vol. 43, no. 4

Primary tabs

Volume XLIII


May 1978


to Santa Cruz voters


Only hours before the Santa Cruz


County June sample ballot was


delivered to the printer the ACLU


persuaded the California Supreme


Court to grant an emergency stay of a


' Superior Court order that two police


conduct issues be stricken from that


ballot.


Community Against Organized


Militarism (CALM), a Santa Cruz


based organization, sponsored the two


initiatives which qualified for the June


County ballot. One initiative


(Proposition A) characterized as the


"anti-SWAT" measure, asks voters to


approve of a ban on the use of machine


guns and paramilitary operations by


police in Santa Cruz County, except as


required by State and Federal laws.


The second initiative (Proposition B),


calls for a Law Enforcement Review


Commission which would provide for


community participation in setting law


enforcement policies and investigating


complaints of police abuse. -


Superior Court Judge Bruce Allen


threw both measures off the ballot on


Monday, April 3 based on the sub-


stance of the measures, which he


The two-thirds vote required for


approval of any new local taxes under


the Jarvis-Gann initiative, Proposition


13, should be declared un-


constitutional, according to a policy


adopted by the ACLU's Board of


Directors last month.


"The ACLU has argued since 1970


that two-thirds vote requirements for


the imposition of taxes are un-


constitutional because they violate the


general principle of one person-one vote


which the United States Supreme Court


has often imposed in interpreting the


equal protection clause of the Four-


teenth Amendment,'' executive


Director David M. Fishlow said in


publicly announcing the Union's op-


position to Proposition 13.


"A requirement that two-thirds of


the voters approve a tax measure gives


those who vote `no' twice as much


power as those who vote `yes,' '' Fishlow


said. :


"The California Supreme Court said


"GE.


Published by Marin Sun Printing - i i


120 Mitchell Boulevard, S.R. Ae!


claimed were "completely and totally


invalid."


ACLU attorney Amitai Schwartz, -


who filed the emergency appeal for a


stay, successfully maintained that Judge


Allen's pre-ballot order disrespected


judicial guidelines for removing items


from the ballot, because those. items


"must be


doubt."


The two police conduct measures


were challenged in the Superior Court


by Santa Cruz County law enforcement


officials after proponents had secured


the necessary 9,000 signatures required


for a local initiative to be included on


the ballot during a six-week campaign.


Phil Alba, local director of CALM


claims that the ballot measure was their


final route after three years of work by


the local groups to stop police abuse


and to end the `militarization' of local


law enforcement agencies. `CALM has


worked diligently for police ac-


-countability and has tried to bring


legislative reform about through the


Board of - Supervisors, the State


Assembly, and has attempted to


: continued on page 6


~ ACLU opposes Jarvis /Gann


in 1970, in a case called Westbrook v.


Mihaley, .that such laws are un-


constitutional unless the provision can


be shown to be absolutely necessary."


In the 1970 case, the Supreme Court


said "while economic conditions in the


late Nineteenth Century may have


justified such a provision, today it is no


- longer necessary to impair the right to


vote in order to guarantee responsible


municipal financial policies."'


Associate Justice Raymond L.


Sullivan, who wrote the decision, was


pointing out the difference between


wildspending and unstable municipal


governments who operated in the 1880's


without the restraints of state law


subsequently imposed to protect cities


and other local government units from


incurring more indebtedness than they


can handle.


"Though the U.S. Supreme Court


over-ruled the 1970 California decision,


other legal problems with the two-thirds


`continued on page 7


invalid beyond a clear


eins be


womens rights


Zebra Girl Tucker may finally be


allowed to `go the distance' - to fight


the usual ten round boxing match, an


opportunity which the State Athletic


Commission had denied her, and other


professional women boxers in


California until recent ACLU legal


action knocked out the discriminatory


ban.


Shirley Tucker, known professionally


as ``Zebra Girl," brought her charge of


sex discrimination to the ACLU,


claiming that the 1976 law, which


finally allowed women to enter the


professional boxing ring, by restricting


WAT " law does


No. 4 |


Legislative


Conference planned


What role does the ACLU play in


the California legislature?


How do legislators make decisions


regarding the future of civil liberties


at the state capitol?


Who is sensitive to civil liberties


concerns in Sacramento?


Those are questions which ACLU


members may be asking, and the


best place to find the answers will be


at the Second Annual Legislative


Action Conference which this year


will be held on June 26-27 at the


Senator Hotel in Sacramento.


At that time the legislature will be


in the midst of its budget


deliberations, therefore such con-


troversial subjects as abortion


funding and property tax relief


should be on the floor.


You should be there too. The


program will include visits to your


continued on page 7


their bouts to four rounds effectively


kept them out of the ring, because four-


round fights are not favored by


promoters.


Zebra Girl claimed that women


should be able to fight as many rounds


as they are capable of fighting, "the


same way as men, and not restrict them


`forever to four rounds just because we


are ladies."'


ACLU staff counsel Margaret Crosby


agreed with Ms. Tucker's charge and


asked the State Athletic Commission,


continued on page 6


S.F. school resegregation charge


The creation of `"`one-race schools" as


part of San Francisco's new school


district `Redesign Plan' will be


challenged by the ACLU of Northern


California as friend of the court in an


NAACP school desegregation lawsuit.


"Redesign," an ambitious plan to


restructure San Francisco's troubled


school district, suffering from declining (c)


enrollment, excluded the largest black


population center - Hunters Point-


Bayview District - from the design


now on the brink of implementation.


The San Francisco School District


has been under court order to


desegregate its schools since 1971, as


the result of a suit brought by the


NAACP. That desegregation order, by


by U.S. District Court Judge Stanley


Weigel, instituted the so-called Horse-


shoe Plan.


`In 1974, the Ninth Circuit Court of


Appeals vacated Judge Weigel's


Horseshoe Plan decision and directed


that it be reconsidered in light of a 1973


continued on page 2


-Election Issue-


ballot on p.


May 1978


aclu news


LEGAL


Reseegregation


continued from page I


U.S. Supreme Court decision (Keyes v.


School District No. 1) which established


the requirement that a school district


must have intended to segregate the


schools in order to ask for a


desegregation plan.


The court-ordered Horseshoe Plan, -


however, was to remain in effect until


the two parties, the NAACP and the


school district, had an opportunity to


argue the issue of intent. Such


proceedings regarding the _ school


district's intent to segregate never took


place, and the case has essentially


remained dormant during the last four


years, while the schools have slowly


resegregated for a variety of reasons.


The school district maintains that


"white flight'' and a general shift in the


city's racial population has caused the


racial imbalance. Critics, on the other


hand, have questioned the School


Board's and the District's commitment


to the plan, since more than 20,000 out-


of-district permits have been issued


through 1977 (25 percent of the student -


population) allowing students to


transfer out of their schools which were


assigned to achieve a racial balance.


Now Redesign appears to suggest an


even more significant retreat from the


desegregation promised by Horseshoe.


Under the Horseshoe plan no ethnic


group in a school was to vary by more


than 15 percent above or below its


proportion in the general population.


That plan, however, has never ef-


fectively been carried out. The


segregation that existed before Hor-


seshoe still exists, and in some cases is


New issues in


To achieve equal educational op-


_ portunities California courts may, when


schools cannot be desegrated within a


single school district, order an inter-


district school desegration plan, ac-


cording to the ACLU's Board of


Directors, which authorized ACLU's


entry as friend of the court in an appeal


arising from a mid-peninsula school


desegregation suit - Tinsley v.


California.


The law suit which seeks to integrate


the predominantly black Ravenswood


School District with eight neighboring


districts which are largely white, raises


new issues in California law.


Plaintiffs in the case - 34 minority


and non-minority parents who reside in


Ravenswood and in the surrounding


districts - contend that school boards


and the State have an obligation under


the California Constitution to provide


equal educational opportunities.


This contention will be supported by


the ACLU of Northern and Southern


California if the Court of Appeal


permits the organizations to enter as


friends of the court.


The


Court in 1976 seeking to integrate their


segregated school districts through a


plan which crossed over school district


boundaries. Their petition was


dismissed by the trial court and they are


now appealing this dismissal in the


Court of Appeal.


Current California law egatding


equal education opportunities was


decided by the state high court in


Crawford v. Board of Education, a 1976


Tinsley plaintiffs filed their


lawsuit in the San Mateo Superior


worse, according to the NAACP.


With the court order still in force the


School District voluntarily submitted


their "`blueprint for reform" to Judge


Weigel for the federal court's approval


on April 17. The NAACP, in turn, has


challenged the School District proposal


- and asked that Judge Weigel reject the


school district plan, in part, because it


violates constitutional rights.


Negotiations between the two parties


-are taking place as the ACLU News


goes to press.


Is Redesign Separate But Equal?


According to ACLU attorney Alan.


