vol. 49, no. 3

aclu news

Volume XLIX

April 1984

No. 3

Strip Search Bill Becomes Law

by Daphne Macklin

ACLU Legislative Advocate

On March 8, a year after the legislative

process began, Assemblywoman Maxine

Waters' proposal to regulate police use

of strip searches, AB 270, won the over-

..whelming approval of the Legislature

and Governor Deukmejian's signature.

In its final form, AB 270 was somewhat

different from the bill the Governor

vetoed last fall: from the perspective of

Assemblywoman Waters, the ACLU,

and other supporters, the measure. was

stronger and more comprehensive than

the bill passed by the Legislature last

August.

The new bill, renumbered AB 1367,

added protection for minors arrested on

misdemeanor and infraction offenses

and requires that all. persons arrested on

minor charges not involving weapons,

drugs or violence be given an opportuni-

ty to be released on their own

recognizance, or at least three hours to

make bail. The bill also allows persons

arrested for up to two outstanding traffic

warrants to be cited and released or given

the opportunity to make bail, also within

three hours. This will limit the number of

persons who are detained in the general

population of jail facilities.

- The AB 1367 agreement sharply limits

the number of persons subjected to so-

called booking searches. The measure

also retains the requirement of a search

Judge Throws

i | ae Michael Miller

ACLU-NC plaintiffs Marlene Penny (1.) and Ramona Scott told the media and the

Legislature of being strip searched without cause - and became major advocates for

the new legislation.

warrant for intrusive body cavity

searches.

Intense Negotiations

Law enforcement agreed to support

the new measure after two months of in-

tense negotiations between Waters' staff,

ACLU lobbyists, and representatives of

Out Libel

Suit Against Man Who

Complained of Police Abuse

A defamation suit against a man who

filed a complaint against two San Fran-

cisco police officers who arrested him

was dismissed on March 19 by Superior

Court Judge Stuart R. Pollak. The police

officers' suit was based on Civil Code

47.5, a law passed in 1982 as S.B. 1025,

which creates a special exception for

police officers to sue people who file

complaints against them. Complaints

against all other public employees in the

state of California are absolutely

privileged against defamation suits. The

law was sponsored by a broad spectrum

of law enforcement groups and passed in

the closing moments of the 1981-1982

legislative session.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Amitai

Schwartz explained, ``When Edgar

Letona was arrested in June, 1983 he

complained to the San Francisco Police

Department's Internal Affairs Bureau

that the two arresting officers, Richard

Janese and Michael Becker used un-

necessary force."'

"The two officers then filed a libel suit

against him under Civil Code 47.5,

claiming that he had filed the complaint

`with knowledge of its falsity because of

his hatred, spite and _ ill-will toward

police,' '' Schwartz said.

The statute as passed by the California

Legislature allows police officers to file

defamation suits against people who file

complaints about them through official

channels, while maintaining absolute

privilege for all other compalints against

public officials. ``A lawsuit of this type

has a chilling effect on the right of free

expression, the right to petition govern-

ment for redress of grievances, and the

opportunity for the Police Department

itself to learn about alleged wrongdoing

by its agents on the streets,'' Schwartz

said.

``The lawsuit represents a collision

between the victim's right to petition

continued on p.2

the Governor and police organizations.

The major concession won by law en-

forcement was a clarification of when a

person could be moved into the general

population of a jail facility and subjected

to routine search procedures. An emer-

gency clause was also added to cover the

rare incident of a documented condition

such as a fire or riot, in which the only

reasonable alternative to temporary

housing is to place a person arrested on a

minor offense in the jail. As with strip

searches based on reasonable suspicion,

such movement would require prior writ-

ten authorization by a jail supervisor and

other appropriate documentation.

Last fall, Citizens Against Strip

Searches (CASS), a statewide coalition

of labor, women's groups, civil rights

organizations and legal groups was

founded to fight for the passage of new

legislation. CASS volunteers followed a

strategy of grassroots lobbying that

garnered broad editorial support in the

media. Legislators responded positively

to letters, cards, calls and visits from

constituents outraged both by the AB

270 veto and the reports of strip search

abuses. Some legislators were personally

confronted by strip search victims.

Public Pressure

Public pressure translated into legisla-

tive movement fora negotiated settle-

ment rather than a showdown override

attempt. On several occasions

Republican members encouraged the

Governor to continue discussions on the

bill during critical periods. But after

several controversial sections of the bill

(now amended into AB 1367 through a

parliamentary device) were settled

following arduous debate and a date was

set for a Senate floor vote, the

continued on P- 5

FOUNDATION

0 "YEARS

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

save the Date

Tuesday, July 10

As part of our 50th anniversary

celebratory year, the ACLU-NC will

be presenting Seymour Hersh, prize-

winning author (he exposed the My

Lai massacre) and author of The

Price of Power. Hersh will speak at

San Francisco's Herbst Theater on

Tuesday, July 10 at 8 p.m.

Tickets at $12.50 will be on sale

shortly at the City Box Office, 141

Kearney St., San Francisco 94108.

Watch this space for further details.

aclu news

2 april 1984

ACLU Attacks Police `Street Sweeps'

The ACLU-NC is making a double-

pronged attack against the police misuse

of various state statutes to ``sweep the

streets'? of persons they consider

undesirable. Staff attorney Amitai

_ . Schwartz filed an appeal in Ramey v.

Murphy charging that the San Francisco

police routinely use an obstruction of the

sidewalks. law to arrest persons who

could not otherwise be punished by legal

means; he also filed an amicus brief in

Sundance v. Municipal Court, a lawsuit

charging the Los Angeles police with ar-

resting thousands of persons as public in-

ebriates with full knowledge that they

will not be presecuted.

According to Schwartz, ``There is a

broad, persistent, and cynical pattern

and practice of police arrests without

warrants, probable cause and in bad (c)

faith without any reasonable expectation

that convictions will follow.

`Under a variety of statutes the police

continue to single out persons for arrest

based on their status or police suspicion

- and we must continue to challenge

this practice because it is the way the

police accomplish unconstitutional street

sweeps of those they consider un-.

desirable,'' Swartz said.

``For many years,"' he noted, "' loiter-

ing and vagrancy ordinances have been

held to be unconstitutional for their

vagueness and overbreadth - that is,

their capacity to sweep within their net

status and conduct which may not be

punished in a free society."'

Schwartz said that as recently as 1972,

the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a

Florida vagrancy ordinance, finding it

`plainly unconstitutional'? because it

permitted and encouraged arbitrary and

discriminatory arrests. In 1961, the

California Supreme Court determined

the law which allowed police to arrest

"common drunks' to be unconstitu-

tional.

