration with each other.


Strauss pointed to this feeling of


fraternity among those in attendance as


evidence that there is more to be gotten


Fran Strauss


Bill of Rights Day .


also


out of the event than what filters down


from the podium.


"The first time we held the event at


the Sheraton was really the first time


people had a chance to wander around


and mingle. Old friends would run into


each other for the first time in a year or


so and consequently there was a great


deal of hugging and kissing going on -


in the ballroom, at Pee in the


elevators, everywhere."


The camaraderie is by no means


restricted to the audience, Strauss


quickly pointed out. "Our first year, we


invited the Chief Justice (Warren) to


receive the first casting of our award.


He was quite honored that we should


present an annual award in his name,


but expected the program to be quite


boring. In the end, he agreed to come.


"He arrived during the no-host


cocktail hour, and was so taken with


the atmosphere - the size and spirit of


the crowd, and the music of the


Bourbon Street Irregulars blaring away


- that he fell right into the spirit of


things. Eventually, he wound up giving


a speech, which he had not planned to


do at all."


This year's participants and honorees


show warm and _ compelling


personalities, without which they might


never have accomplished so much in the


cause of civil liberties.


Warren Award. recipient Carey


McWilliams practiced law for some ten


years before he, as Strauss put it,


"turned to his real love - writing books


for popular audiences about decidedly


unpopular topics, particularly about


injustices visited upon various minority


groups during the Thirties and Forties.


Most of his life has been devoted to


observing and writing about our society


as editor of The Nation, never failing to


provide an unwavering social con-


science for his readers."'


Harriet Pilpel. was "thrilled and


delighted' to hear that she would


receive one of this year's Warren


Awards. ``She has been in the forefront


of the womens' rights movement for


Gail Sondergaard


quite some time; particularly the area


of women's rights to control their own


bodies. Our present abortion fight is


really the culmination of her early


work,"' said Fran.


Gale Sondergaard is perhaps best


known as the recipient of the first


Academy award for supporting actress,


for her role in the film "Anthony


Adverse." It is perhaps not as well


known that she was married to the late


Herbert Biberman, director of Salt of


`the Earth, one of the Hollywood Ten,


and was herself blacklisted during the


Fifties.


Presenting the award to McWilliams


will be Kay Boyle, poet and litterateur.


In describing her, Strauss said that |


"outspoken"' and "`frank'' are accurate,


but don't tell the whole story. Let us say


that she is not easily daunted." She led


an interesting life in Paris during the


Twenties as a member of that group of


artists and writers who thrived ar-


tistically but were poor as churchmice.


`She was quite active in support of the


students at SF State during the late


60's. Boyle has been a member of the


English and `Creative Writing


Departments at SF State University


since 1963.


Pilpel will recieve her award from


David Perlman, city editor of the San


Francisco Chronicle, formerly that


paper's science editor. Always adept at


pointing out the political ramifications


inherent in scientific and technological


advance, Perlman has been among the


Chronicle's greatest contributors to the


public's awareness, said Strauss.


_ Fran explained that despite the


grand scale of the Celebration, the


preparations are carried out in a


somewhat more modest fashion.


"Each year's program is planned by


members of our Board of Directors on a


volunteer basis. All of the preparation'


for the program - the fundraising,


planning, and execution - is done by


volunteers from all levels of the


ACLU."


"The five dollar donation for tickets


is deliberately low to maximize the


attendance of those persons who want


to show support and feel that they


belong. By doing away with the high


cost of a dinner, we can cover all our


program expenses with these donations,


and are free to devote the fruits of our


year-long fundraising efforts to. our


legal and educational programs."'


As the big night approaches and


things begin to fall into place, does the


pressure subside a bit?


`Actually, the period right up to the


celebration is one of tremendous


pressure, panic, and doubt. We always


land on our feet, but we're never quite


sure beforehand."


`"`When we began this six years ago,


we went about it in a rather amateurish


way. I suppose you could say that in six


years we have developed a more


sophisticated amateurism."


Rights pamphlets banned in Santa Cruz


By Andy Mosher


An order banning the distribution of


unauthorized literature in county


welfare offices in Santa Cruz County


was challenged by the Santa Cruz


Chapter on behalf of the Welfare


Education and Legal Assistance Center


(WELAOC), a Santa Cruz-based welfare


rights organization, in a suit filed in


Superior Court on October 13.


The order, passed by the Santa Cruz


County Board of Supervisors, is being


attacked as an unconstitutional prior


restraint upon the plaintiffs' right to


free expression, and as_ un-


constitutionally overbroad in violation


of the California Constitution and the |


First Amemdment.


Since its inception in 1972, WELAC


has provided legal assistance and


representation to welfare applicants in


Santa Cruz County. On many oc-


casions, WELAC representatives have


distributed literature in various county


welfare offices, aimed at educating


recipients as to their legal rights.


On August 8, the Board of Super-


visors adopted by a vote of four-to-one a


resolution ordering the county Social


Services Director to establish a policy


that no printed matter be allowed in


Social Service waiting rooms or the


Social Service Department "except that


printed by the county or approved by


the county."


According to WELAC attorney


Jonathan McCurdy, "The incident that


precipitated the passage of the


resolution was the distribution of a


leaflet by California Rural Legal


Assistance which characterized the


`state welfare system as the state's


`biggest lawbreaker.' While the leaflet


may have seemed, inflammatory to


some, the attack was made in the


context of good, hard facts to back up


the claims,' said McCurdy. "It was not


without merit."


When the department sought the


advice of the County Counsel con-


cerning aadoption of a suitable policy


for enforcement of the resolution, the


County Counsel replied that a blanket


restriction on distribution of materials


based solely on their source or content


would be unwise and constitutionally


vulnerable.


WELAC demanded that the Board


rescind the order, but the Board


refused.


Supervisor Gary Patton, the lone


dissenter in the vote to adopt the


measure, informed the Board that he


was convinced that WELAC's point was


"absolutely correct. It is not con-


stitutionally permissable for a public


agency to prevent the distribution of


literature in county buildings, except to


the extent that it is necessary to prevent


the disruption of services which the


County is making available to the


public,"' wrote Patton.


"T don't believe that there was ever


any indication that a disruption of


ongoing business was occuring."'


The Board responded by holding


another vote on the subject on Sep-


tember 12. Again, all but Patton tone


to retain the resolution.


continued on page. 8


Nov.-Dec. 1978


aclu news


First Amendment


Child Pornography: Two measures


were passed in 1977 which, together,


create significant First Amendment


problems. SB 817 (Presley) made it a


felony to employ minors to perform


specified sex acts in commercial


productions - something the ACLU


favored. However, ACLU opposed those


provisions of SB 817 which require


book and film distributors to know the


complete contents of all materials sold;


to keep records on the persons from -


whom obscene matter involving minors


was received; and to make such records


available to any peace officer upon


demand. AB 1580 (Ellis) increased the


penalty for distributing materials


"depicting" minors performing or


."simulating'' specified sex acts.


