vol. 32, no. 10
Primary tabs
'_enty-seven per
American
Civil Liberties
Union
Volume XXXII
New System Explained
SAN FRANCISCO, OCTOBER, 1967
All Memberships |
Fall Due on
November 1
Memberships in the ACLUNC are being placed on a fiscal
year basis starting with the new fiscal year on November 1.
In other works, all memberships will fall due on November
1 of each year and every member will be solicited to renew
his membership at that time.
Presently, memberships are
in effect for one year from
the time of receipt of dues. Con-
sequently, al] memberships and
subscriptions have had to be
handled individually, requiring
an inordinate expenditure of
clerical time and effort which
is urgently needed for other
aspects of our work
Inefficient System
Under that system keeping
track of the 8300 persons on the
mailing list has not been easy.
Many errors have occurred.
Therefore, in order to reduce
' operating costs and to establish
a more efficient system: of han-
dling memberships they have
been placed on an annual basis
by the Board of Directors.
Fortunately, most members al-
ready renew at the beginniny
of the fiscal year. Indeed, sev-
cent of the
ACLUNC's supporters sent in
their contributions during the
first six months of the current
fiscal year.
Your Help Needed
We urge the cooperation not
only of that 77% but especially
of the 23% whose memberships
and subscriptions expire during
Minor Loyalty
Oath Issue :
Settled in Berk.
The State Supreme Court has
still not decided whether it will
accept the question of the valid-
ity of the Levering Act loyalty
oath for decision in the Charles
Aronson case now pending be-
fore it. However, one minor loy-
alty oath issue was settled satis-
factorily last month by the Berke-
ley School Board.
Teacher-Aid
The chapter was approached
by Mr. Leslie Haber who had -
worked as a teacher-aid in the
Berkeley schools under the work-
study program of the Univer-
sity of California which is fund-
ed by federal government funds.
Mr. Haber worked until the close
of the school year on June 16,
1967, but was not informed that
the federal funding terminated
on June 3 and after that date
his salary would have to come
from the Berkeley School Dis-
trict. When Mr, Haber went to
collect his salary for the last 13
days of work he was informed
he would have to sign both a
non-Communist affidavit and a
-Levering Act loyalty oath, as re-
quired by employees of the
Berkeley School District. Haber
- refused to sign and was not paid.
Volunteer ACLU attorney Mal-
colm Burnstein wrote the School
Board that to require Mr. Haber
to sign the oath to obtain his
salary was "unjust, immoral, and
illegal" because of the oath re-
`quirement. After considering Mr.
Burnstein's request, the Berkeley
School Board voted last month
to pay Mr. Haber in full without
requiring a loyalty oath or non-
Communist declaration,
the last six months of the fiscal
year. We agree that at its in-
ception the new system will be
unfair to the latter group. We
eould, of course, require only
a partial dues payment from
this group during the first year
but to do this wouid again com-
plicate the handling of member-
ships. :
The Board of Directors an
the office earnestly solicits the
cooperation of every supporter
in bringing about this important
change in office procedures.
Vehicle
Forfeiture
Cases Won
California's vehicle forfeiture
law resulted in punishment for
the innocent. People test all title
in their vehicle to the state when
narcotics were found in their
car even though they were not
responsible for its presence and
did not know of it. If you loaned
your car to someone who pos-
sessed marijuana you lost your
car. Your only defense was that
the car was stolen.
Court Test .
ACLUNC challenged the con-
stitutionality of this aspect of the
law in the Alameda Superior
Court. The trial court found the
law constitutional, While appeal
was being pursued the California
Legislature repealed the vehicle
forfeiture' law. Its action, unfor-
tunately, was not retroactive and
the Attorney General proceeded
to forfeit cars impounded before
the effective date of the legisla-
tion.
No Purpose
' Assistant staff counsel Paul
Halvonik began negotiations
with Chief Deputy Attorney Gen-
eral Charles O'Brien in an en-
deavor to change Justice De-
partment policy. In a letter to
O'Brien Halvonik asked: "What
will. be accomplished by continu-
ing this litigation? We will both
expend a great deal of energy
and money for nothing. If we
succeed we will establish that a
law already repealed is uncon-
stitutional. If you succeed you
will have taken an innocent par-
ty's car for no purpose. Since the
law has been repealed my client
will not even serve as a horrible
example to parents who do not
search their children before
loaning them the car."
A, G. Agrees
O'Brien agreed to a stipulated
reversal in ACLUNC's case of
People v. One 1963 Rambler. And
then he went a step further, is-
suing a memorandum requiring
all vehicles impounded before
the repeal of the law and not yet
. forfeited by the state to be re-
turned to the owner if the owner
himself was innocent of any nar-
cotics law violations.
Number 10
C. 0.'s Right
To Fair Hearing
Defended _
The Board of Directors of AC-
LUNC voted last month to pro-
vide legal counsel to Roland Sil-
liman, who claims to be entitled
to an exemption from compul-
sory military service as a con-
scientious objector. The Board
did not have to go into the ques-.
tion of whether or not Silliman
would qualify as a conscientious
objector as it was obvious that he
was denied fundamental fair-
ness in the hearing procedure
to determine his qualifications
asaC. O.
A conscientious objector claim-
ant is entitled to a hear-
ing before a hearing officer ap-
pointed by the Department of
Justice. In Silliman's case the
hearing officer admitted on the
record that he was prejudiced
against the applicant because of
the applicant's views against
United States involvement in the
war in Vietnam and because of
the applicant's participation in
anti-war demonstrations. The
hearing `officer, an attorney
named Valentine C. Hammack,
recommended that the claim be
denied. However, the Depart-
ment of Justice then recommend-
ed that the hearing officer's
recommendation be ignored be-
cause of its prejudiced base but
stated that Silliman should still
be denied a conscientious ob-
jector classification because the
record did not indicate that he
qualified.
lt is ACLU's position that a
statutory right to a hearing is
not satisfied by a hearing be-
fore a non-impartial hearing of-
ficer. This position will be pre-
sented to the Selective Service
Appeal Board of the State of
California and if not accepted
there will be pursued in the Fed-
eral Court if Silliman in indicted
for failing to report for induc-
tion. The case is being handled
by volunteer attorney Demetrios
Agretelis.
San Jose Public Schools
San Francisco Initiative
Peace Vote
Wins in
State
Supreme Court
On September 18 the Supreme Court of California filed
an opinion allowing the citizens of San Francisco to vote on
the following proposition at the November 7 election: "It is
' the policy of the people of the City and County of San Fran-
cisco that there be an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal
of U.S. troops from Viet Nam
so that the Vietnamese people
can settle their own problems."
21,000 Signatures
The ruling came in a petition
for writ of mandate filed direct-
ly with the State Supreme Court
after a similar petition was de-
nied by the Superior Court in
San Francisco. The petitioners,
Edward J. Farley and a group
of persons known as "Citizens
For A Vote On Vietnam" sued
Basil Healey, San Francisco's
Registrar of Voters, after Healey
had refused to accept the signa-
tures of more than 21,000 voters
of the City and County of San
Francisco asking that the Viet
Nam question be placed on the
ballot. Healey refused to accept
the signatures because he had
been advised by City Attorney
Thomas O'Connor that under the
San Francisco Charter the citi-
zens had no power to place the
issue on the ballot since the ini-
tiative process was limited to
matters pertaining to "municipal
- affairs."