In 1979, the ACLU-NC filed a tax-

payers' lawsuit, Ramey v. Gain, charg-

ing that the San Francisco police were us-

ing a local ordinance, Police Code 20A

and 20B to arrest persons, 90% of whom

were never charged with any crime. That .

ordinance was repealed by the San Fran-

cisco Board of Supervisors as a result of

the lawsuit, and replaced with provisions

giving less discretion both to police and

prosecutors. Nonetheless, within a year

_ the same pattern of police harrassment

of street people reemerged, but the police

began using a state statute, Penal Code

647c instead.

In November 1980, Schwartz filed a

new lawsuit, Ramey v. Murphy, charg-

ing that the police were again arresting

persons without cause. under Section

647c. That statute prohibits the

malicious obstruction of the free move-

ment of any person on any sidewalk or in

a public place.

However, according to Schwartz, the

police have made this statute a principal

weapon in sweeping the streets of per--

sons deemed by them to be undesirable,

destitute, inclined to criminal activity -

or merely unpopular.

Evidence introduced at a lengthy trial

in 1982 showed that between August

1980 and July 1982, almost 3500 arrests

were made for obstructing the sidewalk.

Only 6% proceeded beyond the first ap-

pearance in court and only 16 cases

resulted in convictions, all by guilty

pleas.

San Francisco Superior Judge

Lawrence Mana ruled in January 1983

that the city police officers acted proper-

ly in using the law to make arrests in San

Francisco's Tenderloin, Union Square

and Polk Street districts. On January 13

of this year, Schwartz filed an appeal in

the state Court of Appeal.

`*The arrests for purported violations

of 647c are routinely made in objective

bad faith without reasonable expectation

that conviction will follow,'' Schwartz

said. `"This appeal raises the question

whether the police can routinely arrest

people for obstructing sidewalks, when

everyone knows that those arrested are

not likely to be prosecuted and there is

practically no chance of conviction."'

Sundance

The amicus brief submitted by the

ACLU-NC, the ACLU of Southern

California and the San _ Francisco

Lawyers Committee for Urban Affairs

to the California Supreme Court in Sun-

_dance asks the court to enjoin arrests for

violation of Penal Code 647(f) as applied

to persons under the influence of

alcohol.

' "As a practical matter, there is no

_ judicial review of arrest for public in-

ebriation in Los Angeles or anywhere in

the state,'' Schwartz said. ``Nonetheless,

- hundreds of thousands of persons are ar-

rested under 647(f), transported,

booked, jailed and subjected to punish-

ment without any form of judicial

review.

Schwartz noted that out of 150,000 ar-

rests over a three year period, there were

only eight convictions.

`Does the law permit the police to ar-

rest and incarcerate public inebriates as

criminals when there is virtually no

possibility the law will provide the legal

process that is due under our constitu-

tional system of government?'' Schwartz

asked the court.

``We believe that the federal and state

constitutions forbid the police to arrest

persons whom they know or reasonbaly

should know are not likely to be pro-

-secuted or convicted,'' he argued.

"`Of course,'' Schwartz said, ``some

persons will be in need of police

assistance in connection with their public

inebriation, and it would be callous and

unthinkable to deny them that assis-

tance. But assistance is far different than

arrest, booking and incarceration as a

criminal, This would take the police out

of the business of attempting to ac-

complish a social end for which the

criminal process is not intended,''

Schwartz added.

A Future for

Civil Liberties

For 50 years the ACLU of Northern Cali-

fornia has fought to defend the Constitu-

tion and the Bill of Rights. Through the

pages of history - red-baiting, vigilantes,

WW II internment camps, HUAC, the Free

Speech Movement, Vietnam, civil rights,

the women's movement, gay rights and

more - the ACLU has pioneered the fight

for individual liberties.

And what about the next 50 years? Will

the ACLU be as strong, as dedicated, as

effective?

You can do something now to insure

that the ACLU will continue to fight - and

win - ten, twenty, and fifty years from

now, through a simple addition to your

will.

Every year thoughtful civil libertarians

have, through their bequests, provided

important support for the ACLU. In 1984,

interest income alone earned by these be-

quests, will contribute over $35,000.

Making a bequest is simple: you need

only specify a dollar gift or a portion of

your estate for the American Civil Liberties

Union Foundation of Northern California,

Inc.

If you need information about writing a

will or want additional information, consult

your attorney or write: Bequests, ACLU

Foundation of Northern California, 1663

Mission St., San Francisco 94103.

The suit will be argued in the Califor-

nia Supreme Court sometime this spring.

Schwartz concluded that police use of

several different local and state statutes

to accomplish the same end - sweeping

the streets of those the police deem

undesirable - must be continually

challenged until there is both policy and |

practice in line with the protection of

constitutional rights. ``As the substantive

portions of local and state ordinances are

brought into line with constitutional -

restraints, the patterns and practices of

enforcement against traditionally des-

pised persons and groups will present the

constitutional tests of the 1980's,"'

Schwartz said.

Police Complaint

continued from p. 1

government for a redress of grievances

and the police officer's use of the law of

defamation to retaliate against their

critics,'' he said.

In dismissing the police officers' suit,

Judge Pollak agreed with the ACLU..

"The filing of an administrative com-

plaint regarding alleged police officer

misconduct is protected by the First

Amendment right to petition govern-

ment for redress of EUV AUICES Pollak

wrote.

`the possibility of such defamation

suits necessarily will inhibit the filing of

similar complaints by others who have

reasonable grounds to complain of

police misconduct but fear a retaliatory

defamation suit if the Police Department

ultimately should find their charges to be

without merit.''

``This is a crucial decision in terms of

holding police officers accountable to the ~

same law as everyone else,'' Schwartz

said. ``The right to be free of police

abuse includes the unfettered right to

complain about such abuses without fear

when they occur.

**By stopping this libel suit cold in its

tracks, Judge Pollak has affirmed that

the right to petition is far too precious -

and vulnerable in a free society to `be

chilled by the possiblity of retaliatory

defamatory actions,'' he concluded.

Letona was arrested on June 13, 1983,

by Janese and Becker, two officers

working in the Mission District. He was

charged with driving under the influence

and battery on police officers. On March

5, Letona was found not guilty of the

battery charge by a Municipal Court

jury; he was convicted of the driving

under the influence charge. -

The officers have indicated that they

will appeal Judge Pollak's ruling.

Elaine Elinson, Editor

aclu news

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

August-September and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Davis Riemer, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Marcia Gallo,

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)

1663 Mission St., 4th floor, San Francisco, California 941 03. (415) 621-2488

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

Chapter Page 2

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

aclu news

april 1984 3

INS Charged with Violating Rights of Hispanics

INS and Border Patrol harassment of

Hispanic workers will be challenged at a

hearing in U.S. District Court on May 3.