`Arguments that the language of the bill


was unconstitutionally vague and other


First Amendment considerations were


swept aside as Legislators stampeded


before an emotional storm to pass the


measure.


Animal Cruelty/Movies: SB 490


(Roberti) empowers prosecutors to


bring actions to enjoin as "nuisances"


`motion pictures where animals were


killed or subjected to intentional cruelty


during production. Despite four years


of ACLU opposition, `cruelty' joins


"Obscenity" as an exempt category of


speech not protected by the First


Amendment.


Terrorist Threats:


Carpenter), backed by San Francisco


Supervisor Dianne Feinstein, San


SB 923 (D.


In September, 1978, ACLU's lobby


was named by the California Journal to


be one of the 15 best in California.


Unfortunately, that honor did not for


the most part translate into pleasing


legislative results.


Much of the spirit of selfishness,


meaness and retrenchment that fueled


| Proposition 13, the attacks on Chief


Justice Bird, and the defeat of Mervyn


Dymally and Yvonne Burke, fueled the


semis that rolled over the ACLU


legislative program. The same ME


Generation that kicks out so forcefully


against "big politicians', "big spen-


ders', "welfare cheats" and `"`fat in


government", supports the death


penalty, opposes Medi-Cal funding of


abortions and wants criminals kept in


prison and never let go.


The 1977-78 Session was not an


unmitigated disaster: anti-school


desegregation bills, anti-exclusionary


rule bills, and bills pushing electronic


isurveillance, preventative detention and


Francisco District Attorney Joseph |


Frietas, and PG and E, wins the Most


Pointless Oppressive Legislation Award


for this session. SB 923 makes it a


felony to threaten to commit any crime


which endangers human life, with


intent to terrorize, or reckless disregard


of the risk of causing terror, if such


threats are made to achieve social or


political goals.


Masks: SB 1747 (Sieroty). Two


separate Penal Code provisions prohibit


_ the wearing of masks. P.C. Section 185.


makes it a misdemeanor to wear a mask


to aid in committing a crime. P.C.


Section 650a makes it a misdemeanor


to wear a mask in public for any


purpose except for "amusement or


entertainment purposes.' Following


arrests of Iranian students demon-


-strating against the Shah under Section


650a, ACLU sponsored SB 1747 to


repeal the law, leaving Section 185


intact. SB1747 passed both houses.


SB1747 was vetoed by Governor Brown,


however, with a message that said;


"This is not the year' for such a repeal.


Governor Jerry Brown


assole) yory Aq oj0yd


police file-shredding were blocked. Also


on the positive side, newsroom searches


_ Nazi Uniforms: SB 1781 (Robbins)


which was spawned in the wake of


Skokie, prohibited the wearing of Nazi


uniforms. It passed the senate narrowly


and was finally defeated in the


Assembly Criminal Justice Committee


after a highly emotional hearing.


Police Search of Newsrooms: AB 512


(Goggin) attempts to undo the U.S.


Supreme Court's atrocious Stanford


Daily decision. It forbids police from


using search warrants to search


newspaper offices, or to search for any


material protected by the Newspersons


Shield Law. Unfortunately, provisions


forbidding other searches expressly


allowed by the Stanford Daily decision,


such as searches of lawyers' and


doctors' offices, were deleted in a


bargain struck between the California


Newspaper Publishers Association and


Attorney General Younger.


Associational


Privacy


The ability of groups of individuals to


organize to accomplish any social


purpose is seriously threatened by laws


which expand government surveillance


and control over non-profit, charitable


organizations. Two _ significant


developments occurred this session:


SB 708 (Sieroty) repealed the


statutory exemption of the Attorney.


General's Charitable Trust Division


from the Financial Privacy Act of 1976.


While personal bank accounts, and the


accounts of Standard Oil of California


and other corporate giants were


protected by the Privacy Act, until SB


708's passage, the exemption allowed


government agents to review bank


accounts of any non-profit charitable


organization in California, without


notice, without lawful process, and


without an audit trail of such activities.


AB 2058 (McAlister) sought to ex-


pand the Attorney General's regulatory


authority over non-profit charitable


organizations by requiring the Attorney


General's prior certification before


every fund-raising event. AB 2058


passed the Assembly, but was referred


to interim study in the Senate policy


committee. -


were effectively. outlawed, the Financial


Privacy Act's protections were ex-


panded to include charitable


organizations, and good pregnancy


disability and student suspension


_ packages were passed.


But most positive results were


achieved despite the prevailing mood;


and the biggest waves in this storm of '


meanness and repression are still to


come, creating compound problems for


ACLU's legislative efforts.


First, the direct thrust of programs


such as Anticrime and MeFirst attack


the foundations of civil liberties: all of


the intricate checks and balances of our


judicial system, the spirit of essential


fairness that is the basis of due process,


and the reasoned . objectivity that


persuades the majority to accord


respect to the minority, and to accept


the wisdom that everyone's basic rights


must be protected. Second, the


cacaphony generated by the lynch-mob


atmosphere created conditions that put


our mode of lobbying to great ad-


vantage.


ACLU's lobby gains no leverage from -


Privacy


Information Practices Act: SB 170


(Roberti) restricts the disclosure of


personal information maintained by


state agencies, requires an accounting


(or `audit trail') of particular


disclosures, gives individuals access to


personal information about themselves


maintained by the state government,


and provides specific remedies when


agencies violate the Act's express


provisions. However, because the most


intrusive and prejudicial personal


information maintained by state


agencies information obtained


through surveillance of social and


political movements, controversial


public figures and their associates - is


-exempted from the access, accounting,


and disclosure restriction provisions,


ACLU took "No Position" on SB


170 and little joy in its passage.


California Public Records Act: AB


2662 (Brown). The public Records Act


exempts from disclosure to the in- -


dividual any records which California


law enforcement agencies unilaterally


determine have been compiled for


intelligence or investigatory purposes.


ACLU sought to replace that vague and


all-encompassing exemption with


specific criteria such as: records of


active ongoing investigations, identities


of informants, etc. AB 2662 passed the


Assembly but died in the Senate


Judiciary Committee when Proposition


13 spin-offs required the full attention


of the bill's author. .


Birth Certificates/Health Research:


AB 2152 (Brown). By administrative


order, the California Department of


Health has been collecting highly in-


trusive personal data on every child


born in California. AB 2152 was in-


troduced to restrict the mandatory


collection of personal data through use


of birth certificates, to traditional vital


statistics information, and to limit


collection of personal information for


`research purposes to that provided with


the knowing and voluntary consent of


the subjects. However, as finally


enacted into law, authority to collect


virtually all of the confidential data


which the state currently collects was


?