ACLU Intervention
The ACLU of Northern Cali-
fornia came into the case while
it was pending before Superior
Court Judge Byron Arnold. The
ACLU argued in a friend-of-the-
court brief that it was an arbi-
trary interpretatioy of the Char-
ter to limit the initiative process
to "municipal affairs" since the
Charter contained no such limi-.
tations on the initiative and al-
lowed citizens to vote on "any
ordinance, act or other measure
which is within the power con-
ferred upon the Board of Super-
visors to enact." The Charter al- -
so provided that "any declaration
of policy may be submitted to
the electors in the manner pro-
vided for the submission of ord-
Distribution of "Gideon
Bibles" Challenged
Distribution of "Gideon Bibles" in grades 5 through 12
of the San Jose Unified School District was challenged in
the Santa Clara county Suverior Court last month, Mrs.
Mary Ann Mettle of 1782 Curtner Ave., San Jose sought an
injunction to halt such distribution and the matter was set
for a hearing before Superior
Court Judge George H. Barnett
on September 28, too late to be
reported in this issue of the
"News." Mrs. Mettier is repre-
sented by James W. Stewart, a
volunteer attorney for the San-
ta Clara Valley Chapter of the
ACLUNC. :
By a 3 to 1 vote, the school
trustees voted to make the
Bibles available to a reported
24,000 students despite the ob-
jections of the ACLU and an
opinion of Santa Clara County
Counsel John R. Kennedy. -
"It is the conclusion of our
office that the San Jose Uni-
fied School District may not
distribute these Bibles in any
manner without violeting the
United States and California
constitutions," said the seven-
page opinion prepared by Dep.
County Counsel Maurice B. Hill.
The County Counsel's opinion.
was based on two theories. "The
first theory," said the opinion,
"is that the Bible distributed
by the Gideon International is.
a sectarian publication within
the prohibition of the California
Constitution and section 8453
of the Education Code.
Establishment Clause
"The second theory is that ev-
en though the Bible may not
be classified as a sectarian pub-
lication, the distribution of this
book by. a schoo] district would
violate the United States Con-
stitution as constituting an aid
to the establishment of religion."
The opinion noted that the
California Attorney General's
office had "expressly ruled"
that the Gideon Bible is sectar-
ian in nature and therefore
may not be distributed in the
public schools without violating
the Federal and State Constitu-
tions. =
Contents of "Gideon Bible"
The Gideon Bible consists of
the New Testament, Psalms and
Proverbs of the Old Testament
of the Protestant or King James
version of the Bibie, That ver-
sion is unacceptable to Catho-
lics as well as Jews, not to speak
of non-believers,
inances and when approved by a
majority of the qualified electors
voting on said declaration, it
shall thereupon be the duty of
the Board of Supervisors to en-
act an ordinance or ordinances
to carry such policies or prin-
ciples into effect."
Resolutions on Foreign Policy
The City Attorney argued that
the "municipal affairs' limita-
tion must be read into the
Charter because the legislative
power of the Board of Super-
visors only extended to munici-
pal affairs and even as to decla-
rations of policy the Board had
a duty to enact an ordinance on
' the subject which it could not
carry out in the area of foreign
policy. When it was pointed out
that the Board of Supervisors
had frequently enacted resolu-
tions on subjects of foreign pol-
icy, such as the recent Middle
East crisis, the City Attorney re-
sponded that these resolutions
were beyond the power of the
Board but since they were inef-
fective to accomplish any action
there was no occasion to chal-
lenge them. Judge Arnold agreed
with the City Attorney and ruled,
very regretfully as he put it, that
the citizens of San Francisco
could not vote on the issue.
Censorship Powers
When the case came before
the California Supreme Court,
the ACLU's friend-of-the-court
` brief was bolstered by another
argument. This was that the
Registrar of Voters was in ef-
fect exercising censorship pow-
ers by refusing to consider an
initiative measure for the ballot
on his own view of the legal is-
sues involved. The ACLU argued,
in a brief prepared by staff
counsel Marshall W. Krause with
the assistance of volunteer at-
torney Lawrence Popofsky, that
this was a judicial decision and
not an administrative. decision
and that the legality of the initi-
ative could be challenged only
in the courts and only if it re-
ceived a majority vote or was so
clearly unconstitutional that it
should not go on the ballot.
Self-Government :
The ACLU amicus brief also
stated. "The people are the
source of all governmental pow-
er and powers which they have
reserved: to themselves should
`not be grudgingly interpreted so
as to prevent people from taking
an active part in expressing opin-
ions for their own governing.
The interest of amicus is that
confidence be maintained in the
principle that ours in a self-gov-
erning community."
Resolution Power
The brief went on to point out
the large number of resolutions
on foreign policy which had been
adopted by the Board of Super-
visors and then characterized the (c)
initiative processes as the "reso-
lution of. the people." It stated
that this resolution power should
be liberally interpreted to pro-
tect democratic process and that
a narrow interpretation of the
San Francisco Charter would not
be in accordance with these
principles.
Public Spending
The brief pointed out the
strong interrelationship between
foreign spending and domestic
affairs, and expressed the obvi-
ous interest of the people of San
-Continued on Page 4
Letters ... to the Editor
Computerized Man
Editor:
I was much impressed by the
excerpts from "The Computer-
ized Man" by Justice Douglas in
the September issue. I should
like to take slight issue with one
statement and expand another
statement.
As a university professor, I am
very much of aware of the fact
that even such. apparently ob-
jective "items such as age, years
in high school, college degrees"
and the like can involve much
unsuspected subjectivity - on
the receiving end, in the in-
stance of the first two; on the ~
sending end, in the instance of
the third. Though the late John
F. Kennedy and I were the same
age at the time, he was being
called too young to run for the
presidency and I was being
called too old for an assistant
professorship. (We both made it
-he is now a martyred Presi-
dent, and I am a full professor.)
An acquaintance of mine, how-
ever, was turned down for can-
didacy for graduate school (he
`is still an excellent secondary
school teacher) because his rec-
ord showed that he had spent six
years in high school - inter-
preted as prima facie evidence
of his academic ineptitude. Even
a sworn statement by his high
school principal, since retired-
that he attended two years of
high school on a half-time basis |
- because he had to support the
family of his widowed mother-
had no effect on this arbitrary
decision. In the matter of "col-
lege degrees," it is the lack of
such a degree - since his record
shows that he attended the Uni-
versity for five years - which
presently handicaps a young man
of my acquaintance, His per-
formance was spotty: brilliant in
his specialty, mediocre to poor
in other subjects. But, though
his "grade point average" was
satisfactory for graduation, he
lacks the necessary credits in
physical education. As a profes-
sional ice-skater in high school
and college, he viewed the physi-
cal education program as "so
much Mickey Mouse" and re-
fused to comply.