The class action suit,

Molders' Union v. Nelson, originated in

1982 following the Immigration and

Naturalization Service nationwide series

of raids called ``Operation Jobs.'' Dur-

ing Operation Jobs and _ subsequent

raids, the suit charges, INS and Border

Patrol agents violated the constitutional

rights of workers and employers alike in

the guise of ``creating more jobs for U.S.

workers.'" Over 5000 persons - in-

cluding 500 in northern California -

were arrested. The unconstitutional

practices continue unabated..

The suit was filed in August 1982 by a

coalition of civil rights and legal

organizations including the ACLU-NC,

MALDEF, Asian Law Caucus, the

Immigration and Constitutional Law

Clinics at Golden Gate University, the

National Lawyers Guild, California

Rural Legal Assistance and the law firm

of Van Bourg, Allen Weinberg and Roger.

The suit charges that the INS agents

violated the constitutional rights of

workers and employers by illegally enter-

ing worksites without warrant or con-

sent, and by detaining workers simply

because they looked Hispanic and

without reasonable suspicion that they

were working illegally. The suit also

charges that INS agents either failed to

advise the unlawfully detained persons

of their rights to counsel and to remain

International

plaintiffs, Neve Farms and Pearl River

Mushrooms with no warrant and no

consent. Attorney Susan Brown of

MALDEF charged that these raids were

`retaliation for the suit, pure and sim-

ple

Although U.S. District Court Judge

Robert Aguilar issued a preliminary in-

junction on September 16, 1982 forbid-

ding immigration officers from entering

business premises without warrants or

consent from employers, the federal ap-

peals court stayed the injunction later

that year.

`*We are now seeking a broader based

injunction,'' explained ACLU-NC staff

attorney Alan Schlosser, ``which deals

with the type of warrant required for en-

try by INS agents and the specific cause

which must be shown before workers

may be detained and questioned."'

The attorneys filed a motion for

preliminary injunction on March 7. At

the May 3 hearing, attorneys will argue

that the INS routinely violates Fourth

Amendment principles in the course of

their workplace raids. ``For example,"'

Schlosser said, ``during Operation Jobs

the agents had only seven warrants for

more than 40 raids - and this practice

continues."'

`In addition, the INS violates the

Fourth Amendment by seizing individual

workers for whom they have no in-

dividualized evidence of illegal status,"'

Schlosser said.

During Operation Jobs, INS agents

"`On the way to the INS van we were sworn at and called

ugly names like `wetback.' "'

Testimony of a worker picked up during Operation Jobs

silent or forced persons - in some cases

with physical threats - to give up their.

rights.

On August 17, 1982, just one week

after the suit was filed, three carloads of

INS agents raided two of the employer

carried warrants of inspection naming 4

or 5 individuals and used these warrants

to round up 50 or more people. ``The

fact that INS arrived with 40 agents in-

dicated. that they were planning to pick

up more than the 4 or 5 named

suspects,'' Schlosser said.

The motion also asks that the ques-

tioning of persons be based on in-

dividualized suspicion in contrast with

the current practice of questioning those

who look Hispanic. ``Plaintiffs are en-

titled to a preliminary injunction against

unlawful INS workplace raid pratices

and called ugly names like `mojados'

(wetbacks)."' :

Or Antonio Diaz at Pacific Mush.

room Farm in Pescadero, ``Even if peo-

ple said they had papers and did not run,

INS still rounded them up. All doors

were blocked and there was mass disrup.

tion.

Photo courtesy of BACASM

The suit charges that INS agents failed to advise unlawfully detained persons of

their rights or forced them - in some cases with physical threats - to give up their

rights.

which violate the Fourth and Fifth

(Equal Protection) rights of Hispanic

`workers,'' the suit argues.

The motion is accompanied by a thick

dossier of personal stories of workers

who were picked up during the raids,

verifying the unconstitutional and often

brutal treatment that they were subjected

to at the hands of the INS. For example,

Marcos Arceo, a five year employee at a

furniture plant in Oakland said,

``Without asking me if I had papers or

any other questions, the agent grabbed

me, pushed me to my knees, handcuffed

me and took me outside to an INS van.

On the way to the van; we were sworn at

`It was like a wild animal hunt, he

said.

The hearing comes at a time when im-

migration procedures are a major focus

of attention on the national political

agenda. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill,

which was resurrected for this Congres-

sional session after being narrowly

defeated by widespread opposition last

year, would further restrict the rights of

immigrant workers. In addition, two

other major cases addressing the practice

of INS agents, Oliver v. U.S. and INS v.

Delgado, are scheduled to be decided by

the U.S. Supreme Court by June.

Governor Vetoes Gay Rights Employment Bill

On March 13, Governor George

Deukmejian vetoed AB 1, the gay rights

employment measure sponsored by

Assemblyman Art Agnos. The Gover-

ponents of the measure. According to

the statement, the Governor found no

"compelling need'' for the legislation.

Californians, he claimed, were deeply

Barbara Sciapianni/Froptline

Hours after the Governor vetoed AB 1, gay rights organizations marched in angry

protest in San Francisco.

nor's press statement outlining his

reasons for the veto ended two tense

weeks for both the proponents and op-

divided on the question of homosexuali-

ty and he cited the defeat of the 1979

Briggs Initiative - which would have

denied gays the right to work as teachers

in California schools - by a 58 to 42 per

cent margin as a close vote on the issue.

ACLU Legislative Advocate Daphne .

Macklin joined a wide range of civil

liberties and gay rights advocates in con-

demning the Governor's veto. ``We had

urged the Governor, as we had urged the

members of the Legislature, to consider

freedom from employment discrimina-

tion on the basis of an individual's sexual

orientation as a matter of simple fairness

and justness,'' Macklin said.

While the Governor had indicated a

willingness to study the matter objective-

ly, the AB 1 veto was not entirely unex-

pected.

Members of the religious right wing

and their political champions had

mounted a strong campaign aimed at

securing a veto. At a press conference

called shortly after AB 1 was sent to the

Governor, the legislative opposition

along with organizations with ties to the

Heritage Foundation, demanded that

telephone calls and letters opposing AB 1

be directed to Deukmejian and his staff.

A popular radio evangelist prepared a

special broadcast opposing AB 1 for dis-

tribution to 41 California radio stations.

The attack on AB 1 was riddled with

emotional references as to how the bill

would condone the homosexual lifestyle

and deny religious liberty to those who

oppose homosexuality on moral grounds

by forcing them to hire or work with gay

people. ABI1's opponents even in-

sinuated that the measure would add to

the AIDS epidemic.

