vol. 44, no. 5

- Volume XLIX .

Abortion Fight Continues

, . . Poor women must, as the price for

medical care, bring unwanted children

into their financially bleak worlds or, if

they insist on exercising their constitu-

tional right, seek their remedy from the

unskilled and unclean in California's

back alleys and byways."'

So read the dissenting opinion ex-

plaining the practical consequences of

the May 29 California Court of Appeal

decision which substantially upheld the.

Legislature's decision to cut off

abortion funding for at least 95 per cent

of California's poor women.

' The coalition of welfare rights

groups, feminist groups, and health

`care providers who are the plaintiffs in

the case will file an appeal of the

ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1970.batch ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1971.batch ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1972.batch ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1973.batch ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1974.batch ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1975.batch ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1976.batch ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1977.batch ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1978.batch ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1979.batch ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1983.batch ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log decision with the California Supreme

Court. (They will also challenge in court

any future restrictions on full Medi-Cal

funding passed by the Assembly for -

1979-80.) :

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the

plaintiffs by the ACLU, the National

Center for Youth Law, Equal Rights

Advocates, the Women's Litigation

Unit of the San Francisco Neigh-

borhood Legal Assistance Foundation,

and the Mexican American Legal

Defense and Educational Fund,

maintained full abortion funding for

indigent women during the last year

while the Budget Act restrictions were

`deformed by

- conditions]; (4) an unmarried teenager

June-July 1979

debated before the courts.

The restrictions would have ter-

minated public financing for all

abortions, except where (1) a physician

certifies that pregnancy would [not

might] cause the death of the mother;

(2) the pregnancy results from rape or

incest which is promptly reported to a

law enforcement agency; (3) the

pregnancy will [not might] produce an

infant deformed by one of five

designated . physical conditions [which

excludes infants which may _ be

additional _ physical

under the age of fifteen seeks an

abortion after disclosing her pregnancy

and decision to abort to her parents;

and (5) severe and long-lasting physical

health damage will [not might] result

from carrying the pregnancy to term,

because of ten designated physical

health conditions.

(The restrictions are so stringent that

many doctors refuse te allow abortions _

even under the worst of circumstances,

fearing their medical judgment will be

challenged by the state.)

The Court of Appeal approved all of

the legislative restrictions except

number 5S: the court ordered the state to

follow the Hyde Amendment language

and provide reimbursement for any

abortion necessary to terminate a

pregnancy which would inflict severe

and long-lasting physical health

damage on the mother, regardless of

the cause of the injury.

In their appeal, the plaintiffs will

argue that the court did not adequately

consider California's express con-

stitutional right to privacy, which

- prohibits the state from coercing poor

women to give up their right to decide

whether to bear a child as a condition to

receiving medical benefits. (The court

ruled that the state has a right to make -

childbirth "financially a more attractive (c)

choice for the pregnant woman" than

abortion.)

In addition, the plaintiffs will argue

that the court also did not fully consider -

California's guarantee of equal

protection, which precludes the state

from denying the poor access to fun-

damental constitutional rights available

to the more affluent.

Finally, the plaintiffs will argue that

the federal Social Security Act requires

states, like California, which receive |

federal funding under the Medicaid

program, to provide comprehensive

health care to its needy residents for all

medically necessary services, including

abortions, and that the Court of Appeal

erred in ruling that Congress modified

the federal requirements by passing the

Hyde Amendment. :

Abortion Fight Update:

On Monday, July 10, the plaintiffs filed

a petition asking the California

Supreme Court to reverse the Court of

Appeal's decision upholding the cut-off

of Medi-Cal abortion funding.

Deadly Force

Downed |

In 1972, a Long Beach police officer

responded to a radio call reporting a

burglary in process at the apartment of

Roland Peterson. As the officer ap-

proached with his gun drawn, he saw a

man running away from the apartment.

Although the officer had had no report

of violence, had seen no weapons, no

`violence, or even the threat of violence

at the apartment, he shot the man in

the head and killed him. :

_ The burglary call was erroneous.

The man lying dead was Roland

Peterson.

In May, the California Supreme

Court found that the officer had failed

to exercise due care in the performance

of his duty and had killed Peterson

unlawfully. _ :

The court ruled that if a police officer

violates internal police department

regulations which forbid the use of

deadly force to apprehend non-violent

fleeing felony suspects, the officer is

- California courts'

@

_ presumed to be negligent.

