vol. 45, no. 2
Primary tabs
Volume L
March 1980
Inside - Anti-Draft Guide, Abortion, Cruising
No. 2
Michael Miller
irector Dorothy Ehrlich sp
ence. Back row (I. to r.): Chris Lee, Dell Se Supervisor ae ae Lee Halterman.
As provided by the ACLU by-laws,
1981 board directly: The nominating
committee is already seeking sugges-
tions from the membership to fill at-
large positions on the board.
ACLU members may participate
ways:
[1] Amey. may send suggestions for
ACLU-NC Board Nominations | :
revised in 1976, the ACLU-NC mem- (c)
bership is entitled to elect its 1980- -
in the nominating process in two
the Nominating Committee's consid-
eration before April 15, 1980. (Add- _
ress your suggestions to the Nomina-
ting Conimittee's attention, ACLU,
814 Mission St., suite 301, S.F.
94103. Include your suggested nimi-
nee's qualifications and how he or
she canbe reached.) __
[2] They can submit a petition0x2122
with the signatures of 15 current
continued on page 8
bre ich for GI's
`By Permit Only' - Ruling
"The decision to severely limit the
First Amendment rights of military
personnel comes at a particularly bad
time when the whole issue of the draft is
being reopened. The crucial need for
Congress to be able to secure
information directly from enlisted
people will now be severely hampered,"
said ACLU cooperating attorney Joseph
Remcho about the recent U.S. Supreme
Court decision in Allen v. Monger.
The: case was filed on behalf-of crew
members of two U.S. aircraft carriers in
1973. They had been prohibited from
circulating petitions to Congress which -
protested the movement of their ships
- during the Vietnam War.
The captains of both ships, the
U.S.S. Hancock and the U.S.S.
Midway denied the crews permission to
circulate petitions. They invoked a
naval regulation which required ``prior
approval' for the distribution of
materials which presented a `clear
danger to the loyalty, discipline, or
morale of military personnel,'' or which
would ``materially interfere with the
accomplishment of a military mission."
Though the federal district court
struck down the regulation as `"`an
unconstitutional restraint on First
Amendment activity" and the appellate
court, upholding the lower court's
decision ruled ``no person may restrict
any member of an armed force in
communication with a member of Con-
gress..."', the Navy and Department of
- Defense continued their appeal to the
U.S. Supreme Court, where it was
finally successful.
In two related cases the U.S.
Supreme Court on January 21 upheld
the military regulations which require
members of the service to obtain
approval from their commanders before
circulating petitions on base.
The opinion stated, `Free speech
rights could undermine the
effectiveness of response to command.
Speech likely to interfere with these
vital prerequisites for military
effectiveness therefore can be excluded
froma military base."
Following this opinion, the court, as
expected, remanded Allen v. Monger
back to the Ninth Circuit Court for a
ruling in light of the high court. deci-
sion.
Remcho ocolained "This is a terrible
decision in that the Court went out of its
`way to reach First Amendment issues
_and to say that servicemen's rights are
strictly limited." Remcho was an ACLU
staff attorney when he first filed the
case in 1973.
~ "deja vu."
ACLU Fights Draft
Registration
-others quickly added (if they had not al-
ACLU and public response in
northern California to President
Carter's ill-advised attempt to reinstate
draft registration has been quick,
incisive, and extensive.
e January 23: Carter gives State of
Union address announcing registration
plans.
e January 24: ACLU-NC Broce
Director Dorothy Ehrlich writes a letter
on behalf of 20,000 ACLU-NC
members pledging a strong campaign
to stop the draft registration.
-@ January 25: At a well attended
press conference Ehrlich joins represen-
tatives of anti-draft organizations and
staff members from local Congressional
offices to demonstrate widespread op-
_ position to Carter's proposals.
In this same short period following
Carter's announcement, members of
the Civil Liberties Lobby who helped
defeat a similar registration proposal
last summer, began receiving organ-
izing material. These individual ACLU
members throughout Northern Cali-
fornia (as across the country) then
began to lobby local Congressional
Representatives.
Many members of the public turned
to the ACLU-NC to ask what the new
registration proposals really were, what
they meant to them or their children,
and how they could fight back.
West Coast anti-draft organizers,
themselves starved for accurate infor-
mation, started running up significant (c)
`telephone bills to Washington, D.C.,
seeking help from the national ACLU
office, the Committee Against Regis-
tration and the Draft (C.A.R.D.), and
the National Interreligious Service
Board for Conscientious Objectors
(NISBCO).
Deja Vu
In the month following Carter's State
of the Union, campus anti-draft
coalitions emerged at U.C. Berkeley,
Stanford, the state universities, and
even smaller private schools such as
University of the Pacific in Stockton.
Qn one day in February, Daniel
Ellsberg, Tom Hayden, and David
Harris spoke at different campus anti-
draft rallies in California.
Some over-30 activists, ACLU mem-
bers, and newspaper reporters called it
Comparisons to the anti-
Vietnam war period were made. Most
people, however, on campus and off,
were concentrating on stopping the
draft - 1980's style.
Traditional pacifist and anti-military |
groups, anti-nuclear organizations,
Vietnam veterans groups, and many
ready) stopping the draft to their
agenda.
Staff members with leading anti-
draft organizations - American
Friends Service Committee, Central
Committee for Conscientious
Objectors, and ACLU - went home
every night with the incessant telephone
still ringing in their ears.