The extent to which the Governor con-

sidered the arguments of the religious

fundamentalists was not clear from the

veto message. What the statement did in-

dicate was an unwillingness to

acknowledge that the problem of

employment discrimination for gay peo-

ple is so grave that many fear to com-

plain against even the most overt acts of

harrassment and discrimination. The

Governor pointedly misread statistics

submitted by the State Personnel Board

and some local agencies which process

state workers' complaints of employ-

ment discrimination based on sexual

_ Orientation. He noted that the current

Executive Order, B. 54-79 (issued by

Governor Jerry Brown), forbidding such

discrimination in state employment has

continued on p. 7

"4

aclu news

april 1984

Sacramento Report

sain

New Bills Pave Way for California Death Penalty -

by Marjorie Swartz

ACLU Legislative Advocate

Though it is still early in the state

legislative session to determine which

civil liberties issues will become most im-

portant, one issue which threatens to

become a major controversy is the death

penalty. New proposals range from

`technical changes in the way the record

of an appeal is corrected to a bill

facilitiating the donation of vital organs

from persons who have just been ex-

ecuted.

SB 1388 is a companion piece of legis-

lation changing the automatic appeal

provision. Under present law, all death

penalty cases are automatically appealed

whether or not a notice of appeal is ac-

tually filed. :

This law was enacted in 1935 after a 19

year old black defendant was hanged at

San Quentin. Before the hanging he pro-

tested that his attorney had filed an ap-

peal, but when the prison staff told him

there was no appeal, he said that he

(c) Howard Brodie 1980

eyes Hae

ae, OF

a

ASA Leth oe8 ak Sager a8

seth eames me EES

Pe

ae

MA Sat sn ree Sine te Win $ ick pes morn

the reversal rates in the appellate courts

vary to a large degree, life or death deci- -

sions could be dependent on the luck of

drawing a particular division in a Court

of Appeal. In addition, with the January

1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in

Harris that proportionality review is not

required, removing mandatory supervi-

sion by Supreme Court will only ag-

gravate existing inequities in the applica-

tion of the death penalty.

The automatic appeal provision is also

crucial in preventing the death penalty

from becoming a ``suicide provision."'

Without the present system, there is a

danger of cases arising wherein a defen-

dant chooses not to appeal and is ex-

ecuted without any review of the convic-

tion and sentence. There are a number of

cases throughout the country where

death row inmates became depressed and

attempted to dismiss their appeals. This

time is now spent by attorneys represent-

ing death row clients in reviewing the

trial record to ensure accuracy. These

trials are quite lengthy and the records

are usually tens of thousands of pages

long. It is extremely important that the

review of a capital case be based on an

accurate record of the proceedings. AB

2933 requires the record to be certified

even if the attorney has not yet finished

the correction process. If the attorney

does not complete the process within 60

days, the attorney is subject to contempt

of court and referred to the Bar for

disciplinary action. Observers predict that

as public opinion and fear of crime

becomes more and more irrationale and

vengeful, defense attorneys could go to

jail for merely attempting to defend their

clients.

Another proposal (SB 1968 - Speraw)

would require the Department of Cor-

In 1935, a 19 year old defendant was hanged because his

appeal did not reach the California Supreme Court until

three days after his execution due to a bureaucratic error.

After that tragedy, the automatic appeal provision

| was enacted.

Drawing by Howard Brodie of The Last Execution in California, 1967.

Only two measures have been set for

hearing so far, SCA 45 and SB 1388;

both of these measures, by Senator Ken

Maddy (R-Fresno), propose radical

changes in the appeal process of a capital

case. In order to comprehend the

significance of these changes, some

historical background on the death

penalty appeal process is useful.

When the California court system was

first organized, the state Supreme Court

was the only court of appeal and had

original jurisdiction over all matters.

When the intermediate Court of Appeal

was established, it took over original ap-

pellate jurisdiction for most matters,

with one noteworthy exception - capital

~cases. This jurisdiction is provided for in

the state Constitution and remained in

tact even when the California Constitu-

tion was completely reorganized in the

1960's. SCA 45 would repeal this provi-

sion and place appellate jurisdiction in

the Court of Appeal.

`"`ouessed his attorney must have been

joking.'' Actually, an appeal had been

filed, but because of a bureaucratic error

in the Los Angeles County Clerk's Of-

fice, the appeal papers were not delivered

to the Supreme Court until three days

after the inmate was hanged. The

automatic appeal provision was enacted

to prevent a reoccurence of such a

tragedy.

Taken together, Maddy's two mea-

sures would place capital cases in the

Courts of Appeal and would require a

notice of appeal to be filed. The Supreme

Court would have discretion to review

capital cases by petition, but such a

`review would not be automatic, as it is

now.

Luck of the Draw

Such a system raises a number of con-

cerns. One advantage of Supreme Court

review of all cases is uniformity. Because

is not now permitted in California. ~

The state Public Defender's Office did

a survey of all 50 states and asserted at

Senate Judiciary hearings on these two

bills that if the proposals should pass,

California would have /ess review of

death penalty cases than any other state.

We would be the only state in which the

defendant did not have a right to review

by the highest court of statewide juris-

diction.

In addition to this striking testimony,

the measures were opposed by represen-

tatives of the ACLU, the Attorney

General's office and Amnesty Inter-

national. |

The proposals were not voted on at

the hearings because of various concerns

raised by the opposition groups. The

author is planning to amend the pro-

posals and reset them for a vote in the

Senate Judiciary in the near future.

A number of other bills - none of

which have been set for hearing - would

also change state death penalty legisla-

tion.. The Death Penalty Restoration Act

of 1984 (AB 2766 - Nolan) includes pro-

visions to overrule cases which have nar-

rowed the scope of the death penalty.

This measure would also expand the

types of felony murder which are first

degree murder and provide for life

without possibility of parole for persons

under 18 found guilty of first degree

murder with special circumstances. _

A constitutional amendment (ACA 68

- Condit) has been proposed to do the

same thing, i.e., abrogate `"`any judicial

decisions limiting or nullifying'' the ef-

fect of existing death penalty statutes. In

addition to its ramifications for the death

penalty, ACA 68 poses some interesting

problems relating to separation of

powers of the various branches of

government. :

AB 2933 (Goggin) attempts to speed

up the process of the review of trial

record in capital cases. A great deal of

rections to find alternatives to the gas

chamber which would preserve the vital

organs of a person who is executed so

that they may be used for medical

transplants.