- 1977-78 Legislative Sessi


campaign contributions, and little from


votes. Our prime source of influence


derives from a general respect for


ACLU's recognized expertise in specific


areas of the law. In the actual practice


of legislating, legislators sorely need


information: `precise, accurate and


comprehensive information. No -


legislator, no matter how com-


competent or dedicated, can possibly


develop a complete grasp of all of the


complex issues upon which he or she is


called to vote.


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


Staff is provided to assist legislators,


but staff normally only provides in-


formation in those areas in which a


given legislator has an articulated


interest. Ultimately, legislators rely


upon a dialectical process. which


generally is phrased: "`Let's hear from


both sides." And it's in that dialectical


process that ACLU has an opportunity


to be heard.


Government is heard from abun-


dantly. Peace officers, district at-


torneys, the Attorney General, and


special law enforcement units are


Government agencies


omnipresent.


assoty yory dq oroyd FF


Assemblyman Willie Brown


slickly cross-referenced into AB 2152 in


"technical" language drafted by Health


Department lobbyists and accepted by -


the author. .


University of California Personnel


Files: SB 251 (Roberti), which was


signed in September, 1978, gives every


person about whom information is


. maintained in University of California


personnel records the right to access to


such information. UC maintained that


allowing access would destroy its peer


review system, which depends upon


assuring persons who provide in-


formation about faculty members that


such information will be kept con-


fidential. The American Federation of


Teachers, UC student organizations,


and the ACLU maintained that there is


no place for secret dossiers within an


educational system that professes


freedom of thought, discussion, and


- publication.


e e


Police Practices


Peace Officers' Personnel Files: SB


1436 (D. Carpenter). As a result of


Pitchess v. Superior Court, defendants


in police assault cases, and plaintiffs in


actions alleging police brutality have


been able to gain access to information


maintained by law enforcement


agencies that may reveal a pattern of


assaultive conduct by individual peace


officers, or any racial or ethnic bias


which may be relevant in a given case.


SB 1436 as it passed the Senate would


have provided an absolute privilege to


refuse to disclose such information.


with sweeping opal: generate loads


of programs affecting individuals, and


are always around to promote them.


Experienced legislators are well aware,


as H.L. Menken said, that:``For every


complex problem there is a solution


that is simple, plausible and wrong;"'


and that every bill inevitably creates


unanticipated problems unless each is


looked at carefully, tested, probed and


shaken down. In other words, ex-


perienced legislators want to know:


"What's wrong with this bill."


Legislation that is directed at


business, labor, or local government has


always been met and tested by com-


petent representatives of those interests.


But, historically, ACLU and_ the


Friends Committee on Legislation were


among the few that represented the


interests of individuals for whom the


bankers, insurance companies and


large manufacturers and unions did not


speak.


That is not entirely true today. In


issues involving criminal justice, for


example, the rights of the accused are


very ably represented by the public


However, in its final form, SB 1436 is


relatively acceptable. No privilege is


conferred on either the individual peace


officer or the police agency. SB 1436


creates a specific mechanism for


securing police personnel records,


requires a ten-day notice period, and


requires police agencies to preserve all


personnel records for a minimum of 5


years.


Juveniles/


Student Rights


Student Suspensions: AB 530 and


AB 3191 (Hart) codify procedural due


process protections for. public school


- students which have been articulated by


`the Supreme Court, including an


opportunity for a hearing prior to


suspension. Expulsions or involuntary


transfers to continuation schools would


entitle the student to more stringent


due process: right to counsel, discovery


and confrontation and cross-examin-


ation of adverse witnesses.


- Release Time: AB 569 (McAlister)


sought to expand release time for high


school students for religious instruction


approximately five times that currently


allowed. AB 569 passed the Assembly,


but was defeated in the Senate


Education Committee.


Status Offenders: AB 958 (Dixon).


- The 1976 reform of the juvenile justice


system provided for adult treatment for


juvenile offenders found guilty of


committing serious crimes, but ex-


pressly provided that so-called ``status


offenders', i.e., runaways and truants,


were not to be locked up in "secure''


facilities. As it passed the Assembly and


the Senate Judiciary Committee, AB


958 effectively returned status offenders


to their pre-1976 situation: a juvenile


could be locked up in a jail or other


detention facility upon a determination


that the minor was a danger to himself


or herself. The availability of com-


munity mental health services was


disregarded. However, AB 958 was held


up in the Senate Finance Committee for


more than a year until a compromise


was finally reached in August, 1978. As


passed and signed into law, AB 958


_ Brown,


- major felonies.


- sponsored by the probation and parole


defenders, the State Public Defender


and the California Attorneys for


Criminal Justice, as well as the ACLU.


And throughout specific areas of


legislation there are many able public


interest groups that represent con-


sumers and environmentalists, and


some very competent lobbyists


represent women, poor people and


- minorities.


But over the 15 years that we've been


present in Sacramento, ACLU has been


both praised and scourged as the


preeminent watchdog for the rights of


individuals. And for all the attacks by


_Evelle Younger and H.L. Richardson, a


substantial number of legislators - not


just banner-waving liberals - have


come to recognize the ACLU's "Wait a


minute!' function, and to accept the


value of hearing us out.


Procedurally, the ``Wait a minute!"'


function can seldom be _ exercised


during floor sessions. By the time bills


reach the floor of either house for a vote


of all members, there's no time for a full


analysis of each measure, not time to


test, probe and shake a bill down. Only


in the committees will legislators take


allows a minor to be held up to 12 hours


to determine if there are any out-


standing `wants, warrants, or holds'


on that minor; and for up to 72 hours to


contact parents and to arrange for the


minor's return to parents.


(R) 9 (R)


Patients' Rights


Medical Privacy: SB 418 (Behr)


sought to limit the endless chain of


commercial sharing of personal in-


formation for insurance, credit, and


employment purposes; it died in the


last-minute crunch on the Assembly


floor. SB 418 would have limited


disclosure of medical information to


those persons and for those purposes


for which the patient had given express


authorization.


Patient Access: Two efforts to


provide patients with statutory


authority to review their own medical


records, AB 1226 (Egeland) and AB


2470 (Berman) failed in the face of


heavy physician lobbying.


Criminal Justice


Death Penalty: SB 155 (Deukmejian),


which passed both houses (c) over


Governor Brown's veto, reinstates the.


death penalty in California for treason


and 15 special circumstance types of


murder. It provides for a separate


`penalty trial after a guilty verdict to


allow for evidence in aggravation or


`mitigation of a sentence.