Letter to Carter
In the ACLU letter to Carter, Ehrlich
said, "`I am writing to express our great
alarm and anger at your sudden
reversal of position on draft
registration.
"The ACLU has consistently opposed
peacetime draft registration. We do so
on the premise that it is in fact un-
constitutional: the Selective Service sys-
_tem violates the constitutional guaran-
tees of equal protection and of privacy
which are the very framework of our
system of government.
Therefore, the ACLU will resume
and revitalize a nationwide campaign to
stop the reintroduction of draft regis-
tration in Congress, just as we did to
stop draft legislation last summer.'
In accordance with this promise to
Carter, the ACLU-NC, in conjunction
with national and Washington offices of
the ACLU has been campaigning
vigorously to defeat the draft
' registration proposal.
Lobbying Campaign
Kim Corsaro
According to David Landau, staff
counsel for the ACLU Washington
office and vice-chair of C.A.R.D., `The
Civil Liberties Lobby has taken on anti-
registration work as a top priority.
continued on page 5
Anti-Draft rally at Berkeley
aclu news
March 1980
ACLU History
Neazly forty years after the fact, the
California Legislature this year
declared February 19 "A Day of
Remembrance: Japanese American
Evacuation."
dhe date was chosen, in.the words of
the Act, ``to reflect upon that day of
February 19 in 1942 when Executive
Order No. 9066 was issued to place over
110,000 persons of Japanese ancestry,
most of whom were citizens of the
United States, in American con-
centration camps during World War II,
and to commemorate that day of
February 19 of 1976 when Executive
Order No. 9066 was rescinded."
At the time of issuance, however, the
ACLU-NC was one of the only
organizations to challenge Executive
Order 9066. The story of that challenge
is an interesting one, not only for the
vociferous stand taken by the ACLU-
NC against the egregious and racist
regulation, but for the strains that that
stance produced between the Northern
California affiliate and the national
ACLU.
President Roosevelt signed Executive
Order 9066 in 1942, authorizing
military commanders to prescribe areas.
from which any and all persons might
be excluded and Public Law 503 which
made it a misdemeanor for anyone to
"enter, remain in, leave or commit any
act in any military area" contrary to the
military commander's order.
Shortly thereafter, a series of civilian
exclusion orders were issued which
resulted in the round-up and forcible
seizure of some 73,000 citizens of
Japanese ancestry and 43,000 Japanese
aliens. Armed troops escorted them to
Assembly Centers, and from there to 10
guarded camps euphemistically
misnamed War Relocation Centers.
These acts were immediately
protested by the national and Northern
California offices of the ACLU.
However, when the ACLU-NC
became involved in a series of cases
challenging the constitutionality of the
restrictive laws and orders, the national
ACLU did not support the litigation.
The ACLU-NC assumed entire
responsibility in the Korematsu case
and filed amicus briefs and provided
further support in three other cases,
Yasui, Hirabayashi, and Endo.
_ The Korematsu case was the first to
challenge the constitutionality of the
internment of Japanese Americans.
Fred Korematsu was born and raised in
Oakland. In 1942, at the age of 23 he
-was arrested for failing to evacuate, and
imprisoned. The ACLU-NC posted his
bail of $1000, but instead of releasing
`Korematsu, the authorities transferred
him from jail to an Assembly Center.
Korematsu. was represented by
ACLU-NC attorney Wayne, Collins who
argued the case before the U.S.
Supreme Court in October, 1944.
The ACLU argued that the exclusion
laws deprived citizens and aliens of
liberty and property without due
process of law, in violation of the Fifth
Amendment.
In violation of the Fourth Amend-
ment, people had been subject to
unreasonable search and seizure. The
exclusion laws denied persons the right
to a speedy and public trial as
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
Photo: Courtesy of JACL
Furthermore, the ACLU argued,
American citizens were treated as alien
enemies: without justification they were
labeled _ Suspects, disloyals and
criminals." They were imprisoned
"behind barbed wire and guarded by
military police.
There are no degrees of citizenship in
the U.S., nor can loyalty be determined
along ethnic lines, stated the Boot
brief,
All of these acts, the argument
continued, required more than good
motives of necessity for justification, for
"under the guise of military necessity
the technique of fascism operates best."
Despite . these strong constitutional
arguments, the Supreme Court ruled 6-
3 against the ACLU and upheld all of
the war measures on the grounds of
military necessity in a time of im-
mediate danger.
The ACLU-NC was involved in other
_work besides litigation to protest the
government's regulations. Throughout
the 1940's the pages of the ACLU News
were filled with stories protesting and
exposing the treatment of Japanese
Americans.
In the summer of 1944, ACLU-NC
Executive Director Ernest Besig went to
the Tule Lake Segregation Center to
interview evacuees. While he was there
Besig learned of 18 persons who had
been locked in the stockade for 18
months without a hearing or trial and
who were denied visits from their
families.
When he protested to the camp
director, he was ordered to leave Tule
Lake and was harassed by the
authorities. Salt was poured in the gas
tank of his car. Un a conversation 36
years later, Besig told me salt was
poured in his gas tank, not sugar as
originally reported. Ed.)
Only after an appeal was sent to the
Department of Justice, was Besig
allowed to visit the Tule Lake internees
and the 18 stockade prisoners released.
These and other ACLU-NC actions,
however, were not endorsed by the
national ACLU. In 1942, the national .
office, having retreated somewhat from
its previous opposition to the wartime
orders requested the affiliate to
drop Korematsu. The ACLU-NC
refused to withdraw.