I should like to second Justice
Douglas's comments on putting
into computers the results of in-
terviews "between the investi-
gator and the former teacher"
and the results of "the question-
naire. " Since I have been teach-
ing since 1938, I couldn't even
guess at the number - certainly
more than two thousand - of
times when I have been asked
by interviewer or questionnaire
to pass judgments on former stu-
dents. (And I'm not referring to
letters of recommendation or
questionnaires prompted by the
students themselves - those run
into the tens of thousands.) On
one occasion, I was asked by an
investigator from the Office of
Naval Intelligence: "Would you
recommend E-- B--- as
completely trustworthy in a posi-
tion of highest security clear-
ance?" It happened that I had
taught E. B. as a tenth grade
student in high school some ten
- years earlier. I explained that
I hardly felt qualified to make a
statement one way or the other.
The next question was: "Then
am I to put down that you
would not recommend him?"
How much did the computer rec-
ord of my ten-minute disserta-
tion upon the way persons
change between the ages of six-
teen and twenty-six, even though
I was maneuvered into giving an
answer of yes? More recently, I
was asked to fill out a question-
naire on a student whom I had
supposedly taught in 1961. I
searched my records and the rec-
ords in the Office of the Regis-
trar, and I could find no evi-
dence that I had ever taught a
ACLU NEWS
OCTOBER, 1967
Page 2
student by that name. I returned
the questionnaire, checked "No
Opportunity To Observe" in all
categories, with a covering let-
ter explaining that, to the best
of my knowledge, I had not
taught that student. Later I re-
ceived what looked like a form
letter stating, in effect, that my
failure to cooperate would have
to be construed as an unfavor-
able report on the person in
question. I immediately turned
that form letter over and sent
it back (this was from a private
corporation) with a somewhat in-
temperate denunciation of the
firm and its neolithic personnel
policies, About five months ago,
I got a lighthearted note from
the person in question, thanking
me for my favorable recom-
mendation, since he had got the
job, and explaining that - since
he had not been officially adopt-
ed by his foster-father - he had
changed his name back from
Hart to Allen, in accordance
with his birth certificate, in order
to apply for a job with the secur-
ity-conscious firm for which he
was working.
For these and many other rea-
sons, I view a National Com-
puter Center for People with al-
ternating amusement and alarm.
But, as time goes on, alarm takes
precedence over amusement -
especially since the article in
This Week Magazine last Sun-
day, which detailed the way in
which electronic eavesdropping
devices are freely available to
the general public. It is quite
possible, for example, that a
sophisticated electronic listening
device could print out every
word which I have typed in this
letter. Such a device would not
yet be available to the general
public, because of cost, but it
could be designed if the stakes
were high enough (may already
be in existence, for that mat-
ter) by a government agency,
like the F.B.I.
The horrifying fact is that
there is no effective law - and
no way of writing such an ef-
fective law - against the Na-
tional Computer Center for Peo-
ple nor against the proliferating
eletronic and non - electronic
eavesdropping devices, (Many
years ago, aS a joke, a pre-medi-
eal student friend of mine dem-
onstrated how we could listen in
on our. next-door neighbors by
putting his stethoscope against
the wall. We could hear every-
thing said - except when some-
body flushed a toilet. At the
time, it was hilarious. Now, I'm
not so sure.) - Will C. Jumper,
Ames, Iowa.
Civil Liberties
In Great Britain
ACLU members visiting Eng-
land are cordially invited by
Tony Smythe to visit the office
of the National Council for Civil
liberties, 4 Camden High Street,
_London, N.W. 1, of which he is
the General Secretary.
The problems with which NC-
CL deals are the familiar ones
of invasion of privacy, rights of
juveniles and military service-
men, censorship, and discrimi-
- nation against minority groups.
Particular problems of discrimi-
nation involve the gypsies and
Commonwealth immigrants and
their families.
Progress In
Death Row
Test Suit
In the latter part of August
Federal District Judge Robert
Peckham of San Francisco issued
his second order in the NAACP-
_ ACLU death row suit challenging
the constitutionality of Califor-
nia's death penalty. Peckham
ruled that the action would not
continue as a class action for all
condemned men and accordingly
lifted the stay he had granted -
for the entire row.
No Defeat
Superficially his order seemed
to be a defeat for ACLUNC and
the press so heralded it. If form
were more significant than sub-
stance Peckham's order would
indeed have been adverse. In
his order Peckham stated "Jus-
tice requires that no condemned
man who has standing to raise
any federal constitutional issue,
including any of the four com-
mon questions, should be exe-
cuted until such question is fi-
nally adjudicated." What that
means is that no man will be
executed until the constitutional
issues raised in the original class
petition are resolved.
Separate Petitions
Under the procedural guide-
lines set forth in the Peckham
order, each of the four named
petitioners must file an amend-
ed and separate federal habeas
corpus petition challenging the
death penalty and raising what-
ever other federal issues may
be presented by his case. After
that each must file a habeas
corpus petition in the State Su-
preme Court raising identical is-
sues in order to give the state
an opportunity to pass on the
constitutional questions first.
The stay of execution for the
four will continue while the state
remedy is being pursued.
Other Cases
All other men on death row
will also have to file individual
habeas corpus petitions. They
may raise the same questions.
presented in the original class
petition and any other federal
grounds they may have. If a con-
demned man has no attorney one
will be appointed by the court
to raise independent questions.
Lawyers of death row clients
have been provided with copies
of the original pleadings and
volunteer counsel Gary Berger
and Jerry Falk have pepared in-
structions for such lawyers de-
signed to facilitate participation
in the suit. In order to guarantee
that no man is executed because
his lawyer is unaware of the pro-
ceedings or because he has no
lawyer, Judge Peckham has in-
structed the Attorney General to
inform NAACP-ACLU counsel] as
each execution date is set. After
all the individual petitions are
filed the cases will be consoli-
dated on the common constitu-
tional issues and a hearing will
be held.
Who Won?
If the Attorney General views
the Peckham order as a victory
it might be well for him to con-
sider an ancient aphorism that
Justice Black is fond of quoting:
"One more victory like this and
I am undone."
Annals of Liberty
If there were no American Civil Liberties Union, this
would be a far different, far less free country. Dedicated as
it is to defending, defining and expanding civil liberty, the
ACLU is, one of our truly indispensable institutions. To read
its 46th annual report, just published by the ACLU is to be
reminded how patiently and skilfully it works for individual
freedoms both in and out of ccurt. In language a layman can
understand the report, 60 pages in length, reviews the year's
constitutional battle over censorship, free speech, wirttap-
ping, illegal police practices, and many other such issues.
These are well described as the annals of liberty -Editorial
San Francisco Chronicle, 9/7/67.
Is There
"A Right To
Turn On?"
"A Right To Turn On?"
will be the title of a panel
discussion sponsored by the
Mid-Peninsula Chapter of
ACLUNC on Thursday, Octo-
ber 26. The meeting will take
place at the Palo Alto High
School auditorium, 50 Em-
barcadero Road, Palo Alto
starting at 8:00 p.m. It is
open to both members of
ACLUNC and the public, The
panel will focus on the so-
cial, legal and civil liberties
issues involved in the appre-
hension, punishment, and
treatment of drug users and
abusers. Members of the panel
will include David Smith,
M.D., Director of the Alcohol
and Drug Abuse Screening
Unit, San Francisco General
Hospital and founder of the
Haight-Ashbury Free Medical
Clinic, and Paul N. Halvonik,
assistant staff counsel] and
legislative representative of
ACLUNC, Representatives of
local law enforcement and of
the judicial system will also
participate. Moderating the
panel will be Gregory K.