The case, Peterson v. City of Long

Beach, is another in a long line of

review of police

firearms use. In 1976, the Court of

Appeal held in another suit that the

penal code forbids police from using

deadly force against felons unless their

conduct can be characterized as

"violent." That case was brought and

won by the ACLU-NC and the Northern

California Police Practices Project and

other civil rights groups.

The Peterson case presented the

opportunity, in the context of a lawsuit

for wrongful

Peterson's parents, for the Supreme

Court to endorse the holding of the

1976 Court of Appeal decision. The

ACLU-NC, along with ACLU-SC, the

Northern California Police Practices

Project, the Mexican American Legal

Defense and Education Fund, and the

NAACP Legal Defense Fund appeared

as friends of the court, urging the court

to hold that both the state and federal

constitutions and the Penal Code forbid

police from shooting non-violent fleeing

felony suspects. The brief submitted

expressly urged the Supreme Court to

base its decision on the constitutions

and Penal Code and not on the fact that

the Long Beach officer had violated

death brought by -

internal regulations of the department.

The reason for the ACLU's position

is a fear that if civil liability is based on

internal rules of police departments,

then police departments will not make

new rules that would conceivably lead

to money judgments against them.

This position was backed up by

recommendations of a recent American

Bar Association study of urban police.

Encouraging police to make rules

protecting individual rights has been a

- major objective of ACLU-NC since it

established the Northern California

Police Practices Project in 1973.

The Supreme Court's 4-3 decision

interpreted various statutes as creating

a presumption of liability when internal

rules are violated. In other words, the

rules became the standard of care that

must be exercised by the police, and the

police become subject to liability when

they violate the rules. The Court did not

deal with the constitutional or Penal

Code issues urged by the ACLU and it

expressly rejected the position that the

court's opinion would retard police-

rulemaking.

Amitai Schwartz, staff counsel and

head of the Nothern California Police

Practices Project, commented that

"only time will tell who is right about

continued on p. 3

No. 5 (c)

Reporters to

Appeal Libel

Judgment

Raul Ramirez and Lowell Bergman,

two reporters ordered to pay $780,000

each in a libel suit judgment, will be

represented in their appeal by the -

ACLU of Northern California.

The suit, based on a series of articles

published in 1976 about a controversial

murder trial involving a 19-year-old

Chinese youth, was brought against

Ramirez, Bergman, and the San

Francisco Examiner by two San

Francisco police officers and a former

assistant district attorney. The articles

reported that the three city officials had

persuaded witnesses to give false

testimony. -

"The ACLU will represent Bergman

and Ramirez because the case raises

very important First Amendment

issues. The case strikingly documents

the potential of libel suits for chilling |

inquiry into public affiars,"' commented

Dorothy Ehrlich, ACLU-NC Executive

Director.

"If reporters are saddled with

financing the legal defense of

protracted libel actions and satisfying

six-figure monetary judgments, they

necessarily become self-censors,

cautious about printing facts whose

truth they cannot prove months later in

some courtroom,"' Ehrlich said.

The case gained an extra degree of

notoriety when the Examiner refused to

provide outside legal counsel for

freelancer Bergman and Examiner staff

writer Ramirez. The reporters hired

private attorneys for the trial, which

concluded in mid-April. The Columbia

Journalism Review called this ``Dutch

Treat Libel."

The jury of nine women and three

men awarded over $4.5 million to the

plaintiffs, San Francisco homicide

inspectors Edward Erdelatz and Frank

McCoy, and ex-assistant DA Pierre

Merle. The damages broke down to $3

million against the Examiner, and

$780,000 each against the reporters.

"The award can only be interpreted

as a message to the press and inquisitive

public to leave the police and public

officials alone. That is wrong: the

public has a right to know. What

working reporter has over three-

quarters of a million dollars to pay this

type of judgment?"' added Ehrlich.

Ramirez continues to work for the

Examiner. Bergman is now an in-

vestigative reporter for ABC-TV's

20/20".

Board of Directors

Election Results

see p. 3

June-July 1979

aclu news

Voluntary Affirmative Action Upheld ":::.10o2siem

The civil rights movement scored a major victory on June 27, 1979, in the case of

United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO vy. Weber.