Correspondence between the national
office and Alexander Meiklejohn, a
founder of the ACLU-NC, indicates
that at one point the tensions were so
strong that the national threatened the
ACLU-NC with disaffiliation. A series
of meetings and negotiations followed,
in which certain organizational
arrangements were agreed upon, but
the ACLU-NC never withdrew from any
of its challenges to the government
regulations. -
That. the ACLU-NC never
capitulated to pressure either from the
government, the general wartime anti-
Japanese hysteria, or the ACLU
national office is a credit both to the
organization, to the ACLU-NC Board
of Directors, and to certain strong
individuals like Ernest Besig, Wayne
Collins and Alexander Meiklejohn who
pursued this challenge vigorously.
As we can see today from both the
governmental and. private attacks on
Iranians during the current crisis, there
is a lesson to be learned from this
history.
This lesson was _ perhaps best
articulated by the late Edison Uno, an
ACLU-NC Board member and Co-
Chair of the National Committee to
i apanese American Internment
Repeal the Emergency Detention Act,
when he was awarded the Meiklejohn
Civil Liberties Award on behalf of the
Japanese American Citizens League in
1972.
-Uno said, ``For those of you who may
not recall the memories of the past 30
years when 110,000 Japanese, two-
thirds of them citizens, were subject to
the grossest injustices and deprivations
of civil rights, it was the ACLU who had
the courage to publicly oppose our
wartime treatment.
"We may have eliminated the
statutory provisions for detention
camps, but we must always remember it
takes eternal vigilance to improve
Democracy and we must struggle to
eliminate the camps of poverty... and
the psychological concentration camps
of fear, hate, racism and oprression."'
The above article was written by
Elaine Elinson, editor of the ACLU
News, based largely upon material from
The American Civil Liberties Union in
Northern California, a Master's Thesis -
by Robert Knutson (1950); the ACLU
News (1940-45); and a conversation
with former ACLU-NC_ Executive
Director Ernest Besig.
Photo: Courtesy of JA(
lranian Densrtation Decisions
The ACLU lawsuit challenging the |
government's directive requiring all
Iranian students to report for a visa
review is now being considered for
hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court.
On February 13, the ACLU filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari in the
high court. The petition was
necessitated when the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
denied the ACLU motion for a
rehearing of the case before the full
Court of Appeals on January 31.
The ACLU had challenged the
November directive as unconstitational
in that it singled out Iranians on the
basis of their nationality for the visa
review. Judge Joyce Green of the U.S.
District Court agreed with the ACLU
arguments and ruled that the directive
was invalid and deportation hearings
must be stopped.
This ruling was reversed, however, by
a three-member panel of the Court of
Appeals.
Although
previously
the government had
enforce. final orders of deportation
`pending final decision of this case,
there is now evidence that some Iranian
students have already been deported
under the challenged INS directive.
voluntarily declined to.
`Ina meparale case, Iranian ee
in the U.S. won a major victory on
January 29, when the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled that the INS
could not summarily deport the ap-
proximately 5000 Iranians who had
previously been granted permission to
remain in the U.S. until June 1, 1980.
The case, which was filed by the
National Lawyers Guild, had previously
been dismissed in the U.S. District.
Court on the grounds that the
revocation of the permission to stay
until June, 1980 was pursuant to
Presidential directives and therefore,
. legal.
However, the Court of Appeals ruled
that immigration officials could not
revoke the permissions to stay without
examining the effect of such a move on
each individual Iranian.
Before the June 1980 date could be
rescinded, the Court stated, each
Iranian had the right to have the cir-
cumstances of her or his case reviewed
to determine the extent to which they
relied on the government's promise that
they could remain in the U.S. on an
individual basis.
The Court of Appeals overturned the
- lower court ruling and ordered the case
reinstated to "`ascertain the factual
issues relating to each named plaintiff."'
aclu news
March 1980
Abortion:
_ Funds Restored
The February 19 U.S. Supreme
Court decision to deny a stay to the fed-
eral government in the case of McRae v.
Harris (Califano), means that both the
federal and state governments must
make funds available for all medically
necessary abortions throughout the na-
tion.
As a result of this ruling, the state of
California is currently entitled to more
_than $15 million annually in federal
funds for abortions, or approximately
half of the funding necessary for
106,000 abortions performed for
medically indigent women in California
each year.
_ Although the California legislature
slashed abortion funding from the
state's Medi-Cal budget in 1978 and
1979, at present the state is under obli-
- gation to pay for all Medi-Cal abortions
because of a California Supreme Court
order in an ACLU-NC lawsuit.
The ACLU suit, Committee to De-
fend Reproductive Rights (CDRR) v.
Myers, is a challenge to the state legis-
lature's budget cuts for Med-Cal abor-
tions on the grounds that the cuts vio-
late both the federal and state constitu-
tional rights of privacy, due process,
and equal protection.
According to ACLU staff attorney
Margaret Crosby, however, the federal
decision will still have implications for
abortion funding in California.
`In January, the Federal District
Court's decision in McRae invalidated
the U.S. Congress' legislation (Hyde
Amendment) which denied government
abortion funding to medically indigent
- women,' Crosby explained.
`This set an important precedent for
- our parallel case which is now pending
in the California Supreme Court," she
added. |
The district court stated that funds
must be provided for ``abortions that
are necessary in the professional judg-
ment of the pregnant woman's
attending physician exercised in the
light of all factors, physical, emotional,
psychological, familial and .the
woman's age, relevant to the health-re-
lated well-being of the pregnant
woman." All teenage abortions, for ex-
ample, are considered medically neces-
sary under this definition.
