vol. 37, no. 3
Primary tabs
of
Publication of the
American Civil Liberties Union
Northern California
Volume XXXVII
San Francisco, March-April, 1972
Rehearing Petition Denied; U.S. Supreme Court Denies Stay
We. 3
Death Penalty Ended in California
e
Consumer Pickets
Cited For Contempt
Judge Henry Rolph of San Francisco
Superior Court on March 21 cited for:
contempt a consumer action group' that
picketed in violation of his injuction,
which the ACLU describes as ``a return to
the 1700's and the free speech repression
of King George Il.''
The picketing was done by San Fran-
cisco Consumer Action outside the Van
Ness Avenue showroom of British Motor
Car Distributors Ltd. Judge Rolph had
issued an injunction last month
prohibiting the consumer group from
taking such action to protest BMC's
alleged failure to honor its warranties.
Besides requesting the injunction, BMC
has filed a $6 million libel suit against the
group for earlier picketing on behalf of a
San Francisco woman who claims BMC
sold her an unworkable car.
British Repression
Legal Director Paul Halvonik, the
group's attorney, points out: ``It is ironic
that it is a British firm who asked for this
unconstitutional injunction, since it is the
experience of our Founding Fathers with
British repression that led to making the
guarantee of free speech the first amend-
: a
KTVU Newsman Claude Mann in-
terviews Legal Director Paul
Halvonik.
ment to the Bill of Rights. However, it
was an American judge who issued such a
sweeping injunction prohibiting all
picketing and he should know better.''
San Francisco Consumer Action is a
volunteer group that has resolved nearly
75 grievances in favor of consumers since
its founding less than one year ago. SFCA
Q Accepts ACLU
Form Writ Offer
| To Empty Death Row
San Quentin Prison officials have ac-
cepted an offer by the ACLU of a system
for helping the state empty Death Row
with a minimum of cost in time and:
money. Thus begins the implementation
in the prison of ACLU's successful death
penalty abolition campaign in the
California courts.
In a letter to San Quentin Warden Louis
Nelson, the ACLU offered to set the
wheels in motion by providing a form
habeas corpus writ for prisoner use.
Petitioning by the prisoner for a writ of
habeas corpus is the necessary first step in
returning inmates to their sentencing
court for reduction of their sentence from
death to life.
Ugly Anachronism
Legal Director Paul Halvonik explains,
""Now that the court has ruled, I am sure
that everyone wants to get rid of this ugly
anachronism as quickly as possible. Since
_ Many inmates on Death Row don't now
have legal counsel, considerable delay and
confusion would result unless some
- system is established. This form writ will
greatly facilitate the reclassification,
saving prison officials much time and
bother.''
The procedure for handling the
reduction of sentences to life Im-
prisonment requires that the inmate first
petition Marin County Superior Court for
writ of habeas corpus. Marin will transfer
the case to the court which initially im-
posed the penalty. That court will make
the sentence reduction to life, and return
.the formerly condemned man to the
Department of Corrections for the sort of
processing and institutional assignment
that occurs in all cases of imprisonment.
A Letter From
Death Row
Legal Director Paul Halvonik has
received the following letter from the man
now on Death Row who has spent the
longest time there - Walter Hines:
Dear Mr. Halvonik:
The habeas corpus forms, etc., came
today to us here on death row. Thank you
`very much for sending them.
Thanks to you, to your organization,
and to every last person who had a hand in
bringing about the recent decision ban-
ning the death penalty in our state. It's
impossible to tell you what it means to me.
I was ready to be executed this year -
my only hope was Governor Reagan. Now
Iam looking forward to the things I want -
to study, etc. Now my mother can rest.
Sincerely, Walter C. Hines
president Kay Pachtner explains that,
while most businesses will arrange some
sort of equitable settlement, ``picketing is
one of the most crucial and effective tools
of last resort available to citizens groups."'
The group was fined $100, as was
Pachtner herself. Halvonik has filed a writ
of habeas corpus challenging the decision
with the California Court of Appeal.
- Supreme Court.
1000 People
Support Court At
Coalition Event
A huge crowd, estimated at 1000, filled
Grace Cathedral on February 28 to ap-
plaud the decision of the California
Sponsored by The
Coalition To End The Death Penalty, the
event featured as speakers: Professor
Anthony Amsterdam, Ex-convict Charles
Turville, Assemblyman Alan Sieroty,
Episcopal Bishop C. Kilmer Myers and
former San Quentin Warden Clinton
Duffy.
Inhumane
Each of the speakers told of his own
experiences with the inhumanity of the
death penalty from Warden Duffy, who
has witnessed both hangings and gassings,
to Turville, who spent two years in the'
pressure-cooker atmosphere of San
Quentin's death row.
The Coalition now turns to organizing
in Southern California against the
possibility of a successful initiative petition
drive, which would require grass-roots
opposition throughout the state. In ad-
dition to developing strategies for an angi-
initiative campaign, the Coalition will be
cafrying on in-depth education among its
own membership and will continue staff
legal work on the death penalty cases
before the U.S. Supreme Court.
ACLU Sponsors
Drive to Repeal
Pot Use Law
The ACLU has announced its spon-
sorship and support for repeal of the
marijuana use law - both through
legislation just introduced by Assem-
blyman Henry A. Waxman and through
the California Marijuana Initiative, which
is gathering signatures to place the issue |
on the November ballot.
Legislation
The Waxman bill does mot legalize the
sale of marijuana and in no way interferes
with current state and federal efforts to
teduce the availability of the popular drug.
It does remove from state law all penalties
for marijuana possession. According to
Waxman, this will ``put an end to the
pointless harrassment of huge numbers of
Marijuana users who present no threat to
themselves or anyone else and free the
police and Courts to deal more com-
petently with serious narcotics and crime
problems.''
Growing acceptance of the use of
marijuana has left the law badly out-of-
step with the practices and beliefs of the
public. While the majority of Californias
consider marijuana a different and much
less dangerous drug than heroin or LSD
(California Poll - 1971), under present
California law the penalty for possession is
just the same - up to 10 years for first
offenses and up to 20 years for those with
previous convictions.
Commission Report
The National
Marijuana, described as
Commission on
quite con-
continued to page 5
Opponents Propose
Amendment to
The Constitution
On Friday, March 17, the California
Supreme Court finalized its February 18
decision that the death penalty is both
"`cruel'' and "`unusual'' by denying a
petition. for rehearing. On March 20 the
U.S. Supreme Court denied a request to
delay implementation. In its 6-1 decision
the state court held that:
_ `Tt (capital punishment) degrades and
dehumanizes all who participate in its
processes. It is unnecessary to any
legitimate goal of the state and is
incompatible with the dignity of man
and the judicial process."'
`San Quentin's Unconstitutional Gas
Chamber
Reaction was immediate from op-
ponents, with Governor Reagan stating:
``!'m deeply disappointed and somewhat |
shocked by the decision. The court is'
setting itself up above the people and their
legislators.''
ACLU-NC Board member Anthony
Amsterdam, who had argued the case
before the court, responded, ``What the
court did was its inescapable job to in-
terpret a Constitutional document which
is the safeguard of all of us. If and when the
courts abnegate that responsibility, and if
and when our liberties are turned over to
political demagogues, then this state and
this country will be less safe than it is
today."'
Vicious Attack
Opponents continued the vicious attack
on the court in Attorney General Evelle
Younger's Rehearing Petition, which
stated: "`The Court's lack of respect for
the constitutional doctrine of separation of
powers. . .can only be viewed by the public
as indicative of a lack of judicial restraint
continued to page 2
"ACLU Votes to Represent
Professor Franklin
The Board of Directors of ACLU-NC
voted unanimously at their March 90x00A7
meeting to represent Professor H. Bruce
Franklin, after concluding that he was
idischarged from Stanford for making
Bstatements protected by the First
Amendment.
- This decision came following a
thorough examination of the report of
Stanford's Advisory Board, a two-hour |
discussion of the civil liberties issues in the }
_ continued to page 8 and
Q Inmate
Kept Out
of Court
The Marin County Superior Court has
issued an order to show cause to the
California Department of Corrections,
who has been charged with violating a
_ prisoner's right of access to the courts by
San Quentin inmate Nathan Eli.
Eli has petitioned to file a complaint
against a San Quentin employee he felt
was responsible for the disappearance of
some of his property, which he missed
following his transfer from one death row
unit to another. The employee claimed
Eli's accusation was false and Eli was
locked up in solitary for seven days and
had all privileges removed for 23 more:
days. This disciplinary action was based on
a rule -D-1201-which makes it a
punishable offense for a prison inmate to
"`magnify grievances''.
Blatantly Lawless
Eli's attorney Legal Director Paul
Halvonik states, ``This disciplinary
procedure is blatantly lawless. Prison
officials are not free to use coercion or
force to prevent access to the courts. The
rule is vague and overbroad, having the
effect of denying prisoner any redress of
grievances, guaranteed by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the USS.
Constitution.
Not only did Eli suffer initially from the
unlawful punishment, but he will con-
tinue to suffer from its notation in his ~
disciplinary record in the event of a new
penalty trial, or parole eligibility hearing.
