vol. 68, no. 1

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

ACL

Ts ae

BECAUSE

PAGE 9

Backlash Profile:

What's in a Name?

WHAT'S INSIDE |

PAGE 2

Landmark Settlement Marriages Shut Down:

for LGBTI Students | ACLU Files Suit

| PAGE 8

Reforming the SFPD:

SF's Proposition H

HISTORY IN THE MAKING:

SAME-SEX COUPLES WED AT CITY HALL

hey stepped out of San Francisco's City Hall and into the history books.

Thousands of same-sex couples braved wind, rain, and the wrath of the

anti-gay lobby this February, waiting hours for a simple privilege that had

been denied them for years: a marriage license.

FREEDOM

"We've waited 51 long years for this day, for the right to

get married," said Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79, the

first couple to wed at City Hall on Feb. 12, 2004. "We've

been in a committed and loving relationship since 1953."

Martin and Lyon were one of more than 3,000 gay and

lesbian couples to tie the knot in San Francisco after Mayor

Gavin Newsom, on just his 35th day in office, directed city

officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Spurred by President Bush's advocacy of a constitutional

amendment banning same-sex unions, Newsom was deter-

mined to take action. After consulting with legal advocates

for the LGBTI community, including ACLU of Northern

California (ACLU-NC) staff attorney Tamara Lange,

Newsom took a bold step. He instructed the City Attorney's

office to amend the City's marriage license to make the lan-

guage gender-neutral.

Newsom explained that he had taken an oath to uphold

the California constitution, including its promise of equal

protection for all Californians. "What we were doing before

last Thursday [Feb. 12], from my perspective, was clearly, by

any objective, discriminatory," he told CNN.

On Feb. 12, 2004, the City and County of San Francisco

began granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

ACLU STAFF WITNESS FIRST WEDDING

"It was profoundly moving," says ACLU-NC associate

director Bob Kearney. "What had been about politics and

strategy all week was brought back down to what really matters:

an intimate, personal relationship between two people who

want nothing more than to pledge their lives to one another."

ACLU staffers Kearney and Lange witnessed the marriage

of Lyon and Martin, and those of four other couples to wed

CAN =| 22 Red iE (c) Lis 61 F

VOLUME LXVIII ISSUE 1

PAGE 12

ACLU Forum:

Saving Choice, Saving Lives

CENTER SPREAD

Taking Back the Nation:

2003 Year in Review

GIGI PANDIAN

Couples line up outside City Hall, Feb. 17, 2004

that first day.

Lyon and Martin met in Seattle in 1950, moved to San

Francisco, and bought a house together in 1955. Lyon

worked as a journalist; Martin as a bookkeeper, and together

the women fought for LGBT rights. As gay seniors, Martin

and Lyon faced an extraordinary set of issues: would they be

allowed to share a room in a nursing home? What would

happen to one when the other passes away?

Now that they are married, they have achieved a lifelong

dream. "Del and I vowed on February 12, 2004, to `love and

comfort, honor and keep in sickness and health, for richer or

poorer, for better or for worse and be faithful as long as we

both shall live," says Lyon. "While we have lived these vows

for all our 51 years together, it was very meaningful and

important to do so as intended legal spouses."

As Lyon and Martin exchanged vows, continued on page 6

PATRIOT ACT ANTIDOTE: THE SAFE ACT

By Bob Cuddy, ACLU News Contributor

ver the last two years, a vigorous and broad-based

citizen campaign has persuaded local and state

governments to adopt resolutions opposing the USA

Patriot Act. Now, with the 260th resolution passing in

March 2004, and a storm brewing in Washington, DC, over

the reauthorization of controversial provisions that sunset

next year, civil libertarians are ready to up the ante. "It's

time to pressure Congress to bring the Patriot Act back in

line with our Constitution,"says Dorothy Ehrlich, executive

director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern

California (ACLU-NC).

"We want to build on the city council resolutions at the

national level," says Bob Kearney, associate director of the

ACLU-NC. "And we don't just want people to get angry: We

want them to get active."

The target of reform efforts is a bill that is currently before

Congress. The SAFE Act-SAFE stands

continued on page 4

The 2004 National ACLU Membership Conference is coming to San Francisco

JULY 6-8: STAND UP FOR FREEDOM

On July 4 we the celebrate the birth of freedom in America.

On July 6-8 we redouble our efforts to protect it.

Sign up at www.aclu.org, or call 212-549-2590

NEW CALIFORNIA MEDIA AWARDS

ACLU of Northern California executive

director Dorothy Ehrlich (right), with award-

winner Tram Nguyen of ColorLines, presented

the awards for best civil liberties journalism at

the New California Media (NCM) ethnic

media awards ceremony on November 18,

2003. The ACLU-NC was proud to

participate in NCM's annual EXPO and

awards, which brought together over 2,000

people to celebrate and learn about the ethnic

media's growing role in public communication.

NCM is a nationwide association of over 700

varied ethnic media organizations.

SHAPIRO LUNCH

DONORS GET INSIDE VIEW OF SUPREME COURT

By Stan Yogi, Planned Giving Director

ocal members of the ACLU's DeSilver Society got the

scoop on last year's U.S. Supreme Court term from

Steven Shapiro, national ACLU legal director, at a

special lunch on November 14.

Shapiro explained that although the Court ended its year

with two important decisions promoting civil liberties -

upholding the University of Michigan's law school affirmative

action program, and extending to lesbians and gay men

the fundamental right to establish intimate, personal

relationships-earlier decisions, including the validation of

California's draconian "Three Strikes" law, undercut civil

liberties. Shapiro predicted that if the justices uphold a

lower court ruling in the California case challenging the

constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of

Allegiance, the ACLU will be fighting against a constitutional

amendment to retain those words in the Pledge.

Later that day, Shapiro spoke to members of the ACLU's

Lawyers Council, which includes hundreds of lawyers from

academic,

the legal,

public interest, and

business communities,

whose leadership and

financial commitment

support the ACLU of

Northern California's

work. That evening, he

met with contributors to

the ACLU's endowment

campaign.

GIGI PANDIAN

The DeSilver Society is the ACLU's special recognition

group for supporters who have included the ACLU in their

estate and financial plans. The ACLU appears before the

U.S. Supreme Court more often than any other body or

organization except the Department of Justice. Shapiro heads

a team of over 50 lawyers in the ACLU's legal department,

and oversees the ACLU's strategy and presentation of cases in

the nation's highest court. m=

Shifting estate tax laws have implications for individu-

als and couples who have previously set up a Will or

Living Trust and also for those who haven't yet done so.

IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN LEARNING ABOUT:

= How the latest estate planning rules affect your

existing plans

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_1985.batch ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1986.batch ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1987.batch ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1988.batch ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1989.batch ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1990.batch ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1991.batch ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1992.batch ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1993.batch ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1994.batch ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1995.batch ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1996.batch ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1997.batch ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1998.batch ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_1999.batch ACLUN_2000 ACLUN_2000.MODS ACLUN_2000.batch ACLUN_2001 ACLUN_2001.MODS ACLUN_2001.batch ACLUN_2002 ACLUN_2002.MODS ACLUN_2002.batch ACLUN_2003 ACLUN_2003.MODS ACLUN_2003.batch ACLUN_2004 ACLUN_2004.MODS ACLUN_2004.batch ACLUN_2005 ACLUN_2005.MODS ACLUN_2006 ACLUN_2006.MODS ACLUN_2007 ACLUN_2007.MODS ACLUN_2008 ACLUN_2008.MODS ACLUN_2009 ACLUN_2009.MODS ACLUN_2010 ACLUN_2010.MODS ACLUN_2011 ACLUN_2011.MODS ACLUN_2012 ACLUN_2012.MODS ACLUN_2013 ACLUN_2013.MODS ACLUN_2014 ACLUN_2014.MODS ACLUN_2015 ACLUN_2015.MODS ACLUN_2016 ACLUN_2016.MODS ACLUN_2017 ACLUN_2017.MODS ACLUN_2018 ACLUN_2018.MODS ACLUN_2019 ACLUN_2019.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log How to establish an estate plan based on

current laws

= How to include the ACLU in your estate plans

Please join us for a special seminar with estate

planning attorneys.

ESTATE PLANNING IN A CHANGING TAX WORLD

Refreshments will be served at 6:30pm, and the seminar will begin promptly at 7:00pm. Space is limited, so reserve your place now by returning

the form below or calling Stan Yogi at (415) 621-2493, ext. 330, or e-mailing syogi@aclunc.org.

L_| YES, | WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THE BASICS OF ESTATE PLANNING

|_|] I CANNOT ATTEND, BUT PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU PLAN TO HAVE ANOTHER SEMINAR.

TOPICS COVERED INCLUDE:

= Goals of estate planning

= Changes in tax and estate laws

" The probate process

= Reducing estate taxes

" Providing more for the organizations and people

you care about.

MAY 12 AT 7PM

Monterey City Library

625 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA

FREE FOR ALL ACLU MEMBERS!

PLEASE RESERVE PLACES.

NAME:

ADDRESS:

CITY: STATE: ZIP:

TELEPHONE: E-MAIL:

Please return to: Stan Yogi, Director of Planned Giving, ACLU Foundation of Northern California

1663 Mission Street, Suite 460, San Francisco, CA 94103

BOARD ELECTION

S

ULI

ACLUnews

THE QUARTERLY PUBLICATION OF THE

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA.

Membership ($20 and up) includes a subscription to

the ACLU News. For membership information call

415-621-2493 or visit www.aclunc.org/join.html.

Quinn Delaney, CHAIR

Dorothy Ehrlich, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Rachel Swain, EDITOR

Gigi Pandian, EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Underground Advertising, DESIGN

1663 Mission Street #460, San Francisco, CA 94103

415-621-2493

2 | ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF

SETTLEMENT WILL PROTECT (c)

LGBT! STUDENTS

By Derek Turner, ACLU Intern

n one of the most far-reaching settlements of its kind,

| the Morgan Hill Unified School District has agreed to a

reform of its harassment policies and a comprehensive

training program for its students and faculty. The settlement

brought to an end a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Northern

California (ACLU-NC) and the National Center for Lesbian

Rights on behalf of six students who faced unrelenting

harassment because of their sexual orientation.

At an emotional news conference at the ACLU-NC offices

on January 6, plaintiffs Alana Flores and Freddie Fuentes

emphasized the importance of the settlement. "I am so

happy that the district has finally recognized the seriousness

of this problem and is ready to do something to stop it," said

"The kind of abuse I had to deal with every day

when I went to school was

horrible. No student should

have to face that."

Flores.

IN THE NEIGHBORING

COMMUNITY OF GILROY,

JUST SOUTH OF MORGAN

HILL, SCHOOL DISTRICT

OFFICIALS ARE REEXAM-

INING THEIR POLICIES TO

ENSURE THAT ALL OF

THEIR STUDENTS HAVE A

SAFE PLACE 10 LEARN.

In addition to the policy

reforms and training pro-

grams, the school district also

agreed to a monetary award

in excess of $1.1 million.

Located just 10 miles

south of San Jose, Morgan

Hill is a school district that

serves over 9,000 students

in 15 different schools.

The plaintiffs in this case

students between

1991 and 1998 in three of

the district's schools, during which time they experienced a

were

torrent of verbal and physical homophobic attacks. Despite

repeated requests, school administrators and district officials

did not intervene to protect the students.

The school district denied any wrongdoing, arguing that

officials were not aware of their responsibilities under the

law. On April 8, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

"IF YOU'RE NOT GAY,

ruled that if a school district is aware that anti-gay harass-

ment is happening, it must take "meaningful" steps to stop

it, and sent the suit back to district court for trial. The rul-

ing covers all nine states of the court's jurisdiction, but will

likely be influential throughout

the nation.

The mandatory training pro-

THEN WHY ARE YOU

CRYING?"

gram will begin this school year

and run through 2007 for staff.

It will include exercises on how

A MORGAN HILL ASSISTANT to address anti-gay harassment,

PRINCIPAL TO ALANA FLORES panel presentations by students

who have witnessed or been vic-

tims of harassment, and education on the legal responsibili-

ties of district employees. There will also be periodic policy

reviews and a bimonthly discussion of school safety, includ-

ing the issue of anti-gay harassment, in staff meetings.

For students, the mandatory program will begin in the fall

of 2004 and run through 2008. Seventh graders will attend

a 50-minute training session that is exclusively about anti-

gay harassment, and ninth graders will do peer-to-peer train-

ings and discussions.

"This settlement serves both as a model and a lesson for

the rest of the country," says ACLU-NC attorney Ann Brick.

"Tt serves as a model that can be copied by schools across the

country that are committed to making anti-gay harassment a

thing of the past. For those schools that persist in taking a

hear-no-evil-see-no-evil approach to anti-gay harassment, it

is a lesson in liability."