The government's appeal of the
McRae decision will be heard by the
_ U.S. Supreme Court in late April. The
denial of the stay means that federal
funds will now be available at least until
the Court makes its final decision.
_ There has been no date set yet for the
case of CDRR y. Myers in the California
Supreme Court. In light of the McRae
decision, it is possible that the state
court will schedule arguments following
the U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Nie aan MG ae
By Brent Barnhart
- ACLU-NC Legislative Advocate
Over the past 15 years the ACLU has
served as the prime watchdog over
criminal justice legislation that impacts
on civil liberties. Over the past few
months the vital check on _ un-
constitutional legislation in the
California Legislature has essentially
dissolved. This is due to a number of
circumstances, including right-wing
demagoguery, the Assembly leadership
battle, and the dimmed perception of
-many moderates and liberals regarding
the danger that expanded government
power poses to social progress and a
democratic society.
This makes the task of the ACLU
legislative lobby even more pressing. In
~ response, the ACLU lobby is turning to
allies whom we've seldom had to call
upon over the past decade. Much of our
time is currently being spent alerting
labor organizations to two dangerous
pieces of legislation being pushed by the
California District Attorneys
Association and Attorney General
Deukmejian. The bills, SCA 17
(Presley) and SB 1304 (Presley) would
have a massive impact on trade unions.
SCA 17: Preventive Detention
SCA 17 is a preventive detention
measure which has been repeatedly
rejected over the, past several years in
California, since it was first proposed by
the gone-but-not-lamented U.S.
Attorney General John Mitchell.
SCA 17 would amend the California
- Constitution to empower judges to set
excessive bail to keep people in jail
pending trial, if the judge determines
that "`considerations of public safety'
warrant it. Except for homicides,
current law allows bail to be based
solely on assuring that the accused show
up for trial.
From the prosecution point of view,
_ preventive detention provides a much
handier cudgel than an injunction. For
example, it dispenses with the nagging
requirements that danger to the public
safety be proven until after the arrestees
_have-spent a good stretch in jail.
8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July,
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 (2)
Elaine Elinson, Editor Michael Miller, Chapter Page 2
ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)
_ 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 publication, Civil Liberties.
Proponents of preventive detention
justify the measure on the grounds that
judges could then keep "dangerous
people"'
be imposed for all sorts of activities that
have social impact.
Strike-breaking
It takes little imagination to see how
preventive detention could be applied to
break the back of a strike. Hundreds of
strikers could be rounded-up and
penned in enclosures on any con-
ceivable charge, e.g. trespass, or ut-
tering terrorist threats. Preventive
detention could also be used against
anti-draft, anti-nuclear power, or civil
rights protesters.
ii
ar
6 TAT |
Bie
SB 1304: Searching Employees
SB 1304 poses much more immediate
problems for workers on the job. It
would expand the current "merchants'
privilege' to detain persons suspected
of shoplifting, to allow virtually all
private companies. throughout
California to detain and search for
theft.
in jail pending trial. Not only |
does this offend the whole notion of ~
presumption of innocence until proven
. guilty, but it also allows excessive bail to
SB 1304 also changes the present
standard for detention from "`probable
cause" to believe that someone has
committed a theft, to the far less
protective standard of `reasonable
suspicion." It also provides the
authority to search the person and the
property of anyone on the company's
premises.
The bill would therefore abolish any
claim of privacy that workers have on
the job. Employers and their agents
would be free to search the clothing,
lockers, lunch buckets and autos of any
employees on the barest of justifi-
cations.
Warning to Labor
Proponents of the bills maintain that
they have no intention of using such -
measures against workers. But ex-
perience teaches us that original in-
tentions impose no control after the
bills are enacted.
For example, in 1977 a Terrorist
Threats bill was enacted, supposedly
aimed at terrorists who took respon-
sibility for bombings. In response to
ACLU opposition, officials such as
then-District Attorney Joseph Freitas
.and then-Supervisor Dianne Feinstein
testified that they had no intention that
it be used against labor organizers or in
strike situations.
Two years later, just as the
ACLU warned, word comes from San
Diego and Imperial County that the
same felony Terrorist Threats law is
being used against United Farm
Workers' organizers.
Unless there is significant labor
opposition to SCA 17 and SB 1304 this
session, we can anticipate the same
result two or three years down the line.
Letters
We strongly believe that the ACLU
has no valid point to make, no Consti-
tutional point to defend, in pursuing its
case of the Iranian student visas.
1. ``National origin' is not the same
as ``national allegiance' or ``country of
citizenship."' Iranian-Americans have
not been the subject of U.S.. govern-
ment attention. The awful uprooting of
Japanese-Americans four decades ago
is not analogous to telling temporary
visitors to go home because they've
broken laws here.
The U.S. government has not singled
out anyone because of national origin.
Where allegiance to a particular hostile
government coincides with the infringe-
ment of our law - that's where our gov-
ernment focussed its attention. Thus,
not even all the Iranian students can be
expelled.
2. The Fifth Amendment provides
that ``no person... shall be deprived
of life, liberty or property without due
process of law.'' The government had
not proposed depriving student visa-
violators in this country of life, property
or liberty. It just wants them to go back
to their own declared home (or else-
where if they choose).