Determinate Sentencing: Almost all


of the hard-fought positions which were


secured by defense and prisoner ad-


vocates in SB 42 (the Determinate -


Sentence Bill of 1976) were undone in a


succession of bills this session. AB 476


(Boatwright), sponsored by Governor


increased enhancements or


extensions of prison terms and con-


secutive sentences which may be added


to base terms. SB 709 (Presley),


`sponsored by district attorneys, ef-


fectively doubled the base terms of all


SB 1057 (Presley),


officers and supported by Governor


sio es -Miti isat od Pyaast Cl.


ihe time to hear an analysis of specific


issues, and take the opportunity to


explore issues and specific language in


depth. And so it is in committees that


ACLU must focus its efforts.


However, the committee system is -


like all systems - only as good as it's


run. It is at all times a struggle to gain


committee members' attention to the.


complex issues with which we're


-concerned. Legislators are always on


the run. The job itself is demanding:


and when the legislating is done, each


member has to scurry back to the0x00A7


district to keep in touch, attend pan-


cake breakfasts and Rotary luncheons, |


and keep fences mended.


Of course, we know from very recent


history that it is at times like these that


ACLU's efforts are more important


than ever. Lynch mobs must be met and


resisted. History also instructs us that


truly great leaders have been those who


resisted the pressures of the moment


and the impetus to join the stampede,


and struggled to maintain a just


government. In that setting there


remains an important role for an


organization which continues to urge:


"Wait a minute!"'


Brown, expanded maximum parole


terms for persons serving life terms


from 3 years to 5 years, and increased


maximum parole for all determinate


sentences from 1 year to 3 years.


Permissive Bail: SB 450 and SCA 34


(D. Carpenter). An effort to create


preventive detention in California came


perilously close to passing in 1978. The


threat became serious when two


Democrats indicated they might go


along with three Republicans, and pass


SCA 34 out of Criminal Justice


Committee. Fortunately, they were


dissuaded, and SCA 34 went down to


defeat.


Abortion


Abortion Budget Item: The Brown


Administration lived up to its promise


to include continued funding of


abortions under the Medi-Cal system .


for indigent women. Unfortunately,


despite months of well-coordinated


efforts by pro-choice groups, anti-


abortion forces were able to prevent the


two-thirds majority needed for passage


of the entire 1978-79 budget until


conditions `were accepted by the


Administration which eliminated all


but 5% of Medi-Cal funded abortions.


Substantive abortion legislation:


Despite numerous other challenges,


however, pro-choice forces were suc-


cessful in blocking anti-abortion bills.


AB 354 (McAlister) and AB 346


(Antonovich) would have required


attending physicians to determine


before proceeding with an abortion that


each abortion patient had given "in-


formed consent", i.e, knew the


"consequences of the abortion for the


patient and the fetus." AB 595


(McAlister) would have prohibited


physicians from performing abortions


where the fetus was `"`viable''. AB 596


(McAlister) would have required the


consent of a minor's parents for


abortion. And, AJR 10 and AJR 11


(McAlister) sought to promote a `Right


to Life'? Amendment to the U.S.


Constitution. All these bills were


defeated in the Assembly Health


Committee.


Nov.-Dec. 1978


aclu news =


Assembly Speaker Leo McCarthy


Equal Protection


Disability: AB 1960


Pregnancy


(Berman) complements Federal


legislation recently signed by President


Carter. The measure prohibits


discrimination in employment on the


basis of pregnancy, childbirthor a


medically related condition for up to


four months; and, where the employer


provides a medical coverage or health


care plan for employees, pregnancy


disability for up to six weeks must be


included.


School Desegregation: SCA 46 and


SCA 48 (Robbins). Senator Robbins


authored two separate constitutional


amendments which would have shelved


California's de facto school segregation


standard, and replaced it with the U.S.


Supreme Court's de jure standard.


Each measure passed the Senate, but


was blocked in the Assembly Judiciary


Committee. Floor motions to withdraw


the bills from the Committee were


defeated in part through strong


leadership from: Speaker McCarthy:


SCA 48 by a vote of 20-35 in January,


1978, and SCA 46 by a vote of 32-28 in


August, 1978.


Employment Discrimination on the


basis of Sexual Preference: AB 1302


(Agnos) cleared the Assembly floor,


Committee, but died in Assembly Ways


and Means. It was a good first step -


forcing a lot of legislators to come to


terms with issues they would have


rather not considered.


Employment Discrimination for


refusal to grant Sexual Favors: AB 2858


(Agnos) cleared the Assembly floor,was .


`and its Senate. policy and fiscal com-


mittees. Its prospects for passage on the


Senate floor were good, but died when


time ran out in the Senate on August


31


State Senator Bees Behr


Nov.-Dec. 1978


aclu news


`By Richard Criley


Another battle in the five-year


struggle against S.1 and its successor,


8.1437, has been won! But next year


could be another story. Even as we may


rejoice over this important victory, we


should begin to prepare for the forth-


coming battle for a just criminal code


when the 96th Congress opens in


January.


S.1437 was killed on October 4 when


the full House Judiciary Committee


passed the following resolution on the


motion of Rep. John F. Seiberling (D-


Ohio):


1. The The Committee of the


Judiciary commends the Subcommittee


on Criminal Justice and its chairman


and ranking minority leader for its


excellent and conscientious work on _


general revision of the U.S. criminal


code;


2. The Committee recognizes that


there is not enough time remaining in


the 95th Congress to complete action on |


the general revision of the U.S. criminal


code, including sentencing reform; and


3. Authorizes and directs the Sub-


committee on Criminal Justice to issue


as a Committee Document a report on


its work including its findings and


recommendations with regard to the


general revision of the. U.S. os


code.


It was the Subcommittee's


unanimous rejection of both the form


and substance of S.1437 which created


the final roadblock to its passage in the


House. The careful, time-consuming


analysis and. line-by-line review of


S.1437 by Subcommittee members was


stimulated by the public opposition to


S.1437 which built to its highest point


after the bill was steamrollered through


the Senate with a 72 to 15 vote. The


ACLU, NCARL, and the American


Friends Service Committee and other


national organizations, working with


- local coalition movements like that in


the San Francisco Bay Area, were


responsible for the development of the


grass-roots movement which reached


into hundreds of Congressional. districts


across the nation.


Unlike most Senators, who delegate


much of their responsibility to aides,


the members of the House sub-


committee did their own homework.


They reached a concensus which was


remarkable in the light of the com-


`position of the subcommittee which


reached from liberal N.Y. Democrat,


Elizabeth Holtzman, to conservative


California Republican, Charles


E. Wiggins. They explored issues which


had been ignored by the Senate, such as


the vast expansion of federal


jurisdiction and changes in existing law


which were unacknowledged in the


Senate Judiciary Committee's 1200-


page report. The subcommittee drew


the conclusion that many questionable


agreements, reached by political horse-


trading, were the inevitible result of


undertaking to codify, revise and


reform in a single omnibus package.