- In a moving opinion written by Justice Brennan, the court found that the affir-

mative action program voluntarily entered into by Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical

Corporation and the United Steelworkers of America did not violate Title VII (the

section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination in employ-

ment).

Observers of the fate of affirmative action programs were anxiously anticipating

the outcome of this case which has been referred to as the "blue-collar Bakke,"

allusion to the court's ambiguous ruling last term in the so-called `"`reverse dai

ination" suit brought against the University of California by Allen Bakke, a dis-

gruntled white. Many felt that the court would prohibit voluntary affirmative pro-

grams, thus thwarting the efforts of conscientious employers to remedy the effects

of past and present discrimination, without a judicial finding of discrimination.

The decision in Weber allayed those fears and gave cause for much celebration

among civil rights activists who have been finding victories few and far between

recently.

The affirmative action program which was upheld by the Supreme Court was

arrived at after two lawsuits had been filed against Kaiser at two of its southern

plants. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was studying the racial

make-up of Kaiser's plant located in Gramercy, Louisiana, and determined that

prior to 1974, only 1.83% of the skilled craft workers were black - despite the fact

that the local work force was approximately 39% black.

Because of what these statistics showed, Kaiser faced almost certain additional

litigation, so it entered into a master collective-bargaining agreement with. the

United Steelworkers of America which, according to the court's opinion,

"included an affirmative action plan designed to eliminate conspicuous racial im- (c)

balances in Kaiser's then almost exclusively white craft work forces by reserving for

black employees 50% of the openings in in-plant craft-training programs until the

percentage of black craft workers in a plant is commensurate with the percentage

et b...cks in the local labor force."

After the District Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with

Weber's argument that Kaiser's plan violated the provisions of Title VII which

make it unlawful to ``discriminate ... because of .... race," the United States Su-

_ preme Court agreed to hear the case and to rule on the legality of voluntary affir-

mative action programs. The court ultimately decided 5-2 that the Kaiser program

did not violate Title VII. (Justice Stevens did not participate ostensibly because he

represented Kaiser while in private, practice; Justice Powell, the swing vote in

Bai.k-e, was ill at the time oral arguments were heard in the case and did not par-

ticipate in the decision.)

The legal reasoning behind the decision revolved around two major issues:

1) The court found that prior to the enactment of Title VII in 1964,: private em-

ployers and labor unions were free to enter into agreements of the sort embodied in

Kaiser's affirmative action program. The court then embarked on an extensive in-

quiry into the legislative history of Title VII to determine if anything in that piece

of legislation withdrew the authority of private employers and unions to enter into

such agreements. The court concluded that Congress did not intend to withdraw

_ such authority.

2) The court also found that because the nature of the action was private and

did not involve the state, there was no "state action" rendering the Equal Protec-

tion Clause of the U.S. Constitution inapplicable. Consequently, the court's ruling

last term in the Bakke case was not controlling since Bakke involved a "voluntary"

affirmative action program created by a state university. This latter ruling may

prove troublesome in the future when the inevitable case of a voluntary affirmative

action program instituted in the public sector reaches the court.

In California, the Weber decision will probably affect three cases which have

been accepted for review by the California Supreme Court: Price v. Civil Service

Commission of Sacramento, Hull v. Casson, and Hiatt v. City of Berkeley. These

cases, in which the ACLU of Northern California has filed friend-of-the-court

briefs, involve the legality of race-conscious afformative action programs which

have been adopted in the public sector. While Weber did not speak directly to this

situation, it is expected to be pivotal in the decision-making of the California

Supreme Court.

In a time when activists who work for improving the condition of black people

have found little in Supreme Court opinions which is congruent with their values,

the Brennan opinion rekindled the hopes of those who feel that justice can be ob-

tained from the courts. Brennan spends much time talking about the spirit of Title

VII - a spirit dedicated to the elimination, "`so far as possible, [of] the last ves-

tiges of an unfortunate and ignominious page in this country's history," a welcome

echo of the sentiments of the Warren court.