3. Ideally, our government should
apply the laws equally to all, including'
visitors from a hostile nation. But, in
practice, law enforcement occurs
sequentially. Law enforcement needs
either a) administrative leeway to catch
someone first, second, etc. or b) enough
manpower to arrest and prosecute all
alleged violators at once!
If we force a government to perform
all enforcement for all parties simultan-
eously, we'll put it in an untenable posi-
tion. Meanwhile, an administration
must "`provide for the common defense."
If the ACLU leadership decides to
continue spending our scant resources
in this litigation, please share with us
the reasoned position. What we have
read so far seems to reflect an ACLU
eagerness to avert a different American
reaction than the one now in litigation.
Dale and Doris Heckman
Sacramento
I have joined the ACLU because I
wish my mite of support to the issues
, you routinely so justly espouse.
The Jan-Feb issue of the ACLU News
gives the Iranian student situation in
the U.S.A. top billing. I could not agree
more that the Iranian students should
be treated fairly and kindly. Certainly
also, Iranian born U.S. citizens and
non-citizens should not be hated nor
harrassed in any way.
continued on page 8
aclu news
March 1980
CIVIL LI
SERTIES AND
Opinio
"This time the draft will be fair. No
more rich kids hiding out in college.
while others fight the wars. .
A common belief from the Vietnam
era is that student deferments allowed a
great number of otherwise qualified
young men to beat the draft. Today's
draft supporters assure us the new draft
will be different, it will be "`fair."'
Like the free lunch, the fair draft
exists only in stories.
The Central Committee for
Conscientious Objectors (CCCOQO), the
nation's leading draft counseling
organization pointed out in a recent
paper (on draft resistance): `There are
many ways to stay out of the military
during a draft and nearly all of them
are legal."
Most people who did beat the draft
legally during Vietnam did not do it as
students - that's the well documented
message from two former staff mem-
bers of Persident Ford's Clemency
Board, Lawrence Baskir and William
Strauss.They published their findings
in an excellent examination of the
Vietnam war draft system, Chance and
Circumstance (Knopf, 1978).
Legal Draft Avoidance
Between 1964 (Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution) and 1973 (last American
troops leave Vietnam), 26.8 million
young men were eligible for the draft.
Ultimately 15.4 million never served
without breaking the law. The lottery
let out 6.6 million. According to Baskir
-and Strauss, this is how the rest beat
the draft:
e Failed induction or pre-induction
physical 399%
e Hardship, marriage, fatherhood
exemptions 2
(c) Occupations deferments 6%
e Student deferments 4%
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_1980.batch 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 Conscientious objectors 2%
Exemption Standards
The physical, mental (intelligence),
and psychiatric, (and moral) standards
which 59% (5.2 million) of the young
men failed are extensive, are set by the
U.S. military, and are not likely to
change significantly.
The army standards are intended to.
test the stress on an infantry man under
inion ~The Myth of the Fair Dratt
stress. Bad knees, feet, skin rashes, al-
lergies, and many other common.
ailments are enough for an exemption.
As one anti-draft lawyer told Baskir
and Strauss, `""There are thousands of
disqualifying physical and mental con-
ditions - and it's a rare case that
someone does not have one of them."
(The failure of Americans to pass mili-
tary physicals has often been cited as an
indication of our "flabby culture," es-
pecially compared to European nations.)
As for people who accused of
breaking the draft law, there were only
about 200,000 - less than the total
student exemptions. Over half had their
cases dropped as defective. A good
attorney could often find a mistake in
the Selective Service procedures. -
Even with limited deferments and a
radical change in medical standards (c)
(unlikely), there must be some criteria
for selecting draftees. As before,
individuals with access to well informed |
draft counselors, lawyers, sympathetic
doctors, in short people with financial,
educational, and social resources will
continue to exercise their legal rights to
avoid the draft. Others will not.
Letters
on the Draft
How does the peace-time draft con-
flict with any civil liberties principle? I
have read the interview with Mr.
Landau in the current issue of ACLU
News, and learn that we are lobbying
vigorously against a peace-time draft
and that we believe that the All Volun-
teer Forces are ``working'' and that
there are statistics to prove it.
Although a recent arrival in Califor-
nia, I have been an ACLU member for
a good many years and intend to remain
one indefinitely. However, I seem to be
in need of enlightenment.
I had always understood that ACLU
was primarily interested in protecting
the constitutional guarantees of civil
liberties, and that has seemed to me an
essential task, if sometimes herculean.
But what principle does the peace-time
draft violate? And how does the Minne-
sota ACLU justify its opposition to a
draft in time of war?
-I make no judgment here as to
whether President Carter's advocacy of
a "revitalization" of the draft is a wise
and prudent recommendation to make
to the Congress in the present situation.
There can be honest differences of opin-
ion as to that. But I do not see how it is
possible to maintain that this is a civil
liberties question - unless a civil liber-
ties question is any issue that the ACLU |
Board declares to be such. That is sure-
ly not a direction that we want to follow
without some restrictions.
And how does Mr. Landau know that
the All Volunteer Force is ``working''?
What are the statistics that he cites so
confidently? Is this a question that can
be resolved by statistics alone? Does the
ACLU have the expertise to argue such -
a case against the military authorities?
What does the effectiveness of the AVF
have to do with the essential argument
_ that Mr. Landau wants to make, i.e.,
that the draft violates civil liberties?
My perception of the usefulness of
the ACLU is that it will exhaust might
and main in the defense of the civil lib-
erties of American citizens and our
guests and visitors.