Already, it appears to be working. In the neighboring com-

munity of Gilroy, school district officials are reexamining

their policies to ensure that all of their students havea safe

place to learn. "As a result of some of the issues that we heard

about in Morgan Hill, we thought it might be a good idea to

look at our training and our requirements," says Gilroy

District Superintendent Edwin Diaz. "Sometimes, when

something like this happens, it makes you look back again at

your own policies." =

MEDICAL MARIJUANA

In a victory for the First Amendment, the U.S. Supreme

Court declined to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling that

physicians have a First Amendment right to recommend

the medical use of marijuana to their patients. Noting that

"a doctor's recommendation does not itself constitute ille-

gal conduct," the court affirmed a lower court injunction

prohibiting the government from investigating a doctor or

attempting to revoke a doctor's prescription drug license

solely because he or she has recommended the medical use

of marijuana. The ruling was the result of a federal class

action lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Northern California,

the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project, and the

Altshuler Berzon firm on behalf of a group of physicians

and patients. The suit was filed in response to the govern-

ments attempt to undermine Proposition 215 by threat-

ening to revoke the prescription drug licenses of physi-

cians who recommend the medical use of marijuana to

their patients. Conant v. Walters

INTERNET SPEECH

The California Court of Appeal has ruled that Section

230(c)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 does

not provide absolute immunity from lawsuits for those

who post material on the Internet that was written by

someone else. Instead, the court held that if the Internet

LEGAL BRIEFS

THE! PLAINTIFFS

FREDDIE FUENTES was

_in the seventh grade

when he was sur-

rounded at a school

bus stop by a group

. including a a porno-

graphic picture of a

: NA FLORES

woman, bound an

responded,

_anymore," a

you =

Over $1.1 million.

Mandatory training for school staff and fa

ulty through the 2006-2007 school year, _-

including exercises on how to address anti-

gay harassment, and education on the legal -

responsibilities of district employees.

Pevedic pone: reviews ae a bimonthly dis- _

user has been put on notice that the material in question

is claimed to be defamatory, the user posts at his or her

own risk. The ACLU of Northern California, along with

the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed an amicus brief

in the case arguing that Internet health activist Ilena

Rosenthal could not be sued for defamation based on her

use of an Internet newsgroup to repost messages written

by another person. We pointed out that e-mail, news-

groups, and bulletin boards are often used to exchange or

forward items of interest written by others. By limiting the

protection afforded by Section 230, the court of appeal

has made it riskier to share the work of others via the

Internet. Barrett v. Rosenthal

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS

Anti-gay forces filed two lawsuits challenging

California's groundbreaking domestic partnership legisla-

tion, AB 205, which will provide domestic partners with

Ag Sys s

couples when it goes into effect in January 2005. All three

ACLU affiliates in California, along with the ACLU

national office, Lambda Legal, and the National Center

for Lesbian Rights successfully intervened in one of the

cases on behalf of Equality California and 12 same-sex

couples who need the protections that AB 205 will pro-

vide. We are also representing the same clients as amici in

the second case, and our request to coordinate the two

cases has been granted. -

We obrained an important win at the outset, when a

Sacramento Superior Court judge found the challenges to

the new law are unlikely to succeed and allowed the state

to continue its plan to implement AB 205. Summary

judgment briefing will take place over the next several _

a ee v, Pans

SAME-SEX PARENTS

The California Court of Appeals for the Second District

held oral argument in January in a case challenging the

validity of a non-biological mothers parentage decree.

Kristine and Lisa decided to have a child together. While

Kristine was pregnant with their child, they jointly

obtained a decree identifying Lisa as their daughter's legal

parent. Kristine and Lisa later ended their relationship,

and Kristine filed suit claiming that Lisa has no parental

rights. After oral argument, the Appellate Court ordered

additional briefing on several issues, including questions

about the possibility of a sexual-orientation-neutral inter-

pretation of California family law. The ACLU of Northern

California, the ACLU of Southern California and the

National Center for Lesbian Rights are participating as

amici and were permitted to present oral argument on

Lisa's behalf. Kristine H. uv. Lisa R

ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF | 3

PATRIOT ACT canines rom gage

for Security and Freedom Enhanced-aims to square the

Patriot Act with the U.S. Constitution by reforming its most

troubling provisions.

"The SAFE Act is our first concrete opportunity to start

rolling back what we know is wrong," says Kearney.

MAKING LIBRARIES SAFE

Libraries have been a concern almost from the day the

Patriot Act sailed through Congress, with the prospect of

government agents watching what we read sending a chill

down many ordinary Americans' spines.

Under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, government agents,

operating under the shield of an expanded Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act, have virtually untrammeled

power to search innocent Americans library, bank or medical

records. All they need to do is declare to a judge that they

want the target's records for a counter-terrorism investiga-

tion. The judge cannot turn them down.

"It takes away the power of judges to review information,"

Kearney says, "and throws the balance of power toward the

police. It creates a rubber stamp, and it's ordinary Americans

who are paying the price."

TAKE ACTION

The SAFE Act would protect the privacy of library records,

medical information, and financial statements by requiring

individualized suspicion before the government can search

somebody's personal records. It would require the govern-

ment to show "specific and articulable facts" that the records

in question belong to a spy, terrorist or other foreign agent,

and would amend the law to clarify that federal agents may

not use "national security letters" to obtain the records of a

public library's computers without a court order.

ACLU AND LIBRARY ASSOCIATION URGE ACTION

Like the ACLU, the American Library Association

and its affiliates were out front early in raising the

alarm about the Patriot

Act. "The Patriot Act is

a clear and present dan-

ger to our civil liberties,

and is an assault on

free speech in an open

society, says Karen

Schneider, chair of

the California Library

Association (CLA)'s

intellectual freedom

committee.

ats: = why 9 as

President Bush urged

reauthorization of the

Patriot Act in his State of

the Union address, the

ACLU-NC and the CLA

teamed up to launch a

counteroffensive.

Full-page advertise-

ments ran in independ-

ent newspapers with a

combined circulation of

more than one million throughout the region, from

Monterey to Eureka. The ads (see p. 9) show a student at

work, with the words: "Don't you just hate it when someone

reads over your shoulder? Especially when that someone is

the Justice Department."

Through the ad campaign and other efforts, we called on

members of Congress to support the SAFE Act, and many

members swiftly answered the call. Congressmen Pete Stark,

George Miller, Sam Farr and Tom Lantos joined

Congresswomen Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey as cospon-

sors of the SAFE Act, with Rep. Lantos even writing a pow-

erful op-ed in support. In March, Democratic House leader

and San Francisco Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi also

cosponsored the bill, saying it would, "ensure that the

Attorney General's far-reaching powers are not abused."