But lest one be misled into believing that truth and fusice are once again the

guiding lights of the Supreme Court, one need merely glance through the dissent

penned by our old friend Justice Rehnquist to understand that we still have formi-

dable opponents. He quotes extensively from 1984 in an effort to show that the

Brennan majority was redefining reality by the deft manipulation of words - an

action similar to that taken by a character in Orwell's masterwork about the work-

ings of a society gone mad. Rehnquist later calls the majority "escape artists' who

would put Houdini to shame. The basis for this attack is Rehnquist's analysis of

the legislative history of Title VII - an analysis which leads him to conclude that

the legislative intent of Title VII was to prohibit voluntary affirmative action pro-

grams.

Chief Justice Burger, while joining in Rehnquist's dissent, wrote his own

separate dissent which basically says that while the majority's opinion is the right

and moral action to take, nevertheless, judges should not let their notions of

morality deter them from blindly following legal precedent. Burger states that if he

were a member of Congress, he would have joined in the majority opinion, but that

as a Justice of the Supreme Court, he is honor bound to follow the law and to strike

down the Kaiser plan.

te

As civil libertarians we should all be elated with the decision in the Weber case.

The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case which advanced many of

the theories subsequently adopted by the court, so our collective voice was heard.

While this decision does not mark the end of the fight for racial justice in America,

it is an encouraging sign. The struggle continues, but victories can be and are

occasionally won.

Eva Jefferson Paterson has been on the ACLU-NC Board of Directors for the past two

years and is currently Vice Chair of the Board. She also serves as Vice Chair of the Legal

Committee, Co-chair of the Equality Committee, and as a member of the Executive Com-

mittee. In addition, she is on the Executive Board of the San Francisco N.A.A.C.P.

Bomb the Ban!

Law School June 25. "The case involves

the constitutionality of prior restraint

based on the Pentagon Papers decision,

and the conflict between government

secrecy and the public's right to know,"

said Knoll. :

. Perhaps the most important free |

speech case of the century."'

That's how Bruce J. Ennis, National

ACLU Legal Director, described the

United States government's case

against The Progressive magazine,

forbidden by the Milwaukee Federal

District Court from publishing a

political article on the "`secret'' of the

H-bomb.

Erwin

Progressive,

Knoll, editor of The

and Howard Morland,

author of the article, explained the_

significance of the case to a largely

ACLU-member audience at a public

meeting co-sponsored by the ACLU of

Northern California and Golden, Gate

The-ACLU represents the editors of

The Progressive, a small monthly

magazine which has been thrust into

the center of a legal and political battle

with staggering implications: for the

first time in the national's history, a

publication has been prevented by court

order from publishing an article critical

of government policy.

Knoll

_ traveling around the country explaining

the censorship case to ACLU members

and to the general public through

meetings and radio and television

appearances. They reached over one

million people in the Bay Area June 25-

26 through news interviews and talk

shows arranged by the ACLU of

Northern California.

and Morland have been`

Re

Over 100 ACLU members from all over California attended the Legislative Action Conference held May

20 and 21 in Sacramento. Following a briefing by. Legislative Advocate Brent Barnhart, the members

shown here went on to lobby for increased Medi-Cal abortion funding with Governor Brown's top legis-

lative staff aide.

Deadly F orce continued from p. 1

the. rulemaking issue. We _ were

disappointed that the court ducked the

constitutional issues, but we are

delighted that the court found that

police can be liable in money damages

when they shoot fleeing non-violent

felony suspects. I suspect that the next

big case will come from a small rural.

community where the police kill a non-

violent felon and there are no internal

police rules on the subject."'

Schwartz, ACLU cooperating at-

torney Nicholas B. Waranoff, and

Advisory Counsel Anthony G.

Amsterdam prepared the friend of the

court brief.

June-July 1979

aclu news '

| Summer Law Interns

Stanford Daily IT

Sacramento

Report

by Sey Barnhart

ACLU-NC Legislative Advocate

The ACLU lobbying office in Sacra-

mento is presently engaged in a hot bat-

tle over AB 1609 (Levine) which at-

tempts to completely undo the

horrendous police-state effects of the

Stanford Daily case announced by the

U.S. Supreme Court in 1978. This leg-

islation is supported by physicians, hos-

pitals, lawyers, accountants, and news-

paper publishers. Opposing the bill are

Attorney General George Deukmejian

(whose heavy-handedness has made the

bill viable), the District Attorneys'

Association, and several peace officer

groups. 7

When in 1978 the U.S. Supreme

Court announced its atrocious decision

in Stanford Daily v. Zurcher, which rat-

ified police use of search warrants on

newspapers, the press and civil liber-

tarians were predictably outraged. In

California, the Legislature responded

quickly by passing AB 512 (Goggin),

sponsored by the newspaper publishers,

which forbade use of a search warrant

on a newsperson or materials, notes, or

information developed by a newsper-

son. Law enforcement was left with the

far more civil form of compulsory pro-

cess: the subpoena.