Sims, instructor of psychology
at the College of San Mateo.
Adverse Ruling
In Sunnyvale
Long Hair Case
Superior Court Judge Bruce F.
Allen of Santa Clara county last
month upheld the expulsion by
the San Jose Unified Schoo] Dis-
trict of Charles Kemling, 17, a
high school senior, for refusing
to cut his shoulder length,
blonde hair. Rather than lose
further schooling by taking an
appeal, the young man promptly
had his hair cut.
Kemling's
Mary Kemling, of 6044 Rainbow
Dr., Sunnyvale, testified that
they approved of their son's
hair length and style. Two high
school teachers, Bernard G.
Hubb, head of the English De-
partment a Lynbrook High
School where Kemling attends,
and Victor K. Ulmer, an English
parents, Jo and -
Prisoner Law
Book Case Moves
To Ct. of Appeals
The fight to guarantee reason-
able law book use for inmates
of state prisons has moved to
the United States Court of Ap-
peals. Last year the Department
of Corrections issued regulations
specifying a very limited num-
ber of books that will be made
available for prisoners, Under
those regulations prisoners can-
not have law books not on the
list in their possession nor can
prison libraries contain books
not listed. This regulation is not
merely restrictive, it is retro-
gressive. The removal of books
from the library and from pris-
oners smacks of book burning.
Prisoners brought suit in the
federal court to enjoin enforce:
ment of the order. San Fran-
cisco attorney John Wahl was
appointed to represent them.
In the District Court litigation
ACLUNC acted as amicus curiae,
contending that the regulations
were unreasonable and infringed
on the due process right of reas-
- onable access to the courts by
prisoners. In July, Federal Dis-
trict Judge Albert Wollenberg is-
sued his order refusing to con-
vene a three-judge court to con-
sider the constitutional claim. He
based his order on the conclu-
sion that the suit did not raise
"a substantial federal question."
John Wahl has appealed Wollen-
berg's order to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals and ACLUNC
is again participating as amicus
curiae. In the appellate brief as-
sistant staff counsel Paul Hal-
vonik argues that Judge Wollen-
berg has, in legal effect, dis-
missed the suit on the merits and
that he is without jurisdiction to
enter such an order unless a suit
is clearly frivolous; something
the law book suit is not.
teacher at Fremont High, testi-
fied that long hair doesn't af-
fect the educational process. The
boy himself testified he liked
long hair and wore it in this -
fashion by preference.
Kemling was represented by
attorney Norman Howard, volun-
teer attorney for the Santa Clara
Valley Chapter of the ACLUNC.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS
Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California
ERNEST BESIG .. . Editor
503 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, 433-2750
Subscription Rates -- Two Dollars a Year
Twenty Cents Per, Copy
B 151
Ralph B. Atkinson
Dr. Alfred Azevedo
Mrs. Judith Balderston
Albert M. Bendich
Leo Borregard
Albert Culhane
Mrs. Natalie Dukes
Prof. John Edwards
Howard A. Friedman
, Robert Greensfelder :
Rev. Aron S. Gilmartin
Evelio Grillo
Mrs. Zora Cheever Gross
Francis Heisler
Neil F. Horton
Howard H. Jewel
Honorary Treasurer:
Joseph S. Thompson
Honorary Board Member:
Sara Bard Field
Mrs. Gladys Brown
Mrs. Paul Couture
Mes. Margaret C. Hayes
Prof. Carlo Lastrucci
John J. Eagan
Joseph Eichler
Dr. H. H. Fisher
Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union
of Northern California
CHAIRMAN: Prof. Van D. Kennedy
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Rabbi Alvin |. Fine
Helen Salz
SEC'Y-TREAS.: John R. May
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Besig
GENERAL COUNSEL: Wayne M. Collins
STAFF COUNSEL: Marshall W. Krause
ASST. STAFF COUNSEL and LEGIS. REP., Paul Halvonik
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Mrs. Pamela S. Ford
CHAPTER DIRECTOR: Mrs. Marcia D. Lang
Committee of Sponsors
Mes. Paul Holmer
Mrs. Mary Hutchinson Prof. Wallace Stegner
Morse Erskine
Prof. Ernest Hilgard Prof. Wilson Record
Dean Robert A. Keller.
Prof. David Levin
`Gerald D. Marcus
Ephraim Margolin
Prof. John Henry Merryman
Robert L. Nolan, M.D.
Prof. Robert M. O'Neil
Clarence E. Rust
John Brisbin Rutherford
Mrs. Alec Skolnick
Stanley D. Stevens
Stephen Thiermann
Cecil Thomas
Donald Vial
Richard J. Werthimer
Dr. Marvin J. Naman
Mrs. Theodosia Stewart
Rt. Rev. Sumner Walters
Richard Johnston
Roger Kent
Mrs. Ruth Kingman
Prof. Theodore Kreps
Rey. Robert W. Moon
Dr. Norman Reider
Prof. Hubert Phillips
Norman Lezin
THE rampant chaos of the dy-
ing days of the legislative session
defies description. The delibera-
tive committee process so care-
fully cultivated through the prior
seven months is abandoned as
lobbyists, legislative leaders and
administration representatives fi-
nally force important legislation
to issue.
Reapportionment
For example, SJR 45 (Marler),
calling for a constitutional con-
vention to overrule the United
States Supreme Court's reappor-
tionment decision in Reynolds v.
' Simms was introduced on Thurs-
day, July 27. It was out of com-
mittee the next day. On Monday,
July 31, it was on the Senate
floor ready for a vote. That was
_also the first day it appeared in
print, the first time the ACLU
had seen it. The bill was on the
Senate calendar from Monday
through Thursday. The resolu-
tion's sponsors had the 21 votes
needed for passage but they were
unable to get all the votes to-
gether on the Senate floor until
Thursday. The Senators had been
busy elsewhere in the turmoil,
trying to preserve what legisla-_
tive victories they had and, per-
haps, win some new ones. On
that Thursday when the bill was
taken up Senator James Mills
(D-San Diego) informed his col-
leagues that the resolution was
in violation of the adjournment
rules. The adjournment rules,
earlier adopted by the Senate
and adopted by the Assembly on
Tuesday, August 2, provided that
no bill could be heard in the
house of its origin after Tuesday.
The plotters had tarried too
long; they had the votes on Mon-
day but those votes were mean- -
ingless on Thursday. The chaos
that permitted SJR 45 to reach
the Senate floor without notice to
its opposition also resulted in its
defeat.
Fair Housing
Another proposed legislative
action that tottered on the brink
of success during a last-minute
thrust was a modification of the
State's fair housing laws. SB 9
(Burns-Schmitz) passed the Sen-
ate early in the session. It was
an outright Rumford repealer.
This column reported last May
that plans were afoot to amend
SB 9 to incorporate the more
moderate approach of a Rumford
"modification" bill, AB 729 (Bag-
ley). These plans languished
through June and seemed dead
through most of July. It looked
as if the Rumford Act was going
to escape the session unscathed
and substantially unassaulted.