Schlosser,


presented for court approval is


"fundamentally inconsistent with


constitutional principles ... and with


the letter and the spirit of the U.S.


District Court's 1971 order."


Schlosser claims that the proposal for


a "Bayview/Hunters Point Complex


thinly veils the stark fact that an entire


community - and one that is over-


whelmingly. black - has been pur-


posely excluded from the desegreation


efforts that Redesign purports to


implement for the rest of the school |


district.


"By authorizing the creation of a


`complex' of `one-race schools,'


defendants (the school district)) bear an


extremely heavy burden of justifying to


this court such a blatant departure


from the constitutional norms affirmed


and reaffirmed time and time again by


the United States Supreme Court since


Brown v. Board of Education,' Mr.


Schlosser said in a request to the court


that the ACLU enter the appeal as


amicus curiae.


Redesign does away with the 15


the Redesign plan being -


percent formula which Judge Weigel


had adopted for the _ school's


desegregation effort in 1971. It offers,


instead, a formula which provides a new


standard: a school can have up to 45


percent enrollment from one


racial/ethnic group and must have at


least four racial/ethnic groups in at-


tendance.


"On its face, this new formula ap-


pears to be a significant retreat from


the desegrative thrust of the Horseshoe


Plan, and raises the spectre of


`significant resegregation of the school


|


|


|


|


system,'' Schlosser stated.


- Schlosser asserts that, `"`such a step


backwards cannot be justified merely


by the defendants' statement that the


Horseshoe Plan's formula is not im-


plementable."'


If no settlement is reached before


June 15 a hearing will be held before


Judge Weigel regarding PH SE) of


Redesign. ;


On May 12 Judge Weigel granted


ACLU permission to enter the case as a


friend of the court.


Mid-Pen case:


decision born out of litigation brought


in 1963 and still being handled by the .


ACLU of Southern California.


In Crawford the Supreme Court


rejected the distinction between de jure


segregation - where it must be shown


that acts of state or school district


officials are a substantial cause of racial


segregation - and de facto segregation


- where segregated school districts


result from housing patterns, rather


than from state or local school districts


committing acts contributing to the


segregation of the schools.


The Crawford decision held that the


very existence of segregation, regardless


of cause, violates the state constitution,


and requires the adoption of reasonably


feasible means to eradicate the evil.


According to ACLU Staff Counsel


Alan Schlosser, the issue of inter-district


remedies under the "reasonable


feasible' guidelines has not yet been


reviewed by the California Supreme


Court, and the Tinsley suit is expected


to be the first case to receive con-


sideration of this constitutional


question.


The U.S. Supreme Court held in 1974


(Milliken v. Bradley) that before a court


orders an inter-district school


desegregation remedy, there must be


evidence that neighboring local school


districts, or the state, intentionally


contributed to the school's segregation.


The plaintiffs argue that the


California rule, that desegregation may


be ordered even without proof of intent


to segregate should allow an inter-


district remedy whenever necessary to


achieve effective desegregation.


But imposing constitutional stan--


dards on complex social issues is not


always as easy as it sounds, as ACLU's


Board of Directors found out when the


Board was urged, by petition, to


reconsider its March decision to enter


the case by an inter-racial group of


concerned citizens representing the


Ravenswood School District, at their


April meeting. a


This viewpoint is held by the all-


black Ravenswood school board which


is on record in opposition to the inter-


district remedy proposed by the Tinsley


plaintiffs.


It is also supported by at least 300


residents who signed the peititions


asking that the ACLU's Board of


Directors reconsider their decision to


enter the Tinsley law suit. The petition


supporters are lead by the Committee


for Community Forum on Education


who brought spokespeople to the April


meeting.


The 95% black Ravenswood District


has had a series of stormy struggles


regarding school desegregation during.


the last ten years ... struggles which


have caused a great number of black


parents to reject the notion that school


desegregation is a worthy objective.


Instead, at least one group, which


addressed the Board, takes a separatist


view that local control would be a


greater goal for parents and students to


work for in order to achieve quality


education.


Desegregation at the high school level


has been a painful experience for some


Ravenswood residents who explained


that an earlier plan to integrate |


secondary school students resulted in


closing their own Ravenswood High


School. Many black parents found that


this eliminated their influence in ee


secondary education.


- Opposing the Ravenswood group at


the meeting was an NAACP


representative and other Tinsley


desegregation advocates who argued


that desegregation was necessary


during the elementary school ex-:


perience, and that the Ravenswood


parents were discouraged, in part,


because it may be too late to achieve the


promise of equal educational op-


portunities at the high school level.


Moreover, proponents of the Tinsley


suit claimed that they in fact were


supported by many black parents in the


Ravenswood school district, who


disagreed with the Educational Forum


group's proposal for local control.


The dialogue engaged in by ACLU


Board Members, staff, representatives


of the Tinsley plaintiffs, and the


Community Forum group was fruitful.


Although ACLU Board members


were sensitive to concerns raised by the


Ravenswood committee, such as their


opposition to any one-way busing plan,


the actual plan for desegregation will


not be addressed by either the HEE


or the ACLU in the appeal.


Throughout the discussion it was


made clear that the ACLU's role in the


litigation would be focused upon the


constitutional grounds upon which the


entire appeal is based. At this stage the


Tinsley appeal does not ask the court to


consider engineering an equitable inter-


district desegregation plan. |


`Therefore the board reached a unani-


mous decision to maintain ACLU's


`position to enter the Tinsley case as a


friend of the court on the specific issue


of whether the state courts have the


constitutional obligation to order de-


segregation involving more than a


single "school district absent proof of


intentional segregation - the so-called


`metropolitan approach' to desegre-


gation.


Schlosser intends to argue that the


metropolitan approach can be ordered,


if necessary, because in California the


very existence, not- the cause of


segregated schools is the constitutional -


evil which must be remedied. |


"There may be no restraints imposed


upon reasonable and feasible relief


ordered which promises to root out


segregated school conditions,' ac-


cording to Mr. Schlosser.


The Tinsley plaintiffs will file their


opening brief later this month.


May 1978


aclu news


By David M. Fishlow


Executive Director -


No issue in the recent history of the ACLU has


attracted so much public attention, nor occasioned so


much discussion within the ACLU, as has the decision


of the Illinois Division to attack three unconstitutional


parade ordinances passed when a group of `"`American


Nazis'"' announced their intention to march in the


Chicago suburb of Skokie.


_ The controversy - more illusory than real -


centers not on the policy questions involved, but


`Tam a gay man, but if Anita Bryant or


Senator Briggs decide to parade through


the Castro, I trust you will also defend


their rights to demonstrate. '' Amember in support


rather on the identity of the plaintiffs.


The ordinances, already used to deny a parade


permit to the Jewish War Veterans, have three main


provisions:


e A demonstration by any group of 50 or more


persons requires a permit issued on 30 days notice by


the Village of Skokie


e "Political organizations'' may not demonstrate


in `military style'' uniforms.


e@ `Symbols offensive to the community" may not


be displayed in any demonstration, and there may be


no distribution of literature which ascribes a "lack of


virtue'' to any ethnic group.


Finally, Village officials may suspend any of the


requirements of the parade ordinances if in their


judgment enforcement is unnecessary for a particular


group of whom they happen to approve.


In addition to the three ordinances, the demon-


stration by the Illinois Nazis, only one of half a dozen


feuding successor groups to George Lincoln Rock-


well's National Socialist White People's Party, oc-


casioned a determination by the Village Council that


henceforth demonstrations in the Village would


require insurance bonds of $350,000.


Were any other group in the United States the


plaintiffs in the Illinois case, it is unlikely that the


Skokie ...


What have


we eained?


bitter controversy now roiling the waters of the Union


would have arisen; protection of the right to


demonstrate regardless of one's political views is


nothing new for the ACLU. One pamphlet on why the (c)


ACLU sometimes defends the Nazis was written by


Roger Baldwin in 1937.


Here in Northern California, the reaction of the


membership to the Illinois case seems to be much


milder than that expressed elsewhere. Perhaps it is the


nature of people in this part of the country to be more


tolerant of diversity, even when the divergent pass


beyond mere kookiness on to the limits of repugnance.


There may be a direct relationship between the fact


that Northern California has roughly twice the


national average of ACLU membership per capita -


and the fact that we have received less mail than other


affiliates over the Nazi issue.


... Which is not by any means to say that we have


not felt the heat to some degree. Slowly, however, the


job of educatirig our membership and the general


public to the true nature of the issues involved, seems


to be more successful.


In a Sacramento Chapter meeting in early May, for


example, well over a hundred ACLU members heard a


presentation on the issue, participated in a question


and answer session, and clearly indicated their general


support for the ACLU position. Other meetings have


been much the same.