Eli was sent to prison by a 1967 San
Diego murder conviction. His conviction
is now on appeal to the California Supreme
Court. Last Fall the ACLU represented
him in a successful challenge to the
constitutionality of a prison rule that took
25 percent of a prisoner's book royalties.
Help, Help...
The Complaint
Desk
The Complaint Desk is in need of new
blood. Personal circumstances have
caused two volunteers to leave. The in-
creased use of the Desk by the public,
makes this loss an emergency.
If you have one or two days a week to
help in this very interesting and
worthwhile work, call 433-2750 and
volunteer. Ask for Administrative
Assistant Pam Ford, or Desk coordinators
Lola Hanzel or Margery Chiosso.
Congressional
Candidate Blocked
From Race
The California Supreme Court has
denied a petition on behalf of a
congressional candidate who meets every
qualification for Congressmen specified in
the ULS. Constitution, but who is
prevented by the California Election Code
from running for Congress this year.
The ACLU-NC will now file action in
the federal court system. Clifford C.
Humphrey, D-Modesto, has been told by
Secretary of State Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
that he cannot run in the Democratic
Primary because, although he has been a
Democrat most of his adult life, his re-
registration as a Democrat after a time as
an independent came too close to the
deadline for filing. Code No. 6401
provides that one must have been
registered in the party at least three
months prior to filing a declaration of
candidacy. However, Code No. 6830
prohibits one from running as an in-
dependent in the general election if he has
been registered with a party at any time
during the year preceding the primary,
thus preventing Humphrey from running
for Congress, even though he meets all of
the qualifications specified by the U.S.
Constitution.
Artificial Barrier
Humphrey's attorney Legal Director
Paul Halvonik states, ``The Court must
strike down this artificial barrier to the
ballot which robs a citizen of his fun-
damental liberty to run for office. It cannot
seriously be argued that three months of
formal association with one of the major
political parties demonstrates attachment
to any particular monolithic set of
principles, when the Democratic Party
presidential aspirants include Mayor John
Lindsay, a leading Republican less than a
year ago, and candidates whose
` philosophy runs all the way from Shirley
Chisholm to George Wallace.''
Pertinent Precedent
Halvonik likens this Code section to the
residency requirements which the Court
has already ruled unconstitutional. He
points to a pertinent precedent in the case
of Pierre Salinger, who appeared on the
ballot and won the Democratic
nomination for the U.S. Senate even
though he was not a resident of California
and thus did not satisfy any of the
statutory Democratic Party registration
requirements.
Humphrey is challenging Rep. John J.
McFall, D-Manteca, in the 15th
Congressional District. A leading figure in
the grass roots ecology movement,
Humphrey was one of the co-founders of
Ecology Action, in 1968, which has
spawned over 200 ecology groups in this
nation. He is presently Director of the
Ecology Action Educational Institute in
Modesto, and serves on the Board of
Directors of the Ecology Center Com-
munications Council in Washington, D.C.
Dea th continued from page 1
and responsibility, thereby decreasing the
already-declining respect of the public for
our courts."'
Use of such language by a responsible
public official was decried by ACLU-NC
Board member Jerome B. Falk, Jr., who
also worked on the case, described it as
`"unworthy of the State's Chief legal
officer.'' Falk's reply brief used the words
of authorities from Alexander Hamilton
and Daniel Webster to Woodrow Wilson
to demonstrate that ``interpretation of the
laws is the proper and peculiar province of
the courts'' and ``that where the will of
MAR - APR
Page 2 aclu NEWS
the legislature decalred in its statutes,
stands in opposition to that of the people
declared in the Constitution, the judges
ought to be governed by the latter.''
California Senator George Deukmejian
(R-Long Beach) is heading the effort to put
a constitutional amendment reinstating
the death penalty on the November ballot.
He has proposed both legislation and an
initiative measure to accomplish it.
Abolitionists will be lobbying against
such legislation, and watching the
initiative effort's progress toward the half
million signatures needed by June.
Letters to the Editor
Reaction to Franklin Decision
The following two letters from Stanford
reflect some of the ironic reaction to
ACLU's decision to represent Professor
H. Bruce Franklin.
Gentlemen:
With the Bruce Franklin case, the
ACLU has now got itself in the position of
defending the civil liberties of one of civil
liberties' worst enemies against one of
civil liberties' best friends. And despite
the claims of abstract `"`principle'' and the
straight-edge of legalism, that is not a
position I want to be placed in.
So with the greatest reluctance, after
thirty-five years, I am removing myself
from the rolls of the Civil Liberties Union.
I will give my little membership fee to
Stanford University to fight the ACLU
with, and I will urge my friends to do
likewise. That is one of the saddest things I
ever wrote.
A Stanford Professor
Gentlemen,
I am reassured that you have decided to
undertake the Bruce Franklin case, and
realize that I should have before now
joined the ACLU - or, rather, rejoined,
since my membership simply lapsed long
ago since the dark days of Joe McCarthy.
Would you please send me application
forms and what-not for joining?
A Stanford Professor
Joe Bishop Defended
Dear Sir:
Your January issue contains the
following in answer to an article appearing
in Commentary criticizing the ACLU:
"While a critical analysis of ACLU's
work from an objective outside ob-
server could probably be helpful in
encouraging us to be more self
critical, and aware, the fact is that the
author Joseph W. Bishop, Jr., a Yale
law professor, is hardly that kind of
critic. In 1970 Bishop, who was
former acting general counsel of the
Army, testified before the House
Internal Security Commission in favor
of retaining the emergency detention
provision (Title II) of the McCarren
Ach
As both a fifteen year member of the
ACLU and ACLU-NC, anda student and
friend of Joe Bishop's, I must express my
abhorrence for this kind of character
assassination. If Joe's character were the
matter at issue, it would be relevant to
note that he has been a leading supporter
of ACLU-advocated legislation to
guarantee servicemen procedural due
process and that he has appeared Bratis for
the NAACP in many of their cases.
Moreover, as general counsel of the
Army, he stood up to Joe McCarthy at a
time when the ACLU had an anti-.
communist loyalty oath (does it still -
have?) and shielded away from cases
defending extreme leftists.
your article relies solely on blackening his
character as a reply. I only hope that Joe's
article is less damaging to us than your
response. You ought to be ashamed of
yourself.
Don B. Kates, Jr.
Attorney at Law
CRLA-San Francisco
Dear Don:
I'm surprised by your letter to the
ACLU News and a little mystified too. It
has a tristfully injured tone that suggests
that we picked a fight with Bishop. It's the
other way around.
Now of course it's true that the critical
issue between Bishop and us is the ac-
curacy of his article in Commentary but
the News article, which inspired your
letter, clearly states that a rebuttal has
been prepared and tells you how to get it.
If your concern is with the "`real issue'"
why not read Neier's rebuttal before
taking us to task for a sin we have not
committed?
And Bishop's civil libertarian
credentials are not an ``unreal'' issue. He
puts them on the line in the Commentary
article. One would think, from his
characterization of himself, that he is
Osmond Frankel's philosophical Dop-
pelganger come to lead us back to the
righteous path. Well, Bishop did testify in
favor of the internment provisions of the
McCarren Act. We didn't blacken his
character, we only reported what it was
capable of doing. As a civil libertarian, he
is obviously no great shakes and the record
he implicitly misrepresented was properly
set straight.
The other things you refer to all seem
beside the point. I think, however, you
have been misled about them, so I will
reply briefly:
1) The Army, when Bishop was its
counsel, did not go out of its way to
challenge Joe McCarthy. On the contrary,
it did everything it could to avoid the
beery Senator. But Joe wouldn't let them
loose and so, with their backs to the wall,
they met his challenge. The Army proved
too much for McCarthy. One has mixed
emotions about that battle; it would have
been nice if both sides could have lost. It
was a pure case of self-defense; the Army
and Bishop cannot fairly call it a moment
of courage.
2) No, this affiliate has no non-
Communist disclaimer. It never has. And
the National ACLU saw the light quite
awhile ago.
3) Bishop did initiate some due process
changes in the Army's system of
`"justice'' but they tend to be attractive
icing on an unsavory cake, as everybody
who has tried a court-martial knows.
Everybody, that is, but Bishop. Bishop's
praise of the military kangaroo courts has
been a much greater disservice to the
cause of liberty than his attack on us. We
can fight back; those kids in the stockade
are not as fortunate.
Paul N. Halvonik
The real issue, however, is not the Sincerely,
accuracy of your ad hominem attack on Legal Direcor
Joe, but the accuracy of his article. To this ACLU-NC
aclu NEWS
10 issues a year, monthly except March - April and July - August.
Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California
Howard Jewel, Chairman of the Board
Jay Miller, Executive Director
William Kane, Editor and Public Information Director
Marielle Lipscomb, Staff Photographer
- 593 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-433-2750
Membership $10 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee for aclu
News.
_ 7S Attend Carmel Valley Conference
Seventy-five ACLUNC affiliate Board
members, Chapter leaders, and staff met
at Carmel Valley Inn on March 10
through 12 for an in-depth discussion of
program, organizational problems, and
priorities.
Women's rights emerged as the number
one priority, followed by an expansion of
Fourteenth Amendment equal protection
actions on behalf of the Chicano and Black
communities. Other high priority items
were victimless crimes and _ prisoner
rights.
ACLU Reactive
It was recognized that ACLU must
remain largely a reactive organization.