The medical profession is sponsoring

legislation (AB 3926 - Filante) to protect

physicians employed by government en-

tities who do not wish to participate in

executions. This measure would prohibit

disciplinary action against a physician

who so refuses.

Judging from these proposals, it seems

that the grim reality of the death penalty

is upon us. The backlog of death penalty

cases pending in the state Supreme Court

seems to cause a larger and larger

backlash in the state Legislature.

New!

THE RIGHTS OF

EMPLOYEES

Wayne N. Outten, with

Noah A. Kinigstein

A thorough, authoritative American Civil

Liberties Union guide to the wide range

of laws that protect an employee's rights

during the hiring process, on the job,

and even after being laid off, fired, or

reaching retirement. Includes informa-

tion on social security, workers' com-

pensation, and unemployment

insurance. 370 pp. $3.95.

Other recent ACLU handbooks pub- -

lished by Bantam Books include The -

Rights of Authors and Artists, the

Critically Ill, Gay People, Indians and

Tribes, Prisoners, Women, ail $3.95

each, and Teachers, $4.95.

To order, send your check (including $1

postage for first book ordered, $.50 for

each additional book) to: ACLU, 132

West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036;

Att: Literature Department. The com-

plete list of nearly 30 handbooks is

available upon request.

- BEAD vandbooks

aclu news

april 1984

_ Attempt to Muzzle Women's Commission Fails

The Court of Appeal qnahinonly

lifted a 19-month injunction prohibiting

the California Commission on the Status

of Women from taking positions on or

promoting legislation on women's issues.

The ACLU-NC and Equal Rights Ad-

vocates, Inc. filed a friend of the court

brief arguing that the Commission

should be able to take positions on

public issues, disseminate its views to the

public and lobby the Legislature.

The amicus brief was written by

ACLU cooperating attorney Sandra

Tichenor of the San Francisco law firm

of Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe .

and William Alsup of Morrison and

Foerster.

The Commission's advocacy role was

challenged in 1976 when individual tax-

payers and the ``Women's Committee

for Responsible Government'' sued

claiming the creation of the Commission

deprived male plaintiffs of equal protec-

tion, and that the Commission over-

stepped its bounds by using public funds

to promote ratification of the Equal

Rights Amendment. The suit sought to

abolish the Commission, or failing that,

to prohibit it from lobbying or pro-

moting its views.

In 1982, a Sacramento Superior Court

judge rejected the equal protection argu-

ment and various other attacks on the

Commission, but found that the Com-

mission's use of public funds was not

completely impartial and exceeded the

authority granted by the Legislature. The

judge told the Commission to refrain

from proposing or recommending spe-

cific legislation and from ``presenting

any particular viewpoint with respect to

information gathered or disseminated."'

Both sides appealed.

Later that same year, the Legislature

passed a bill spelling out in no uncertain

terms the Commission's right to lobby

the Legislature on any pending bills and

to ``urge the introduction of legislative

proposals."'

Citing that bill, the ACLU amicus

brief declared that the Commission had a

statutory authority to speak out. The

Commission is also constitutionally per-

Strip Search Law

Governor's representatives recom-

mended a ``minor, technical change,"'

based on repeated objections from Los

Angeles Sheriff Sherman Block.

AB 270's floor manager, Senate Presi-

dent Pro-tem David Roberti (D-LA) and

Waters refused to move the bill with the

new amendment, which, according to a

Legislative Counsel opinion, was un-

necessary.

Several more proposals were made

and rejected along with new agreements

that were almost invariably breached by

Deukmejian aides during a tense week-

end. Frustrated and angry, Waters called

a press conference on February 28 and

announced her intention to call for the

vote March 1. Copies of two letters sign-

ed by Deukmejian aide, Bob Blonien

supporting the bill as negotiated on

February 23 and the Legislative

Counsel's opinion on the unnecessary

proposed technical change were made

public.

Senator William Campbell (R-LA) of.

fered to work out yet another com-

promise and convinced Sheriff Block to

mitted to take positions and advise the

public of the positions it takes, the

ACLU argued.

"Government must fe allowed to

speak if government is to lead,"'

Tichenor said. ``Although there are con-

stitutional limits on government's ability

to speak - to guard against `Big

Brother' propaganda - the Commission

is not forcing anyone to subscribe to any

continued from p. 1

withdraw his opposition; Campbell also

entered the Counsel opinion into the

Senate Journal. With that, the- bill

passed out of the Senate by a 38-0 vote.

Within the hour, Assembly Minority

Leader Robert Naylor (R-San Mateo)

entered the same opinion in the

Assembly Journal and AB 1367 was sent

to Governor Deukmejian on a con-

currence vote 79-0. The last hand was

played by the media when the national

CBS-TV news magazine ``60 Minutes''

broadcast a 20-minute piece on strip

search abuses in California, the Sunday

`following the Legislature's vote.

Plaintiffs in the two ACLU-NC strip

search challenges, Marlene Penny of Fre-

mont and Ramona Scott of Oakland,

were delighted by the announcement that

the strip search restrictions they helped

to promote were now law. Other victors

include the many strip search abuse vic-

tims who came forward through the

CASS 44-strip hotline and the hundreds

of people who were involved in what

became the people's issue of the 1983-84

session.

educating, and in persuading...

fr

a

i

a

a

G

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

a

a

i

a

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

a

i

i

i

a

5

a

particular dogma, but merely advising

the Legislature on subjects within its area

of expertise."'

The February 3 appellate court

opinion, written by Associate Justice

Coleman Blease, agreed with the ACLU

arguments. ``The government has

legitimate interests in informing, in

An

approach that would invalidate all con-

Reproached by Reagan,

Maligned by Meese...

Join the ACLU

Name

troversial government. speech would

seriously impair. the democratic

process."'

If the lower court opinion were not

reversed, Blease wrote,

sion would be relegated to the status of a

librarian, a collector and indexer of

data."'

All Sides

The plaintiffs had attacked the Com-

mission's advocacy of such issues as

reproductive freedom, child care centers,

and textbooks showing women in non-

traditional roles.

`"`They asked the court to enjoin the

Commission from taking any position

on women's issues and from disseminat-

ing any information on women's issues

without presenting all sides to the ques-

tion,'' Tichenor explained.

Justice Blease commented, ``The ir-

refutable need for government speech

does not provide absolute license and in

some guises government speech may

have the effect of trammelling the free

speech rights of others. [But] this is not a

circumstance in which government has

established a forum for speech and is

precluding some points of view from an

equal opportunity to be heard.

"To analogize the Commission to

such a public forum would [be

equivalent to] making the Department of

Defense permit an equal opportunity for

pacifists to rebut its views in the myriad

of statements and publications it pro-

duces,'' the court stated.