The objections from our membership to ACLU


participation in the case usually fall into one of two


broad categories: there are those who say the Nazis are


so far beyond the pale of human decency that they


ought to be disqualified from


protection; and the second group, while reluctantly


Prop. 9 challenge to high court


In the wake of a November Los Angeles Superior Court


climate which existed that year.


admitting that Nazis have rights, too, object to the


_ACLU's expenditure of ``resources" - time and


money - on their problems.


_ The real resentment - and the often vituperative


mail - comes in because many members felt sur-


prised. Perhaps if we all had thought about the issue


calmly, in advance of its having heated up, there


would have been less shock, but things don't work that


way, and it is indeed difficult to learn from screaming


headlines that an organization to which one belongs


has "rushed in" to aid a terrible cause. The almost


inevitable sense of betrayal is frequently transmuted


into a feeling of injury, and hurt feelings often are


expressed in angry letters - this time, of resignation


constitutional _


6


`. . there are some things in this world


that are just not right, that just cannot be


accepted in a civilized society. "


A member opposed


from the ACLU.


I will risk the suggestion, however, that in the long


run the Skokie problem may turn out to have had


some benefit for this organizaten, and for the United


States as a whole.


It has occasioned more discussion and public


debate over the right of free speech than even the anti-


war movement occasioned in any one-year period. It


has caused the ACLU privately to rededicate itself,


and publicly to declare itself, solemnly and immutably


dedicated to the principle that the right to vigorous


public expression of political views may not be in-


terfered with by government officials who find the


views repugnant.


And those Americans who think and talk and argue


about the issue, even if they think the ACLU dead


wrong and the Village of Skokie dead right, are ac-


tively debating the advisability or necessity of that


abstraction known as "free speech" or, more properly,


"free thought." As long as that debate continues, the


people will be keeping the principle alive. When the


discussion no longer makes anybody mad - on either


side - then we will be in real trouble.


The ACLU's action has occasioned this public


debate. What a fine use for ACLU resources! How


fundamental to ACLU. How healthy for America.


Now I'll answer some more mail. . .


decision which threw out, in its entirety, Proposition 9 - the


1974 Political Reform Act - the ACLU of Northern California


has joined the Institute of Governmental Advocates as amicus


curiae in the appeal of the Superior Court decision currently


before the State Supreme Court. ;


ACLU attorneys argue that a section of the act, which pro-


hibits lobbyists from making any financial contribution to a


candidate, for statewide office, is unconstitutional.


The Fair Political Practices Commission is appealing the


decision rendered by Superior Court Judge Parks Stillwell.


The Institute of Governmental Advocates who originally


brought the suit to the lower court successfully argued that


Proposition 9 was unconstitutional for three reasons: They first


claim that it presented more than one issue to the voters at the


same time, which violates the constitutional guidelines for


initiative measures.


Their second contention is that the statute's $10 limitation


on gifts to legislators by lobbyists is irrational.


And finally they maintain that the statute's absolute


prohibition on political contributions by lobbyists to can-


`didates for statewide office violates both the First and


Fourteenth Amendments.


In April, the ACLU's Board of Directors decided to enter the


suit as a friend of the court on the basis of constitutional


questions raised by the third claim regarding the acts violation


of the right to free speech and association and the right to


equal protection.


According to Ruth Simon, a volunteer attorney representing


`the ACLU in this action, "the political atmosphere which


existed in the nation and in the state at the time of the


proposition's acceptance by the voters in 1974 may have


caused the act's authors to overlook, or deliberately disregard,


the constitutional rights of lobbyists."


Coming on the heels of Watergate, and viewed as a major


reform to do away with political corruption and as an attempt


to blunt the impact which `special interest' groups had on the


legislative process, Proposition 9 received majority support on


the 1974 June ballot.


In fact, the ACLU's Board of Directors chose not to take a


position for or against the popular issue in the post-Watergate


Since that time, in a case brought by the national ACLU,


Buckley v. Valeo, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that


political contributions do constitute both a form of political


expression and an act of political association protected by the


First Amendment.


The section of California's law which the ACLU is


challenging works as follows: No contribution can be made by


any lobbyist to the campaigns of elective state officials,


regardless of whether a lobbyist has ever or could ever have


occasion to even meet, let alone lobby, that official. A lob-


byist's employer, however, is free to make unlimited con-


tributions under California law. `


The stated purpose of this absolute prohibtion, according to


the statute, is to "rid the political system of the appearance


and actuality of corruption and improper influence." The


`defendant Fair Political Practices Commission maintains that


this prohibition is justified because of the peculiarly sensitive


role that lobbyists play in influencing legislative decision-


making. |


Although criminal laws already exist which prohibit bribery


and other forms of political corruption, the Fair Political


Practices Commission argues that this statute is not simply to


prevent corruption, but to prevent the public's confidence in


the legislative process from being undermined by campaign


expenditures by lobbyists, or just simply to prevent the "`ap-


pearance" of corruption.


| ACLU advocates disagree, and explain to the high court that


jfor the government to deny one special group - lobbyists -


lan essential means of participating in the political process,


there must be a compelling and rational reason.


The defendant's contention, that such a right be given up by


lobbyists to create an illusion of a corruption-free legislative


| process, is `"`an exchange which is not only unworkable, but


unconstitutional,' particularly when the law allows cir-


cumvention by the employers of a lobbyist who can make


unlimited political contributions, according to the amicus


curiae brief.


A hearing on the issues is scheduled for June 5 before the


State Supreme Court. Common Cause, People's Lobby, the


sa1uaq?T [tar `uoryeor[qnd ATyUOW-1q NDY [eUOHeU ay} 10} St s}U99 QC pue


SMIU NJID JY} 0} UOTAIJOSQNs and JO} SI $}U99 OS Yor Jo `dn pue Oz diyssoquisyy


SPSb-LLL - EOI H6 VIMLOSIDD `OdSIOUDLT UDE `TOE "AIS - 1S UOISSIP p18


OPOSTO JoquiNN] Uoreorqnd


oypA `Yousy sy My2010q


AOPIIIG] SaAyNsex'yY `wo7ys1.7 "PY Plavg wosisdAeyD `uvnwzyyg uasivs,


BIUIOF [ED UIOYON Jo UOTUL SaHJaqr] [ALD URoLOULY ay} Aq poysi[qng


DIULOfIID) `OISIIUDLY UE 1D pazL4OYIND Sasaiaiad po ssv]D puovags


daquiadaq -daquiaao0ny pun saquiajdag-isnanyp


`Ayng-aune `Kaonaga.q-Cavnuve ui A]yquow-1q 1daoxa Ayyjuow `Ava p sanssi 9


SAOU NPE


Sierra Club and the Attorney General have submitted friend of See


the court arguments on the side of the FPPC.


May 1978


aclu news


1978-ACLU Board of


Who is eligible to vote:


By-laws for the ACLU of Northern


California call for the at-large Directors


of the Board to be elected by the


"general membership." The `general


membership" is those members `in


good standing' who have renewed their


membership within the last twelve ~


months. .


The label affixed to this issue of


ACLU News indicates whether you are


eligible, or not eligible, to vote on the


`basis of when your last membership


renewal contribution was recorded.


If you are not eligible to vote, you


may choose to renew your membership


at the same time you submit your


ballot, and resume your membership `in


good standing.'


If you share a joint membership, each


individual is entitled to vote separately


- two spaces are provided on the ballot


located on the opposite page.


How are the candidates nominated to


run for the Board of Directors?


The By-laws permit two methods of


nomination. Some candidates were


nominated by the present Board of


Directors after consideration of the


nominating committee's recom-


mendations. Others were nominated by


petitions, bearing the signatures of at.


least fifteen ACLU members.


How many members of the Board are to


be elected?


Eighteen candidates are running to


fill thirteen positions on the Board of


Directors, for either three year terms, or


to fill unexpired terms, beginning in


September, 1978.


How does a member vote?


Instructions appear on the oppsite


page. The deadline for submitting your


ballot to the ACLU office is Monday,


June S.


For your consideration, the following


statements were submitted by the


nineteen candidates for election to the


Board of Directors.


Irving R. Cohen


In the face of what I see as a steadily


increasing anti-civil libertarian climate


in the country, I think the ACLU must


continue to explore new areas (such as


free speech within the corporation),


while strengthening its role as protector


of the more traditional areas.


Organizationally, I see our greatest


strength and greatest weakness as the


same: our membership. Since the


weakness lies in its under-utilization, I


believe that all levels of the ACLU must


work to strengthen the peed presence


in the community.


I have been a chapter member, -


chapter chairperson (Marin), No. Cal


Board member, National Board (at


present), and briefly, Acting Executive


Director. I make my living as a self-


employed custom cabinet-maker, with a


minor role as film critic, and occasional


forays into novel writing.


Incumbent: Yes


Nominated by: Board of Directors


Marlene De Lancie


Many of my |


activities in.


recent years


have centered -


around hu--


man rights.