The greatest percentage of its efforts and
priority must continue to be devoted to its
traditional protection of First Amendment
and due process rights. However, the
conference examined ways that resources
could be expanded to deal with affirmative
program priorities. There was enthusiastic
approval for in-coming Legal Director
Charles Marson's plan to set up legal task
forces of volunteer cooperating attorneys
in each priority area.
Further, Chapter leaders expressed a
desire to work more closely with the
Sacramento office on key legislative issues
to strengthen ACLU's lobbying efforts.
The major organizational problem was
the question of control by the Affiliate of
Chapter litigation. How much autonomy
Women's
Probation Officer
Suspended for Poster
Volunteer ACLU attorney Jerome B.
Falk Jr. has filed a brief in the U.S. Court '
of Appeals on behalf of a Deputy
Probation Officer who was suspended for
refusing to take a "`pro black-militant''
poster down from the wall of his office.
Nelson.L. Phillips worked in the Family
Support Section of the Adult Probation
Department handling divorce and child
support problems among a clientele which
was virtually all non-white, some 75
percent of which were black. Phillips,
himself a black man, states, ``I was
concerned with the treatment which
Angela Davis, Eldridge Cleaver and H.
Rap Brown were receiving at the hands of
the mass media As a_ symbolic
statement and protest, I posted in my
office (the poster)."'
Wanted By FBI
The poster pictured the three in-
dividuals, at that time all fugitives sought
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
and stated: ``Wanted by the F.B.1.; Faith,
Beauty, Integrity; REWARD; Love-
Peace-Happiness.''
Attorney Falk states, `"There are grave
dangers in any system which permits a
single bureaucrat to determine what
Representatives of Sacramento, Marin, Monterey and Santa Clara (plus many
others not showing in picture) gather with staff to discuss Chapter litigation
policies.
should the Chapter have to commit the
organization to cases within ACLU's
existing policies? Inherent in this question
is the need for coordination of legal
strategies, Chapter needs in the com-
munity, and expenditures of limited funds
for legal costs. The conference recom-
mended reorganization of the Legal
Rights workshop draws interest from all groups. Pictured here
ate representatives of staff, Mt. Diablo, Oakland and Marin.
Committee structure so that there would
be two committees. .
One committee would be made up of
legal coordinators from each Chapter, who
would meet monthly with the legal staff to
review and recommend cases arising from
the Chapters. The other committee -
possibly to be named the Legal Strategy
Committee - would be made up of
volunteer attorneys expert in various civil
liberties areas who would be responsible
for planning over-all legal strategy for the
organization and recommending to the
Board of Directors new policy positions.
Further, the conference recommended
that the Chapter legal coordinators meet
with the staff to work out guidelines for
control and coordination of Chapter legal
activity by the affiliate, as soon as possible.
Finally, the conference recommended
that a similar conference be held in early
17 3.
Conference recommendations will be
presented to the affiliate's Board of
Directors at its April meeting.
U.S. Supreme Court Hears
Army Lieutenant C.O. Case
On March 22 the U.S. Supreme Court
heard ACLU volunteer attorney John
Hansen argue the case of Lieutenant John
A. Strait, who was denied CO _ status by
the Army.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had
previously ruled for Lt. Strait and ordered
him discharged. But at the government's
request it reconsidered its decision and
ordered the case dismissed, telling Lt.
exercise of speech may be permitted ac-
cording to his own unpublished personal
opinions of what is `offensive', or
`disrespectful' or `in poor taste." We have
here no standards or regulations of any
kind, only the day-to-day exercise of the
unfettered discretion of Phillips' boss.
This is clearly an unconstitutional
system."'
Falk points out that no attempt was
made to demonstrate that the poster in any
way impaired the performance of Phillips'
duties, hence ``no showing was made of a
compelling state interest to justify the
suppression of the First Amendment right
of freedom of expression."'
Strait that he must file the case in the
district of the military administrative
headquarters rather than in the area where
he lives and works.
Hansen points out the extreme hardship
involved in requiring a man to report for
duty in a strange and distant community,
perhaps half way across the country, in
order to litigate the right to release. He
states that `*this has the effect of denying
many men a swift legal remedy for their
situation. Allowing a site of Lt. Strait's
choice, however, is certainly no
significant inconvenience to the
Government, as they have counsel
throughout the land.''
Hansen continues, ``The fundamental
issue in the case is whether citizen-soldiers
aggrieved by actions of the military may
file timely court actions where they live
and work, or whether they must do so at
times and places convenient to the
military."'
The case is a joint effort of ACLU-NC
Foundation and the American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation in New York.
A Few Recent
Lesses in Court
Halvonik vs. Reagan
The U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed
the mootness judgment of the District
Court on our Legal Director's action as a
private Berkeley citizen. The challenge
was to a loitering regulation that was
issued following disturbances at the time
of the People's Park affair in 1969. The
court did not reach the merits of the
charge that the regulations were vague
and overbroad, as they were subsequently
replaced by less restrictive regulations.
-Hamilton vs. California
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to
hear this challenge to the constitutionality
of a pre-trial publicity gag-rule by Judge
George Brunn of the Berkeley-Albany
Judicial District. The case involved a
1966 sit-in demonstration on the Berkeley
campus of the University of California.
Steven Hamilton, one of the defendants,
was cited for contempt because he issued a
statement to the press in violation of the
order.
Choung vs. Misterly
The U.S. Court of Appeals did not
consider the constitutional issues raised in
this case (lack of specificity in the com-
plaint) rather holding that a district court
deprives itself of jurisdiction to grant
Habeas Corpus to-a state convict where it
grants a stay of his physical incarceration.
Volunteer ACLU attorney Lawrence
Karlton has petitioned for a rehearing.
Hernandez vs. V.A.
The U.S. District Court has dismissed a
class action on behalf of conscientious
objectors who have performed alternative
service and been denied educational
benefits under the Veterans Readjustment
Benefits Act. The Court held that the
challenge was insubstantial and without
merit, and not within the jurisdiction of
the Court. Volunteer ACLU attorney Jack
Petranker is preparing an appeal.
Renew
nmenew
Renew
renew
mete y
Avoid receiving the third renewal
notice and spending ACLU money on
printer's ink. . .Renew Today!
MAR - APR
aclu NEWS
Page 3
Legislative Report
CIVIL LI
By Charles Marson
The 1971 Regular Session of the California Legislature was the longest in its history,
one of the most bitter and divisive, and at the same time one of the least productive. Many
of the civil liberties issues posed were old and familiar; some were novel. Here is a partial
and general summary of the results.
Free Speech, Loyalty and Subversion: A rerun of past years
All attempts to reinstate legislation against ``subversives'' were again successfully
killed. Assembly Bill 39, by Michael Cullen, would have prohibited the government
employment of any person engaging in violent conduct of an unlawful nature in order to
bring about the overthrow of the government. It was killed in the Assembly Criminal
Justice Committee. A warmed-over loyalty oath for all public employees was proposed by
Assemblyman Burke in A.B. 3, but after ACLU opposition was also killed in the same
committee.
Advocacy of criminal behavior came under heavy attack, most of which was suc-
cessfully resisted. S.B. 482, by Senator Lagomarsion, originally made it a felony, in very
vague language, to advocate the killing or injuring of policemen. Although the bill
eventually passed, extensive ACLU amendments were entered into the bill on the
Assembly side so that it is strictly limited to those situations in which punishment is
permitted by the First Amendment. A similar bill was killed in Criminal Justice; it was
A.B. 1529, by Assemblyman Hayden. Senate Bill 204, by John Harmer, would have
rewritten the criminal syndicalism law into the California statutes. After ACLU op-
_ position it was killed in the Criminal Justice Committee. Assembly Bill 720, by
Assemblyman Ketchum, was a particularly vicious measure which would have made it a
felony to advocate any rule violation in any jail or prison. It was killed, with ACLU op-
position, in the Criminal Justice Committee.
The Death Penalty: No Movement
Assembly Bill 13, by Assemblyman Alan Sieroty, would have repealed the death
penalty. Although for the first time in many years it emerged successfully from the
Assembly committee, it was never brought to a floor vote because of the intervening
decision of the United States Supreme Court to review the cruel and unusual punishment
issue. A vote was deferred until that decision is rendered.
The attempts to expand the death penalty were successfully defeated, with extensive
ACLU participation. A.B. 616, for example, by Assemblyman Russell, would have
provided for the death penalty in some cases of assault with a deadly weapon on a police
officer. It was killed in the Assembly Criminal Justice Committee. Another example was
A.B. 1525, by Charles Conrad, which would have provided the death penalty for the
kidnapping of a public official. It, too, was killed after ACLU opposition in the Criminal
Justice Committee, as was S.B. 112, by Senator Richardson, which would have made
mandatory the death penalty for the first degree murder of a policeman.