"We support the SAFE act so that libraries can continue to

remain institutions of free expression and exploration of

ideas," says CLA president, Susan Hildreth.

REINING IN SEARCHES

Its not only personal records that are at risk under the

Patriot Act. The SAFE Act also reins in a provision that

allows the government to search innocent Americans'

property-without notification.

The SAFE Act would put an end to most "sneak and peek"

searches, permitting the government to delay notice of a

search warrant only for one of three reasons: preserving life

or physical safety; preventing flight from prosecution, or;

preventing destruction of evidence.

In addition, the SAFE Act expands protections now in

place against domestic wiretaps for foreign intelligence inves-

tigations. Under the Patriot Act, the powers to eavesdrop

were greatly expanded, and left open the possibility that fed-

eral agents could listen in on conversations between people

who were not targets of an investigation.

The SAFE Act would also ensure that key provisions

sunset in 2005.

LEFT-RIGHT ALLIANCE

The Patriot Act looks set to move to the eye of the

TAKE ACTION

: _on a oe i enforcement _

_ agencies. It is opposed by law enforcement,

including the California Police Chiefs

_ Association.

= The CLEAR Act would wake immigrant

communities afraid to talk to " or

report crime.

= The CLEAR Act a increase racial protling

American citizens and | permanent residents:

would be stopped or questioned based solely on

their 2 accent.

a their ethnic i edged f

election-season storm. President Bush laid down the gauntlet

during his State of the Union address, drawing protests from

Democrats when he urged Congress to renew provisions that

are scheduled to sunset next year, and, days later, threatened

to veto the SAFE Act.

Yet the Patriot Act has drawn fire from both sides of the

aisle. The ACLU-NC's Kearney notes that people from

across the political spectrum are battling with ever-increasing

vigor to save fundamental freedoms. "This is a rare and

important opportunity for the left and the right to come

together," he says.

Indeed, the SAFE Act is co-sponsored by conservative Sen.

Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and liberal Sen. Dick Durbin (D-

Illinois). A companion bill in the House of Representatives is

being carried by Rep. Butch Otter (R-Idaho). Liberal

Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts and conserva-

tive Jeff Flake of Arizona have signed on, as have others of all

political persuasions.

The breadth of the opposition is an indicator of the height

of the stakes, notes Kearney. "The Bush administration is

pushing for permanent changes to our rights," he says,

adding that those who say we need to retain these protections

only until the U.S. wins

the war on terror are

THE SAFE ACT-SAFE

STANDS FOR SECURITY

AND FREEDOM ENHANCED

- AIMS TO SQUARE THE

overlooking an impor-

tant fact: "There is no

one to surrender in a war

on terror."

TIME FOR A CHANGE

PATRIOT ACT WITH THE

U.S. CONSTITUTION BY

REFORMING ITS MOST

It has been more than

two years since a pan-

icked Congress passed

the Patriot Act, just 45

days after Sept. 11, 2001.

Fe eis,

opposition were few, and

TROUBLING PROVISIONS.

the voices of

quiet. But now that such

a broad range of individuals and organizations, including

several members of Congress who initially voted for the Act,

have joined the rising chorus of discontent, the ACLU-NC's

Ehrlich believes the tide may finally turn.

"Millions of Americans are demanding that freedom be

restored to keep America both safe and free," she says.

"It may take time, but eventually, their voices will surely

prevail. Passing the SAFE Act is the first scene in a much

longer drama." am

g

4 | ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF

SPECIAL REGISTRATION REDUX

parks flew when the Bush administration instructed males from a list of

mainly Middle Eastern countries to report to their local INS offices for

fingerprinting and registration. Under fire from a host of critics, includ-

ing the ACLU, the government later terminated a portion of the discrimina-

tory program. But for many, this partial victory only caused more confusion.

Here, associate legal director Jayashri Srikantiah cuts through the clutter.

More than 83,000 men and boys flocked to their local

immigration offices in the fall and winter of 2003. They were

registration and fingerprinting? These were regular people:

high school students, fathers, businesspeople, who had,

seeking to comply with the new National Entry Exit often unwittingly, over-

THE TYPICAL REGISTRANT

Registration System (NSEERS), or special registration, which stayed their visas.

required males over the age of 16 who were citizens and The programs sparked

WAS NOT A TERRORIST-

" nationals of 24 mostly Muslim countries to register with their outrage and widespread

local immigration office or face possible arrest and protest. In northern

WHAT TERRORIST WOULD activist

deportation. The program also required individuals to register California,

groups including the

ANGIW ot = Northern

California (ACLU-

NC) condemned spe-

at ports of entry to the United States.

VOLUNTARILY SUBMIT

Special registration caused mass confusion, fear, and worse.

Thousands were detained. And for many, their worst fears

TO REGISTRATION AND

were realized. Deportation proceedings were initiated against

almost 14,000 men and boys. Yet the typical registrant was cial registration at a

FINGERPRINTING? series of impassioned

rallies. The ACLU-NC

also wrote letters to members of the northern California

not a terrorist -what terrorist would voluntarily submit to

= RESOLUTIONS WATCH Le

"TOTAL NUMBER OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED

_ AGAINST THE USA PATRIOT ACT AS OF MARCH 2, 2004

congressional delegation demanding that the program be

terminated. The ACLU-NC and others condemned the pro-

gram as a discriminatory dragnet targeting individuals based

on place of birth rather than on individualized suspicion

based on behavior.

In the winter of 2003, the

announced that it

Bush

administration

would suspend por-

tions of the special

pro-

gram. Yet it was only a

registration

partial victory. The sus-

pended provisions were

those requiring that indi-

viduals re-register annually

with local offices, and that

people who registered on

Cities and counties continue to join the relentless entering the United States

march against the USA Patriot Act. As of March 2,

2004, the total number of resolutions passed

submit to a follow-up inter-

view. Other onerous provisions

books. For

instance, the program continues to

against the Patriot Act was 261. Since our last remained on the

_ report in July 2003, thanks to the work of numerous

ACLU chapters, activists, and allied organizations, sharply limit the ports allowed for

the fol swing communities in northern California _ the departure of those who have reg-

solu istered, and requires registrants to sub-

mit to in-person "exit" registration with

a designated immigration

official,

obscure location.

And for the 14,000

facing deportation, and

often at an

their families, the dam-

age is already done.