And then a Superior court judge
in Los Angeles held that the Un-
ruh Civil Rights Act applied to
an owner-occupied duplex hous-
ing accommodation. The rum-
blings in the Speaker's office
presaged his greatest power play
of the year. Unruh told civil
rights groups that he did not in-
tend to have the Unruh Act be-
come his "political epitaph." He
revived SB 9, amehded it to less-
en coverage and generally reflect
the spirit of Bagley's modifier.
In addition, he inserted a pro-
vision that would have weakened
the Unruh Civil Rights Act. It
took Unruh two days to push the
- new, re-fortified SB 9 through
two committees. It reached the
- Assembly floor during the last
week of the session. After a spir-
ited debate it passed the Assem-
bly with no difficulties. The op-
ponents of the bill were an odd
alliance. They included such fair
housing advocates as Willie
- Brown (D-San Francisco) and
John Miller (D-Berkeley) and
such foes of fair housing as.
- Charles Conrad (R-Sherman
Oaks) and John Collier (R-Los
Angeles). That same coalition of
liberal Democrats and conserva-
tive Republicans killed SB 9 in
the Senate on the last day of the
session. The liberals opposed the
bill because it weakened fair
housing laws; the conservatives
because it did not abolish fair
housing laws. Personalities also
played an important part. The
Speaker's heavy hand had _ as-
sured Assembly passage. The
Senate was another matter. Its
members resented attempts by
Unruh to push his bill through
their house. The defeat of SB 9
was as much a rebuke to Unruh
as it was a victory for fair hous-
ing. :
Mental Health
All last-minute legislative ma-
hneuvers were not defeated. The
last-minute gambit would not be
so popular if it did not promise
some chance of success. A happy
note was the passage on the final
legislative day of the Lanterman-
Petris-Short Mental Health Act.
This Act changes completely the
emphasis of California's mental
commitment laws. |
It reduces significantly the pres-
ent reliance on _ involuntary
commitment of the mentally
ill and substitutes local inten-
sive care units with limited in-
voluntary detention powers and
a variety of voluntary services.
There are supplementary but
limited coercive powers over
those who present a danger to
the lives and property of others
and a conservatorship for those
who are greatly disabled by rea-
son of mental ilness or chronicente
alcoholism that they are unable
to care for themselves, Addition-
ally, due process safeguards have
been introduced to insure that
those who are in need of in-
voluntary treatment genuinely
are in such need. This Act as
it originally passed the Assem-
bly was contained in Assem-
bly Bills 1220 and 1221, Assem-
bly passage was secured rela-
tively easily but the bills were
stalled in the Senate Committee -
on Governmental Efficiency. A
new plan was conceived: SB 677
(Short) had already passed the
Senate and died in an Assembly
committee. The substance of SB
677 was struck and the Lanter-
man-Petris-Short Act substituted
in its place. SB 677 was then
reviewed and passed by the As-
sembly. Since SB 67%, unlike
AB 1220 and 1221, was a Senate
bill, hence it could be sent back
to the Senate floor without the
necessity of consideration by the
Senate Governmental Efficiency
Committee. SB 677 was passed
by the Senate and signed by
the Governor. The revolutionary
nature of the new mental com-
`mitment act requires some time
for its implementation. There-
fore, the Act does not become
effective law until after the ad-
journment of the 1968 session
of the Legislature. But the Legis-
lature also passed another im-
portant mental commitment bill
that will go into effect before
the end of this year. That is
AB 288, authored by Assembly-
man John Burton (D-San Fran-
cisco).- AB 288 abolishes the com-
mitment of persons who are not
dangerous but are of such men-
tal condition that they are in
need of supervision or restraint.
Under Burton's bill commitment
will be limited to those persons
who are of such a mental con-
_ dition that they. are dangerous
to themselves or the person or
property of others and are in
need of supervision or restraint.
The new law also requires a
written statement of a physician
that a person is dangerous to
himself or others before a peti-
tion requesting judicial exami-
nation of the person may be
made or filed.
Search and Seizure
Two of the bills of great civil
liberties significance were passed
in the last legislative week. They
are SB 88, dealing with - pro-
eedures for raising the consti-
tutional objection of an unlawfu!
search and seizure and AB 1615
(Sieroty), requiring the Attor-
ney General to prepare a state-
ment in the English and Spanish
languages, of the rights of ar-
rested persons for distribution by
law enforcement agencies to such
persons. Sieroty's bill, unfortun-
ately, was vetoed by Governor
Reagan. The Governor did sign
SB 88. This bill was sponsored by
the District Attorney of. Los An-
geles County and, as originally
drafted, greatly limited oppor-
tunities to raise the constitution-
al objection that evidence ob-
tained by law enforcement was
the product of an unlawful search
and seizure. SB 88 sets up com-
plicated pre-trial procedures for
raising the search and seizure
question, and generally requires
that a pretrial motion to sup-
press evidence, with appellate
review for either the defense or
the prosecution side, be fol-
lewed. ACLU was successful in
getting a number of concessions
- from the bill's proponents, Most
of these relate to the pretrial
procedures but the most import-
ant concession gained by ACLU
was the inclusion within SB 88
of the federal rule permitting a
motion to suppress evidence dur-
ing trial in the discretion of the .
trial judge.
What Results?
That was how the _ session
ended. The ACLU program was,
on the whole, remarkably suc-
cessful. The most important leg-
islative advances of the entire
session occurred in that week
and the pattern of defeating
regressive legislation, established
through the entire session, con-
tinued to prevail. On balance
and from ACLU's standpoint it
was the best session in recent
memory. But we should not be
_ Summary
of 1967 |
the District Attorney in juvenile
court proceedings with the con-
sent of the juvenile court judge.
AB 1095 was opposed on the
Senate floor by Senator Harmer
(R-Glendale) on the grounds that
it would make an adversary pro-
eeeding of the juvenile court
hearings. Harmer supported Sen-
ate Bills 37 and 38. His theory,
apparently, was that the presence
of a District Attorney does not
make for an adversary proceed-
ing but the presence of a defense
attorney does. Or perhaps he
refused to be intimidated by
the hobgoblin of an intelligent
consistency. A number of repres-
sive juvenile law bills were de-
feated; most important among
these were Senate Bills 206 and
207 (Lagomarsino). They would
have greatly expanded the power
to detain juveniles and would
have provided that a juvenile
could be extradited to another
state without any extradition pro-
ceedings occurring in the State
of California.
Bail Reform
All attempts at bail .reform
were killed in the 1967 session.
The most important of these was
SB 1100 (Moscone). Moscone's
bill was an adaptation of the
Federal Bail Act which shifts the
burden from the defendant, who
presently has to establish that
he is entitled to be released to
the prosecution, which would
Legislative
Session (c)
by Paul N. Halvonik
ACLUNC's Ass't Staff Counsel
and Legislative Representative _
unduly optimistic. Too many of
the right results were reached
for the wrong reasons.. For ex-
ample, Rumford revision was
avoided not because of a dedi-
eation to the ideal of integra-
tion but because of the intran-
sigence of those who demanded
complete repeal of the fair hous-
ing laws. The Governor, who is
not conspicuous for his civil
liberties sympathy, is not as in-
experienced as he was in his first
year and it is reasonable to as-
sume that he will be better pre-
pared to translate some of his
programs into legislation during
the 1968 session.