My present


service on th


District Advi


sory Commit


tee for Compensatory Education re-


- sulted directly from nine years' involve-


ment at every level of community/


school interaction to desegregate schools


voluntarily and to bring about their


integration.


As board member of the Child Care


Coordinating Council of San Mateo


County, I serve as treasurer and


funding chairperson.


Within ACLU, as a full-time


volunteer, I coordinate the Coalition


Against the Death Penalty with 80


member-organizations, and assist with


organization of Bill of Rights Day fund-


raising efforts. :


To promote greater presence and


understanding of ACLU and its defense


of the Bill of Rights, and to bring


ACLU closer to its constituents, I am


co-sponsoring the establishment of a


northern Peninsula chapter.


Incumbent: No :


Nominated by: Board of Directors


Jerome B. Falk, jr.


ACLU vol-


unteer counsel


in dozens of


cases since


1966, includ-


ing capital


punishment,


school deseg-


gregation, fair


housing, free


speech, loyalty oaths, obscenity, Zebra


stop and frisk, student rights, and others.


Former member of ACLU-NC Board and


Chairman of Legal Committee. Presently


ACLU Advisory Counsel.


_ Graduated Boalt Hall in 1965. Law


Clerk, Justice William Douglas (1965-


66). Practicing lawyer in San Francisco


and lecturer in law at Boalt Hall.


Very often, the ACLU is the only


source of assistance for those whose


civil liberties have been denied. Its


Board must see that no matter how


unpopular the cause or the client,


violations of our basic freedoms do not


go unchallenged.


Incumbent: No


Nominated by: Board of Directors.


Gail Ann Fujioka


I serve as Field Representative for


The Youth Project's Western Office, a


private foundation which supports


emerging grass roots, action-oriented,


social justice organizations around the


country. I have taught in the Asian


American Studies Department at UC


- Davis and have served as the National


Youth Director and in the Washington,


D.C. office of the Japanese American


Citizens League. I presently serve on the


Board of Governors of the Asian Law


Caucus and am a member of the


Chinatown YWCA and the San


Francisco JACL.


The ACLU


should continue to


working. for' the


California chapter


initiate dialogues - with ethnic com-


munities regarding the issue of First


slated in ACLU's work, and in con-


tinuing to keep the issue of civil liberties


in the forefront of people' s concern and


activism.


Incumbent: No


Nominated by: Board of Directors


Cherie A. Gaines


I am a practicing attorney presently


EEOC (handling


employment discrimination trials in


federal court), previously with the


poverty program legal services offices in


Alameda County. I have also served on


the Boards of the ACLU Berkeley-


Albany Chapter, the Consumers Co-op


of Berkeley, the Berkeley Neighborhood


Legal Services Foundation, and in


many community organizations, ac-


tivities and efforts. My professional and


volunteer work, as well as my daily life,


have all involved me in major areas of


civil liberties concern including police


practices, school policies, controversial


free speech issues, etc. ;


I believe in a broad interpretation of


ACLU's role and I would like for the


ACLU to have a direct impact affecting


the exercise of individual rights in-


practice as well as theory.


Incumbent: No


Nominated by: Board of Directors


Linda K. Hanten


As a staff attorney for the Mexican


American Legal Defense and


Educational Fund, (MALDEF), a major


U.S. civil rights organizaton, I feel that


I can bring to the ACLU-NC the in-


sights I have gained working as an


advocate of people's rights.


My work at- MALDEF has been


employment discrimination litigation


and the Chicana Rights Project, which


seeks to remedy the problems Mexican


American women face as a result of


national origin and sex discrimination.


I feel it important that the


achievements of the ACLU be


presented to the public more positively.


Many of my colleagues and fellow


Mexican Americans either do not know,


or know very little, of the role ACLU


plays in endeavoring to bring legal


justice to all segments of American


society.


Incumbent: No


Nominated by: Board of Directors


Sylvan M. Heumann


I am currently President ot


Metropolitan Furniture Corporation. I


have been active in the business


community as an officer or board


member of various small corporations


and trade organizations over a thirty


year period.


I have gained some experience in real


estate and investments and hope to be


able to contribute to the guidance of the


ACLU financial programs.


I was Chairman of the Northern


BEM (Business


Executives Move for Vietnam Peace). I


have also worked on charities and with


Amendment rights, how this is tran-.


minority groups in business.


Have recently been involved with


ACLU as a member of the Development


and Finance Committees.


Incumbent: No .


Nominated by: Board of Directors


Donna J. Hitchens


I am the


director and


staff attorney


for the Les-


bian Rights


Project and


work part time


with Equal


Rights Advo-


cates. I am in- :


volved in litigation and community edu-


cation concerning the rights of women


and gay people. Prior to becoming a law-


yer and moving to California, I was a


member of the ACLU of Maine.Over the


last ten years I have been involved in the


civil liberties struggle and have viewed it


as an important tool in combating


oppression based on race, sex, eco;


nomics, age and politics.


Because of the continued and


intensified intrusion on the rights of


individuals, the ACLU of Northern


California has a dual responsibility: 1)


to aggressively and creatively oppose


these intrusions, and 2) to encourage


others to actively participate in the


: struggle.


Incumbent: No


Nominated by: Board of Directors


Naomi Lauter


Assistant Director of the Jewish


Community Relations Council. Also


serves on the KQED board and as


President of Organize.


ACLU activities: Presently is Vice


Chairperson of Northern California


ACLU and chairperson of the Legis-


lative Committee; served on the


Citizens Committee to integrate the San


Francisco School district; have been


active in Democratic politics and the


civil rights movement of the 1960s and


is past chairperson of Friends of SNCC


of the Bay Area.


I believe the ACLU is an essential .


organization for the diligent pursuit of


the protections guaranteed in our Con-


stitution, which I believe to be the most


important idea in the United States.


Incumbent: Yes


Nominated by: Board of Directors


Charles C. Marson


I was on the


almost a


decade, a


legislative


representative


(1968-72) and


legal directo


(1972-77).


I remain active on the legal com-


mittee and as a volunteer lawyer and


contributor.


As our society, economy, politics, and


technologies evolve, ACLUNC's views


and strategies must evolve with them -


beyond the First Amendment into


difficult issues of privacy, poverty, and


of Directors election


discrimination; beyond the courthouse


into the legislative and administrative


arenas.


Yet this evolution must be selective


lest we lose what we have won in our


traditional areas of concern. Our


resources are tiny, our strength depends


upon the quality of our effort, and the


temptation to endorse a hundred


righteous causes is continuing.


`The resulting choices are hard. If


elected I would bring to them all the


experience and energy I can.


Incumbent: No


Nominated by: Board of Directors


Caryl Mezey


47 years old;


present ACLU


Board mem-


ber; Commis-


sioner, San


Francisco Hu-


man Rights


Commission;


Vice Presi-


dent, Chil- on


dren's Rights group; Finance Commit-


tee, Legal Defense Fund; Member,


League of Women Voters, National


Women's Political Caucus, SPUR. Past


activity in PTA, Richmond complex -


advisory council. Four children


educated in San Francisco public


schools. Husband Peter, member of


San Francisco Board of Education.


Wide involvement in labor, ethnic com-.


munities and neighborhood groups.


Presently coordinator of campaign of


San Franciscans Against Jarvis-Gann.


Incumbent: Yes


Nominated by: Board of Directors


Iris Mitgang


Seen ;


National Vice-


Chair, Nation-


al Women's


Political Cau-


cus; Continu-


ing Committee


of the Confer-


ence, Interna-


tional Wo-


men's Year, Houston; National Board


member, NWPC ERA Fund; Consumer


member, governing body, Alameda-


Contra Costa Health System; Attorney,


Oakland-Walnut Creek (employment


discrimination/family law); Publications


on Immigration; Instructor legal


' research, U.C. Davis School of Law;


Editorial Board U.C. Davis Law Boy,


experienced lobbyist.


Commitment: A strong feminist


presence - to keep the vigil and to


expand our commitment: to equal


rights, children's rights, the rights of


privacy and the right to choose; to open


the political and institutional processes


to the under-represented, the under-


served, and to bring political


knowledge, and the perspective,


commitment and energy for change.


I would be honored to serve.


Incumbent: No.


Nominated by: Board of Directors


and Petition


. Warren Saltzman


- forces which


I believe we should not only assure


peoples' right to speak, but should alse


pay attention to what they say. I have


tried to do that in my position as


Chairperson of ACLU-NC.


After being elected to the Board in


1968, I helped strengthen the role of our


Chapters and had them represented on


the Board. I organized the first annual


Chapter-Board Conference and helped


build the San Francisco Chapter,


serving as its President.