The

tion continues to

administra-

enforce other parts

of the special regis-

tration program,

- SAN RAMON (OCTOBER oO

_- SOLEDAD (OCTOBER 15)

a SACRAMENTO (NOVEMBER 13)

including require-

ments that regis-

trants inform the

. Department of

`Ios heels, New ee NY, a Dalles, TX, also o

tions in oy 2004.

Homeland Security

- passed anci-Patriot Act r re of changes of address

within ten days, and port-of-entry registration for citizens or

nationals of five Middle Eastern countries.

The Bush administration's decision to terminate only por-

tions of the program, along with its failure to publicize the

program's remaining requirements, has created further confu-

sion in immigrant communities. The administration has failed

to adequately notify immigrants of the program's require-

ments, even though the penalties for non-compliance may

include deportation. Those who unwittingly fail to satisfy the

departure requirements, for example, will be deemed in viola-

tion of the law and may face the penalty of being denied per-

mission to return to the United States.

The state of confusion has only been exacerbated by the

administration's institution of a new program termed US

VISIT. As of January 2004, 24 million foreign visitors to the

United States will be required to include fingerprints and

photos in their passports. By announcing the US VISIT

program, while maintaining the confusing and discrim-

inatory requirements of special registration,

the government continues to

trap unwary

ee immigrants

who have made

every effort to com-

ply with the law.

The ACLU and other

organizations are working to

ensure that immigrant commu-

nities know their rights, and will

continue to fight for America's new

"disappeared." The battle to end special

registration has only just begun. =

__*(R) Registrants must infor

__*PLEASE NOTE TH

PRIMARY REQUI

ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF | 5

SAME-SEX COUPLES cosines rom age

a crowd gathered outside City Hall. Word of the marriages

was spreading across the city, but many LGBTI rights

activists arrived not for the weddings but for a long-planned

rally: Feb. 12 is Freedom to Marry day. Assemblyman Mark

Leno (D-San Francisco) marked the day by introducing the

California Non-Discrimination Act, a bill in the California

Legislature that would permit same-sex marriage.

"The mood at City Hall was beyond excitement," says

Kearney. "The Mayor came out and people were effusive in

their praise. You could see people feeling validated in their

relationships in a way they never had before. We felt we were

witnessing history in the making."

THE QUEST FOR EQUALITY

With the media spotlight focused on the city, couples from

around the nation and world flocked to join the lines snaking

around the courthouse. The mood was by turns euphoric

and reflective as couples, some clad in wedding dresses and

tuxedos, others in sneakers and rain jackets, waited their

turn.

"We wanted to get married because we love each other,"

says Sarah Conner-Smith, who changed her name from

Sarah Conner after marrying her partner, Gillian Smith.

"Being married is the only universally understood way we

have of expressing the

depth

nence of our commit-

and perma-

"AMERICANS WILL LOOK

ment to each other." s

While love comes BACK ON THESE DAYS AND

first, for many cou WaNDER WHY WE EVER

ples, marriage is also

about equal recogni - EWIED TWO PEOPLE IN

tion under the law.

`Wes about "legal

LOVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY

rights," says Andrea

JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR

Fontenot of Santa

Barbara, who joined

the line with her part- | SEXUAL ORIENTATION."

ner, Erin, and their

baby daughter, Etta, at TAMARA LANGE, ACLU-NC

5:30a.m.on Tuesday,

Feb. 17. "Why make

some groups second-class citizens?" Fontenot is working to

legally adopt Etta, whose birth mother is Erin.

California and San Francisco have some of the strongest

protections for domestic partners in the nation, particularly

with AB 205, a state law that goes into effect next year, grant-

ing domestic partners the same benefits as married couples.

Even so, domestic partnerships fall far short of actual mar-

riage. Social security, immigration rights for noncitizen

spouses, and a range of other federal benefits remain out of

reach. In 1996, Congress passed the "Defense of Marriage

Act," anti-gay legislation that denies same-sex couples a laun-

dry list of benefits. To compound the situation, AB 205 is

being challenged in the courts by anti-gay activists.

"Denying same-sex couples the right to marry denies them

hundreds of important rights," says Lange.

Driven by the desire to solemnize their relationships, many

couples camped out overnight over the long President's Day

weekend, despite chilling rains. They were hoping to tie the

knot before anti-gay forces succeeded in their efforts to shut

the weddings down.

TAKING THE BATTLE TO THE COURTS

As soon as the mayor's plan took shape, attorneys from the

ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR),

and Lambda Legal began working alongside city attorneys to

stave off the inevitable attempts by anti-gay groups to stop

the weddings.

Sure enough, as soon as the weddings began, the Alliance

Defense Fund (ADF) and the Campaign for California

Families headed to court to challenge Mayor Newsom's

authority to issue the licenses in two separate lawsuits.

In both cases, superior court judges refused to issue stays

that would halt the weddings - in a clear indication that the

weddings were harming no one.

On Feb. 17, Judge James Warren also granted a motion by

the ACLU, NCLR and Lambda to intervene in the ADF suit

IN SICKNESS AND IN HEALTH

Sarah and Gillian

Conner-Smith will

never forget May 13,

2000: "We fell in

love at first sight and

have been in a com-

mitted relationship

since tau. day,

Sarah says.

Sarah and Gillian

have lived the mar-

riage vows "in sick-

ness and in health,

for better or worse"

despite not being

allowed to get mar-

ried. For two of the

four years Sarah and

Gillian have been together, one has had to support the

other both financially and emotionally through a severe

disability that required several surgeries and extensive

recuperation. Their love and commitment was so

strong, they did not need a marriage license to tell them

how to act in this time of crisis. But being legally

married would have made this experience easier

to endure.

"It is important to us that we have legal protections

for out relationship should we ever have to go through

Sarah and Gillian Conner-Smith (center l-r) shortly after

their wedding, with ACLU-NC staffers Tamara Lange and

Bob Kearney.

something like that again," Sarah says. "Being married is

the only universally understood way we have of express-

ing the depth and permanence of our-commitment to

each other."

Sarah, 35, and Gillian, 34, live in Oakland, California. m

on behalf of five same-sex couples, including Lyon and

Martin and the Conner-Smiths. The groups argued that

excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry violates

the equal protection and due process provisions of the

California constitution.

These provisions, they said, outweigh the petitioners' claims

that Proposition 22, the state initiative defining marriage as

between a man and a woman, outlaws the mayor's actions.

"Just as we told the state in 1974 when they passed a

statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman, that kind

of discrimination against same-sex couples violates the

California constitution's promise of equality," says ACLU-

NC executive director Dorothy Ehrlich. "Discrimination in

marriage was wrong then and it's wrong now."