Carol Ward-Allen, Chairperson of the:

Commission, was ``ectastic'' about the

decision. ``We believed from the begin-

ning that the Legislature's intention in

creating a Commission on the Status of

Women was clear.

`"Now we can get on with the business _

for which we were established - im-

proving the quality of life for the women

of California,'' Ward-Allen said.

The plaintiffs have sought a review by

the California Supreme Court.

5

Address

City

C1 Individual $20

L] This is a gift membership from

Return to ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St., S.F. 94103

Ee Joint $30

and an additional contribution of $

Zip

8

` A e

om ab a a ae am GE GR GD GS Gs G2 OP OP OD Oe a ee eee eee ee

"the Commis- -

aclu news

2 april 1984

In Contempt of Congress and the Courts

As the controversy around President Reagan's nomination of Edwin

Meese as Attorney General continues to mount - with more evidence

of dubious financial dealings and questionable government appoint-

ments being revealed each day - Meese's record as a key architect of

the Administration's deplorable civil rights record is also being

exposed.

The ACLU National Legislative Office has just published a scathing

indictment of the Reagan civil rights record entitled In Contempt of

Congress and the Courts, authored by ACLU Legislative Counsel

Muriel Morisey Spence. This comprehensive report provided the

background to testimony presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee

on March 1 by National Legislative Director John Shattuck on the

nomination of Edwin Meese as Attorney General.

Below are excerpts from the ACLU testimony and the report.

Copies of the publication In Contempt of Congress and the Courts are (c)

available from: ACLU National Legislative Office, 600 Pennsylvania

Avenue SE, Washington, D.C. 20003 (please include $1.00 for pastage

and handling.)

ACLU Testimony

on Meese Nomination

oS

elmpeding the efforts of black

parents to participate in school

desegregation lawsuits initiated in

their behalf;

eAttacking voluntary efforts to end

`segregation in schools despite clear

congressional endorsement of such

voluntary measures;

eOpposing voluntary plans to end

the effects of employment discrim-

ination even though substantial

judicial authority has endorsed

similar plans;

eAnnouncing that school districts'

""desegregation''. plans would

receive Justice Department. .ap-

proval even if they failed to end

segregation - thus endorsing the

long repudiated -policy of

"`separate but equal:"'

ePublicly repudiating and refusing

to comply with a requirement that

each federal agency develop goals

for. the hiring of minorities and

women; :

tisan organization of more than

250,000 members devoted ex-

clusively to the defense of rights

guaranteed by our Constitution. The

ACLU does not take positions endorsing

or opposing candidates for elective or

appointive office, nor do we do so on the

nomination of Mr. Meese.

Our purpose in appearing before the

Committee is to direct the Senate's atten-

tion to a crisis of great magnitude con-

cerning the administration and enforce-

ment of the civil rights laws of the United

States by the Department of Justice - a

crisis facing the next Attorney General

and one which must be addressed in

detail by Mr. Meese in these confirma-

tion proceedings so that his qualifica-

tions to perform that office can be fully

judged.

American civil rights law is one of the

proudest accomplishments of our poli-

tical system. It represents a thirty-year

Ts ACLU is a nationwide non-par-

bipartisan consensus reflected in scores

of congressional statutes and thousands

of court decisions. The law has three

essential elements: first, all Americans

have enforceable rights to be free from

discrimination on the basis of race, sex,

religion, national origin or handicap,

and these rights cannot be taken away by

executive action; second, the courts have

principal responsiblity for remedying the

abridgement of a person's civil rights;

and third, the federal government has a

special responsibility to enforce civil

rights law vigorously and fairly

throughout the land.

The current Justice Department has

repudiated each of these fundamental

elements of civil rights law. It has done

so at the direction or with the concur-

rence of the White House, and it has

been widely reported that Mr. Meese has

played a major role in many of the Ad-

minstration's actions in this area. The

Attorney General is our nation's top law

enforcement officer. His job is to en-

force the laws evenhandedly, not to try

to change them or interpret them to his

own liking, or the liking of his superior.

But in thearea of civil rights law enforce-

ment that is precisely what this ad-

ministration has been doing for the last

three years, and its actions are breeding

disrespect for the law and threatening to

plunge our nation back into historic pat-

terns of race and sex discrimination.

For the past three years Department of

Justice and White House officials have

_ engaged in a wide variety of actions that

can only be seen as contemptuous of civil

rights law. These actions are described in

detail in the appendix to our testimony.

They include:

e Aiding defendants accused of sub-

jecting institutionalized persons to

abusive and inhumane conditions;

eAttempting to authorize the grant-

ing of tax exemptions to private

schools which practice racial

discrimination, despite clear

legislative policy to the contrary;

eAbandoning the use of an impor-

tant legal principle that has been

crucial to effective enforcement of

the laws against housing discrim-

ination;

eUrging federal courts to interpret

the Voting Rights Act in a manner

~ clearly inconsistent with the intent

of Congress;

eRecommending significant cuts in

the resources of civil rights en-

forcement agencies; and

eRecommending the termination of

funds for programs designed to

foster educational opportunities

for minorities and women.

These actions illustrate that Justice

`Department, officials have repeatedly,

and systematically undermined civil

rights statutes enacted by Congress.

The statutes in question are:

eThe Civil Rights of Institutional-

ized Persons Act of 1980

eThe Voting Rights Act of 1965

eThe Fair Housing Act of 1968

eTitle IX of the Education Act

Amendments of 1972

eTitle IV of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, and

eTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964

This assault on civil rights law enforce-.

ment can be attributed neither to the ex-

ercise of prosecutorial discretion by the

Attorney General, nor to policy disputes

about appropriate civil rights remedies.

Prosecutorial discretion and policy dif-

ferences cannot justify or explain so

many aggressive attacks on so many ex-

isting statutory and judical remedies for

`discrimination; nor can they account for

actions which could very well weaken the

federal government's civil rights enforce-

ment machinery far into the future. Law

enforcement discretion is clearly limited

by the principle that the government can-

not support illegal discrimination or

undermine the mandate of Congress.

There are three basic themes in the

breakdown of federal civil rights en-

forcement which has taken place over the

last three years. First, the Attorney

General has sought to weaken drastically

a crucial part of the federal

government's law enforcement authori-

ty. His actions in the area of civil rights

have been like those of a district attorney

who decides to abandon fraud prosecu-

tions because he disagrees with the way

the legislature has defined the offense.

Second, the Attorney General has ac-

tively and repeatedly opposed voluntary

efforts to remedy civil rights violations

and has undermined long-established

civil rights principles. He has reversed

previous Justice Department positions

on crucial legal issues in at least 19

separate lawsuits.