However, the new law protected only

newspeople. All other innocent third

parties - and those thought guilty of

crime by reason of evidence - were

lumped together by being subject to

search warrants. Thus, physicians, law-

yers, accountants, and even church of-

ficials became prime targets, even when

the information they held was protected

by privileges honored for centuries by

the law.

_ None of this was lost on California's

newly-elected Attorney General,

George Deukmejian. In the course of

an investigation into the activities of

former Lieutenant Governor Mervyn

Dymally, agents of the California De-

partment of Justice secured search war-

rants for the law offices of two firms

which had represented Dymally in busi-

ness matters. Lawyers were ordered to

submit to a search of all of their files;

requests to be told what the search was

about were denied; the personal papers

and even the purse of one of the women

lawyers were searched; and lawyers who

objected to the search were arrested for

obstructing the officers.

Both subpoenas and search warrants

are forms of compulsory process: the

law orders someone in possession of cer-

tain physical or documentary evidence

to hand-it over for purposes of deter-

mining some legal question before the

court. The practical differences, how-

ever, are enormous.

Though in securing a search warrant

the police must go before a magistrate

and convince the court that they have

reason to believe that evidence of a

crime is in the possession of someone, |

neither the person in possession of the

evidence, nor the evidence itself is be-

fore the court. The factual allegations

made by the officers seeking the war-

rant in that secret proceeding are never

really tested, and if any confidentiality

provision protects that evidence, it

probably is never brought to the judge's

attention.

A subpoena also reaches the informa-

tion. But in that instance, the holder of

the information gathers up the request-

ed material and brings it to the court.

The court then reviews the evidence

which is submitted, hears arguments on

any privileges that are claimed, decides

whether the evidence is in fact relevant

to the crime, and if it is, only then or-

ders it turned over to the police. That is

precisely what took place between Ja-

worski, Nixon, and the U.S. Supreme

Court over the Watergate tapes. Even

though Nixon was suspected of having

committed certain high crimes, no

search warrant was used. A subpoena

was thought to be quite adequate.

One other practical aspect: with the

subpoena, the innocent third party has

the option of turning the evidence over

without any court hearing. Law enforce-

ment opposition to AB 1609 fabricates

a scene in which bloody sheets and

smoking pistols will be hidden away or

destroyed by third parties who have

them in their possession.

By and large, most people will be

`more than willing to turn the evidence

over to police, if for no better reason

that to assure law enforcement that they

are not party to some conspiracy or an

accomplice to a crime. If the holder of

evidence hides or destroys it, he or she

becomes party to a crime. If a lawyer or

doctor does anything of the sort, they

can kiss their professional licenses

good-bye.

AB 1609 has already passed the

Assembly - barely. Only Assembly

member Filante of Marin County broke

-Republican ranks to vote for the bill.

_ The bill's next greatest test will be be-

fore the Senate Judiciary Committee

which seldom bucks law enforcement.

Of the five votes needed for passage

through that committee, the votes of

Senators Jerry Smith of Santa Clara

County and John Nejedly of Contra

Costa County are essential.

Any expression of concern by ACLU

members to their Senators could mean

ultimate passage of the bill.

Kelly Stark, Editor

8 issues a year, monthly except bi- -monthly in January-February, June- duh,

August-September and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Drucilla Ramey, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Michael P. Miller, Chapter Editor f

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040) B}

814 Mission St. - Ste. 301, San Francisco, California 94103 - 777-4545

Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news

and SO cents is for the national ACLU bi-monthly publicalen, Civil Liberties.

Three Boalt Hall law students dedi-

cated to constitutional law have joined

_the ACLU of Northern California Foun-

dation's annual summer law intern

program.