SAN FRANCISCO TAKES THE LEAD

The controversy soon spread beyond San Francisco, with

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger instructing California

Attorney General Bill Lockyer to sue the city. Laws banning

same-sex marriage began moving through a handful of state

legislatures. And in

the most ominous

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS

move of all, President

Bush

endorsed a constitu-

FALL FAR SHORT OF ACTUAL oneal

tional amendment

MARRIAGE. SOCIAL SECU-

that would bar same-

sex marriage.

RITY, IMMIGRATION RIGHTS

Yet others rallied to

FOR NONCITIZEN SPOUSES, the

Assemblywoman

cause. State

AND A RANGE OF OTHER Carole Migden mar-

ried her partner of 20

FEDERAL BENEFITS REMAIN years at City Hall on

Feb. 19. Talk-show

host Rosie O'Donnell

and her partner trav-

OUT OF REACH.

eled to San Francisco to solemnize their relationship. And

officials in New Paltz, New York; Portland, Oregon;

Sandoval, New Mexico; and Asbury Park, New Jersey began

issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"It's hard to believe that not that long ago Americans did

not tolerate marriages between Catholics and Protestants or

between people of different races because they thought it was

immoral and violated God's will," says Lange. "As marriages

between same-sex couples become more common, most

Americans will look back on these days and wonder why we

ever denied two people in love the right to marry just

because of their sexual orientation." m=

TAKE ACTION

OPPOSE THE FEDERAL

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT!

Write your Members of Congress and urge them to

oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment (H.]. Res

56/S.]. Res 26). Tell them:

= Amending the Constitution is an extreme act.

The proposed amendment would deny the right

to marry to gay and lesbian couples and obliter-

ate the family rights that many same-sex and

unmarried couples now have. _

= The Federal Marriage Amendment is unneces-_

sary. Even though the country has strugeled _

with the question of marriage-the last law pro-

hibiting interracial marriage was overturned only _

35 years ago--we have never amended the

Constitution to define marriage. -

s The Federal Marriage Amendment rejects

___ American traditions of life, liberty and the

pursuit of happiness. None of our constitution-

al amendments restrict individual freedoms. In

fact, the amendments to the Constitution have

been the source of most of the Constitution's

protections for individual liberty rights.

To take action directly, visit our special feature at

www, aclunc.org.

6 | ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF

ANNA HAUPTMANN

ACLU clients Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper outside City Hall

before they learned that their wedding could not go forward.

eanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper had the champagne on ice

back at their Tiburon home as they drove over the Golden

Gate Bridge to San Francisco, ready to make the commit-

ment of a lifetime. Fifty family members and friends were at

City Hall, eagerly waiting for the women, who had been partners

for 15 years, to descend the marble staircase as a married couple.

But the euphoria soon turned to heartbreak as Rizzo, 57,

and Cooper, 48, became one of the first same-sex couples to

be denied a marriage license since February 12.

Moments before the couple was due to wed on Thursday,

March 11,the California Supreme Court ordered the City to

halt the weddings until the Court determined whether Mayor

Gavin Newsom had the authority to order city officials to

issue licenses to same-sex couples.

Television cameras swarmed around a tearful Rizzo and

Cooper as they greeted their dismayed friends. "Promise us

youll come back," Rizzo said. "One day, soon, we will have

our day. We'll be back."

WHAT IS FREEDOM?

YOUTH CONFERENCE TACKLES TOUGH QUESTIONS

By Jenni Lerche, Carlmont High School

undreds of students from cities and schools around the

region traveled to the Howard A. Friedman First

Amendment Project's Youth Rights Conference at San

Jose State University on October 30, 2003. From the confer-

ence's inception, it was clear that the attendees were passion-

ate and emphatic about the issues of the day. Posters displayed

around the main auditorium posed questions like, "What do

you think about California's new governor?" and "What is

freedom?" More so in past years, the black sheets of butcher

paper were soon filled with comments.

The conference began in an unconventional fashion.

Youth Activist Committee (YAC) members posed a series of

questions, such as, "Do you believe the death penalty is cruel

and unusual punishment?" or, "Have you ever had your rights

violated at school?" or, "Have you ever questioned your sexu-

ality?" If an individual's personal answer to the question was

"yes," then that person stood up. Following about ten minutes

of questioning and (mostly) silent responding, YAC members

provoked a lively discussion on how students were affected by

the questions, and what the questions made them think

about. Following the activity, students were treated to an

interactive performance from Flo-ology, a break-dancing two-

some. "The opening was excellent, and I mean terrific," one

participant said.

First session workshops featured an in-depth look at the

USA Patriot Act and freedom of speech, youth rights with the

police, drug safety and harm reduction, human rights and the

Drug War, and a teacher workshop called "Controversy in the

Classroom." The second session included seminars about stu-

dents' rights at school, flaws in the criminal justice system,

indigenous people's rights, white supremacy, independent

The following day, Friday, March 12, Rizzo and Cooper

joined five other same-sex couples who were prevented from

marrying as plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Northern

California (ACLU-NC), the National Center for Lesbian Rights,

and Lambda Legal in San Francisco Superior Court.

The suit argues that denying these same-sex couples the

right to marry violates the California constitution's guarantees

of equality, liberty, and privacy.

"We are eager to take this historic opportunity to end mar-

riage discrimination in California," said Tamara Lange, staff

attorney with the ACLU-NC. "Marriage is a commitment. It

is about sharing, love, trust, and compromise. Two adults

who make this personal choice to form a life-long commit-

ment should not be denied the right to marry just because

they are gay or lesbian."

Equality California and Our Family Coalition are also par-

ties in the suit.

For more on the suit and the plaintiffs, visit www.aclunc.org.

SHAYNA GELENDER

media, sexism as an institution, and marijuana.

YAC member Amanda Gelender, a junior at Castro Valley

High School said, "This was my first time facilitating a work-

shop for an ACLU conference, and it was an extraordinary

experience. I love working with my friends through the YAC,

but it's also constructive and worthwhile to reach out and talk

to my peers who may not have been exposed to activism yet. It's

so important to get youth involved and thinking about their

rights in order to empower a generation that is often overlooked

in society." =

SCHOOL SEGREGATION: HOW FAR HAVE WE COME?

f n 1954, an historic ruling integrated the nation's schools.

(c) In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled

that separate, segregated schools were inherently

unequal. Fifty years later, 30 high school students joined

together for a teach-in that explored the state of Martin

Luther King Jr.'s dream in contemporary California, and

posed the question: How far have we come?