In 1965, I joined other Bay Area


lawyers and court reporters who took


depositions in Mississippi to prove to


Congress that the State had


systematically prevented Blacks from


voting. Later, as Chairperson of the


State Commission on Equality in


Education, I worked toward integrating


schools_


throughout California.


Incumbent: Yes


Nominated by: Board of Directors


Pat Schultz


In my position as Adminstrative


Brown, I have ample opportunity to


work in the legislative arena on "`civil


liberties" issues. In addition, because


of our office's well known involvement


in issues of discrimination, individual


rights and unpopular causes, I devote


much energy to individual cases of


abuse.


My experience on the ACLU Board -


provides breadth and support to my


work with the Legislature and my legis-


lative experience brings a different, and -


I believe needed, viewpoint to the


ACLU Board. Although an incumbent,


T have only served for a short time and


would like to continue for another term.


Incumbent: Yes _


- Nominated by: Board of Directors


Frances C. Strauss


I have been


a member of


the ACLU


since 1953 and


from then un-


til 1955 was


administrative


secretary of


the Illinois


Division;


from 1956 until removal laSon Fre rancisco -


in 1960, served on its Board of Directors.


on its Board as Secretary and as its


Chapter Representative to the ACLU-


NC. Currently, a member of its Board


and Executive Committee.


Have been active in ACLU-NC for a


number of years; established the


Complaint Desk Service in 1972. Since


1973, have been primarily responsible


for the ACLU-NC Foundation's Bill of


Rights fundraising campaigns in


support of our legal program. Currently


serving the ACLU-NC as Secretary-


Treasurer and board member at large.


Incumbent: Yes


Nominated by: Board of Directors _


Pablo Tellez


It has been -


my experience, - /


both subjective: -


and observed,


that those |


violate and -


diminish the


individual's


worth are


in San Francisco and


Assistant to Assemblyman Willie.


~ gon and HUAC


all too ready to encroach upon those


principles and agreements by which we


choose to order our lives. Ethics,


morality and responsibility have


become victims of situational defini-


tions twisted by selfish abuse of power.


I believe that there are good and


honest persons who seek to sustain and


enlarge the concerns for human dignity.


Since this effort is based on integrity, it


is a struggle faced with great resistance


and adversity; there are elements that


-would subvert truth and freedom to ~


their own means. Yet, however


difficult, those persons truly concerned


must not waiver. The protection of our


civil liberties is the primary line of


defense.


- Incumbent: No


Nominated by: Board of Directors


Michael E. Vader


Manager of the State of California's


Affirmative Action Program for the


_ Disabled responsible for policy for-


mulation and_ statewide' im-


plementation. Past Commissioner of


the Fair Employment Practices


Commission and current President of


the California Coalition of Minorities,


Women and the Disabled. Also serves


on the Board of Directors of the Legal


Center for the Elderly and Disabled;


Deaf Self-Help, Inc.; Far West TTY,


Inc.; and Disabled in State Service.


In addition, active in the California


Association for the Physically Han-


dicapped, the Human Rights Com-


mission, the Foster Grandparents


Program, Resources for Independent


Living, the Developmental Disabilities


Council, and current and past member


of numerous committees and


organizations dedicated to furthering


opportunities and promoting equality


for disadvantaged persons.


Incumbent: No


: Nominated by: Board of Directors


David M. Weitzman


Attorney


for 13 years:


Pendleton 14;


Abbie Hoff-


man flag


shirt; Penta-


demonstra-


tors. 1965 -


Exec. Sec.


District of


Columbia


~ACLU; Co-


founder and Vicechairperson of ACLU of


Virginia; Boards of D.C., Virginia and


Berkeley.


Responsible in part for election


procedure reform in Affiliate. Believe


Affiliate has been disdainful of Chap-


ters; is too inbred; has not fully utilized


attorneys, chapters, volunteers; that it


should represent more citizens who are


mistreated by police.


I believe that the full support of free


speech for even the most unpopular


cause does not require aiding and


abetting groups which constitute a


criminal conspiracy to deprive others of


their civil rights when the group has


already acted upon their beliefs to kill,


maim, and batter others.


Incumbent: No


Nominated by: Petition


May 1978


aclu news and


Instructions for voting:


Candidates are listed 1 below tl


in alphabetical order. Vote for 0x00A7


no more than 13 candidates.


After marking your ballot, clip i


it and seal it in an envelope.


mailing label from this issue of i


the ACLU News, and place it on and


the upper left-hand corner of fl


the envelope as your return 0x00A7


address: Address the envelope g


to:


ACLU of Northern California :


Elections Committee 5


814 Mission Street, Suite 301


San Francisco, California 94103 i


The special mailing


must be included with your g


ballot in order to assure voting i


eligibility, as well as to help us rr


keep track of who has voted. ;


If this is a joint membership, fl


you may use both columns 0x00A7


provided, and each of the g


members may vote separately. i


lf you wish to insure the #


confidentiality of your vote,


insert your ballot in a double


envelope, with the special 0x00A7


mailing label on the outer. The 0x00A7


envelopes will be separated g


before the counting of the g


ballots. .


i


Ballots must be returned to i


the ACLU office before noon on 0x00A7f


Monday, June 5, 1978. I


Vote for no more than 13 Ss


candidates. (Joint members


have 13 votes EACH.) ;


Joint members use _ both 0x00A7f


columns. i


(26 eS Se See


: Ballot a


: IvingR.Cohen OF CO :


i MarleneDeLancie | U g


; Jerome B. Falk,jr. OF :


i GailAnnFujioka OF OO fF


: CherieA.Gaines (c) U :


i LindaK.Hanten CF OC 9


: SylvanM.Heumannt] CU ;


0x00A7 Donna J. Hitchens (1 OU JI


? q Naomi Lauter Ee :


gCharlesC.Marson O UC


`ll Caryl Mezey Bd :


t iris Mitgang el |


: Warren H.Saltzmanl) UT :


g Pat Schultz i] a 4g


i FrancesC.Strauss [1 U JI


I pabloTellee OF Of


g MichaelE.Vader C CJ 0x00A7g


; David M. Weitzman LU :


ee


Peel off the self-adhesive #


label 0x00A7


we


May 1978


aclu news


`On the line' for eight years


Margaret Smith will tell you that all


it really takes is the ability to "`listen,"'


but if you ask anyone who has


``listened'' to her respond to calls from


_ "friends in need" during her eight years


as a volunteer on the ACLU's Com-


plaint Desk, they will tell you it takes


muchmore.


Since the inception of the ACLU's


Complaint Desk service, Margaret


Smith has donated one day each week


to ``listen'' to every imaginable legal or


non-legal problem which confronts the .


ACLU office each day. This month will


make the end of Margaret's valuable


stay with the ACLU of Northern


California.


For many of us, civil liberties is


something we work for in the halls of


the Capitol or legislative chambers, or


in. a pristine courtroom. But for


Margaret Smith, her eight other


colleagues who staff the `front desk'


each week, and the countless numbers


of ACLU chapter activists who staff


"complaint" lines from Santa Rosa to


Monterey, working for civil liberties is


responding to real people with real


problems.


And working ``on the line' isn't an


easy task. Most people who call the


ACLU do not have what could be


defined as a "`civil liberties" problem.


They call the ACLU because they want


a divorce, or because they were


unhappy with the job the mechanic did


on their car, or because they were


arrested for drunk driving.


In reflecting upon the challenging,


yet often thankless job, Ms. Smith notes


that, ``We do offer a valuable service.


We are able to help a lot of people, who


wouldn't have anywhere else to turn.


Working with the legal staff, we come


up with ideas, and often we can help


people in need even if their problem


isn't just about their individual rights.


At the very least, just talking it over, for


many people, makes a big difference."'


Many callers do have civil liberties


problems, They feel that they have been


discriminated against - because of


race, because of their sexual preference,


and most often, according to Ms.


Smith, "they are facing insoluble


problems because they are poor.


"We try to help them, to advise them


by consulting with the ACLU's legal


staff who research the`law, and we call


them back, letting them know what


avenues are open to them to work out


their problems.


"But the buck stops at the ACLU,"


deal about


according to Ms. Smith, who is very


cautious about making unsatisfactory


referrals to inappropriate agencies and


says that, "`it is `no favor' to people who


_urgently need assistance. Some people


call who don't have a legitimate


complaint - and most often they are


referred to the ACLU by some other


agency who just wanted to placate


them.


- Directly dealing with ACLU's


"public''. has not been the only job


which Ms. Smith has eagerly un-


dertaken within the ACLU. She has


been an ACLU member for more than


25 years, and, in fact, began volun-


teering over ten years ago to thank the


organization for providing her with


information for her own civil liberties


problem, many years before the


Complaint Desk was even established.