Moreover, the 1968 session will
occur during an election year
and legislators who held the line
in the obscenity and fair hous-
ing areas may be of a compro-
mise mind. What follows is a
summary of the civil liberties
highlights of the 1967 session.
Many of these battles will have
to be fought again in 1968.
_ Juvenile Law
AB 1095 (Biddle) was adopted
by the Legislature and signed by
the Governor. It adopts and ex-
tends the juvenile rights criteria
announced by the United States
Supreme Court in the Gault: de-
cision. It requires juvenile and
probation officers to admonish
juveniles of their constitutional
rights, indluding the right to.
counsel and the right to remain
`silent. It provides for adequate
notice of juvenile hearings to
both the juvenile and his parent
or guardian. At the hearings;
juveniles are to be afforded the
right to counsel, whether or not
indigent, and, if indigent, the
right to a transcript on appeal.
On the other side of the centoin,
Senate Bills 37 and 38 (Ken-
nick) allow the participation of
_ citing material of
-deeming social importance" to
- juveniles. It passed the Assem-
: bly unanimously but its moderate
approach resulted in its defeat
`in the Senate Judiciary .Com-
have to explain why a
person should not be released.
Moscone's bill also provided
speedy review of a decision not
to release an accused pending
trial. Moscone has indicated that
he will reintroduce the measure
in the 1968 session. Assemblyman
John Vasconcellos (D-San Jose)
who also had a bail reform bill
killed in the 1967 session (AB
2405) has also vowed to seek
bail reform again in the coming
year.
Capital Punishment
Once again all efforts to re-
peal the death penalty (SB 403,
Moscone; ABs 607 and 2375, Mc-
Millan) and place a moratorium
on its use (AB 606, Burton) were
defeated. Attempts to extend the
death penalty, such as SB 387
(Lagomarsino), were also' de-
feated. ae .
Obscenity
Senate Bills 78, 79 (Lago-
marsino), 96 (Carrell) and As-
sembly Bills 9 (Deddeh) and
1664 (Knox), all designed to ex-
pand the present obscenity law,
were defeated. The most impor-
tant bills were SB 78 and 79 and
AB 1664. SB
supported by the Reagan ad-
ministration and Attorney Gen-
eral Thomas Lynch. They passed
the Senate with only three dis-
senting votes but were killed in
the Assembly .Committtee on
Criminal Procedure. AB 1664 was
' the most reasonable of the new
obscenity measures; it prohibited.
the "pandering" of sexually ex-
"slight re-
mittee.
78 and 79 were - : ;
~ agent entered into a transaction
Rights of Aliens
There were some improve-
ments in California's anti-alien
laws, The one-year limitation up-
on service by alien librarians was
removed (AB 1253, Zenovich)
and limitations on the services
of alien physicians in local men-
tal health services were removed
(SB 989, Short) as well as limi-
tations on the obtaining of cer-
tain seasonal liquor licenses by
aliens (SB 1079, McAteer). Un-
fortunately an attempt to remove
the unconstitutional restrictions
on employment of aliens by gov-
ernment and on public works
were vetoed by Governor Reagan
(ABs 1048 and 1049, Sieroty).
Anti-Sedition
All anti-sedition measures were
defeated in the 1967 session.
These included an _ anti-Nazi,
group-libel bill (AB 141, McMil-
lan), a bill banning speakers on
campuses if they attempt to "in-
doctrinate" students in "com-
munism" (SB 734, Whetmore);
a poorly-drafted attempt to con-
form California's loyalty oath to
the requirements set forth in re-
cent United States Supreme
Court decisions (ACA 12 and
AB 93, Hayes) and a last-minute
effort by their author to place
the legislature on record as fa-
voring loyalty oaths (ACR 131)
Hayes. Attempts to repeal the
oath of non-disloyalty (AB 833
and ACA 33, Burton, were also
defeated.
Vehicle Forfeitures
California's vehicle forfeiture
law was repealed in its entirety
as an emergency measure that
went into immediate effect in
June of this year. (SB 429),
Miller). This bill passed while
ACLUNC was litigating the con-
stitutionally of the law. The pas-
sage of SB 429 made it unneces-
sary to pursue that suit.
Pre-emption
A number of bills were intro-
duced in this field. The ACLUNC
board has taken the position
that the pre-emption is not in
itself a civil liberties issue but
that it does pose civil liberties
. problems in the fields of ob-
scenity and loitering. A bill to
leave obscenity to local control
(AB 807, Wakefield) was killed
in early March by the Assembly
Criminal Procedure Committee.
The author of the bill joined a
unanimous committee in killing
it. A bill to leave the law gov-
erning loitering up to local com-
munities also died early in the
session. (SB 67, Sherman). All of
the pre-emption sound and fury,
in the end, signified nothing. No
changes were made in the pres-
ent law of pre-emption.
Right To Counsel
ABs 2111 (Harvey Johnson)
and 2546 (Meyers) and SB 936
(Lagomarsinio), all of which
would have resulted in indigents
paying for the services of the
public defender, were killed.
Civil Rights
_ As noted above, all of the many
attempts fo repeal or modify the
State's fair housing laws were
defeated. A number of bills: de-
signed to strengthen the fair
housing laws met the same fate.
Most imaginative among those
was AB 2249 (Miller). It would
have prohibited any racial or cog-
nate discriminations in housing
where a "public transaction" is
involved. A public transaction
was defined as a transaction in
which a real estate broker par-
ticipated. Thus once a real estate
neither he nor the seller could |
legally discriminate. This would
have remedied a defect in the
present law recognized by the
State Supreme Court in the case
of Vargas v. Hanson where the
real estate agent did not him-
self discriminate racially but the
owner did and the person dis-
criminated against was thus de-
nied recovery. Some minor ad-
-Continued on Page 4
ACLU NEWS
OCTOBER, 1967
Page 3 |
Women For Peace
Transit Ad
Case to State
Supreme Court
The California Supreme Court has been asked to grant
a hearing in the case of Frances Wirta and Madeleine
Duckles vs. A-C Transit District, the case involving the right
of The Women For Peace to place a political advertisement
`on the buses of a public transit company. The opinion of the
Court of Appeal, which the Su-
preme Court has been asked to
nullify, held that The Women for
Peace did not have the right to
place an ad concerning the war
in Vietnam because the transit
district was within its rights in
limiting political advertisements
to the times of an election with-
in the boundaries of the district
and to issues actually on the bal-
lot. The Court of Appeal re-
versed a trial court determina-
tion by Alameda County Super-
ior Court Judge Cecil Mosbacher
that The Women for Peace did
have a constitutional right to
place the advertisement.
Free Speech Standards
In the petition for a hearing
- to the California Supreme Court,
volunteer attorney Joseph Gro-
din and staff counsel Marshall
W. Krause argued that the Court
of Appeal had ignored First
Amendment standards and had
improperly applied Fourteenth
Amendment equal protection
standards. The petition points
out that restriction of political
advertisement to ballot issues at
-the time of an election prevents
any communication on many sig-
nificant problems which never
become ballot issues such as
conservation and civil rights.