Instead of an omnibus bill, the House


Subcommittee proposed an incremental


or step-by-step procedure which would


undertake in separate stages a non-


controversial codification of existing


laws without change in statutory


language, except for the repeal of


clearly obsolete statutes like the Smith


and Logan Acts; a redraft of provisions


relating to sentencing; and a final issue-


by-issue consideration of needed


substantative changes in preserit laws.


The first stage in the implementation


of this procedure was the drafting of


H.R. 13959, which limited codification


to a regrouping of existing statutes, and


offered a sentencing proposal which


differed in major respects from the


Senate bill. Reform of other statutes


was left for later.


The shape of the forthcoming


legislative struggle on the criminal code


is foreshadowed by the alternative


approaches which evolved in the past


Congress. Senator Kennedy is expected


to waste little time in introducing a bill


similar to S.1437 (`"`Grandson of S.1'').


- The House Judiciary Subcommittee is


authorized to proceed with its alter-


Richard Criley is Chairperson of the


Monterey ACLU Chapter and _ the


Northern California Director of the


National Committee Against Repressive


Legislation (NCARL)


`simple process


changes which may be harmful.


LEGISLATION


"Grandson of S.1" defeated for now


native, incremental proposals. Because


several of the key leaders of the House


subcommittee, including its chairman,


James R. Mann, did not seek reelection,


its direction is uncertain. =


For those of us who have participated


in this struggle since it began in 1973,


there are some tentative lessons to be


drawn from this experience.


We must agree with the Sub-


committee's conclusions that any


omnibus bill which attempts to redraft


federal criminal law in one sweep is


fraught with dangers. The apparently


of consolidating a


number of similar offenses into a single


broad statute necessarily involves


A


particular federal concern in a specific


crime may be lost in a _ general


definition, with a resulting extension of


federal jurisdiction which is not


justified. The generalizing of inchoate


offenses, like conspiracy, solicitation


and attempts, to apply to all offenses


can create the potential for wholesale


violations of constitutional rights.


The Senate proved incapable of


absorbing and analyzing the com-


_ plexities of S.1437, which encompassed


many hundreds of changes from


existing law. Its sheer volume of 700


pages was more than most senators


could even find time to read. As the late


Senator James B. Allen declared in


frustration during the Senate debate:


"There aren't five senators here who


have any idea what's going on. ..'"' The


result was decision making based upon


political trades rather than on merits,


with constitutional freedoms frequently


sacrificed in the process. The problem


of adequately informing the public is


excaberated by the fact that accurate


reporting by the news media on a 700-


page omnibus bill, containing hundreds


of controversial provisions, is beyond


the capacity of the limited space of


most newspapers and the capsulized


newscasts of TV and radio.


We must recognize the array of


powerful forces which supported S.1437


and which will Beran back its


successor: Senator Kennedy, who will


be even more influential because of his


advancement to the chair of the


Judiciary Committee; the


Administration `and its Justice


Department; powerful media voices like


the New York, Times and Washington


Post; influential leaders like former


Governor Pat Brown and Prof. Louis B.


Schwartz, whose roles in the Brown


Commission have committed them to


"`omnibus'' codification. One of the Bay


Area Representatives told us of what he -


described as the `unbelievable


pressures" on him to support passage of


8.1437.


Does the step-by-step procedure


projected by the House Subcommittee


offer a platform around which op-


ponents of a repressive omnibus code


could unite? We would be in a much


stronger tactical position to stop the


successor to. S.1437 if we can project a


positive alternative for correction of


serious weaknesses and _ repressive


provisions in existing law. While there


is no guarantee that such improvements


can be made, at worst we would be left


with the status quo.


The House Judiciary Subcommittee's


forthcoming report will offer the most


authoritative rebuttal to S.1437 that has


yet emerged. It can be a powerful


educational document if it gains the


media attention and circulation which


it deserves. It should be a first priority


of civil liberties leaders to insure that


this is achieved, and that its reasoned


criticism is brought to the attention of


every senator and representative.


In January we should begin an early


drive to reach the Senate, urging that it


not repeat the irresponsible _ per-


formance of the 95th Congress in which


it permitted the passage of S.1437


without serious consideration of its


massive defects.


Citizen action, pressures and concern


have stopped the passage of repressive


omnibus criminal codes in the last three (c)


Congresses. A continuation of that


action in the 96th Congress can result in


another victory.


The suit that never was


Some days, it's just plain hard to bea


good guy.


Take Wednesday, November 8, the


_day after the election. Take ACLU co-


operating attorney Stephen Bomse.


Take the California Supreme Court and


a constitutional challenge to


Proposition 6.


That's what Bomse planned on.


doing. That's what Bomse had planned


on doing for 10 months, ever since he


first became involved in helping the


ACLU with a legal challenge to the,


-anti-homosexual school _ teacher


_measure last February. Then he drafted


a friend-of-the-court brief in a suit in-


tended to knock 6 off the ballot.


But, against all early expectations, :


here comes that improbable collection,


the California electorate, en masse.


They just plain kicked Proposition 6


and Senator Briggs right off the stage


and kept the ACLU away from the


courts. So who can you trust?


Here we are, at election day plus one


and counting. The ACLU, with -


extensive pleadings prepared, does not


challenge Proposition 6, naming five


carefully-chosen school districts.


The day after the election, the ACLU |


does not go to court representing plain-


tiff Larry Berner, Healdsburg's best |


_known gay school teacher, several other


teachers, and several parents.


And, post election, day one, Bomse |


does not charge up the steps to the State


Supreme Court with his two associates, :


Steven Block and Daniel Titelbaum, |


who are helping on the case, or with his 0x00B0


- co-counsel from Gay Rights Advocates -


"2


marching by his side. No such fanfare


when a lawsuit winds up in the dead |


file.


Senator Briggs says that this was only .


"round one."' The Fullerton Flash says


he will be back with another attack in


1980. Stephen Bomse and the ACLU |


will be ready.


"ACLU Ticks evictions


In response to a daily influx of


complaints by San Francisco renters


threatened with eviction for display of


"Yes on U"' signs in apartment win-


dows, the ACLU of Northern California


has offered to take legal action on


behalf of tenants evicted for exercise of


their First Amendment rights. |


While ACLU-NC took no position on


Proposition U, the city-wide renters'


rebate initiative on the November 7


ballot, Staff Counsel Alan L. Schlosser


made it clear that the Union would


actively defend those whose con-


stitutional rights had been violated.


"The ACLU deplores this use of


private economic power to chill and


deter the exercise of the rights of free


speech enjoyed by everyone,' said


- Schlosser.


"Such actions by individual land-


lords are particularly repugnant to our


notion of civil liberties, because they


occur in the context of an election.