Special endowments and work-study

programs fund the internship awards

granted to students who have a commit-

ment to legal careers in the area of civil

liberties. ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan

Schlosser supervises the summer intern

program and staff.

Buckling down for a demanding but

rewarding summer's work are:

Barbara Brenner, recipient of the

_ Edison Uno Internship (named in

honor of the late Japanese-American

civil liberties leader), is in her second -

year of law school at U.C. Berkeley. She

has a BA in government from Smith

College and has worked as a law clerk

for the Women's Rights Project at the

ACLU of Southern California. She is

currently investigating the rights of

government employees to speak to the

press and the fishing rights of the

ACLU-NC Summer Law Interns Liz Symonds, Barbara Brenner,

and Cynthia Remmers:

Klamath Indians.

Cynthia Remmers, a third-year stu-

dent, worked with mentally retarded

patients and their families after

receiving her BA in art and history from

UC Davis. She interned last year with

California Supreme Court Justice

Mathew Tobriner and is currently

working on the case of a lawyer who was

fired because of his political affiliations.

Liz Symonds, recipient of the Ralph

Atkinson Internship (named for the late

ACLU Board member who devoted

much of his life to civil liberties work),

is also in her third year of law school.

She received her BA in psychology and

French from the University of Michigan

and went on to temporary legal secre-

tarial work in various firms in San

Francisco and Washington, D.C. She is

currently helping to prepare the appeal

of the cut-off of Medi-Cal funding for

_ abortions and is researching the rights

of mental patients to refuse treatment

with dangerous drugs.

New Board Members

Three new and seven incumbent

members of the ACLU of Northern Cal-

ifornia Board of Directors have been

elected by the ACLU-NC members to

serve three-year terms beginning in

September.

This was the third election in which

the ACLU of Northern California's

policy makers were elected by the gen-

eral membership in accordance with re-

vised by-laws adopted by the Board i in

1976.

The ten newly-elected Board mem-

bers will join 36 members currently

serving terms on the Board. The Board

includes 12 chapter representatives,

each elected by an ACLU-NC chapter,

and 34 at-large members, elected by the

membership.

Almost 400 eligible ACLU members

chose to cast their ballots. Eleven can-

didates were nominated for ten

positions.

Board officers will be elected at the

September meeting.

The newly-elected Board .members

(and the cities in which they reside) are:

Alvin H. Baum, Jr.* (San Francisco)

Richard (Dick) Criley (Monterey)

Carolina Capistrano (Sacramento)

James Goodwin* (Berkeley)

Robert L. Harris (San Francisco)

Donna Hitchens* (San Francisco)

Iris Mitgang* (Orinda)

Drucilla Ramey* (San Francisco)

Davis Riemer* (Oakland)

Emily Skolnick* (San Mateo)

-* incumbent

Passiton...

If you have been on the receiving

end of more than one ACLU

membership appeal, please, have

patience.

The National and Northern

California ACLU offices are now in

the middle of a membership drive to

enlist new recruits in the fight for

civil liberties. Often, your name will

appear on more than one of the

mailing lists we mail to.

Strange as it may seem, it is less

expensive to mail more than one

appeal to you than to pay to have all

the lists checked for duplicate

listings.

So if those membership appeals

keep popping up in your mailbox,

please pass them along to non-

' ACLU friends sympathetic to civil

liberties.

Or give us a hand in our struggle

to maintain individual rights in the

legislatures and the courts by

making an extra contribution to

ACLU-NC.

And thanks.

ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1970.batch ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1971.batch ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1972.batch ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1973.batch ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1974.batch ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1975.batch ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1976.batch ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1977.batch ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1978.batch ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1979.batch ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1983.batch ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log KF

If you wish, your name can be taken

off the ACLU mailing list we trade

with other organizations. Just write

to the ACLU-NC office at 814

Mission Street, Room 301, San

Francisco, CA 94103.

June-July 1979 .

aclu news

Fourteen Northern California Board

members and staff took their anti-draft

message straight to Capitol Hill in

Washington, D.C., as part of this year's

national ACLU Biennial Conference.

Biennial.

who sent an aide in his stead. Unfor-

tunately, the aide had_ trouble

remembering just where the junior

senator stood on several issues.