Weare not an organization dedicated
to the furtherance of every liberal
cause, and I say this as a persistent and
unreconstructible liberal. Civil liberties
are far too important a matter to leave
_ to liberals alone; we need every conser-
vative we can enlist. Please ask Mr.
Landau to mind the ACLU store and
leave unrelated issues, no matter how
. praiseworthy, to other coalitions.
John P. Conrad
Davis
I have been a member of ACLU on
and off for about 15 years. Every so of-
`ten you take a stand that I oppose.
Usually I ignore it. However, on occa-
sion I have to speak out and say that
you do not represent my viewpoint in a
particular instance. |
In regard to the draft registration,
this is one of those cases. The volunteer
army doesn't work and very few expect
it to work. To say it does is nonsense
and even those trying to defend it know
it.
- You cannot wait for a war and then
say it's okay to start drafting. The war
would be lost before they even started to
sign up. The best way to stop a war
from ever starting is to be strong
enough that no one will start it. Weak-
ness encourages it. I'm sure you've
heard the arguments on both sides of
this debate many times, but I wanted to
let you know where I stand. :
Every young person should put some
service of one or two years either in the |
military or some type of civilian service. _
Not only does the country need it, but it
also is a tremendous help to the indivi-
dual in learning to care for himself,
learning to get along with others, dis-
cipline, etc.
Abe S. Miller
San Mateo
DRAFT REGISTRATION
"ACLU Opposes Registration
continued from page 1
"Carter still needs Congressional ap-
propriations approved for his
registration plans,' Landau explained.
"The proposals are in committee right
now and it will take at least until the
first week in April to secure appropri-
ations te implement the plan.
`""`We must work really hard in this
short period to ensure that registration
is not approved in Congress. As all
members of Congress are under
pressure to `unite behind the Presi-
dent', letters, telegrams, and visits to
Congressional. Representatives are par- _
ticularly crucial at this time," Landau
said.
ACLU-NC Field Representative
Michael Miller noted that twelve out of
seventeen northern California Congress
members voted against registration last
summer. Most still do not favor
Carter's new proposals. The breakdown
is as follows:
Oppose Registration: Burton (John),
Burton, (Phil), Clausen, Coelho,
Dellums, Edwards, Miller, Mineta,
Stark. :
Favor Registration: Fazio, McClos-
key, Shumway, Royer.
Undecided: Matsui,
~ Pashayan.
"In the Senate,"' Miller said, `"Cran-
ston seems to be wavering. As a key
Senate leader he needs to hear from
ACLU members opposed to the regis-
tration plan. Senator Hayakawa sup-
ports registration.
_ "We have a real chance at beating
Panetta,
this, again. The protests are much |
larger than Carter expected. As the
primary elections draw near, many
Congressional Representatives are
going to ask themselves, `Do I really
want to defend a new draft?' "
Brochures Available
In response to the many phone calls
and letters which the ACLU receives
each day from people concerned about
the draft, the organization has
produced ``Feeling a Draft?. . . ''a bro-
chure outlining arguments against.
registration and suggestions for con-
crete activities to keep the pressure
focused on Congress.
The brochure is being distributed
widely in schools, churches, trade un-
ions, and other organizations (to order
copies of the brochure, see Coupon).
The Civil Liberties Lobby has
developed a "`Stop the Draft Speaker's
Kit."" The kit includes ACLU position
papers, important newsclippings, ques-
tions and answers about draft
registration, and suggestions for
making a speech (see Coupon).
In addition, the ACLU Board has set
up an Ad Hoc Committee on ACLU-
NC Draft Policy. The Committee will
make recommendations to the Board's
March meeting on several matters
related to the current campaign. In par-
ticular, the Committee will be
discussing women and the draft, and
draft resistance, questions which are
not addressed by existing oo NC
policy. :
If members are interested in these
issues, they can contact ACLU Field
Representative Michael Miller at the
ACLU office, who will forward opinions
to the Ad Hoc Committee.
Press Chaference
At the January press conference, the
ACLU-NC joined with other Bay Area
organizations to voice opposition to"
Carter's draft registration proposal.
At the press conference, Ehrlich said,
`Registration is the cornerstone of
conscription. Among our members are
thousands - like millions of others
throughout the nation - who have
suffered the consequences of the earlier
_ draft registration as draftees, members
of the armed forces, resisters and as
parents and relatives of young men who
were sent into the military involun-
tarily.
"Their memories are painful, and
they are fresh. Their energies and their
abilities are ready to fight against
forced conscription for another
generation of young Americans,"'
Ehrlich continued.
Other participants in the press .
conference were John Vaisey, attorney
and council member of the Central
Committee for Conscientious Objectors
(CCCO); Lee Halterman, administra-
tive aide to Rep. Ron Dellums; Chris
Lee, aide to Rep. John Burton; Harry
Britt, San Francisco District 5
supervisor; John Deckenback, Acting
Conference Executive for the Northern
California Conference of the United
Church of Christ; and Dell Dawson, of
the Pride Foundation.
What's Wrong with
Draft Registration
e Registration is the first step to
conscription. Existing Selective Ser-
vice law requires that "each regis-
trant shall be immediately liable for
classification and examination''
physical fitness testing.
e Every young person of the age
targeted for registration, will be a
to fill out a government form. And,
each one who does not fill out the
form may be investigated by the FBI.
e Draft registration poses a very
great threat to each person's indivi-
dual privacy - a threat which is in-
creased with today's modern
computer information systems. -
e Draft registration has always
discriminated against the poor and
with resources to hire expert help,
such as lawyers and doctors, will al-
ways have the advantage of exemp-
tions, legal technicalities, defer-
ments, and alternatives to serving in
the military.