Third, the federal structure for apie

ing civil rights is severely imperiled by

`proposed. budget cuts, regulatory

modification and political manipulation

of the federal government's only in-

dependent fact-finding and investigatory

civil rights agency, the U.S. Commission

on Civil Rights.

Of all the dangers in 1 this breakdown in

civil rights enforcement, the danger that

looms largest is that it will breed

widespread contempt for the law. How

are private employers, state ad-

ministrators and city officials to interpret

the Justice Deparment's systematic

refusal to faithfully execute the laws of

the United States except as a signal from

Washington that civil rights no longer

have to be taken seriously?

This is a crucial question for this Com-.

mittee in considering the nomination of

Mr. Meese. The available evidence is that

Mr. Meese has been centrally involved in

directing or approving many of the civil

rights actions taken by the Department

of Justice over the past three years. What

is his view of these actions today? What

is his view of the role of Attorney

General in enforcing the nation's civil

rights laws? There are many other civil

liberties issues of central importance to

Mr. Meese's nomination - for example,

his actions and views concerning secrecy

in government, legal services for the

poor, the right to be free from

unreasonable search and seizure, and

government surveillance of lawful

political activities - but no issue is of

greater importance than the role of the

Attorney General in enforcing statutes

and court decisions that Buea equal

justice under law.

alcu news

april 1984 7

_ Rallying for the Right to Dissent

At a rally on the steps of the Federal Building in San Francico on March 16,

ACLU Right to Dissent Committee members and others warned a curious crowd

about threats to the Freedom of Information Act from the Reagan Administration.

The Motion Arts Dance Company attracted onlookers with a piece called ``Destruc-

tion'' (top) and MC Suzanne Donovan of Media Alliance (bottom left) and Juan

Gonzales of El Tecolote (right) spoke of the growing shadow of government censor-

ship under the guise of ``national security.'" ACLU-NC Field Committee chair Dick

Criley showed his thick FOIA file of blanked out pages from the FBI as compelling

evidence of government surveillance dating back decades; Osha Neumann of the

Livermore Action Group told the assembly about government infiltration and

monitoring of anti-nuclear and anti-intervention groups and warned that this practice

would continue unless a strong movement was organized to defend the Freedom of

Information Act and the right to dissent.

The rally ended on a somber note: to the sound of a funeral dirge, four pallbearers

walked through the crowd carrying a casket full of vital information that the govern-

ment is trying to bury. Only the arrival of an ACLU activist armed with the FOIA

was able to save the data from being buried forever under six feet of ``nation-

al security.''

Photos by Paul Winternitz

Gay Rights Veto continued from p. 3

resulted in ``only two dppeals'' being

filed with the Board. Yet gay state

employees, many of whom were active in

the AB 1 effort, have regularly reported

that the real impact of the order is that it

serves as a tool for education and the

basis of conciliation efforts which never

reach the level of a Board appeal. AB 1

could have had the same beneficial effect

for all employers, public or private.

Governor Deukmejian also appears to

have accepted the opposition's conten-

tion that AB 1 would establish a special

protected category for gay workers. This

argument invariably leads to questions as

to whether AB 1 would eventually man-

date affirmative action hiring quotas for

homosexuals. The makers of the argu-

ment were quick to point out that when

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was debated

in Congress, representations were made

`that quotas would not be required as a

result of the non-discrimination law.

According to Macklin ``this argument,

like so many of the groundless attacks on

AB 1, consisted of a great deal of smoke,

a little fire and absolutely no light. AB 1

is a matter of fairness: it adds sexual

orientation to the existing list of grounds

upon which persons may not be sub- .

jected to arbitrary discrimination in an

employment setting.

`"Without the protections this measure

seeks to provide, gay women and men in

California must continue to lead double

lives in the workplace or limit their areas"

of employment to those occupations,

employers and locations where their

private behavior is of no consequence,''

Maklin said. ``This is an unacceptable

condition of employment - and often a

reason for the under-employment - for

gays or for any person who is qualified

and competent to be hired, trained or

promoted for any position."'

AB 1's proponents are now planning a

busy year of organizing activity in an-

ticipation of the bill's sixth reintroduc-

tion in 1985.

A

National

Conference

on

Registration

inal ; ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1984.batch 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 9 yy

A (= (fe

A and the Draft

va Sat. and Sun.

July 14 and 15

on the

UC Berkeley campus

66 B k e h C h e National Conference on Registration and the Draft

reaking the GING 1251 Second Ave., San Francisco, CA 94122, (415) 566-0500

Sponsors: Sacramento Peace Center, Center on Law and Pacifism, Selective Service

of Law Panel of Los Angeles, National Resistance Committee. San Diego County Draft

Resisters Defense Fund, San Diego CARD, CCCO, Militarism Resource Project. National

efe e 9? Lawyers Guild-Military Law Task Force, NISBCO, National CARD, Draft Action. Parents

M q I itarism and Friends Against the Draft, Berkeley Draft Counseling and Resource Center, ASUC

Berkeley Draft Counseling Center, Archdiocese of San Francisco-Social Justice Com-

mission, War Resisters League. Northem California ACLU, Resist, San Francisco Friends

Meeting, Draft Information Alliance

a Retum this form to National Draft Conference on Registration and the Draft, 1251 Second Ave., San Francisco, CA 94122

| QO Yes I am planning to attend, enclosed is $15 for my registration ($5 if under 18). Please send me more details.

i QO [am interested. Please send me more information.

a - 2 [am enclosing a tax-deductible contribution for the conference in the amount of $ ____. (Make checks payable to

: CCCO-WR/National Conference on Registration and the Draft.)

i Name _ Phone

i Address

Comments (please indicate group affiliation if any):

aclu news

april 1984

Tribunal on Immigrant Rights

"Stop the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill'? was the resounding message from more than a

dozen speakers who gave testimony at a ``people's tribunal'' on immigrant rights

sponsored by the Bay Area Committee Against Simpson-Mazzoli held in San Fran-

cisco in March. ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich testified that the

ACLU has fought the bill for three years because ``its provisions of employer sanc-

tions and the possibility of a national ID card trample fundamental civil liberties.''

Bill Hing of the Immigration Clinic at Golden Gate University explained how the

Club, 700 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon; no-

host bar; $12.50 per person. Contact:

Leslie Paul, 415/381-1088.

BeAeReK

~ BOARD MEETING: (Usually fourth

Thursday each month.) Thursday, April

26, Contact Joe Dorst, 415/654-4163.

- CAMPUS ACLU-Debate on Reagan

Administration's Civil Rights Record.