Reprisals and retaliation in any form


against tenants for circulating petitions,


displaying posters, or participating in


campaign activities have no place in our


society. In fact, they are a direct affront


to its most fundamental principles."


_ In addressing the legal rights of those


evicted, Schlosser stated that ``a tenant


cannot be lawfully evicted for the


exercise of his or her constitutional


rights. Such an.eviction, through the -


summary unlawful detainer procedure,


would be a use of the courts and the -


legal process to contravene and un-


dermine the fundamental public policy


of free speech and free elections."'


Another issue that has been raised by


tenants' complaints is whether a tenant,


who vacated the premises after


receiving a notice from his or her


landlord, has a legal course of action if


the landlord sent the notice because of


the tenant's political activities in


support of Proposition U.


While the issue is undecided by the _


courts, the ACLU is considering


whether such an action constitutes


arbitrary discrimination in violation of


the Unruh Civil Rights Act.


CAMPAIGNS


ACLU people respond to 6 ail _


osinaed ee page 1


In most chapters, several people


stepped forward to take the leadership


in one or both campaigns. Uncounted


numbers of members worked in the no |


on 6 campaign, often outside the


structure of the ACLU. On the other


hand, most members working against 7,


did participate through the coalition


the ACLU helped create.


The ACLU News supplement on 6


and 7 reached thousands of voters.


Members requested 20,000 additional


copies to distribute to their friends and


neighborhoods.


At least 12 affiliate board members


spoke on behalf of one or another


campaign organizations against 6 and


7. Because they are articulate and have


a good public presence, many local


board members were asked to represent


local campaigns in species and with


the media.


The ACLU staff and Gay Rights


Chapter provided speakers' training to


20 people and widely distributed no on


6 speakers' kits.


In addition to housing the ACLU


staff and volunteers working against 6


and 7, the offices at 814 Mission


provided space to Californians Against


Proposition 7 and the Legal Committee


Against Proposition 6.


_ Leaders of the Gay Rights Chapter


along with other legal groups and


students combined to form the Legal


- Commiittee to lobby attorney groups


and provide a day-to-day advice to the


many campaign organizations.


- Fewer ACLU leaders and members


worked against proposition 7. Long


standing ACLU and personal com-


mitments against capital punishment


did not motivate members to work for


what most predicted as a _ losing


campaign. Moreover, on Nov. 8


California would still have a death


penalty irrespective of Prop. 7's success


at the polls.


The no on 6 campaign gave' the


ACLU a chance to show many people


- especially the homosexual com-


munity and supportive grass roots


organizations - that the ACLU and its


members are committed to fighting in


whatever arena civil liberties issues are


raised. Many more people now know


that the ACLU is more than a group of


lawyers rushing from courtroom to


courtroom.


Here is only a partial rundown of the


people behind the scenes for the ACLU-


NC during the campaigns:


e The Gay Rights Chapter led


opposition to Proposition 6. The


Chapter held a meeting to recruit No on


6 workers in September; Priscilla came


ran the meeting.


e Gay Rights President Zona Sage


led the formation of the Legal Com-


mittee Against Proposition 6, which


included affiliate Board member


Donna Hitchens. Many Gay Rights


members worked in campaign


organizations in San Francisco and


around the state. Gay Rights Chapter


founder Paul Newton helped organize


other members and developed cam-


paign literature.


e Gay Rights member Stan Hellum,


after attending the chapter meeting,


organized 25 other members and


sympathetic people to walk precincts in


Palo Alto and Menlo Park.


e Sacramento Chapter board


member Gary Miller led all the No on 6


for the Sacramento Valley. The L.A.


Times did a feature article on Gary and


his work. Gary also played a large role


in Sacramento No on 7 ef-


forts. :


e With help from Chapter president


Dick Criley, Chapter board member


_Jack Brinker headed up the Monterey


County Citizen Coalition Against 6,


whose members distributed literature,


spoke at community gatherings, and


talked to the local editorial boards. The


media coordinator for the statewide No


on 6 campaign commented, "Those


ACLU people in Monterey did


everything right."


Dick Criley also talked to the


editorial writers about Proposition 7.


e Mid-Peninsula Chapter board


leaders talked to their local newspaper


editors.


e@ In South Lake Tahoe, ACLU


members Walt Yost and Gail Sanders


raised enough money to pay for an ad in


the Tahoe newspaper.


e Affiliate Board chair Drucilla


Ramey and Executive Director Dorothy


Ehrlich led 20 members, including


several affiliate Board members, in an


ACLU No on 6 Day for precinct


walking in San Francisco. San Fran-


cisco Chapter affiliate Board


Representative Linda Weiner did office


work for the ACLU and helped to direct


No on 6. canvassers receive final briefing.


Ehrlich named executive director


continued from page I


establishing projects on impeachment,


juvenile justice, prisoners' rights,


women's rights, and police practices.


She also edited a statewide prison rights


newsletter. In 1975, she became the


Southern California Development


Director.


Upon her return to the staff of the


ACLU-NC in 1977, Ehrlich took over


editorship of the ACLU News and was:


put in charge of membership


development, fundraising, and public


education. She has also been ACLU's


representative to abortion rights groups


and the campaigns against Proposition


6 and 7. She also was the staff liason to


the 15 ACLU Chapters scattered


throughout the northern half of the


state, and helped form a Gay Rights


Chapter.


In both the Northern and Southern


California affiliates, Ehrlich's efforts as


Development Director resulted in the


largest new membership growth of any


affiliate in the nation.


As Executive Director, Ehrlich will


supervise a 13-person staff and


numerous volunteer workers both in the


San Francisco headquarters and in the


Legislative Office in Sacramento.


Ehrlich looks forward to the ACLU's |


future. `"We have an excellent staff and


an ever-growing group of dedicated


volunteers. With their support, I am


confident we can grow and become an


`even more effective defender of the Bill


of Rights. Unfortunately, I have no


doubt that constant challenges will


continue to confront us, but there is a.


dynamic in this organization, with its


membership strength, that makes me_


certain that we will be ready and we


won't let down our guard. I'm very.


honored to be a part of this


organization and its illustrious history."'


Ehrlich is a graduate of the University


of San Francisco, and grew up in Napa,


where her parents still reside. She is


matried to Gary Sowards, an attorney


in the San Francisco State Public


Defender's Office and a former staff


counsel at the ACLU of Southern


California.


the precinct walkers.


e Sonoma County Chapter president


Jake Rubin played a leading role with


SCRAP 6, one of the better organized


county coalitions.


e In Santa Cruz, Chapter president


- Carolyn Symonds and board member


Paul Johnson worked with CUDBI,


Community United to Defeat the Briggs


Initiative. The Santa Cruz Chapter also


bought a No on 6 and 7 ad in two local


newspapers and contributed to the.