Drugs, Sex, Alcohol: Victimless Crime
No progress was made on the marijuana front. A. B. 626, Assemblyman Sieroty's
attempt to cut the sentence for possession to 90 days, did not even emerge from com-
mittee. His next bill, 627, which would have removed marijuana possession from the list
of crimes for which one is required to register as a menace with the local police; was
refused passage on the Assembly floor. The now yearly attempt to remove marijuana from
the definition of narcotics and put it into another part of the statutes, without changing
any of the penalties, failed again. A.B. 336, by John Vasconcellos, was killed in the
Assembly Committee on Health. A.B. 1844, by Assemblymen Miller and Sieroty, would
have drawn a distiction in the narcotics laws between those who furnish narcotics to
others for commercial gain and those who do so socially out of friendship. The bill was
killed in committee. The California Legislature has not surmounted, apparently, either its
personal or political insecurities on the subject of sexual conduct by consenting adults.
A.B. 437, by Willie L. Brown, Jr., was the yearly attempt to abolish most of the laws
against sexual conduct by consenting adults in private. It emerged from the Assembly
Criminal Justice Committee, with the support of the ACLU, but was soundly killed on
the Assembly floor.
However, a great advance in the system of criminal justice occurred with the enact-
ment of S.B. 819, by Senator Deukmejian. This bill, supported by ACLU, permits
policemen, instead of taking public drunks to jail, to take them to detoxification facilities.
The problem with the bill is not its theory, but that most counties do not have such
facilities and so such people still end up in jail. At least, however, the goal of
decriminalization has been endorsed.
Discrimination in Race and Sex
Assemblyman William Bagley continued his excellent performance in the field of
school integration by passing and getting signed into law A.B. 724, imposing added
burdens on the State Board of Education and on local school districts to seek to achieve
racial balance. The bill was supported by the ACLU.
A.B. 727, by Yvonne Brathwaite, would have prohibited sexual pec or in
housing and in other business activities. Notwithstanding ACLU support, the measure
was killed committee.
Prisons and Parole: no progress, no retreat
Nearly all positive prison legislation failed, despite heroic efforts by many concerned
groups, to reach a hostile Governor's desk. The most sweeping prison bill of the year was
introduced by Assemblyman John Dunlap of Napa County (A.B. 2904) and Senator
Mervin Dymally (S.B. 1610). It would have provided rules and prodecures with respect to
the treatment and discipline of prisoners, including due process hearings before placement
in the Adjustment Center. It was soundly defeated. Each bill was passed by the house in
which it was introduced and killed on the other side. An entire series of bills by
Assemblyman Alan Sieroty concerning the civil rights of prisoners all met with defeat.
The only one that got to the Governor's desk was A.B. 2700, which would have extended
to juveniles the present civil rights of prisoners set forth in Section 2600 of the Penal
Code. The Governor vetoed the bill. The Governor also seems not to want inmates to be
visited by doctors. He vetoed a bill supported by the ACLU and authored by Assem-
blywoman Brathwaite, A.B. 1661, which simply would have provided a right of access
for psychiatrists or physicians employed by the prisoner or his attorney to ascertain the
mental or physical condition of the prisoner. The bill even had the support of the State
Bar.
The most widely publicized bill on the subject of prisons that reached the Governor's
desk was Assemblyman Frank Murphy's A.B. 1181, which provides an ombudsman
MAR - APR
Page 4 aclu NEWS
ERTIES AND THE 1971 LEGISLATURE
system for the Department of Corrections. The Governor vetoed it; it has been rein-
- troduced in 1972.
The yearly attempt to import some due process procedures into the parole revocation
mechanism also failed. For example, A.B. 1139, by Willie L. Brown, Jr., would have
placed the process in the Superior Court. It did not even emerge from the Criminal Justice
Committee of the Assembly. A more moderate approach, suggested by Assemblyman
Frank Murphy, Jr., from Santa Cruz, in A.B. 1180, would have placed improved
revocation hearings in front of the Adult Authority. It, too, did not survive. The Adult
Authority again withstood the annual assault on it. All bills directed toward forcing it to
set sentences at minimum time, to articulate the standards it uses in the granting and
revocation of parole, and similar measures were either killed or amended into
meaninglessness.
Bail: the same old story
The only serious attempt in the Assembly to revise the current California system of bail
was soundly defeated on the Assembly floor. A.B. 2752, by Assemblyman Bagley, would
have greatly reduced the difficulty for poor persons getting out on bail by creating
presumptions that people ought to be released on their own recognizance and making
other substantial procedural changes in the bail system. The major bill on bail in the
Senate was S.B. 329, by Arlen Gregorio, which incorporated into California law the 10
per cent appearance bond system now used in Illinois. The 10 per cent would be posted
with the court. The bill was killed in committee.
Negative efforts, however, were defeated. The ACLU successfully opposed A.B. 1705,
by Assemblyman McGillivray, which would have eliminated the current provision in the
Penal Code that a person appealing a misdemeanor conviction is entitled to bail as a matter
of right.
The Penal Code now requires that a person who cannot make bail must be brought
before the court after five days in jail for a review of the amount of bail set. A.B. 320, by
Carlos Moorhead, would have changed that period to ten days. After vigorous opposition
by the ACLU, the bill was killed in the Criminal Justice Committee.
Wiretapping: continued victory for the ACLU
As has become usual, law enforcement announced that its number one feels
priority was to achieve statutory authorization for wiretapping and _ electronic
eavesdropping. The ACLU managed to kill both bills in committee. A.B. 396, by
Assemblyman Craig Biddle, would have established in California a comprehensive
scheme for wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping after obtaining a warrent. It was
killed in the Assembly Criminal Justice Committee. $.B. 228, by John Nejedly, was the
Senate's equivalent to the Assembly wiretapping bill. It, too, was killed in the first
committee. Both the Public Defender's Association and the State Bar now oppose
wiretapping; and now provide substantial assistance to the ACLU, which used to fight
this battle alone.
The Attack on the Jury System
Those interested in exploiting the current concern over court congestion for their own
bureaucratic and ideological purposes centered their attack on the jury system. The
system withstood nearly all of the attacks, with ACLU in the forefront of the fight.
There was a concerted attack on the current California requirement that the verdict in a
criminal case must be unanimous. S.B. 252, by Donald Grunsky, would have permitted a
verdict on five-sixths of the vote of the jury except in a capital case. After opposition by
the ACLU and others, it was killed in the Senate Judiciary Committee. A set of Assembly
bills to eliminate the requirement that a jury must convict a criminal by unanimous
verdict was also killed in committee. One was A.B. 1896, by Assemblyman Ray Johnson.
Another facet of the attack on juries was S.B. 676, by Senator Lagomarsino, which
would have eliminated the right of defense counsel and the prosecutor to question
prospective jurors, and lodge that right in the judge only. The bill was opposed by ACLU
and other groups, and was eventually defeated in the Criminal Justice Committee.
S.B. 226, by Gordon Cologne, would have reduced to six the number of jurors required
for a misdemeanor case. Another bill to reduce the size of criminal juries to six was S.B..
611, by Senator Alfred Song. Both failed to survive Senator 58 own Judiciary
Committee.
The ACLU was successful in preventing Assemblyman Robert Beverly Chairman of
the Criminal Justice Committee, from passing through that Committee his A.B. 1067,
which would have removed the right of jury trial from the determination that a narcotics
addict is subject to Commitment.
On the positive side, one successful step was taken. Assemblyman Charles Warren,
with A.B. 334, succeeded in reducing the minimum age of jurors in California to 18. The
ACLU supported the bill. However, the yearly attempt by Assemblyman Z'berg and
others to split grand juries into two, requiring one to concentrate solely on criminal
indictments and to be selected at random, was again unsuccessful.
Senator Cologne introduced S.B 839, at the request of Attorney General Evelle
Younger, which, with a companion constitutional amendment that will be on the June
ballot, originally would have deprived every defendant in a felony case of the right to
represent himself. At ACLU insistence it was cut back to affect only capital cases.
Criminal Procedure: Holding the Line
Every year the district attorneys stimulate some assemblyman to introduce a bill
providing them broad subpoena power so that they may investigate and take testimony
from criminal suspects without being hampered by such things a defense counsel, courts,
or constitutional rights. Last year it was A.B. 3045, by then-Assemblyman Pete Wilson,
now the mayor of San Diego, After ACLU opposition in the Criminal Justice Committee,
the bill, as usual, was killed.
One of the worst losses of the year was the passage of S.B. 10, by Randolph Collier,
which enables a judge to assess against a criminal defendant all or part of the cost of
assigned counsel or the public defender if the judge feels that he can pay all or part of that
cost. No hearing is provided.
S.B. 230, by Senator Deukmejian, would have allowed district attorneys to discover the
names and addresses of alibi witnesses of a criminal defendant well in advance of the
criminal trial. After ACLU opposition, it was killed in the Assembly Criminal Justice
Committee.
The Judicial Gord sponsored a bill to regularize the procedures for changing venue in
criminal cases. The bill, $.B. 787, by Senator Grunsky, originally contained language
permitting the prosecution to move for a change of venue' on the ground that the
defendant needed it for a fair trial. At the insistence of the ACLU that provision was
removed, and present law reinstated. The Governor then signed the amended version.
Two bills to establish a State Public Defender to perform the same function for indigent
criminal appellants that county public defenders perform for them at the trial level reached
the Governor's desk. Both have the support of the ACLU. For ``philosophical'' reasons,
the Governor vetoed them both. Some good occured. Assembly Bill 723, by Alan
Sieroty, was one of his few bills that was signed by the Governor. It equates the rights of
juveniles with adults with respect to the right to place two phone calls shortly after arrest.