Commercial Convenience
The Court of Appeal, in justi-
fying these restrictions, said that
election advertising is predict-
able whereas non-election adver-
tising might come in sudden
bunches interfering with com-
mercial advertisements. The
ACLU's petition points out that
there is no evidence in the rec-
ord that any such event ever
happened and that this rule
_ would make commercial conven-
ience the measure of constitu- -
tional rights. However, it is the
right to freedom of expression
which enjoys a preferred posi-
tion under our Constitution and
not the right to advertise com-
mercial products. The latter can
be regulated by any reasonable
means and even prohibited; the
former cannot be infringed upon
except on a showing of com-
pelling state interest and the un-
availability of less onerous
means of regulation.
Lack of Information
The petition continues: "The
Court of Appeal makes a funda-
mental error when it states that
because all advertising on all
non-election issues is forbidden
there is no censorship. Basic to
an understanding of political at-
titudes is that lack of informa-
tion is propaganda for the status
quo. Change in attitude and posi-
tion cannot take place without
communication and _ prevailing
views will continue until they
are shown to be in error or re-
placeable by better views. Allow-
ing no communication on an is-
sue is a form of censorship none-
theless harmful because it is
hidden under an appearance of
impartiality."
Federal Court Decision
A federal district court in
New York has recently held that
the New York Transit Authority
could not refuse posters offered
as advertisements by the Stu-
- dents for a Democratic Society
merely because they were "poli-
ACLU NEWS
OCTOBER, 1967
Page 4
rights area. AB
tical' and not-at the time of an
election, Judge Bonsal wrote an
opinion in which he stated that
the only ground on which the
Transit Authority could decline
to accept the advertisements was
that they would create a clear
and present danger of unlawful
conduct.
The Supreme Court of Califor-
nia is expected to decide
whether or not to accept the case
for review sometime in October
or November.
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP
MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION
(Act of October 23, 1962: Section 4369,
Title 39,-United States Code.)
Date of Filing: September 11, 1967.
Title of Publication: ACLU News.
Frequency of Issue: Monthly.
Location of known office of publi-
eation: 503 Market St., San Francisco,
California 94105.
Location of the headquarters or
general offices of the publishers: 503
Market Street, San Francisco, Cali-
fornia 94105.
Publisher: ACLU of Northern Cali-
fornia, Inc., 503 Market Street, San.
Francisco, California 94105.
Editor: Ernest Besig, 503 Market
pireet San. Francisco, California
4105.
Managing editor: None.
Owner: (If owned by a corporation,
its name and address must be stated
and also immediately thereunder the
names and addresses of stockholders
owning or pole 1 percent or more
of total amount of stock. If not owned
by a corporation, the names and ad-
dresses of the individual owners must
be given. If owned by a partnership
or other unincorporated firm, its
name and address, as well as that of
each individual must be _ given.):
ACLU of Northern California, Inc.,
503 Market Street, San _ Francisco,
California 94105. No stockholders.
Known bondholders, mortgagees,
and other security holders owning
or holding 1 percent or more of total
amount of bonds, mortgages or other
securities: None.
Avg. No. Single
copies ea. issue
issue dur- nearest
ing pre- to
ceding 12 filing
: months. date.
Total No. Copies
printed (Net
press run) 10,250 9,000
Paid circulation:
1.-Sales through
dealers and carriers
street vendors and
counter sales None
2. Mail sub- :
scriptions 1,768 7,156
Total paid
circulation 7,768 7,156
Free distribution
(including samples)
by mail, carrier or
other means 1,982 1,694
Total dis-
tribution 9,750 8,850
Office use, left-
over, unaccounted,
spoiled after :
printing 500 150
TOTAL 10,250 9,000
I certify that the statements made
above by me are correct and complete.
ERNEST BESIG, Editor
Legislative
Summary -
Continued from Page 3-
vances were made in the civil
490 (Ralph)
makes it a misdemeanor wilfully
to discriminate in an appren-
ticeship program and AB 1453
(Bagley) provides an adminis-
trative remedy for such discrimi-
nations. AB 544 (Greene) expli-
citly authorizes the Fair Employ-
ment Practices Commission af-
firmatively to engage in educa-
tional programs designed to pro-
mote voluntary fair practices in
hiring; it carries a disclaimer
that specifically prohibits any
construction of the bill that
would promote hiring on a pref-
erential basis. A number of bills
that would have added desegre-
gation of employment and educa-
tion were killed,
Membership
At Record
High of 7227
ACLUNC's membership
reached a record high of 7227 on
August 31. This was an increase
of 279 members over a year ago
when the membership stood at
6948. In addition, there were 221
separate subscribers to the
"News" and a paid mailing list
of 7448.
Where Supporters Reside
More than 4 out of 5 support-
ers live in 51 communities hav-
ing 20 or more members. Fifty-
three per cent of the Union's
supporters reside in the ten
chapter areas. Six of the ten
chapter areas have shown a gain
in membership. Santa Clara Val-
ley made the greatest gain in
membership - 72, while Berk-
eley-Albany gained 66 support-
ers. Sacramento gained 44 mem-
bers (it lost 49 in '66), Mt. Di-
ablo 14, Monterey 11, and Marin
7. Mid-Peninsula lost 47 support-
ers, Santa Cruz 13 and Fresno
7. Stockton didn't change,
Chapter
On August 31, the chapters had
the following mailing lists (mem-
bers and subscribers): Berkeley-
Albany, 1366; Mid-Peninsula,
624; Marin, 484; Sacramento,
406; Santa Clara Valley, 352; Mt.
Diablo, 253; Santa Cruz, 128;
Fresno, 127; and Monterey
County, 126. Stockton is in last
place with 81 supporters.
Sonoma County presently has
a membership of 157. A proposal
to establish a chapter in that
area is still under consideration.
Following is the list of com-
munities in which the ACLUNC
has 20 or more supporters:
Increase
1967 1966 or
Decrease
San Francisco.. 1559 1436 123
Berkeley _.......... 1331 1265 66.
