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.


Page: of 8
Clip Image

In collections

Details
Title

vol. 37, no. 3 (April, 1972)

Creator

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Date

1972 March-April

Identifier

ACLUN_0427

Genre

newspapers

Physical description

40.5 x 28 cm

Publisher

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

Preferred citation

ACLU of Northern California News vol. 37, no. 3, 1972 March-April; PER ACLUN; California Historical Society.

Rights statement

In Copyright

Publication rights

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

Topical subject(s)

Vietnam War, 1961-1975
Veterans
Voting rights
Freedom of expression
Pledge of allegiance
Criminal syndicalism
Criminal justice
Conscientious objectors
Church and state
Capital punishment
Black Panther Party
Academic freedom
Reproductive rights

Named subject(s)

Bendich, Albert M.
Collins, Wayne
Davis, Angela Y. (Angela Yvonne) 1944-
George Deukmejian
Franklin, Bruce
Halvonik, Paul
Margolin, Ephraim
Marson, Charles
Moscone, George
Salz, Helen Arnstein
Hongisto, Richard
Wilson, Pete
American Legion
California. State Board of Education
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Geographical subject(s)

Sacramento (Calif.)
Salinas (Calif.)
Monterey (Calif.)
Marysville (Calif.)
San Quentin (Calif.)
Monterey County (Calif.)
Modesto (Calif.)
Fresno (Calif.)
Oakland (Calif.)
Berkeley (Calif.)

Collection identifier

PER ACLUN