CUDBI campaign.


e The Yolo County ACLU organized


the League of Women Voters to co-


sponsor a public forum on 6 and 7 in


Davis, attended by 75 people. Yolo


board member Vince Crockenberg led


the Chapter No on 6 forces, with the


help of Larry and Sharon Garrett. The


result was a No on 6 signature ad with


300 names solicited by Chapter board


members printed in the local daily


newspaper.


e Paul Jenson and Lynn Yates-


Carter from the Santa Clara Valley


Chapter board made speeches for the


local Stop 6 campaign. Paul


represented the Chapter before the


local board of supervisors in an attempt


Nov.-Dec. 1978 7


aclu news


Sally Gearhart, leading spokesperson


against 6 and ACLU member,


celebrates victory.


to get their no endorsement on


Proposition 6.


e Two affiliate Board Aicmben,


Caryl Mezey and Naomi Lauter, played


important roles in the statewide No on 6


Committee, Caryl as a staff member -


and Naomi as a co-chairperson.


e The Marin County board split


itself in half and made two ACLU


committees, one against 6 led by Gerald


Ellersdorder, and one against 7 led by


Alan Cilman. Jerry and Alan organized


two weekends of literature distribution


around the county with the help of 20


local members, including affiliate


Board Representative Lola Hanzel. The


Marin No on 7 group, under Alan, also


placed a newspaper ad.


e Berkeley-Albany-Kinsington `and


Earl Warren (Oakland) joined to


sponsor a membership gathering which


drew 75 people to hear about both


propositions. Sacramento had a similar


membership meeting, with 100 people.


Sacramento also donated to both


_ campaigns. San Francisco dedicated its


annual dinner to the election and drew


a similar number. The new North


Peninsula Chapter turned out about 40


people in a public forum on per


propositions.


e North Peninsula president Tom


. Hufford and Board member Marlene


De Lancie put together a local No on 7


group, which distributed literature in


shopping centers and bought a quarter-


page signature ad in the San Mateo


newspaper.


_@ Marlene also played a central role


in the statewide No on 7 campaign as a


full-time office volunteer at the


Californians Against Proposition 7


campaign headquarters. Board


member Virginia Fabian offered


ongoing assistance. _


e A very active Stop 7 campaign


developed in the Santa Clara Valley,


and Chapter board member Vic Ulmer


was one of the leaders.


_@ In Sacramento, Chapter board


president Cliff Anderson joined the


county No on 7 campaign, helping


coordinate a variety of work and also


doing some public speaking.


e Other anti-7 speakers were Lynn


Young from the Sonoma County


Chapter board and Ed Newman with


the Santa Cruz County Chapter board.


Ed also. organized literature


distribution.


e At-large affiliate Board members


Jerry Falk and Charles Marson each


made appearances on behalf of the


anti-7 campaign - and Falk debated


John Briggs on two occasions.


a


Nov.-Dec. 1978 -


aclu news


CHAPTERS


Francis Heisler presenting Ralph Atkinson Civil Liberties pear for former Chief


Justice Phil S. Gibson


Montery


The Monterey Chapter awarded the


Ralph Atkinson Civil Liberties Award (c)


to Phil S. Gibson, Chief Justice of the


California Supreme Court (1940-1964)


at its Annual Civil Liberties Celebration


on October 8.


- Chief Justice Rose Bird of the


California Supreme Court was the guest


speaker. Managing Editor of the


Monterey Peninsula Herald, Albert -


Cross, introduced Chief Justice Bird to


the audience of nearly 200.


Francis Heisler, veteran civil liberties


lawyer and ACLU leader, presented the


award. :


Sponsors for the celebration, which


paid tribute to one of the Monterey-


- Salinas area's most distinguished


residents, included many judges,


Congressman Leon Panetta, four local


mayors, religious leaders of all major


denominations, -labor leaders, at-


torneys, and other community leaders.


The recent attack upon the Chief


Justice by State Senator H.L.


Richardson and others seeking to


defeat her confirmation added an


element of low-key drama. The Herald


story noted:


"In her tribute to Gibson, Chief


Justice Bird noted that some of his


opinions while on the court had


provoked strong reactions, and that


when he first had to go to the voters for


approval after his appointment, an.


agricultural group gathered funds in an


effort to defeat him. This brought


laughter from the audience, which did


not miss the parallel between Gibson's


situation and that of the incumbent


Chief Justice."


Monterey County Fifth District


Supervisor, Sam Farr, read a Board of


Supervisors resolution extolling


Gibson's record as a jurist and a citizen.


In his brief remarks, Justice Gibson


spoke warmly of Chief Justice Bird's


credentials, both as an administrator


and legal scholar, and criticized attacks


upon her as a threat to the in-


dependence of the judiciary.


Chapter Chairperson. Richard Criley


was master of ceremonies. Folksinger


April Masten provided entertainment.


The Monterey-Chapter is active on a


number of issues, including putting


together a local "`No on 6" coalition.


The Board - at its October meeting


elected the following officers:


Chairperson, Richard Criley;


Chairpersons, Arthur Carstens, Fran


-Duveneck, and Elizabeth Leeper;


Secretary, Corey Miller; Treasurer,


Bettie Griswold; Chapter Represen-


tative to ACLU-NC Board, Francis


Heisler.


Sonora


The Sonoma County Chapter has


joined the challenge of the county's


recently enacted and well publicized


nudity ban. The chapter will file a


friend of the court brief.


The chapter's annual dinner will be


held at the Sebastapol Veteran's


Auditorium on December 2. Tickets are


$6.50 a person. For more information


call 542-0609 or 528-3661.


BAK


HELP! Please. The BAK Complaint


and Information Service needs


volunteers. People who need ACLU


help reach us through this service.


The Service volunteers pick up the


calls from our answering service and


screen them. How to screen is explained


in advance and there is a manual of


guidelines and referrals. There is also


an attorney on call to consult when


necessary.


If you can help please call Eileen |


Keech at 848-0089.


On Sunday, October 15 the chapter


had a very successful get together for


wine, cheese, meeting other members,


and learning a little more about


Propositions 6 and 7. Michael Miller,


Field Representative ACLUNC spoke.


Thanks to all who-attended.


-mental hospital patients'


Marin


The Organizer, an early Marcello


Mastrioanni movie, will highlight the


Marin Chapter's winter benefit to be


held at the Ross Art and Garden Center


Barn on Friday, January 12, at 7:30


p.m.


A no-host cocktail party will precede


the film. A discussion by two film critic-


civil libertarians will follow the film


screening.


Chapter members will receive more


details in early December, but seats can


now be reserved by calling Fran Miller


at 415/454-8062.


The Chapter Board elected Sali


Lieberman, Mill Valley, a Life Member


of the Board. Mr. Lieberman, a Marin


Chapter founder in 1957, was active in


establishing its reputation in civil


liberties work.