Oakland ==. 333 339 =(6)
Palo Alto ........ 279 295 (16)
Sacramento ...... 216 201 15
San | Jose: 22:2 164 142 22
Mill Valley ...... 134 128 6
Davis = 126 95 31
Fresno ............-- 117 (112 5
Menlo Park ...... 101 107 (6)
El Cerrito ........ 96 93 3
Stanford ............ 92 94 (2)
Santa Cruz... 87 87 -
`San Rafael ...... 86 82 4
Stockton. ............ 81 81 -
San Mateo ........ 77 86 (9)
Santa Rosa ...... TT 51. 20
Los Altos .......... (16... $0. (9)
Livermore ........ 67 59 8
Orinda ==. =3- = 630x00B0 58 5
Redwood City . 60 58 ee
Sausalito. .......... 60 66 (6)
Carmel] ............... 56 45 11
Richmond. ........ 54 49 5
Walnut Creek .. 53 50 3
Lafayette .......... 49 40 9
Los Gatos .......... 46 63 (17)
Hillsborough...........40 37 3
Mt. View .......... 36 36 --
Albany ...........:.. 35 #35 -
Daly City ........ 34 29 5
Napa *.2...2:225 32 41 (9)
Carmichael ..... 31 24 i
Castro Valley .. 29 29
Hayward .........- 29 33. (4)
Monterey ......... 29 31 (2)
San Anselmo... 29 32. (3)
Concord ............. 28 26 2
Sunnyvale ........ eel 238 4
Kentfield .......... 26 30 = (4)
Fairfax 32: 25 ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1946.batch ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1947.batch ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1948.batch ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1949.batch ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1950.batch ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1951.batch ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1952.batch ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1953.batch ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1954.batch ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1955.batch ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1956.batch ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1957.batch ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1958.batch ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1959.batch ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1960.batch ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1961.batch ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1962.batch ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1963.batch ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1964.batch ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1965.batch ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1966.batch ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1967.batch ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log =
Burlingame ...... 24 21 3
Modesto. ............ 230x00B0 25 (2)
-Portola Valley. 23 35 (12)
Saratoga ............ 23: 21... 2
Atherton .......... 22 = =
Fremont _.......... 21-33: 2)
Pacific Grove .. 21 ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1946.batch ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1947.batch ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1948.batch ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1949.batch ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1950.batch ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1951.batch ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1952.batch ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1953.batch ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1954.batch ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1955.batch ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1956.batch ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1957.batch ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1958.batch ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1959.batch ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1960.batch ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1961.batch ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1962.batch ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1963.batch ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1964.batch ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1965.batch ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1966.batch ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1967.batch ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1946.batch ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1947.batch ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1948.batch ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1949.batch ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1950.batch ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1951.batch ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1952.batch ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1953.batch ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1954.batch ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1955.batch ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1956.batch ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1957.batch ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1958.batch ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1959.batch ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1960.batch ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1961.batch ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1962.batch ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1963.batch ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1964.batch ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1965.batch ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1966.batch ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1967.batch ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log
Sebastopol ........ 21 s x
Woodside .......... 21 = ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1946.batch ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1947.batch ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1948.batch ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1949.batch ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1950.batch ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1951.batch ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1952.batch ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1953.batch ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1954.batch ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1955.batch ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1956.batch ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1957.batch ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1958.batch ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1959.batch ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1960.batch ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1961.batch ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1962.batch ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1963.batch ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1964.batch ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1965.batch ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1966.batch ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1967.batch ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log
Santa Clara ...... 20 = =
( ) indicates a decrease,
*Not on the list last year, so ex-
act increase not known,
Peace Vote Wins in
Continued from Page 1-
Francisco in stating their opin-
ions on how tax money is spent.
It pointed out that an ordinance
carrying a declaration of policy
into effect need do no more than
advise San Francisco's repre-
sentatives in legislative bodies
that the policy has been ap-
proved by the electorate.
Opinion by Chief Justice
The opinion of the Supreme
Court of California was written
by Chief Justice Roger Traynor
and joined in by Justices Peters,
Tobriner, Mosk and _ Sullivan.
Justices Burke and McComb
joined in a dissenting opinion.
Chief Justice Traynor wrote: "It
must be noted at the outset that
the acting Registrar of Voters
exceeded his authority in under-
taking to determine whether the
proposed initiative was within
the power of the electorate to
adopt ... It is not his function
to determine whether a proposed
initiative will be valid if enacted
or whether a proposed declara-
tion of policy is one to which the
initiative may apply. These ques-
tions may involve difficult legal
issues that only a court can de-
termine. The right to propose
initiative measures cannot prop-
erly be impeded by a decision of
a ministerial officer, even if sup-
ported by the advice of the City
Attorney, that the subject is not
appropriate for submission to
the voters. Given compliance
with the formal requirements for
submitting an initiative, the
Registrar must place it on the
ballot unless he is directed to do
otherwise by a court. . ." The
Chief Justice then stated that
the Court would decide the le-
gality of the initiative despite
the faulty foundation for the
case, since the parties had urged
it to do so.
Liberal Construction
The Court pointed out that the
initiative power must be liber-
ally construed to promote the
democratic process. It could find
no limitations in San Francisco's
Charter to support the City At-
torney's view that initiative
measures had to be concerned
with subjects which could be en-
acted into law by the Board of
Supervisors. "As representatives
of local communities, Boards of
Supervisors and City Councils
have traditionally made declara-
tions of policy on matters of eon-
cern to the community whether
or not they have power to effec-
tuate such declarations by bind-
ing legislation. Indeed, one of
the purposes of local government
is to represent its citizens before
Congress, the Legislature, and
administrative agencies in mat-
ters over which the local govern-
ment has no power. Even in mat-
The first right of a citizen
Is the right
To be responsible
sion from local problems."
California Supreme Court
ters of foreign policy it is not
uncommon for local legislative
bodies to make their positions
known... The fact that the
Board's duty `to carry into ef-
fect' approved policies is inop-
erative when the policy is be
yond the power of the Board to
effectuate, affords no basis for
restricting the right to declare
the policy. Only by construing
the paragraph narrowly against
the power of initiative could it
be held that the voters may only
declare policies that the Super-
visors could effectuate by ordi-
nance.
Popular Will
"Even under such a narrow
construction, however, the pro-
posed initiative is authorized,
for the Board of Supervisors can
enact ordinances carrying out
the declaration to express the
popular will. The Board by ordi-
nance can use the avenues of
advocacy available to it to ex-
press that will. It can, for ex-
ample, direct its legislative rep-
resentative in Washington to
make the people's position
known, re-name streets or build-
ings, or order the posting of the
declaration in public buildings."
The dissenting opinion of two
justices criticized the majority
for allowing the initiative proc-
ess to extend beyond municipal
affairs. The dissent thought the
citizens of San Francisco had
sufficient redress to express
their opinions in petitions to the
federal government and those of-
ficials actually responsible for
federal foreign policy, "There
are in every community militant
groups espousing controversial
causes of all kinds. History has
demonstrated that signatures to
petitions can be obtained for al-
most any conceivable purpose.
It takes little imagination to
name issues which one or an-
other group might desire to
force a municipal vote. [The dis-
senting opinion then named 15
controversial public issues.} Not
one of these issues is any further
removed from municipal affairs
than the agonizing problem
which is the concern_of the pres-
ent petition. And what would be
the ultimate effect of such
broadening of municipal elec-
tions? Apart from the illegality
of such action ,the injection of
issues such as these into munici-
pal elections would so embroil
the people of any community:
that where the candidates for
local office, seeking election
based on their individual records
of experience and their plat-
forms for municipal improve-
ments, and perplexing local is-
sues requiring close public scru-
tiny and attention, would be ut-
terly lost in the confusion
caused by the intrusion of such
highly volatile, non-municipal is-
sues. The quality of local gov-
ernment would greatly deterior-
ate in direct ratio to this diver-
JOIN TODAY
B 151
Seo eee coun
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
TELEPHONE NUMBER ...........
`Patron Membership ..............-- ee $100
Sustaining Membership. ... .....:5..-.4..-. 0. = 50
Business and Professional Membership ........... 7. 20
FamilyaWembership. 7 5. ee es 15
Associate Membership ...............5- es 10
Annuak Membership 2.304. 536. 3 8
Student Membership ...... ee 3
ACLU News Subscripton ....... Ce 2 $2.00
NAME: 2). es ee
ADDRESS. and ZIP CODE (2 32 .. e s
ere AMT. ENCLOSED..........
503 Market Street
San Francisco, 94105