(especially as the election season nears).
(c) Write A Letter. Right now your
personal one page letter to your Rep-
resentative will be very effective.
Congressional leader, needs special
attention. These are the addresses:
The Honorable......
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Alan Cranston
or S.I. Hayakawa
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
President Jimmy Carter
The White House
ey asuingicn: D.C. 20500
os
Send me
o~
My check is enclosed. _
Name
which means mental aptitude and
potential criminal merely for failing (c)
-minorities in this society. People -
Also, Senator Alan Cranston, as a :
~ aclu news
March 1980
Why We Fight
What's Wrong with
Conscription
e Without any choice, draftees
may be seriously injured and even
killed. Also, without choice, draftees
must learn to kill. .
e The draft infringes on rights nor- :
mally guaranteed by the Constitu-
tion, and is nothing less than a form _
of involuntary servitude. If you are-
drafted, this is what you will lose:
- The right to live and work
where you wish.
- The right to travel or not, as
you choose.
- The right to marry and raise a
family or live with other individuals
of your choice. |
- The right to many forms of po-
litical protest and free speech.
- The right to trial by jury.
(c) An active draft system gives any
president the power to take wide uni-
lateral military action without an act
of war or without consulting Con-
gress or the es people for
support.
e The draft seriously disrupts
every young person's life. During the
Vietnam era, large numbers of
young men took certain jobs,
married, had children or temporarily
abused their health all in reaction to
the draft. Others, more desperate,
permanently injured themselves or
_ fled to Canada and Europe.
How to Fight
0x00B0 What Else To Do. Writing a
couple personal letters is. plenty.
But, if you are really ambitious,
here's more: _
(c) Organize a visit to your Con-
gressional Representative.
(c) Ask about the draft in any pub-
lic forum where politicians are pres-
ent.
cent Organize your union, parents
group, church group, or political
organization to go on record against
the draft and registration. Then tell
your Representatives and the media. -
(R) Distribute anti-draft leaflets,
especially to draft-age people and
parents. See coupon below.
I'm Feeling a Draft and Want to Stop It
) Send me the ACLU's anti-draft brochure.
extra copies to distribute.
) Send me the ACLU "`Stop The Draft Speakers' Kit'' at $2 each.
- You can help convince Congress members, who will be voting on Carter's
registration proposals, that protests against the draft will continue to gro
ey
Q
Ps
o
N
nH
Q
Cate
4
z tolesbone home ( )
Zip
) Sign me up for the Civil Liberties Lobby. I want to get more inyolved
in ACLU's grassroots lobbying campaigns.
work ( )
aclu news
March 1980
By Jerome B. Falk, Jr.
Some aspire to being judged by their
| friends; Justice William O. Douglas
_ basked in the light of his enemies. So I
learned when, while serving as his law-
clerk, we lunched at Washington's
University Club, which conferred upon
every Justice of the Supreme Court an
honorary membership. Glancing around
the room, he would identify a fellow
member and say: "`That's Jones, a
stone-age type if ever there was one. My |
very presence here probably gives him
indigestion." There was no real malice
in these words, but pride in his
maverick status.
But the University Club's pariah was
and shall remain a symbol of faithful
devotion to the Bill of Rights. When in
1976 the Northern California ACLU
honored him with the Earl Warren Civil
Liberties Award, I had the pleasure of
presenting the medal. I read a passage
from his opinion in a case known as
Terminiello v. Chicago, which I think
well illustrates his deep understanding
of our free speech tradition. In that
case, an inflammatory speech by an
ugly little fascist had resulted in a near
riot by the audience; as a result, the
speaker was arrested. More than 30
years ago, Justice Douglas wrote:
The vitality of civil and pol-
itical institutions in our society
depends on free discussion. As
Chief Justice Hughes wrote in
Jonge v. Regon, 299 U.S. 353, -
365, it is only through free debate
and free exchange of ideas that
government remains responsive to
the will of the people and peaceful
change is effective. The right to
speak freely and to promote
diversity of ideas and programs is
therefore one of the chief distinc-
tions that sets us apart. from
totalitarian regimes.
Accordingly a function oF free
speech under our system of
government is to invite dispute. It .
may indeed best serve its high
purpose when it induces a con-
dition of unrest, creates
dissatisfaction with conditions as
they are, or even stirs people to
anger. Speech is often provocative
and challenging. It may strike at
prejudices and preconceptions
and have profound unsettling
effects as it presses for.acceptance
of an idea.
There have been many tales abou
the life and of burdens upon Justice
"Douglas' law clerks, some I suspect
having been circulated by the Justice
himself, who rather enjoyed the slave-
driver reputation which these legends
perpetuated. Although they are often.
greatly exaggerated, it is fair to say that
Justice Douglas saw his clerkship as a
kind of lawyer's basic training. .
My favorite story, which I had always
assumed was apocryphal until I heard
him tell it a few years ago, was of a law
clerk who received an assignment one
afternoon with the reassuring words:
"There is no rush about this; I don't
need it until tomorrow morning."' Well,
as everyone knows, there are some
fifteen hours between 6:00 P.M. and
9:00 A.M. the next day - plenty of
time for legal work. Somehow my
predecessor found in himself resources -
he never dreamed he had, and by 9:00
A.M. he had produced a massive piece
of work meeting all the specifications.