Marin County Chapter members are


invited to attend the next Board


meeting at the Fidelity Savings and


Loan, Mill Valley, on November 20 at


8:00 p.m. The agenda will include


ACLU program priorities in Marin


County and the contradictions of af-


fluent liberalism.


North Penn


How does ACLU determine what


stand it will take on which issues? The


January meeting of the North Peninsula


Chapter will focus on this question.


Current involvement in the matter of


rights in


taking or refusing medication will be


used to exemplify this process. The time


and place of the meeting is to be an-


nounced. For further information


phone the Chapter secretary, Danetta


Ervin, 344-4352.


M id-P enn


The Mid Peninsula Chapter will meet


Thursday, December 7, at the All


Saints Episcopal Church, corner of


Hamilton and Waverly in Palo Alto.


The meeting is open to all members .


For more information call Len Edwards


at 287-6193.


Vice-


Abortion funding cuts delayed


Another victory in the ACLU's


challenge to the state's virtual ban on


Medi-Cal funding for abortions has


been secured from the California Court


of Appeal. The state Court of Appeal


on October 16 granted the ACLU's


petition for a special writ which ordered


the state to maintain funding for Medi-


Cal abortions until it reaches a decision


; The ACLU, along ,


with four public interest law firms, were


on the appeal.


appealing Superior Court Judge Ira


Brown's decision to deny a request for a'


preliminary injunction which would


have stopped the restrictions from


going into effect throughout the course


of the legal challenge.


Eleven plaintiffs in this action, who


represent Medi-Cal recipients as well as


physicians and health-care providers,


have claimed that the California Legis-


lature's decision last July, to cut from


the 1978-79 state budget funds which


had been available for indigent women |


to obtain abortions, violates Federal


law and is an unconstitutional denial of


the right to equal protection and of a


-woman's right to choose whether or not


to bear children, which is protected


under the right to privacy.


}WELAC


continued from page 3


No written statement of policy has


been released by the Department of


Social Services, yet the resolution has


| already been implemented.


On October 5, Julie Marchenke, a


WELAC employee, sought permission


of Assistant Director of Social Services


Ernie Lopez to distribute a leaflet


entitled Do Welfare Recipients Have


Constitutional Rights? which explained.


the recent Board policy and contended


that ``the officials of this county have


stopped recognizing that welfare


recipients do have _ constitutional


rights."


' Lopez refused permission to


distribute the leaflet, saying that the


information contained within would not


be beneficial to the clients.


"Such rights cannot be made con-


ditional on the virtually unbridled and


absolute discretion of the county's


Director of Social Services,' said


ACLU-NC Staff Counsel Amitai Sch-


wartz. `Censorship on the basis on


content is unlawful."


San Francisco


100 People attended _the San


Francisco Chapter Annual Meeting,


including guests from the Gay Rights


Chapter, on October 22. Speakers


discussed Propositions 6 and 7, as well


as current issues facing the ACLU. By-


- laws were revised to bring the next


election of Board members to May,


coinciding with other Chapters.


Linda Weiner is reviving the Issues


Committee, contacting community


groups and asking if they have en-


countered issues where the ACLU could


help.


The Board is considering new for-


`mats for neighborhood contact. For


example, should small community


meetings be held on a regular basis, or


should educational events be combined


with social events? A Board committee


is being formed to develop a plan.


Suggestions: from the membership


would be welcomed, and may be ad-


dressed to the San Francisco Chapter,


c/o the ACLU-NC office.


In honor of Bill of Rights week in


December, the Board will send


members to school classrooms to talk


about the Bill of Rights. (Future


Chapter members may be lurking


behind school desks.)


Santa Cruz


During the past month, the Santa


Cruz Chapter joined with the local


Anti-Proposition 6 committee to throw


a "Wine and Cheese - No on 6" Party at


Laurel Center and helped organize


volunteers for precinct walking and


endorsements. |


' The Chapter provided. No on


Proposition 7 speakers to the League of


Women Voters, a Methodist Church,


three high school government classes,


the Democratic Central Committee,


and one radio station, and also set up a


No on 7 table on the Santa Cruz Mall.


The Chapter has joined with WELAC


to file an action against the county


challenging the -policy that censors


reading material in the Welfare Office


waiting room. (See story p. 3).


The Chapter Annual Meeting is


`planned for November 15, 1978.


Santa Clara


The Santa Clara Valley Chapter


Board of Directors elected Tom Ferrito


Chairperson, and Lynne Yates-Carter


and Vic Ulmer Vice-Chairpersons.


Aurora Sallito was elected Treasurer;


George Green, Secretary; and Larry |


Fleisher to be Chapter Representative,


with George Green, Alternate.


The Board discussed adoptees rights


and destruction of police records


concerning police brutality and the


effect this has on due process.


The issue of First Amendment rights


on the De Anza College, Cupertino,


campus is still unresolved. The issue is


whether certain leaflets may be.


distributed without approval by the


college's communications committee.


Board member Phil Jacklin, Com- -


mittee for Open Media, presented the


Committee's reply he is making in their


challenge of radio station KJAZ'z


license renewal.


Page: of 8
Clip Image

In collections

Details
Title

vol. 43, no. 8 (December, 1978)

Creator

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Date

1978 November-December

Identifier

ACLUN_0483

Genre

newspapers

Physical description

40.5 x 28 cm

Publisher

San Francisco (Calif.): American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Preferred citation

ACLU of Northern California News vol. 43, no. 8, 1978 November-December; PER ACLUN; California Historical Society.

Rights statement

In Copyright

Publication rights

Copyright (or related rights to publicity and privacy) for materials in this collection, created by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, was not transferred to the California Historical Society (CHS). Permission for reproduction or publication of materials in this collection beyond that allowed by fair use must be secured from the copyright holder.

Topical subject(s)

Public welfare
Veterans
Terrorism
Freedom of information
Privacy, Right of
Nazis
Freedom of expression
Educational equity
Criminal justice
Capital punishment
Reproductive rights
Affirmative action
LGBTQ rights
Police practices

Named subject(s)

Barnhart, Brent
Briggs, John
Brown, Edmund G. (Edmund Gerald)
Jerry Brown
Criley, Richard L.
Ehrlich, Dorothy
Feinstein, Dianne, 1933-
Gibson, Phil
Heisler, Francis
Hitchens, Donna
Jay Rosen, Sanford
Marson, Charles
McWilliams, Carey
Miller, Michael
Ramey, Drucilla
Schlosser, Alan
Schwartz, Amitai
Warren, Earl
Unruh Civil Rights Act

Geographical subject(s)

Sacramento (Calif.)
Monterey (Calif.)
Monterey County (Calif.)
Oakland (Calif.)
Berkeley (Calif.)

Collection identifier

PER ACLUN