U.C. Berkeley Boalt Hall; date and

speakers to be announced. Contact Liz

Zeck, 415/428-9010 (evenings.)

MID-PENINSULA

Wednesday each month.) Wednesday,

April 25 at 8:00 p.m., All Saints Episcopal

Church, Palo Alto. Contact: Harry

Anisgard, 415/856-9186.

EARL WARREN

BOARD MEETING: (Usually last _

bill's limits on family preference visas would ``separate sister from brother and

parents from children'' especially from Asia and Latin America. Two Salvadoran

refugees spoke of the brutal impact on persons such as themselves who are fleeing

repression and war in their homeland and representatives from legal, immigrant

rights and labor organizations charged that the bill is an attack on workers and would

have a brutally racist impact on citizens and non-citizens alike.

The panel included San Francisco Supervisor Harry Britt, Reverend Gear

Crispin, Oakland City Council member Wilson Riles, Jr., SETU official Luisa Blue

and Ignacio de la Fuente of the International Molders Union. They all called upon

supporters of immigrant rights to contact the House Rules Committee as soon as"

possible to express total opposition to the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill.

FLASH! Hearings on the Mazzoli Bill have been set for April 5 (with likely con-

tinuation on April 11 and 12) in the Rules Committee. Send your telegrams today.

Action Alert!

The ACLU is asking all members and supporters to take the following actions:

@Send a mailgram or telegram stating total opposition to the Mazzoli Immigra- -

tion Bill (HR 1510) to Congressman Claude Pepper, Chair of the House Rules

Committee. (The Senate version sponsored by Senator Simpson passed the Senate

last year.)

eUrge your representative to press for Judiciary Committee hearings on the

Roybal Bill (HR 4909) which does not rely on employer sanctions and a national

ID system.

eCall your representative and demand opposition to Simpson-Mazzoli on the

grounds that it is racist, extremely threatening to basic civil rights; and hugely in-

effective and costly in its attempt to control immigration.

Contact all representatives at: House of Hee Washington, D.C.

20515. Call: 202/225-3121.

LLL PLL DT EN EES CY C2] Cl Sy A NTT

YOLO COUNTY

BOARD MEETING: For information

please call Harry Roth 916/661-0669

(days), or 916/753-0996 (eves).

SAN FRANCISCO

VACANCIES ON BOARD: submit state-

ment of candidacy to ACLU-San Fran-

-cisco Chapter, 1663 Mission St., Suite 460,

San Francisco, Ca 94103. Elections in

May; two-year term. Contact: Andrew

Grimstad, 415/626-5978.

FIELD

COMMITTEE

MEETINGS

PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE: First

SANTA CLARA

BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday

each month.) Wednesday, April 18. Con-

tact: Len Weiler, 415/763-2336.

FRESNO

BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday |

each month.) Wednesday, April 18. Con-

tact: Scott Williams, 209/441-1611.

GAY RIGHTS

BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday, each

month.) Tuesday, April 3 at 7:00 p.m.

Tuesday, May 1 at 7:00 p.m.; ACLU,

1663 Mission Street, Fourth Floor, San

Francisco 94103. Contact: Doug WBErer,

415/621-2493.

MARIN

BOARD MEETING: (Third Monday

each month.) Monday, April 16. Contact:

Alan Cilman, 415/864-8882.

ANNUAL MEETING / COCKTAIL

PARTY / ELECTION OF BOARD OF

DIRECTORS: Congresswoman Barbara

Boxer will speak and present the annual

Benjamin Dreyfus award to Milen Demp-

_ ster. June 2, 7 p.m., Belvedere Tennis

MONTEREY

BOARD MEETING: Tuesday, April 24.

Health Department Conference Room,

County Courthouse, 1200 Aguajito Road,

Monterey. 7:30 p.m. Contact: Richard

Criley, 408/624-7562.

MT. DIABLO

BOARD MEETING: (Fourth Thursday

each month.) Thursday, April 26. Con-

tact: Barbara Eaton, 415/947-0200 (days).

NORTH PEN

BOARD MEETING: (Second Monday

each month.) Monday, April 9, 8:00 p.m.;

Sears Savings Bank, San Mateo. Contact:

Richard Keyes 415/367-8800 (days).

SACRAMENTO

BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday

each month.) Wednesday, April 18. Con-

tact: Mary Gill, 916/457-4088 (evenings.)

BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday each

month.) Tuesday, April 3; Community

Savings Bank, San Jose, 7:30 p.m. Con-

tact: Steve Alpers 415/792-5110.

SANTA CRUZ

BOARD MEETING: (Second Wednesday ~

each month.) Wednesday, April 11; Wed-

nesday, May 9, 8:00 p.m. Louden Nelson

Center, Santa Cruz. Contact: Keith Lesar,

408/688-1666 (days). c

FIRST AMENDMENT ROAD SHOW:

Saturday, April 7. Contact: Keith Lesar,

408/688-1666 (days).

SONOMA

BOARD MEETING: (Usually third

Thursday each month.) Thursday, April

26. Contact: Andrea Learned,

707/544-6911.

STOCKTON

BOARD MEETING: (Third Thursday

each month.) Thursday, April 19. Con-

tact: Bart Harloe, 209/946-2431 (days).

Wednesday each month, alternating be-

tween 6:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. Wednes-

day, April 4, 7:30 p.m. - all pro-choice

supporters and friends welcome. Contact:

Dick Grosboll, 415/387-0575 (evenings).

RIGHT TO DISSENT SUBCOMMIT-

TEE: First Wednesday each month, alter-

nating between 6:00 and 7:30 p.m.

Wednesday, April 4, 6:00 p.m. Contact:

Marcia Gallo at ACLU-NC.

*DRAFT OPPOSITION NETWORK:

ACLU-NC office in San Francisco, 1663

Mission Street. Contact: Judy nes Se

415/567-1527.

*IMMIGRATION WORKING GROUP:

ACLU-NC office in San Francisco, 1663

Mission Street. Contact: Andrea Learned,

707/544-6911 (days).

_ *NOTE: Speakers from each group can

visit your chapter to brief you on:

-the current status of the draft opposi-

tion movement. They'll also show one of

three anti-draft videotapes/slide-shows to _

your board members: `"`Don't Let The

Draft Blow You Away,'' ``Choice or

Chance,'' or ``Conscience.'' Contact:

Judy Newman, 415/567-1527, for schedul-

ing.

-civil liberties and immigration. Members

of the Immigration Working Group will

discuss the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, denials

of visas to Central Americans and other

immigrants' rights issues. Contact Andrea

Learned, 707/544-6911 for scheduling.