Students heard testimony on the current inequities in

California's school system, explored the concept of institu-

tional racism, and learned about the class-action lawsuit

Williams v. California, in which the ACLU and other

organizations are challenging the deplorable conditions in

which many students of color are forced to learn. Here,

one teach-in participant gives her perspective:

"Learning about institutionalized racism was fascinating

for me in a way I had not expected. I already had some

sense of the connection between economics and racism

that still segregates our schools and job markets. However,

during the presentation I was struck with questions about

the subtlety of racism in our society that I had not expect-

ed. Why do whites not realize, or choose to deny that

racism exists? Where does institutionalized racism COME

from? I have trouble believing that a select few white, high-

powered officials with a racist agenda are controlling our

job and real estate markets (although of course that IS pos-

sible). I have to wonder if racism is more deeply

entrenched in America than we know-so deep that we

TAKE ACTION ONLINE TO PROTECT CIVIL LIBERTIES: SIGN UP AT

cannot blame it on a few blatant racists or see its source.

Perhaps our society was and is so unequally constructed that

the past, and not a racist agenda, is spurring and perpetuat-

ing inequality. And perhaps-even more frighteningly-

money, and not racism is what drives racism today; thus being

born into a soci-

ety that revolves

around money

we are incapable

of escaping or

solving institu-

tionalized racism.

These are pes-

simistic thoughts,

I realize, but

COURTESY OF CLAIRE GREENWOOD

learning about

the history of Levittown and our school system, I have

to wonder."

- Youth Advisory Committee member Claire Greenwood,

The Urban School of San Francisco

"How Far Have We Come?" was the first in a series of teach-

ins organized by the staff of the Howard A. Friedman First

Amendment Education Project of the ACLU of Northern

California. The teach-in took place on January 18, 2004, and

involved students from Castro Valley, Pacifica, San Francisco,

San Mateo and Santa Rosa.

ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF | 7

REFORMING THE SFPD

n November, the voters of San Francisco passed Proposition H, a landmark police accountability measure.

Here, the ACLU News explores what this victory means for the future of police accountability- and how a

coalition of dedicated advocates won a David and Goliath battle against the powerful police union.

OPENING THE DOOR TO REFORM

By Elaine Elinson, ACLU News Contributor

"i roposition H has sent a wake-up call to those in power,"

pi: Richard de Leon, Chair of the Political Science

Department at San Francisco State University, the day

after the city's voters approved the most sweeping civilian

oversight measure in the country.

The change is long overdue. According to John Crew, for-

mer director of the ACLU of Northern California (ACLU-

NC) Police Practices Project, "The news accounts and offi-

cial reports detailing the Department's accountability failures

in recent months and years, simply echo dozens of prior

studies and exposes going back at least three decades."

The Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) was founded in

1982, largely at the inspiration of the ACLU-NC, when vot-

ers demanded that San Francisco create a civilian mechanism

to address the growing problem of police abuse.

Yet for years the OCC was hampered by a pattern of

obstruction and delay by the department. Case after case of

police misconduct was dismissed simply due to the depart-

ment's failure to cooperate. Moreover, the San Francisco

Police Commission often refused to exercise its oversight

function, balking at holding hearings on sensitive issues.

BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM

In March 2003, following a

series of high-profile scan-

dals in the police depart-

ment, Mark Schlosberg,

police practices policy

director of the ACLU-

NC, issued a report rec-

ommending seven steps

to reform.

8 | ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF

Law student Kelly Welch, one of a crucial cadre of volunteers.

They included: responsible and speedy compliance with

the OCC; improvement in the "early warning" system that

identifies problem officers; automatic disciplinary investi-

gation triggers; whistleblower protections; a ban on pro-

motion of officers with discipline problems; and an

increase in the accountability and independence of the

Police Commission.

Proposition H amended the City Charter to include sev-

eral of these measures. In addition, it helped to put a spot-

light on the issues. "H created a lot of space for other

things to happen," explained Schlosberg.

CREATING A CLIMATE FOR CHANGE

Prior to the election, the Board of Supervisors unani-

mously passed a resolution (Chapter 96 of the

Administrative Code) which mandated reporting on the

status of all pending cases against police officers, protocols

for document exchanges between the department and the

OCC, and studies by the Police Commission on the early

warning system and promotional practices.

"If H had not been on the ballot, these reforms might not

have enjoyed such widespread support," explained

Schlosberg.

According to Kevin Allen, who directs OCC,

"Proposition H is an important step for-

ward for civilian oversight of the San

The

civilian Police Commission now has

Francisco Police Department.

the power to hear and decide serious

charges of misconduct even in cases

where the Police Chief maintains that

no misconduct occurred."

In April, new members of the Police

Commission will be named. Thanks to

Proposition H, four will be appointed by

Mayor Newsom, and three by the Board

of Supervisors. This system of appoint-

ment will increase the independence of the

Commission, as its members will not be

beholden to one powerful elected official.

As Crew noted, "With the political sup-

port of the Police Officers Association always

on the line, San Francisco mayors have only

rarely demanded that their police commission-

ers aggressively pursue a reform agenda."

MODEL FOR THE STATE

Other aspects have imp-:oved as well. Mayor Gavin

Newsom has appointed Police Chief Heather Fong, the first

Asian-American woman to head a police department in

California. Chief Fong stated that protection for whistle-

blowers and new training gu.delines are among her top pri-

orities.

"Hopefully, we'll become even stronger because out of con-

troversy we have to learn our lessons, and we become

stronger and work closer together - so that's the hope I have

for San Francisco and the Department," Chief Fong told the

San Francisco Chronicle.

"We still have a lot of wor ahead," said Schlosberg, "and

not every problem will be solved by this package. But it is no

longer business as usual in San Francisco."

od the Mayor.

. ladependence Makes the Commision more

independent by staggering Commissioners

terms and ensuring that Commissioners

cannot be removed without i consent of

the eee

OFFICE OF CITIZEN COMPLAINTS. _

= Power to bring charges: Gives the occ the

power to bring misconduct charges directly to

the Police Commission, preventing dismissal -

of valid cases if the Police Chief tas to act or

seeks to bury cases. _ /

= Access to documents: Mandates ae the

OCC is empowered to receive all relevant doc

uments from the Police Department in mis-

conduct investigations.

PROP ii

HOW WE WON

By Elaine Elinson

]: passage of Proposition H "showed it was possible to

beat the police unions and possible to get police reforms

passed by the voters," said Mark Schlosberg.