Margarget Smith is enthusiastic


about what she has learned about


constitutional rights, although she sadly


notes that "`I've also learned a great


what the constitutional


doesn't cover, and that is ways to help


the poor." ee


Deborah Boyce, staff coordinator of


the Complaint Desk volunteers, noted


that, "The kind of volunteer like


Margaret Smith is hard to replace. Her


patience and sensitivity is enriched by


eight years of experience as an advisor,


consoler, and teacher to so many


hundreds of ACLU callers. That


background is just invaluable."


Members interested in volunteering


for the Complaint Desk should call


Deborah Boyce (415) 777-4545 for


further information.


Mental Patients' Right to Refuse Treatment


Tuesday, May 30 - 12:00 Noon


Wednesday, May 31 - 7:30 P.M.


KPFA Radio - FM 94.1 (Bay Area)


KFCF Radio - FM 88.1 (Fresno)


Does Doctor know best . . . or should mental patients have


the right to refuse such treatments as shock therapy, psycho-


surgery, or mind-altering drugs?


The medical, ethical and legal aspects of this current controversy will be


discussed by ACLU voluntary attorney, Mort Cohen, who recently filed a


class action suit to halt the forced administration of psychotropic drugs,


members of the medical profession, and others. You can join the debate by


calling (415) 848-4425.


The Civil Liberties Radio Education Project is funded by the California


Council for the Humanities in Public Policy, and is produced for KPFA by


Peabody Award winner Adi Gevins.


`Zebra Gul


continued from page I


which regulates boxing in California, to


rescind its regulation. Ms. Crosby


argued that the regulation


discriminated solely on the basis of sex


and denied women boxers the right to


due process since the rule presumes,


without evidence, that all women are


incapable of competing in longer bouts.


The State Athletic Commission, at its


May 9 meeting, voted to rescind its


present policy, having received


arguments from Ms. Crosby explaining:


| why it must do so.


The Commission agreed with the


ACLU's position and ruled that in the


future all applicants, male and female,


wishing to compete in longer bouts shall


be evaluated individually, on the basis


of their experience and ability, not on


the basis of their sex.


Although down, the ban may not be


out.


The policies relating to women


boxers are not final, since the Com-


mission decided to re-examine all of its


policies regulating female boxing


matches at its June meeting where it


will hear testimony from women boxers


as well as physicians specializing in


athletic-related medical problems.


For Shirley Tucker, the current


-ruling is not just a novel victory. It may


mean paying the rent and supporting


her two children, since women boxers


have suffered great financial hardships


`from the unequal treatment they have


- received under California's regulations.


Four round contests of two minutes


`Calm'


continued from page 1 ,


negotiate with the


department."'


Alba charged that the Sheriff's


department, without a proper hearing


procedure, was able to ignore citizens'


complaints of abuse, or to simply tell


community groups that `they don't


care,' when demands were made.


"The Santa Cruz County SWAT


team was formed secretly,' Alba said,


"their existence indicates a `storm


trooper approach' to law enforcement,


and a military response to social


local Sheriffs


problems, which is unnecessary. in


Santa Cruz and elsewhere.


"There is a lot of favorable com-


munity interest for the initiative


measures."' according to Alba, who is


currently organizing support for the


June election.


The police reform crusaders were


stunned by Judge Allen's April 3


decision, just three days before the


ballot was to be printed.


Judge Allen's order, in conjunction


with Proposition A, which would if


approved prohibit Santa Cruz police


from conducting guerilla warfare


training and, except where required by


State and Federal laws, banned the


`used of machine guns, indicated that


such a measure would hamper the


ability of law enforcement to function


effectively. In his opinion he stated


that:


"the F.B.1., for example, in going after a


modern Capone or Dillinger at his hideout in the


Santa Cruz mountains, would have to leave their


automatic weapons at the county line or face tort


actions by Dillinger's survivors for damages for


illegally using automatic weapons fire in a gun


battle. Not only the local sheriff, but all law en-


forcement agencies coming to his assistance


each do not fit into the scheme through


which boxing matchers are promoted.


Women boxers, of which there are


probably a dozen in California, were


regulated to what Zebra Girl described


as, "`novelty carnival' acts.


According to an article written by


Zebra Girl, "For a four-round fight, a


woman will get an average of $300.00. _


After paying her manager and trainer


she ends up with around $200.00." So


far it is difficult for women entering the


profession to even get one fight each


month promoted.


`Men can box 10 rounds for normal


fights and twelve to fifteen rounds for


championship fights. For these ten


rounders they receive on the average


$1,000 to $5,000,' Ms. Tucker ex-


plained. oS


Regardless of the economic impact of


the four-round limitation, ``sex


discrimination is unconstitutional,"


according to Ms. Crosby, who had first


been told by the state Commission that


the regulation existed to protect


"novices," and because boxing was


"`physically dangerous.''


"That boxing is a_ potentially


hazardous activity," Ms. Crosby ex-


plained in a letter to the Commission,


"is undoubtedly true,' however, under


California law, `facing danger is no


longer the exclusive prerogative of


males.


"This decision strikes down one more


barrier which blocks women from


pursuing whatever career they may


choose, no matter how male dominated


or unique that profession might be,"


Ms. Crosby said.


would be prohibited from using automatic wea-


pons to suppress a large riot, invasion of a small


coastal town by illegal gangs, to combat terrorist


seizure of public. officials, or public facilities,


newspapers, banks, or a Santa Cruz equivalent of


the Israeli wrestler massacre."


Proposition B, which establishes a


county-wide Law Enforcement Review


Commission providing for citizen


participation in ``setting and reviewing


law enforcement policies'? and


procedures to provide a means for


prompt, impartial, and fair in-


vestigation of complaints against the


law enforcement agencies under the


jurisdiction of the county, was also


declared "completely and totally in-


valid'? for much the same reasons as


Proposition A. In Judge Allen's view,


both measures go beyond the County or


the State's legislative authority. =


ACLU's emergency appeal claimed


that the CALM measures did not meet


the stiff test necessary for courts to


declare ballot measures invalid, and


successfully argued before the Supreme


Court that if the measures were


removed from the ballot, `the voters'


franchise will have been lost because


the Superior Court has abused its -


discretion by acting as a censor of


democracy, substituting its own views


on the wisdom of these measures in the


place of the electorate, even though the


invalidity of the measures is far from


clear. =


`A Court test of the validity of the


complex measures can come in due


course, after the election," Amitai Sch-


wartz said.


The Supreme Court decision allows


for Santa Cruz County voters to ap-


prove or reject the police conduct


measures through the use of their ballot


on June 6.


LEGISLATIVE ee


Initiative Watch redaie


By Mike Katz


Recent information indicates that


most of the six repressive initiatives


discussed in the last two issues of ACLU


News may fail to qualify for the


November California ballot.


As of May 11th, the only petitions


filed with county registrars were those


supporting the Briggs anti-gay teachers


initiative. There was evidence that


backers of each of the other five


initiatives were short of the required


number of signatures, and in telephone


interviews three ``proponents" actually


predicted defeat.


Each of the five proponents was given


a recommended deadline of May 4th for


gathering necessary signatures to


qualify for the November ballot; filing.


by the final deadlines listed below may


allow, but does not insure, inclusion on


that ballot.


Details regarding each initiative's


chances for qualification, where


available, are as follows:


Affirmative Action: Would ban


preferential treatment in school ac-


ceptance, hiring, and awarding of


Jarvis /Gann


continued from page I


rule may also make Jarvis-Gann un-


constitutional,'' Fishlow said. `For one


thing, nobody seems to know what `two-


thirds of the qualified electors' means.


Is that those who actually vote, those


who registered to vote, or those who are


citizens and old enough to vote? The


provision is so vague, and so important


to the whole system Proposition 13


would bring about, the whole thing may


be thrown out by the courts."


The ACLU's Board of Directors does


not take positions on taxation questions


unless some important constitutional


principle is involved, Fishlow explained.


"In this case the ACLU claims that


giving one-third of the voters in a


community twice as much power to


decide how that community raises and


spends its money as the other two-


thirds of the voters, is inequitable and


unconstitutional. There is a good


chance the courts will agree if


Proposition 13 passes and is


challenged."


During the Board's deliberation on


the Jarvis-Gann matter, which took


place at both the March and April


meetings, some members questioned


whether ACLU's position should en-


compass other concerns regarding the


threatened cut of such government


funded services as public defender


offices and other agencies whose


functions directly affect individual


rights, such as the right to counsel. The


Board's decision, however, was to


forego predictions on what items may or


may not be cut from local budgets, and


to consider only the concrete civil


liberties issue of one-person-one-vote at


this time.


government contracts. | Proponent


Lawrence Walsh's office says they have


only about 425,000 of the ap-


proximately 500,000 signatures needed


by June 30th, and predicts that they will


be short. Since 20-30 percent of the


signatures are commonly thrown out as


invalid, proponents must exceed the


minimum by at least that percentage.


Brigg's Initiative: Would make


homosexual conduct or its advocacy


grounds for firing school employees.