The group then met with Alan

Marin

BOARD MEETING. Monday, July 16,

Cranston, the only U.S. Senator to

receive a 100 per cent voting rating

from the ACLU Washington office. The

ACLU delegates thanked him for his

staunch support of civil liberties and

urged him to lead the fight against the

draft and other repressive legislation.

The many conference delegates

obviously enjoyed their role as citizen

lobbyists and the national legislative

staff promised to take advantage of the

ACLU's growing `"`grass roots."'

In a related development, a caucus of

state legislative advocates proposed a

national state legislative clearinghouse

to share information on legislation and

organizing among the ACLU's SO

affiliates.

In addition to lobbying, the four-day

Biennial included many hours of

`practical organizational workshops and

issues debates. All three Northern

California staff attorneys and Paul

Newton, Gay Rights Chapter, were

asked to lead workshop panels.

Lobbying Congress members,

especially on the draft, highlighted the

Biennial, attended by over 500 people.

The Northern California delegation

included the following Board members:

Stephen Cornet (B.A.K. Chapter),

Richard Criley (Monterey Chapter),

Marlene De Lancie (at large), James

Goodwin (at large), Francis Heisler

(Monterey Chapter), Paul Newton (Gay

Rights Chapter), Carolyn Symonds

(Santa Cruz Chapter),- and Linda

Weiner (San Francisco Chapter).

Staff attending the conference were

Margaret Crosby, Dorothy Ehrlich,

Michael Miller, Amitai Schwartz, Alan

Schlosser, and Kelly Stark.

. The Northern California delegation

teamed up with a similar size group

from Southern California to visit the

offices of California's two Senators.

The prospect of facing this many

wide-awake constituents proved to be

too much for Senator S.I. Hayakawa,

phoio by Michael Miller

_ Delegates from Northern and Southern California ACLU express legislative concerns to Senator A an

Cranston.

Stender Trust Fund Set Up by Priscilla Camp

Fay Stender, member of the Board of Directors of the ACLU of Northern -

California since 1974, was shot and critically wounded on May 28, 1979 by an

assailant who forced her to write a note saying she had betrayed George Jackson

and the entire prison movement "`when they needed me most.' A suspect has been

charged with the attack.

True to the tenacity for which she has been known in ACLU circles and else-

where, Fay is making steady progress in spite of six wounds, including a spinal

injury and shots in both arms. She faces a difficult process of rehabilitation, and a

fund to help with these enormous expenses and those associated with security has

been established.

Fay has been in the practice of law in the Bay Area for 21 years and in the early ~

1970s represented George Jackson, primarily responsible for the publication

of his letters, and created and obtained funding for the Prison Law Project. Her

creativity and extraordinary energy and commitment are well known. During the

most active period of her prison work, it was not unusual for her to travel to prisons

and interview ten prisoners in one weekend day, then return the next day to see ten

more.

Last summer, she was a candidate for the Board of Governors of the State Bar of

California.

During her tenure on the ACLU Board, Fay has worked tirelessly for the in-

clusion of increasing numbers of women and minorities on the Board, and recently

had become interested in the civil liberties issues raised by the phenomenon of -

religious cults. She had been on a ``sabbatical,"' travelling and writing, since last

September, and had begun a major work on feminist theory at the time of the

shooting.

Correspondence may be sent directly to Fay at Herrick Hospital, Berkeley,

where she will remain hospitalized through most of July.

Contributions to the Fay Stender Trust Fund should be sent to Bank of California,

P.Q. Box 773, Berkeley, CA 94701.

- patrol." The way it works is this: the

CHAPTERS

Mt. Diablo

ANNUAL MEETING. Sunday af- (c)

ternoon, Aug. 28, Larkey Park. (Mark

calendars now, details will follow.)

BOARD MEETING. Wednesday, (c)

August 1, 7:45 p.m., home of Dave and

Beverly Bortin, 117 Los Altos, Walnut

Creek. Information: 415-434-1987.

8 p.m., Fidelity Savings and Loan, Mill

Valley. (c)

Sacramento

BOARD MEETING. Wednesday, July

18, 7:30 p.m., room adjoining Sto Cc kton . 2

Supervisors Chambers, County

Administration Building, 700 "H' BOARD MEETING. Tuesday, July 10,

7:30 p.m., 3859 Petersburg Circle,

Stockton. Information: Larry L. Pippin,

209-477-7698. :

Earl Warren

BOARD MEETING. Wednesday, July

11, 8 p.m., home of Phil Thomas, 844

Northvale Rd. Oakland. Information:

415-451-1839. (Earl Warren Chapter

includes Oakland and all of Alameda

County south.)