As director of the ACLU-NC's Police Practices Project,

Schlosberg had long been frustrated by the inaction and iner-

tia of the San Francisco Police Commission. "I spent many

Wednesday evenings at the Police Commission meetings," he

says, "where the commissioners ignored serious complaints

by people who came to testify about serious incidents of

police abuse in their neighborhoods. Sometimes they would

adjourn the meetings after half an hour."

In an effort to bring his concerns to the public, Schlosberg

began working on a report, "Roadmap to Reform:

Strengthening the Accountability Mechanisms of the San

Francisco Police Department."

While Schlosberg was researching the report, the

"Fajitagate" scandal broke. The series of events - in which

high-ranking members of the Department allegedly covered

up an assault by two off-duty officers - put a spotlight on the

broader issues of police accountability. Suddenly, everyone

was looking into the misdeeds of the SFPD.

Schlosberg moved quickly to finish his report. The ACLU-

NC sent it to the Board of Supervisors, continued on page 9

p R 0 P H continued from page 8

all mayoral and district attorney candidates, city agencies and

community organizations and, of course, the media.

In the heated Fajitagate climate, the response was swift.

Supervisor Tom Ammiano requested that reports be issued

from a number of city agencies. The City Controller issued a

statement that the oversight system of the Police Commission

was "lacking." The OCC

produced a report that

detailed the SFPD's "pat-

tern of obstruction and

delay." And in May, the

Civil Grand Jury issued

its own report, which

called for improved coop-

eration with the OCC.

The ACLU-NC began

meeting with La Raza

GIG] PANDIAN

Mark Schlosberg, police prac-

tices policy director of the

ACLU-NC, played a leader-

ship role in the campaign.

Lawyers Association,

Police Watch, National

Lawyers Guild, the Green

Party, the `Transgender

Law Center, victims of

police misconduct, Supervisor Ammiano's office, and other

advocates to hammer out the language for a serious police

reform measure.

In May, Ammiano brought the advocates' language to the

Board of Supervisors, which voted 7-4 to place the measure

on the November ballot.

The coalition then went into full campaign mode. They

sought endorsements-and won them-from all three

candidates for district attorney, four of the five mayoral

candidates, and scores of civil rights organizations and

community leaders. Advocates spoke all over the city and

issued press releases every step of the way.

But the Police Officers Association (POA) was a powerful

foe. The police union ran TV ads, sent out 300,000 pieces of

direct mail, and conducted auto-dial phone calls. When the

election financial reports were disclosed in February, they

revealed that the POA had spent $383,000 - more than six

times the amount that the "Yes on H" forces raised.

But the H campaign had something just as powerful: an

army of committed volunteers. "We never could have won

without the tireless efforts of our outstanding volunteers,"

says Schlosberg. "They walked precincts every weekend, made

5,000 phone calls, wrote letters to the editor and stood out-

side-rain or shine-holding "Yes on H" signs. They made

the difference." mg

DOCUMENTS SPARK NEW FEARS IN

"NO-FLY CASE

Imost one year after the ACLU of Northern California

(ACLU-NC) filed a Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA) request on behalf of two Bay Area activists who

were detained at San Francisco airport because their names

appeared on a government "no-fly" list, the FBI has released

94 pages of classified documents related to the list.

The FOIA request was filed on December 12, 2002, on

behalf of Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordon. Months later,

charging that the FBI and

the Transportation Security

Administration violated

FOIA and the Privacy Act

by failing to provide infor-

mation about the "no-fly"

list and other government

watch lists, the ACLU-NC

filed a lawsuit demanding

immediate disclosure of the

requested records.

The suit sought informa-

Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordon

were detained because their

tion including why Adams

and Gordons names had

continued on page 11 names were on a "no-fly" list.

appeared

GIGI PANDIAN

BACKLASH PROFILE:

The ACLU continues to gather stories of individuals caught in

the backlash afier Sept. 11, 2001. This story came to us through

the Oakland-based Applied Research Center, which, last year,

organized a "Publics Truth" forum for people to share their stories.

KAWAL ULANDAY

Kawal Ulanday is a U.S.-born Filipino peace activist -not,

he stresses, a terrorist. But apparently, the FBI wasn't so sure.

In January of 2003 an FBI agent showed up at his door, ask-

ing about his connection

KAWAL WAS ASKED

WHERE HE WAS BORN; IF

HE, THE PEACE ACTIVIST,

KNEW ANY TERRORISTS,

AND IF HE HAD ANTI-

AMERICAN FEELINGS.

to Muslim terrorist groups

in the south Philippines.

Kawal had read about his

rights, but with the FBI

standing on his doorstep,

he felt he had no choice but

to comply. His brother had

recently passed away, and

he knew his family needed

him. Kawal was deter-

mined not to do anything

to risk being hauled away, even though he knew he had the

right to refuse to answer the agent's questions at his home.

Kawal was asked where he was born; if he, the peace

activist, knew any terrorists, and if he had anti-American feel-

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

ings. The agent commented that Kawal had no criminal

record, so he asked suspiciously why Kawal had changed his

name. As a Filipino who cares about the traditions of the

country, he had

his

name from his

changed

Spanish name

to a more tradi-

tional Filipino

motivated me

to fight even

name. 5

The experi- z

ence left Kawal =

shaken -_ but z

determined:

"In the end, =

the FBI visit Z

harder for jus-

tice,' Kawal

said. "The targeting of myself and other peace activists... in

[our] communities is only part of the reactionary hysteria

which has given birth to the Patriot Act and the Department

of Homeland Security." a

TO UE Vea Vin ala Be aes

OVER YOUR SHOULDER?

ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT SOMEONE IS

eS aS

se

TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE PATRIOT ACT AND RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

You shouldn't have to worry about being under surveillance simply because of what you're reading. But that's what could

happen since the PATRIOT Act was enacted. The government can indiscriminately search your library records, Internet

activity and bookstore purchases. And under these expanded government powers, you have fewer legal protections against

searches of your personal information such as banking, medical and membership records. It's time to bring the PATRIOT

Act back in line with the Constitution. And the SAFE Act, which was recently introduced in Congress, is an important

first step. It's supported by Democrats and Republicans in Congress and by organizations

across the political spectrum.

Contact your representatives in Washington and urge them to keep us both

safe and free by supporting the SAFE Act. After all, someone reading over your

shoulder should only threaten your personal space, not your freedom.

CALIFORNIA

LIBRARY

ASSOCIATION

VISIT WWW.ACLUNC.ORG/FREEDOM TO CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES IN WASHINGTON AND URGE THEM TO PROTECT YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF | 9