Briggs filed 640,000 signatures by the


May 1 deadline, amply exceeding the


312,404 minimum.


Abortion Funding: Would cut off


public funding for abortions except in


cases where the woman's life was en-


dangered. Proponent Joseph Gutheinz


says they are short of the 312,404


signatures needed by May 12, but plans


to introduce a new anti-choice initiative


during the summer. In the meantime,


_tentionally"'


murder. Briggs' campaign staffers are


perpetually optimistic, yet they do not


plan to file petitions until the May 26


deadline, and may well be short of the


312,404 valid signatures required.


Educational Opportunity: Would -


amend the California Constitution to


require desegregation of only "`in-


segregated _ schools.


According to the Los Angeles Times,


proponents claim to have about 500,000


signatures. However, 500,000 valid


signatures are required by June 12.


Farm Workers: Would restrict


agricultural employees' rights to


organize and carry out secondary


boycotts. Proponents report that they


are short, and say that "things look


dim." They are required to file 312,404


signatures by May 19.


Mike Katz is participating in a


community service program sponsored -


by Dartmouth College and is actively


own state assemblymember and sena-


tor, joining with members of ACLU's


Southern California affiliate who will be


flying up for a one-day visit on June 26,


and special programs with legislators,


media specialists and ACLU activists


who want to insure that this annual


gathering has an impact on legislation


in Sacramento.


Brent Barnhart, ACLU's legislative


advocate promises that the Conference '


will not be all ``business.'' For the


adventuresome, a tour of Capital


"night-life' will include visits to


"Frank Fats," the `Torch Club," and


other notorious legislative haunts.


The ACLU of Northern and Southern


California boasts nearly (c) 40,000


members. We are forces to contend


with, yet rarely have legislators had


occasion to meet us face-to-face. Here is


the opportunity for direct advocacy on


behali of the Bill of Rights. Join us and


the battle is being fought in the


Legislature. (See p. 7)


Death Penalty: Would provide for


increased use of capital punishment,


and longer sentences, for first degree


his two month


Francisco.


following the six initiative measures


which threaten civil liberties, as well as


working on other ACLU projects during


internship


help make our second conference a


significant event. [For further in-


formation in San Francisco call (415)


777-4545 or in Sacramento call (916)


442-1036.] (c)


in San


Abortion funds limited


In the March issue of the ACLU News we attempted to


explain the Legislature's budget process. The point was to


enable members to anticipate at what point the critical con-


frontation over Medi-Cal abortion funding might reach a


climax. Members might have been better served had we


predicted the unpredictable.


Instead of the most dramatic moments have occurred during


committee budget action, it happened on Wednesday, May 10,


when the Assembly Ways and Means Commitee passed out a


special deficiency appropriation bill carried by Assemblyman


Willie Brown.


On February 14, federal reimbursements for Medi-Cal


abortions were officially cut off by the Carter Administration,


pursuant to the dictates of the Hyde Amendment. AB 2967 was


then introduced by Assemblyman Brown at the behest of the


Governor, for the narrow purpose of providing state funds for


abortions from the time of the mid-February cut-off through


the end of June. However, amendments moved by Orange


County Democrat Richard Robinson added restrictions on the


use of Medi-Cal funds for abortions, which would have


remained in effect after the Brown bill had expired in June.


The Robinson amendments would have permitted Medi-Cal


abortions after the first three months, only in cases of rape,


statutory rape, incest, or when "severe and long lasting


physical health damage to the mother would result if the


pregnancy were carried to term when so determined by two


physicians."" Medi-Cal funds could also have been used to


terminate a pregnancy when a "child with major severe


permanent genetic or congenital abnormality' was predicted


by medical tests.


While Assemblyman Brown and Pro-Choice forces (including


Planned Parenthood, ACLU, NOW, and many other groups)


officially opposed the Robinson amendments, the Pro-Choice


`members of the Ways and Means Committee, lead by


Democrat Howard Berman, accepted the amendments as the


necessary price of gaining committee approval, and as a means


of improving the prospects for future funding of abortions


under Medi-Cal.


While the limitations on which abortions may be funded


under Medi-Cal were galling to Pro-Choice advocates, and of


questionable constitutionality under California's Equal


Protection and Right of Privacy clauses, AB 2967 will still


allow funding of approximatley 85 percent of the abortions


performed. On the negative side, the "`first-trimester" figure


will make Medi-Cal funding least available to the women most


prone to high-risk pregnancies: the poorest women who have


the least access to early and adequate pre-natal care, and


young teenagers who are least likely to seek medical attention


early enough. A reference to Penal Code Section 261.5 -


dealing with so-called "statutory rape' could encourage


teenagers under the age of consent to file official rape charges


against their teenage boyfriends as the only means of acquiring


a lawful abortion after the first trimester.


However, to the extent that AB 2967 with the Robinson


amendments is successful in keeping Medi-Cal funding


available at all, its passage through Assembly Ways and


Means is something for which we should be thankful. The bill


must still clear the Assembly floor by a two-thirds vote


(because it is an "urgency'' measure which would take im-


mediate effect), pass through the Senate Finance Committee,


and then clear the Senate floor by a two-thirds vote.


None of those remaining steps will be easy, and if AB 2967


fails at any of those steps, its passage through Ways and


Means on May 10th will have been of little significance. But


since it is still alive, and the compromise it represents may be


the definitive compromise that assures continued funding, it


would be useful to analyze who some of the players were, and


what role they played.


Outside Sacramento, important legislative developments


appear to be the result of large and elusive forces operating -


beyond the ken of the average citizen, and beyond the ability of


the average person to influence the outcome of important


issues. And in the retelling of legislative decisions by media


and by historians, the result takes on the aura of inevitability.


The final vote on AB 2967 in the Ways and Means Committee


was 12 to 8 with eleven needed for passage. Seven of the


members - liberal stalwarts Berman, Egeland, Fazio, Hart,


Knox, Torres and Alatorre - were expected in the initial head


count to vote "`aye'', as were two thoughtful and independent


Republicans, Assemblywoman Marilyn Ryan ard veteran


Assemblyman Frank Lanterman. In seeking the final two


votes, moderate Democrat Michael Wornum of Marin County


had early indicated he would vote "`aye,'"' but the eleventh vote


remained elusive.


The moderates who seemed "`possible'' included Democrats


Terry Goggin of San Bernadino, Tom Suitt of Palm Desert,


Bill McVittie of Upland, Richard Robinson of Santa Ana, and


Republican Richard Hayden of Los Gatos. However, either


from lack of concerted effort or the wrath of pro-Life forces in


their districts, it soon appeared that the only way to get an


"aye'' vote from any of them was to seek some sort of com-


promise.


Together with Assemblyman Howard Berman, Robinson


hammered out the conditions he wanted appended, and


McVittie indicated that he too would support the bill with the


Robinson amendments. Once that agreement was made, the


outcome in the committee hearing was predictable. Pro-Choice


and Pro-Life forces blasted away at each other in testimony,


Chairman Boatwright strove mightily to keep the hearing


moving, and the vote went down as predicted.


From the standpoint of ACLU members, however, the


essential point to bear in mind is that the result was not


predictable until effective efforts to get the eleventh vote had -


failed, and a compromise became the only path. In future bills


on future issues or at a later time in this same controversy, a


clearly articulated effort to convince a "`possible'' may make a


great difference in the shape and substance of the law we all


_ finally have to live under.


May 1978


aclu news


CHAPTERS


San Mateo group forms


A new Chapter of the American Civil


Liberties Union of Northern California


is forming in San Mateo County and we


invite you to join us at its first meeting:


Wednesday, May 31, 8:00 PM


Kloss Hall, Congregational Church


225 Tilton, in San Mateo


Refreshments will be served.


A panel of experts who participated


`at the recent Chapter-Board Con-


ference will discuss ne ballot


measures.


Gay Rights


"Winning and Losing in the Media


- for civil liberties and gay rights" is


the subject of the Gay Rights Chapter's


public meeting to be held on Wed-


nesday,


Macondray Hall of the First Unitarian


Church, 1187 Franklin Street, at Geary


Boulevard, in San Francisco.


Arthur J. Bressan, Jr., producers of


the widely-acclaimed film "Gay USA,"'


will present his ideas for successfully


influencing public opinion through the


media. Bressan will use audio-visual


material to demonstrate his points, and


will answer questions from the audience


afterwards.


The Unitarian Universalist Gay


Caucus of the San Francisco church


and the San Francisco Bay Area


Chapter of the Gay Academic Union


are co-sponsoring the meeting because


of wide interest in the subject during


this election year.


Mid-Peninsula


An attack on the nagging problem of.


responding promptly to persons calling


the ACLU for help was launched by the


Chapter at its monthly Executive Board


meeting April 27.