Street, Sacramento.

North Poni

BOARD MEETING. Tuesday, July 17,

8 p.m., Allstate Savings Community

Room, 1820 S. Grant St. (at Concar),

San Mateo.

Election of officers to be held. Infor-

mation: Dannetta Ervin, 415-344-4342.

(North Peninsula Chapter includes the

northern portion of San Mateo County.)

Chapter

Action ...

WE'VE RUN OUT OF ANTI-DRAFT

PUNS, but not anti-draft workers. San

Francisco members, led by Linda

Weiner, told the Board of Supervisors

that including women does not improve

the draft ... Marin's Frances Miller

joined a panel at College of Marin to

discuss the issue ... Vince Crocken-

berg represented Yolo Chapter at a

U.C. Davis anti-draft rally ... Francis

Heisler from Monterey spoke against

the draft at Hartness College, Salinas

. Up in Sonoma County, Russ

Jorgensen and Deanna Beeler gave aid

and comfort to some high school kids'

parents who don't want their children's

names and phone numbers given to the

military .... And our T. Jefferson

Award for Eternal Vigilance goes to

Mid-Peninsula's John Hancock for his

`"Dial-McClosky's-Office Campaign."

(McClosky is sponsoring the most inclu-

sive and repressive of all bring-back-

the-draft proposals.)

: @

Reaction...

clients, the police watch (or escort,

depending on whom you believe) the

patrol, and the ACLU. watches

everybody. It's rumored they'll all need

a parade permit to continue.

TAG, YOU'RE IT. Here are the early

returns into ACLU NC election central

for newly elected chapter board

members. Marin: Donna Franzblau,

Helen Frutchman, Gretchen Gray, Len

Karpman, Ruth Jonas, and Leslie Paul;

North Peninsula: Jeanne Caughlan,

Alan Hynding, Catherine McCann, and

Florence Yoshiwara; San Francisco:

Donna Ambrogi, Sumi Honnami, and

Harold Kramer; Berkeley: David

Socholitzky, Stephen Cornet, Peter

Hagberg, Glenn Moss, Virginia

Johnson, Vernon Moore, Pamela Ford,

Adeline Collins, Moses Saunders,

James Chanin, and Judy Heumann

. Yolo has new officers: Dave

Rosenberg, chair; Nadine Noelting,

vice chair; Chris Dearth, secretary; and

Hap Dunning back (by popular

demand) as treasurer. New Yolo board

members are Richard Meyers and.

Daniel Penerya .... and Sacramento is

looking to draft new board members for

the fall series: submit nominations to.

Myra Schimke, 3518 Ronk Way, Sacto.

95821 or call 916-487-5336.

HERE'S LOOKING AT YOU, KID.

The Gay Rights Chapter is looking into

complaints of sex and_ race

discrimination in some San Francisco

gay bars .... GRC also joined with San

Francisco Chapter in asking Mayor

Feinstein for a meaningful investigation

into police conduct during the evening

following the Dan White verdict ....

In Santa Clara, chapter members are

keeping an eye on a gay rights

ordinance before the Board of Super-

visors. The chapter is also looking into

possible cooperation between the police

and a privately organized `"`hooker

SCHOOL DAZE. Yolo members are

wondering why a U.C. Med School

clinic is excluding whites (!) from treat-

ment .... Marin reports success in

negotiations with the College of Marin

over their policies for groups

distributing materials on campus. |

patrol watches the hookers and their

_ ACLU-NC 1979 Chapter-Board Conference

Question:

What do Three Mile Island, `Saturday night specials,'' 36 million disabled people,

the ``Sibling of S. 1437," H.L. Richardson, and you have in common?

Enticing Answer: :

Come to Point Bonita Outdoor Center in the Marin County Headlands overlooking

beaches, bay, and ocean, join scores of ACLU movers and shakers including

chapter activists, NC board members, staff, and some just plain folk, and find out. -

Friday - Sunday _

September 28 - 30, 1979

(watch this newspaper for details)