Assemblyman Willie Brown somehow persuaded the Governor to sign Assembly Bill
910, which extends to juveniles the general rule that a policeman may not arrest for a
misdemeanor unless committed in his presence.
Education, Tenure, and Church and State
After many years of trying, those hostile to the institution of tenure finally succeeded in
passing a bill to change the procedures whereby a tenured teacher may be fired. A.B. -
293, by John Stull, removed the determination of the propriety of the firing of a tenured
teacher from the Superior Court and put it in the hands of an administrative body. The bill
was amended so many times that the procedures were vastly improved, but there is
probably a net loss to the teachers involved. The bill was gleefully signed by the Governor.
One of the strangest bills of the session was S.B. 481, by Senator Walter Stiern, which
would have made a violation of any of the provisions of the Education Code a
misdemeanor. The ACLU opposed the bill on the ground that it incorporated hundreds of
years of very vague language never intended to be specific enough for criminal purposes.
The bill survived the Senate but was killed in the Assembly Criminal Justice Committee.
The ``voucher concept'' of giving money to private schools generated much bipartisan
effort but no success. A.B. 29, by Leo Ryan, would have introduced a system of voucher
scholarships for attendance of public school children at private schools. After opposition
by the ACLU and other interested groups, it was killed in the Assembly Education
Committee. A similar measure by George Moscone died in Senate Finance.
Of all the proposals to introduce the voucher concept into public education, the one
that came closest to victory was A.B. 150, also by Leo Ryan. The bill survived heavy
attack from ACLU and others, all the way to the Senate Finance Committee, where it was
finally killed.
The closest thing to an aid to private education bill was the enactment of A.B. 2590, by
Assemblymen Vasconcellos (Campbell) and Waxman, which is in its final form made
available free to non-public schools testbooks used in the public schools and similar
material.
Information and Privacy: The "Record Prison"
There was no progress made in the sealing of arrest records. A.B. 71, for example, by
Assemblyman Walter Powers, would have expanded the present Penal Code provisions
providing for the sealing of records to cover adults and to cover the commission of
felonies. It did not emerge from the first committee, although it had the support of ACLU
and others. Similar bills involving the sealing of records were offered by Assemblymen
Leon Ralph and Willie Brown, but met the same fate.
One loss for the ACLU was the successful enactment of Assembly Bill 341, by
Assemblyman Newton Russell, which requires police to notify the private employers of
teachers in private schools if the teachers are arrested for various narcotics offenses.
All bills directed toward establishing a right of access to personal records maintained by
the government were soundly defeated, mostly by the government. A very important bill
by Walter Karabian, A.B. 1053, would have prohibited questions on employment forms
by public or private employers concerning arrest records unless the person arrested was
also convicted.After support from the ACLU and opposition from nearly every private
employer and every public agency in the state, the bill was killed.
A great improvement was made by S.B. 296, by Senator Alfred Alquist. It permits
employees of school districts to examine derogatory information in their personnel files
and to comment upon it in an appropriate fashion during normal business hours.
Miscellaneous Issues
A.B. 2887, by Paul Priolo, reduced he age of majority for all but a very few purposes
such as alcohol. The consequences of its passage are still being seen in the Legislature as
new effects of the bill are discovered.
A bill by Assemblyman Willie L. Brown, Jr. and others, A.B. 2, was defeated in the
first committee. It would have lowered the age of voting to 18, changed all election
residency requirements to 30 days, and deleted the literacy requirement. The first of these
goals was accomplished by federal Amendment; the other two goals were not ac-
complished in the 1971 legislative session at all.
The enemies of liberalized abortion introduced a number of bills to make obtaining an
abortion procedurally more difficult, but all important ones were defeated in committee.
Senate Bill 375, by Tony Beilenson, would have permitted an unmarried minor female to
consent to an abortion. It passed the Legislature but was vetoed by the Governor.
One last faltering attempt to clamp down on rock festivals and similar gatherings was
killed. Assemblyman Wakefield authored A.B. 1553, which would have permitted local
agencies to impose absurd cost bonds and performance requirements on anyone at-
tempting to hold such a festival. It died in the Local Government Committee of the
Assembly.
Hitchiking was the subject of attack by S.B. 92, by Senator John Nejedly. The bill was
killed in committee. Also unsuccessful was A.B. 203, by Assemblyman McGillivray,
which would have permitted local governments to regulate or completely prohibit hit-
chiking.
A.B. 103, by Assemblyman William Ketchum, would have provided that nearly all of -
the meetings of the Legislature had to be open to the public Predictably, it was given a
great deal of lip service and killed in the Senate.
An attractive addition was made to the law by the enactment of A.B. 1074, by John
Stull, which provides in its final form that if a person is forced to take administrative
conduct to court and can prove that the administrative determination was the result of
arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the public entity, he may collect up to $1500
in attorneys' fees. The bill was supported by the ACLU.
This summary is necessarily selective. Questions are invited.
THIS YEAR'S PROSPECTS
Many of the old battles will be fought again. Wiretapping, prosecutorial subpoena
power, loyalty, marijuana, sex, prisons, bail, data storage and a dozen other such issues
`vill be revived.
The decision of the California Supreme Court invalidating the death penalty has
stimulated activity to reverse the decision, to substitute for some crimes the penalty of life
without possibility of parole, and to revamp the bail system that permitted Angela Davis
continued to page 7
ACLU-NC Looking for
New Staff Counsel
Legal Director Paul Halvonik is leaving
his position with the ACLU-NC as of June
1 to go into private practice.
Paul Halvonik will continue to be
active in ACLU, having accepted the
offer of the Board to share General
Counsel duties with Ephraim
Margolin.
The Board of Directors has selected staff
counsel Charles Marson to become Legal
Director and is now- looking for a
replacement for his job. The work
combines duties of litigation in San
Francisco and lobbying at the State
Legislature in Sacramento. Following is a
brief description of the job:
Litigation: Assist Legal Director in San
Francisco in litigating cases handled by
ACLU staff, and in co-ordinating the
activities of attorneys handling ACLU
cases on a voluntary basis.
Lobbying: Testifying before legislative
committees supporting or opposing
specific legislation, informing, educating,
and assisting friendly legislators or
working against unfriendly ones. Done in
close cooperation with Coleman Blease,
the lobbyist employed by our Southern
California ACLU affiliate.
Commuting is usual, during busy
legislative seasons, one or two (or even
three) nights a week will be spent in
motels or an apartment. Expenses are
paid.
Salary is open, depending on ex-
perience. Start time can be before the June
1 date is candidate is available. Interested
lawyers can contact Jay A. Miller,
Executive Director, or Charles C. |
Marson, Esquire, Legal Director, at 593
Market Street, Suite 227, San Francisco,
94105.
Chuck Marson can still smile even
knowing his regular mini-vacations to
Sacramento will soon come to an end.
Pot Use LO cries som cove
servative, issued a report March 22
recommending essentially the bill
proposed by Waxman. In their report they
estimate that 24 million Americans have
used marijuana and are therefore criminals
under the law aud subject to lengthy jail
terms.
The usage percentage is much higher in
California than nationally and much
higher among segments of our population,
such as young people. This
criminalization of behavior approved of by
a substantial proportion of the public leads
to many unfortunate results. A booklet
detailing the civil liberty violations in-
volved is available free from ACLU-NC's
San Francisco office.
Initiative
ACLU has endorsed the California
Marijuana Initiative and plans to play an
active role in getting the matter to a vote
of the people. Petitions for circulating are
available from ACLU-NC's San Francisco
office or any of the 13 chapters and it is
expected that many ACLUers will be
active in circulating them. Contact us for a
petition to circulate in your area.
CMI has need of many volunteer
lawyers to supply legal assistance over the
next few months. A variety of legal talents
are needed at the staff level in the San
Francisco office, as is true with any non-
profit organization. Volunteer attorneys
are also needed to handle cases of
harrassment and prevention of circulation
of petitions, particularly in some. of
California's rural areas. If interested,
contact Bob Ashford at 922-6273.
Volunteers who would like to help in
any way can contact the ACLU Chapter in
their area. Most counties also have a CMI
co-ordinator :
~ Alameda County - Berkeley: 848-8497
848-6989
848-5055
Hayward: 783-9611
Butte County - Durham: 345-0734
Colusa County - Marysville: 742-7351, ext. 319
Contra Costa Countv - Pleasant Hill: 687-1436
San Pablo: 235-7800
Fresno County - Fresno: 227-3839
Humbolt County - Bayside: 822-5595
Lake County - Middleton: 987-3245.
Cobb: 928-5282
Marin County - Larkspur: 924-3169
Merced County - Merced: 723-7002
Monterey County - Monterey: 373-6463
Seaside: 624-5690
Napa County - Napa: 255-2604
Sacramento County - Sacramento: 446-4298
San Joaquin County - Stockton: 463-9005
San Mateo County - Foster City: 341-0630
Santa Clara County - Sunnyvale: 738-3178
Santa Cruz County - Watsonville: 722-6746
Shasta County - Redding: 241-1851
Solano County - Vallejo: 648-1130
Sonoma County - Guerneville: 869-3748
Sutter County - Marysville: 742-7351, ext. 319
Tehama County - Red Biuff: 527-4414
Yolo County - Davis: 756-9929
Yuba County - Marysville: 742-7351, ext. 319
MAR - APR
aclu NEws Page 5
BYLAWS OF THE
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
As Amended by the Board of Directors, February 10, 1972
3 ARTICLE I NAME
The name of this organization shall be AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, referred to hereafter as the ``Union.'' It shall function as
an affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. of New York.