Alarmed by reports that responses


to distress calls have been delayed up to


a week, because of failure to check with


the answering service, the Board


decided to seek volunteers from its


membership to serve on the Watchdog


Committee.


"This breakdown of promptness is a


serious threat to our whole purpose and


function," said Leonard Edwards,


Chapter chairperson.


_ Volunteers `are asked to call Debbie


Ballinger, 984-0200 (day) or 961-4928


(evenings), or Chairperson Edwards at


287-6193 (label message ``ACLU''). The


answering service telephone number is


328-0732.


This issue


regarding the desirability of more


communication within the entire


chapter membership and ways to in-


volve members in chapter activities, in


order to build a closer cohesion on the


purpose of the ACLU.


In other matters, the Board also


discussed the complex civil liberties


issues involved in the closing of schools


and the transfer of students from one


school to another.


The next meeting will be held May


25, 8:00 PM, at the All Saints Episcopal


Church, 555 Waverley Street in Palo


Alto. Board meetings are open to the


public.


May 24th, 7:30 PM, in.


led to a discussion |


The ACLU of Northern California


has 14 active chapters - yet in nor-


thern San Mateo County, with almost


500 members, there is no chapter


organization. Because we need to


educate ourselves and our communities


on the repressive initiatives which are


proposed for the November ballot, it is


timely to establish a chapter in this


area. Civil liberties on a broad front are (c)


threated by these ballot measures - if


they qualify - and our effort to defeat


them will be much enhanced by the


existence of a local chapter.


Sacramento


David Fishlow was the featured


speaker at our general meeting and pot-


luck held on May 10th, where, in ad-


dition, the new Chapter By-Laws were


considered. An enthusiastic crowd of


over 100 members participated in the


event. -


Under the new By-Laws, Chapter


Board elections will take place during a


general meeting to be held in Sep-


tember. Members are invited to


nominate candidates for the offices of


president, vice-president, secretary,


treasurer, and for 6 of the remaining 13


Board positions. Nominees must be


current members who have renewed


during the last 12 months. Mail the


names of candidates to ACLU, c/o


Myra Schimke, 3518 Ronk Way,


Scaramento, 95821, before July 1.


Sonoma


Sonoma County Chapter now has a


telephone number! It is 544-HELP.


Negotiations were completed recently to


use the answering and referral service


for a trial period.


Members are needed for


screening `committee, which is


responsible for returning calls and


sorting out appropriate matters for our


volunteer attorneys. General mem-


bershp participation is vital to a viable


chapter with reasonable community


impact.


Board meetings are open. They are


held on the third Thursday of each


month, 7:30 PM, at 666 Seventh Street,


in Santa Rosa.


The next meeting will be held on


Thursday, May 18th, and the Chapter's


active involvement in the anti-initiative -


campaigns (as discussed at the Chapter


Conference) will be developed at that


time. Also, the Chapter is currently


dealing with several local matters which


`raise serious civil liberties questions.


Please join us.


Earl Warren


Three events are coming up next


month for members of the Earl Warren


Chapter.


Our annual pot luck dinner will be


held Saturday, June 10, 6:30 PM, at the


home of Florence Jurs, 6133 Estates


Drive in Oakland. Russell Bruno,


member of the Oakland School Board


will be the featured speaker. For further


information, call Dar Coppersmith,


522-2626 (evenings).


In addition, watch your mailbox for


details about two other activities - the


annual Board of Directors election, and


a "`mythical cake sale' fundraiser.


the


Mt. Diablo


Recent efforts by the Mt. Diablo


Chapter to separate coroner's duties


from the Sheriff's Department in


Contra Costa County were narrowly


defeated. Chapter Chairperson David


Bortin was among those arguing before


the Board of Supervisors that the


current unified department did not


permit effective investigatory functions


or safeguards of prisoners' and victims'


rights against possible abuse.


The Stiident's Education Committee


is placing posters with informational


pamphlets in ten school libraries. The


materials address students' rights, as


well as other general civil liberties


issues. Cost of the supplies and display


materials was paid for from the Harlan


Lewis Memorial Fund which was


established last year.


_ The Board continues to explore ways


of improving communications among -


Chapter members. Ideas include a


phone tree or a membership directory.


We need more input before proceeding.


Please let us know your ideas and


needs.


San Francisco


The community meeting now being


planned by the San Francisco Chapter,


to take place this June, will deal with


the subject of sex and violence in the


media. We hope to invite a panel of


experts, both psychologists and media


representatives, to discuss whether it is


necessary or even possible to control


pop portrayals of sex and violence.


In addition, the Chapter Board has


decided to support the proposal for a


San Francisco Office . of Citizens'


Complaints. A letter to that effect has


been sent by Bruce Johnston, on the


Board's behalf, to Quentin Kopp,


Chairperson of the Finance Committee


of the Board of Supervisors, who is


presently considering the police-


community accountability proposal.


Berkeley-Albany-


Kensington


In order to conform with ACLU-NC


Director elections, the Berkeley-


Albany-Kensington Board has voted to


change the time of the yearly election of


Chapter Board members. The next


election will take place in June of 1979,


rather than later this year. Parties


elected at that time shall take office in


September, 1979.


The Board has also organized a


Chapter Newsletter Committee and


asks that any Chapter members in-


terested in assisting this Committee


should contact the Chair, Ginger


Gould, at 848-7200, for further details.


It is hoped that a revitalized newsletter


will improve communication with


members, keeping them better in-


formed about the ongoing activities of


the Chapter.


The next meeting, open as usual to


any ACLU: member, is scheduled for


Thursday, May 25. It will commence at


8:00 PM, at the Friend's Meeting


House, Cedar and Walnut, in Berkeley..


Chapter


conference


a success


More than 85 enthusiastic par-


ticipants gathered together on the


weekend of April 28-29 at Greenwood


Lodge in the Santa Cruz mountains for


the ACLU's Annual Chapter-Board


Conference.


While workshops on ballot initiatives


and information regarding current


ACLU litigation and legislative work


was shared, a special session regarding


organizational priorities generated a


number of resolutions which will be


discussed by the ACLU's Board of


Directors at a special June meeting.


Among the resolutions approved by


the group in attendance was a request


that the ACLU create greater com-


munity involvement in its programs,


and for the ACLU to pay more at-


tention to equal protection and due


process issues in its future legal and


legislative action.


Twelve Chapters sent representatives


to the Conference and many affiliate


Board members joined in the weekend


program which ACLU Board Chair-


person Warren Saltzman claimed was


the `finest conference ever held since


the tradition was established five years


ago."" ACLU's Chapter Committee


_ organized the Conference. Rose Bonhag


of the Earl Warren Chapter was the


coordinator.


Marin


"The American Nazi Movement and


the First Amendment - Two Views''


will be the subject of discussion at the


Marin `County Chapter's Annual


Meeting, to be held Sunday, May 21,


3:00 PM.


Members of the ACLU and friends


are invited to attend the meeting, which


will begin with an outdoor potluck


luncheon at 1:30 PM in the garden of |


the Falkirk Community Cultural


Center, 1408 Mission Avenue, in San


Rafael.


Guest speakers will be Earl Raab,


director of the Jewish Community


Relations Council, who has written on


the subject in the Jewish Community


newspaper, and David Fishlow,


executive director of the northern


California affiliate of the ACLU. A -


question-discussion period will follow


the two talks.


The Chapter will present a scroll to


Peter Behr at the meeting, honoring


him for his stands on behalf of civil


liberties in the State Senate. In ad-


dition, members will elect new directors


to the Chapter Board during the


meeting.


_ At the April meeting of the Marin


Chapter Board, it was decided to place


a full-page ad in the Pacific Sun,


reprinting the letter, sent to ACLU


members by the national office, which


was signed by David Goldberger, the


Chicago attorney who filed the Skokie


suit. Board members personally paid


for the ad which successfully solicited


contributions to. help the national


ACLU through a period of financial


crisis.


Page: of 8
Clip Image

In collections

Details
Title

vol. 43, no. 4 (May, 1978)

Creator

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Date

1978 May

Identifier

ACLUN_0479

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. 43, no. 4, 1978 May; 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)

Veterans
Privacy, Right of
Nazis
Voting rights
Educational equity
Discrimination in housing
Capital punishment
Reproductive rights
Affirmative action
LGBTQ rights
Police practices

Named subject(s)

Baldwin, Roger
Barnhart, Brent
Cohen, Morton P.
Crosby, Margaret
Feiffer, Jules
Fishlow, David M.
Schlosser, Alan
Schwartz, Amitai
Warren, Earl
Asian Law Caucus
Japanese American Citizens' League
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Geographical subject(s)

Sacramento (Calif.)
Monterey (Calif.)
Santa Rosa (Calif.)
Oakland (Calif.)
Berkeley (Calif.)

Collection identifier

PER ACLUN