ARTICLE II PRINCIPAL OFFICE
The principal office for the transaction of the Union's business shall be in the City and
County of San Francisco, California. The directors may from time to time change the
location of the principal office to any other county in Northern California.
ARTICLE II] OBJECT
The object of the organization shall be to maintain and promote the Bill of Rights of the
United States Constitution, with special, though not exclusive, concentration on those
Amendments guaranteeing freedom of speech, assembly, association, press and the
practice of religion, together with due process and equal protection of the law, and to take
all legitimate action in the furtherance of such purposes.
ARTICLE IV MEMBERS
1. Persons Eligible for Membership
The directors shall establish such classes of membership as they from time to time deem
appropriate. Any person may become a member by paying the dues established from time
to time by the directors for any class of membership for which he is eligible, and shall
remain a member for so long as he continues to pay such dues.
2. Meetings
Meetings of members shall be held at such times and places, and for such purposes, as
the directors may from time to time determine.
ARTICLE V BOARD OF DIRECTORS |
1. Number and Eligibility
The Board of Directors shall consist of not less than fifteen (15) and not more than
thirty (30) members-at-large, elected as provided hereafter, plus one (1) representative
from each Chapter elected pursuant to the By-laws of that Chapter. Each director shall be
a member in good standing of the Union at the time of his nomination, election and
`service on the Board, and each Chapter representative to the Board shall also be a member
of the Chapter's governing body during his service as a director.
2. Term of Office
The term of office of a member-at-large shall be for a 3-year period beginning each
September 1st, and the term of office of each Chapter representative shall be determined
under his Chapter's By-laws. However, no person may serve as a director for more than
six (6) consecutive years, except in the following cases:
(a) If the director's first term was a partial term to fill a vacancy, the period of that
partial term shall be added to the six years otherwise allowed.
(b) The Chairman of the Board or the immediate past Chairman may be reelected to
the Board even if the foregoing limitations would otherwise prevent such reelection, but
this provision shall not allow any such person to be a director for more than three (3) years
beyond what would otherwise be permitted.
(c) Persons who served on the Union's original Board of Directors shall hold office for
life, with full voting rights, and their positions shall be in addition to the maximum -
number of directors set forth above.
3. Failure to Attend Meetings
A member of the Board of Directors who fails to attend three consecutive meetings
without a leave of absence shall be dropped from membership on the Board. However, any
such Board member may, within thirty (30) days following said third consecutive
meeting, appeal to the Board not to terminate his membership, and the Board shall act on
such appeal by majority vote.
4. Vacancies
Vacancies among the members-at-large shall be filled by the remaining directors for the
balance of the unexpired term, at a regular meeting at which the fact of such election is an
agenda item. If a chapter representative's position becomes vacant, it shall be filled by the
Chapter pursuant to the Chapter's By-laws.
5. Quorum and Voting
A quorum of the Board shall consist of one-fourth (4) of the directors. Chairman or
Acting Chairman shall vote only if there would otherwise be a tie vote.
6. Meetings
The Board shall hold regular meetings at such times and places as it may from time to
time determine. Special meetings shall be held upon the call of the Chairman, any two (2)
officers, or the request of five (5) or more directors. All directors shall receive at least one
day's written notice of any regular meeting, the date of which was determined by the
Board on or before the date of the prior meeting, and three (3) days' written notice of all
other meetings.
7. Powers
The business and affairs of the Union shall be controlled by its Board of Directors.
Without limiting its general powers, the Board shall have the power to conduct, manage,
and control the affairs and business of the Union, and to make rules and regulations not
inconsistent with law or the By-laws; to select and remove all officers, agents, and
employees of the organization, and prescribe such powers and duties for them as may not
be inconsistent with law or the By-laws; to select and remove all officers, agents, and
employees of the organization, and prescribe such powers and duties for them as may not
be inconsistent with law or the By-laws and fix their compensation; and to borrow money
and incur indebtedness for the purposes of the Union, and for that purpose to cause to be
executed and delivered, in the Union's name, notes or other obligations or security
agreements of any sort; and to designate Board members authorized to withdraw funds
from accounts maintained by the Union.
8. Executive and Other Committees
The Board shall, in the manner, provided hereafter, appoint an Executive Committee
composed of the Chairman, the Treasurer, and three or more additional directors, to
" which it may delegate. It may also appoint such other committees as it may find necessary
or desirable. The calling of committee meetings and their required quorum shall be
subject to such rules as the Board of Directors may prescribe. The Executive Director
shall be a non-voting ex-officio member of all committees, including the Executive
Committee. The Chairman shall also be an ex-officio member of all committees, but shall
have voting rights on the Executive Committee and on any other committee to which he
is specifically appointed.
MAR - APR
Page 6 aclu NEWS
ARTICLE VI OFFICERS
1. Number and Eligibility
The officers of this Union shall be a Chairman, one or more Vice Chairmen, a
Secretary, a Treasurer, an Executive Director, and such other officers as the directors
may determine, all of whom (other than the Executive Director) shall be elected as
provided hereafter. The Executive Director shall be elected in such manner as the Board
shall determine.
Any person other than the Chairman and the Executive Director may hold more than
one office. Officers other than the Chairman and Vice Chairmen need not be members of
the Board.
2. POWERS
The Executive Director shall be in charge of the day-to-day operation of the Union and
may issue statements on behalf of the Union which are consistent with its policies. Each
other officer shall have the powers normally associated with his office. Any two officers -
may execute any document on behalf of the Union, but this power shall not extend to the
withdrawal of funds from accounts maintained by the Union except as specifically
authorized by the Board `of Directors.
3. Term of Office :
The Executive Director shall serve at the Board's pleasure. Each other officer shall
serve for one year from the September 1st following his election, or until such later date as
his successor assumes office. ;
ARTICLE VII ELECTIONS
4. Appointment of Nominating Committees
Each year at the Board's January meeting, the Executive Committee shall submit to
the Board recommendations for the following Nominating Committees, which recom-
mendations shall be subject to approval or modification by the Board:
(a) A committee to nominate members-at-large to the Board of Directors to replace
those whose terms will expire during the year.
(b) A committee to nominate the officers and the Executive Committee to take office
during that year. :
Both nominating committees shall be composed of five (5) persons and no person shall
serve on either committee who is then an officer, a member of the Executive Committee,
or a member of the other nominating committee. The committee to nominate directors
shall be composed of two Board members and three members of the Union who are not
Board members. The committee to nominate the officers and the Executive Committee
shall be composed solely of Board members, at least two of whom shall be Chapter
representatives to the Board.
2. Operation of Nominating Committees
The nominating committee to nominate members-at-large to the Board shall present
interim reports at both the March and April Board meetings, and at the April meeting
shall also give to each Board member a summary of the qualifications of each prospective
nominee then under consideration. The nominating committee to nominate the officers
and the Executive Committee shall submit an interim report at une May meeting of the
Board. All interim reports shall be made prior to any commitment being made to any
prospective nominee that his name will be included in the final list of nominations to be
submitted to the Board.
The committee nominating members to the Board shall, insofar as practical and
consistent with the needs of the Union, take into account the desirability of having the
Board's membership reflect the diverse nature of the population of Northern California.
3. Recommendations and Nominations by Members of the Union
Members of the Union shall have the right to suggest names for consideration to the
committee appointed to nominate members-at-large to the Board of Directors. Fur-
thermore, any fifteen or more members of the Union in good standing may themselves
submit a nomination to be included among those voted upon by the Board by submitting a
written petition to the Board not later than May Ist of each year. No member of the
Union may sign more than one such petition and each such nomination must be ac-
companied by a summary of qualifications and the written consent of the nominee. This
provision of the By-laws shall be printed on the first page of each January issue of the
ACLU NEWS, together with an article advising members of their rights in the
nomination process. :
4. Presentations of Nominations and Additional Nominations
Nominations for Board membership shall be submitted to the Board for action at its
May meeting. Nominations for the officers and the Executive Committee shall be sub-
mitted to the Board for action at its June meeting. In both cases, Board members may
make additional nominations. If there are more candidates than openings for any position,
the vote shall be by secret ballot, and those receiving the highest number of votes shall be
declared elected.
ARTICLE VII CHAPTERS
The Board may charter any petitioning local group in Northern California as a Chapter
of the Union, and may revoke any such charter for cause by a two-thirds vote. No
revocation of a Charter shail occur until a statement of reasons has been sent by the Board
to the Chapter officers and to the members of the Chapter Board, and a full hearing ac-
corded. Chapter By-laws and amendments thereto shall be subject to approval of the
Board, and Chapters shall make such amendments to their By-laws as the Board deems
necessary to assure its proper responsibility as the governing body of the Union. Unless
the Chapter By-laws provide otherwise, the appointment, replacement and term of
Chapter representatives to the Board of Directors of the Union shall be determined by the
Board of Directors of the Chapter. :
ARTICLEIX AMENDMENTS
These By-laws may be amended or repealed and new By-laws adopted by vote at any
directors' meeting, provided notice of the nature of the proposed amendment is submitted
in writing to the members of the Board at least two days prior to the meeting. The
amendment shall pass only if directors representing a majority of the total Board mem-
bership then serving either votes for it at said meeting or consent to it in writing
thereafter. :
ARTICLE X INTERIM RULES
The Union's 1972 elections shall be held in the same manner as was provided under
the prior By-laws, with the new procedures set forth in these By-laws of the Union taking
-effect for the first time in calendar year 1973. The terms of office of all directors and of-
ficers holding office following the 1972 elections shall be extended by six (6) months so as
to terminate on the September Ist following the March 1st upon which they would have
expired under the corporation's By-laws.
The State of Student Rights
By Eva Jefferson
Student Project Coordinator
`In our system, state-operated
schools may not be enclaves of
totalitarianism. School officials do not
possess absolute authority over their
students. Students in school as well as
out of school are `persons' under our
Constitution. . .In our system,
Students. ..may not be confined to the
expression of those sentiments that
are officially approved. In the absence
of a specific showing of con-
Stitutionally valid reasons to regulate
their speech, students are entitled to
freedom of expression of their views."'
This quote is taken from the Tinker
case (Tinker v. DesMoines Independent
Community School District, 393 US 503)
the landmark case in the field of student
rights. Some students in Des Moines,
Iowa were not allowed to wear black
armbands to school to protest the war in
Vietnam. The decision in this case
overturned the prohibition. More im-
portantly this case extended the protec-
tions of the US Constitution and the bill of
rights to high school students. This
principle has been bolstered by a recently
passed California law. This law enables
students to freely express themselves as
long as their free expression is not ob-
`scene, slanderous, or inciting others to
immediate acts of violence. This means
students may leaflet, petition, and publish
independent newspapers without in-
terference from school administrators or
teachers. The California statute went into
effect March 4 of this year.
Suspension Expulsion
Another important legal area is the
whole question of suspensions and ex-
pulsions. State law says that a teacher can
suspend a student for one school day and
only from her or his class. Previously a
teacher could suspend a student for the
` whole day. Students were penalized in all
their subjects for hassles they had with one
teacher. This inequity has been rectified.
Another important factor in the whole
suspension process is the right to a parent
or guardian conference if a student is
suspended for 3 or more days. At this
conference, ``the causes, the duration,
the school policy involved, and other
matters pertinent to the suspension, shall
be discussed.'' (Section 10607 of the state
education code).
A student may be suspended for the
following reasons: ``continued willful
disobedience, habitual profanity or
vulgarity, open and persistent defiance of
the authority of the school personnel, or
assault or battery upon a student, upon
school premises or while under the
authority of school personnel, or con-
tinued abuse of school personnel, assault
or battery upon school personnel, or any
threat of force or violence directed toward
school personnel, at any time or. place...
No pupil shall be suspended or expelled
unless the conduct for which he is to be
disciplined is related to school activity or
school attendance. (Section 10602 of the
state education code).
`*Tf a pupil is expelled from school, the
parent or guardian of the pupil may appeal
to the county board of education which
shall hold a hearing thereon and render its
decision. The decision of the county board
of education shall be final and binding
upon the parent or guardian and the
governing board expelling the pupil."'
(Section 10607.5 of the state education
code). This, of course, does not prevent
access to the courts.
Due Process
School districts have the legal power to
afford due process to students in the whole
area of suspensions and expulsions. The
San Francisco Unified School District has
' the most progressive process I have seen in
the state of California. Their Student Bill
of Rights lists eight and only eight grounds
for administrative suspension thus taking
alot of arbitrary power out of the hands of
principals and deans. Students in San
Francisco may not be suspended for
smoking, using alcoholic beverages or
drugs, or for truancy, tardiness, or
cutting classes. The Bill of Rights also
provides for School Site Student Appeals
Boards which provides the right of appeal,
a vital part of due process. The Appeal
Board is structurally set up as follows:
two students, two parents, two teachers,
and one administrator. This board has the
power to come to any conclusion it desires
including overturning suspension or
expulsions. There also exists a Citywide
Student Appeals Board which hears
appeals from the School Site Student
Appeals Boards. The Final board of appeal
is the Board of Education.
There are other important provisions of .
this document. Space permits mentioning
only a few: Right No. 8, ``Students have
the right to democratic representation in
administrative committees affecting
Students and student rights;'' Right No.
9, **Students have the right to participate
in the development of rules and
regulations to which they are subject and
the right to be notified of such rules
regulation;'' Right No.12 sub-section
F, ``Students have the right to determine
their own appearance, including the style
of their hair and clothing.''
The San Francisco Bill of Rights can
serve as a model document for all
California schools. Copies are available
from the Board of Education, 135 Van
Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California.
Many areas have not been mentioned
here such as dress codes, locker searches,
sex discrimination, racial discrimination,
access to school records, flag salutes,
pledge of allegiance, corporal punishment,
and outside speakers coming to a campus.
If you have questions don't hesitate to call
the student project for information: 433-_
2750. Keep on truckin.
LEGISLATIVE cosices con soe.
to be free before her trial.
The cry of "`court congestion'' will once again be used to attack juries and most
procedures favorable to defendants.
Women's rights will be the hottest new issue; most legislators are personally terrible
male chauvinists, but they can count. ACLU is strongly supporting much legislation in
this area and has drafted significant portions of it.
As long as the Governor retains his ideology and his office, progress will be little and
hard-won. One good factor: the session will end early, because re-election for legislators
takes priority over all else.
A national conference of women and
the law next weekend is being at-
tended by a large delegation of ACLU-
NC staff women. It will be held at Bolt
Hall School of Law on the University
of Calif. campus at Berkeley from
Match 31 - April 2.
This is a conference for both the
laywoman and the professional, to
discuss the way the law regulates their
lives and what changes can be im-
plemented.
For more information call Debbie
Hinkle at 398-5285 and 433-2750, or
Hindi Greenberg at 647-1763.
Ten New ACLU Board Members Named
At its February and March meetings the ACLU-NC Board elected ten new members,
increasing greatly the board's representation from women, youth and racial minority
communities. Following are brief biographies on the new board members.
Richard (Rick) Beban is a free-lance
writer living in Mill Valley. He has long
been active in the civil rights and civil
liberties movement, most recently making
the news over his suit against the Marin
County Grand Jury over suppression of
his First Amendment rights. Beban, who
at 23 is the youngest grand juror in
California history, alleges he was removed
from committee assignements for public
statements over their indictment of at-
torney Stephen Bingham and the San
Quentin Six.
Earl Caldwell is the West Coast
correspondent for the New York Times
who is the defendant in an ACLU case
presently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Caldwell refused to testify before a federal
grand jury investigating the Black Panther
party in 1970, claiming a journalists'
right not to reveal confidential sources.
Virginia Franklin
Virginia Franklin teaches American
Government at San Rafael High School,
where she just received Board of
Education endorsement for a course
analyzing left-wing propaganda following
protests about it by the Elks Club. This
fight was reminiscent of her trouble in
Paradise (Butte County) ten years ago,
when she won a $16,000 slander
judgment against the Paradise American
Legion post for impugning her patriotism.
Franklin is also an instructor at several
Bay Area colleges.
Stanley Friedman is an ACLU volunteer
attorney, who lives in Berkeley and
practices law in San Francisco with
Firedman and Sloan. He specializes in draft
and criminal law. Friedman is an officer of
the San Francisco Barristers Club and of
the San Francisco Bar Association.
Martin (Marty) Glick is the Director of
Litigation for the San Francisco office of
California Rural Legal Assistance. He was
`previously with CRLA in Salinas -and
before that in Washington DC with the
Civil Rights Division of the USS.
Department of Justice. He graduated first
in his class from Ohio State University
College of Law.
Nancy McDermid, an attorney, is a
`professor of speech communications at San
Francisco State College. She now serves on
ancy McDermid
the Board of ACLU's San Francisco
`Chapter, and is a former member of the
`Board of Directors of the ACLU in
Illinois. Following graduation in law from
the University of Chicago, McDermid
practiced law in Chicago and taught in an
area college.
Dorothy Patterson
Berkeley
homemaker, who is active in a host of
community organizations. She is presently
a consultant to Planned Parenthood and
the U.S. School of Nursing, and has
served as a consultant to the Berkeley
Dorothy Patterson, a
Unified School District. Following
graduation from UCLA, she served as a
nurse in Alameda County, later spending
`time in Nigeria on medical research.
Yori Wada is the Director of the
Buchanan Street YMCA and an active
community leader in San Francisco's
Japanese-American community. Wada
served on the California Youth Authority
Board under Governor Brown and par-
ticipates in many organizations to help
young people. Z
Alan Warshaw, Stockton department
store owner, is presently Chairman of
ACLU's Stockton Chapter. He has been
active in both its legal and legislative
programs. His community interests range
from ecology, to integration to the
Chamber of Commerce. He is member of a
committee of citizens working to establish
an OR program in San Joaquin County.
vonne Westbrook
Yvonne Westbrook ran for San Fran-
`cisco Board of Supervisors last year at 18,
and pulled a very impressive 50,000
votes. She is a student at University of San
Francisco and is active in many com-
munity activities.
MAR - APR
aciu NEWS
Page 7
News from the Chapters
ANarin
Theater Party
In April
Here's your opportunity to see a play
banned in Boston, sold-out for 2 years in
New York and sued in Los Angeles.
Heaven knows what will happen to it in
Marin.
The Marin Chapter of the A.C.L.U. is
sponsoring a theatre party on Friday April
the 14th, of Father Dan Berrigan's play
``The Trial of the Catonsville Nine.'?
The play is directed by an actor-director
from Los Angeles, James Funk. It will be
performed by the Mill Valley Center for
the performing Arts at the Center's
theatre in Mill Valley on Buena Vista
drive opposite the golf course.
There are a limited number of tickets
available at $3. For reservations call Bill
Luft at 453-6546 after 6 p.m.
Light refreshments will be available
before, during and after the performance.
Mid-Peninsula
Annual Meeting
On Angela
The chapter's annual meeting on
March 28 featured Doris Walker, one of
Angela Davis' attorneys, telling about the
case. In addition, a new Board of Directors
was elected and Chairman Larry Sleizer
gave a report on the chapter's recent
activities.
Henner Teaches
at UC Santa Cruz
Chapter Board member Martin Henner
will be teaching a course at University of
California at Santa Cruz on ``Victimless -
Crimes,'' starting Tuesday evening,
April 11.
Oakland
Candidates Refuse
Loyalty Oath
At a hearing before the Alameda
County Superior Court on March 24,
volunteer ACLU attorney Joseph
Morozume of the Oakland Chapter
challenged a loyalty oath required of all
candidates for state county central
committee. The action was taken for seven
candidates of the Peace and Freedom Party
whose filing papers have been turned
down by County Registrar Rene C.
Davidson because they crossed off the
MAR - APR
Page 8 aciu News
loyalty-oath provision on _ their
declarations of candidacy.
The oath requires the candidate to
swear that he has not and will not engage
"in any attempt to overthrow the
government.'' It also requires that the
candidate not be a member of any
organization engaged in any such activity.
McCarthyite
One of the candidates, County
Chairman Lee Coe, points out, ``As a
result of past court decisions, most
documents used by the state government
in California have dropped this un-
constitutional provision. But somehow
this McCarthyite mummy has_ been
tenderly preserved in the declaration of
candidacy for county central com-
mittees."'
Vague and Broad
Basis for the challenge are the many
court fulings that such oaths are in
violation of constitutional guarantees of
the right of free speech as they are too
vague and broad. They also deprive people
of the right of free association, since no
one can know all the activities of any
organization they belong to.
Other candidates involved in the case
are Hilda S. Cowan, Anne Draper,
Patricia H. Duncan, Sarah Scahill, Leo
Seidlitz and William N. Walker Jr.
San Francisco
Culture Drive
For County Jail
With Sheriff Hongisto making a TV
appearance to kick it off, the SF Chapter
has launched a drive called ``Culture for
the Confined''. Their plan is to collect as
many books, magazines and records for
county jail as possible. Anyone wishing to
contribute can call Peter Alcantara at
626-6381 or 391-7800 (Golden Gate
College).
Fund Raiser
The Chapter's Entertainment
Membership Committee is seeking
chapter members who would like to work
on a fund raiser for the chapter. If in-
terested, call Ron Sipherd at 567-5000 Ex
2124 or Betty Edelstein at 751-1469.
Education and the Law
Modesto Teacher
Removal to be
Reconsidered
In the case of the firing of Modesto
teacher Christo Tom Bekiaris, the
California Supreme Court has ruled that
the School Board failed to resolve
Bekiaris' contention that the true reason
for his 1969 dismissal was his exercise of
First Amendment rights through out-of-
school political activities.
"Political" Charges
Bekiaris had written letters and made
public comments generally favorable to
the Peace and Freedom Party, the Black
Panthers and Ceasar Chavez. After school
authorities were advised by County
Counsel that termination on such matters
would be unlawful, ``nonpolitical''
charges were framed against Bekiaris.
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial
court and Board erred in not receiving
evidence to show the real reason for
Bekiaris' dismissal, and remanded the
case to the trial court to issue a writ of
mandate ordering the Board to receive
such evidence.
Credential Granted
to Zimmerman
An elementary teaching credential was
granted to Mitchell Zimmerman of San
Francisco this month. The ACLU
represented him at a hearing reviewing his
arrest record for involvement in civil
rights and anti-war protest demonstrations
in the 1960's. Zimmerman received
commendations from teachers he has
assisted for his ability with children and
potential as a teacher.
Baba Looey
Editor Reinstated
Intervention by the ACLU lead to
reinstatement of a Serramonte High
School student who publishes an un-
derground newspaper at his school. Dave
Schneider of Daly City reported that he
was getting much harrassment and was
told to leave school, over his paper the
_ Baba Looey Bulletin (``Serramonte's rock
bottom newspaper, and administration
enemy number one.'').
When the ACLU advised his principal -
that ``The suspending of a high school
student because of his publication and
distribution of a newspaper is a violation of
the federal civil rights act -- the
"misunderstanding was quickly cleared up
and Schneider was back in school.
Dr. Poschman Finally
Granted Tenure
Dr. Gene Poschman has finally been
granted tenure by Cal State Hayward,
following denial since 1968 through a
series of 10 review levels that culminated
in a January ruling by the Alameda
Superior Court that he had no cause of
action.
President Ellis McCune advised Dr.
Poschman this month that tenure was
granted, with only a brief allusion to the -
controversy preceeding that granting.
McCune states that although ``opinion
concerning your qualifications for tenure
is divided. . . I am persuaded that the
evidence supports the recommendation."'
Prior to the matter entering the courts
McCune had held that the division of
opinion was sufficient to deny tenure.
Volunteer ACLU attorney Don Maffly
provided a friend-of-the-court brief.
In Error
Last month's ACLU News incorrectly
Stated that Selwyn Jones - a Daly City art
instructor - lost a court appeal of his
credential revocation over marijuana
possession. The case deals only with his
firing from Westmoor High School. It is
presently under appeal to the California
Supreme Court.
Board of Directors
Elects Officers
The Board of Directors has installed the
following officers for 1972:
Chairman - Howard Jewell
Vice Chairman - Ralph Atkinson,
Helen Salz and Warren Salzman
Secretary-Treasurer - Richard
DeLancie
General Counsel - Ephraim Margolin
and Paul Halvonik :
General Counsel Emeritus -
Collins
The Board has expressed its ap-
Preciation for the service of those
`members ineligible for re-election by
reason of having completed their second
consecutive three-year terms: Albert
Bendich, John Edwards, Ephraim
Margolin and Emily Skolnick.
Wayne
Franklin
continued from page 1
case by Stanford Professors Gunther and
Dershowitz, and an airing of the opinions
of ACLU members and interested parties,
both those present and those sent by mail.
The Board was convinced that Franklin
was terminated only because Stanford felt
that his speeches were effective; i.e.,
persons in the audience allegedly acted on
the proposals he discussed. They noted
that, contrary to news reports and rumor,
Franklin was charged with no acts of
violence against person or property.
Although charged with having disrupted a
speech by Henry Cabot Lodge, he was
aquitted of any such act.
What Franklin was discharged for were
the opinions he expressed as to appropriate
action by which the Stanford community
could protest the U.S. invasion of Laos:
1. After recommending against any
large-group militant action as being
suicidal in view of the large number of
police on campus, he instead urged
using "`the methods of people's
war,' which he told his audience
meant ``that they should go back to
the dormitories, organize people into
small groups, and talk with them, or
play football or whatever, as late into
the night as possible.''
_ 2, Ata lengthy rally at which he was
one of many speakers, Professor
Franklin delivered a lengthy speech in
support of some form of strike or
boycott. He concluded by saying that
``what we're asking is for people to
make that tiny little gesture to show
that we're willing to inconvenience
ourselves a little bit and begin to shut
down the most obvious machinery of
war, such as, and I think it is a good
target, that Computation Center.''
3. In the course of a police order to
disperse, Professor Franklin argued
loudly that the order to disperse was
illegal.
__ It was the unanimous opinion of your
Board of Directors that all these
Statements are protected under any
definition of the First Amendment ac-
ceptable to civil libertarians. Certainly the
`Mere expression of support for the goals of
those who commit unlawful acts and the
affirmation of belief in the legitimacy of
their grievances cannot be called ``in-
citement'' without torturing the word.
Franklin at no time urged any im-
mediate unlawful action. After each
speaking occasion when action was urged,
ample time for reflection occurred,
sometimes even votes were taken. . .hardly
the picture of an incited rioting mob. No
major damage to property or person
occurred, and none of the computer center
occupiers were charged with any illegal
acts.
The question of whether Stanford, a
"`private'' university, should be bound by
the standards of the First Amendment, did
not require much debate. Stanford has
stated that it wishes the case to be con-
sidered as though it, like a public
university, is controlled by the First
Amendment. It has insisted that the
revocation of Franklin's tenure is con-
sistent with the First Amendment.
Stanford's First Amendment in-
terpretation cannot go unchallenged, or
academic freedom on all campuses, public
and private, will be imperiled.