When Justice Douglas arrived, the
clerk took it in and proudly handed it
over. Then, his work completed, he
promptly passed out cold at the
Justice's feet. Justice Douglas told that
story with such obvious pride that I felt
a sense of reproach that my _ per-
formance had not risen to such selfless
heights.
Justice William O. Douglas
Justice Douglas asked no less of
himself. In the year I was there, he
wrote three books, gave forty-seven
speeches (all over the country) and
managed to keep up with his regular
work at Court. His work habits were
extraordinary. 3
Once, when on a Friday afternoon an
especially heavy snow storm shut
Washington down to a standstill and
the Chief Justice annouced at about
1:00 in the afternoon that everyone
could and should -go home. Justice
Douglas worked until about 4:00 as the
snow piled high in the streets: And,
early on the following Monday morning
when the snow had indeed brought all
traffic to a halt, I hiked through the'
snow-clogged streets with the ex-
pectation of a quiet day in my office,
free from interruptions and new
assignments, for the Justice's home was
across town from the Coart. As I recall,
only one Justice was able to get to the
court that day, and I could hear the
squeak of his chair in the office next to
mine as I took off my coat.
Affirmative Action Advanced
"We have found that affirmative
steps are at times necessary to overcome
the legacy of the past degradation of
minorities and to bring minorities into
full membership in American-society.
One such instance of that essential
affirmative action is the correction of an
employer's past discriminatory em-
ployment practice by a race-conscious
hiring program such as that of the
instant case.'
With this statement, Justice Tobfiner
announced on January 25 the California
Supreme Court's decision to reverse
lower court rulings in the case of Price
v. Civil Service Commission of
Sacramento County and to establish the
legitimacy of a race-conscious af-
firmative action hiring" program
adopted by a governmental agency to
remedy past discriminatory em-
ployment practices.
The case had pit two governmental
_ agencies against each other. In 1974,
the Sacramento County Civil Serivce
Commission, concerned with the
relative paucity of minority individuals
in the county's employ, conducted a
series of hearings into the county's past
_ hiring practices.
The Commission found that in the
Sacramento District Attorney's office
there was only one black attorney out of
65. The Commission additionally found
that the under-representation of ethnic
minorities resulted from a number of
unintentional discriminatory hiring
practices, including the use of un-
validated oral examinations and the
absence of adequate recruitment of-
ficers.
To remedy this imbalance, the Civil
Service Commission imposed a minority
hiring ratio on the DA's office. The
plan required one minority ap-
pointment out of every three ap-
pointments.
However, District Attorney John
Price resisted the Commission's hiring
order and initiated legal proceedings to
challenge it. Price claimed that a race-
conscious hiring plan violated the
Fourteenth Amendment to the con-
stitution and various provisions of Title
VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, the
California Fair Employment Practice
Act (FEPA), and the Sacramento
County Charter. :
After Price won his case in the lower
courts, the ACLU entered as amicus in
the California Supreme Court in
support of the Civil Service Com-
mission. The ACLU brief was prepared
by cooperating attorney Paul Hoffman.
_court-ordered
A 44 "i
Ul e
.in light of the history and continuing realities of racial discrimination, the negation of
eis is frequently not enough." California Supreme Court, January 25, 1980
Wi
In its opinion, the court relied heavily
on decisions issued by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Bakke and Weber.
According to staff counsel Margaret
Crosby, who also worked on the case,
"The importance of the decision is that
it upholds the legality of voluntary or
affirmative action
programs - even quota based ones -
if an employer has engaged in proven
past discrimination, whether - in-
tentional or unintentional, as in this
particular case.'
As a result of the high court's
decision, the DA's office will now have
to implement the minority hiring
`program it has resisted for five years.
The ruling will also have implications
for other current affirmative action
cases, such as Hiatt v. City of Berkeley
which are now before the state supreme
court.
As Crosby explained, "The principles
Bill of Rights was safeguarded. Justice
Many of the articles aout Justice
Douglas stress his role as a frequent,
often angry, dissenter. That somewhat
oversimplifies the record. He served on
the Court for more than thirty-six
years, and during much of that time,
in the years of the so-called Warren |
Court, his voice was more often that of
the majority. The last years on the
Court were, of course, frequently spent
in dissent.
History has a way of repeating itself.
In the late 1940's, the Court then
known as the Vinson Court, had been
closely divided between strong civil
libertarians and those who purported to
practice something Justice Frank-
furter liked to call ``judicial restraint.'
Justice Douglas told me that he then be-
lieved that a dependable civil liber-
tarian majority was within grasp when,
within months, death took Justices
Rutledge and Murphy. President
Truman replaced them with Minton
and Clark, and for nearly a decade,
Justices Douglas and Black were vir-
tually alone in protest. The McCarthy
years must have been especially bitter
and lonely.
But there are advantages to having
good health and an early appointment.
In time, there. was Warren, and then
Brennan, and then Goldberg (later
replaced by Fortas), and then Marshall;
and for a significant time, civil liber-
tarians looked to the Supreme Court:in |
Washington, D.C. to ensure that the
Douglas is gone now, and Justices .
Brennan and Marshall are all that
remains of the former Warren Court
majority. Does the story of the Vinson
Court's fate give present cause for
hope?
Jerome B. Falk, Jr. is Vice-Chair of the
ACLU-NC and _ served as Justice
we-8 law clerk in 1965-66.
CY vy
A Kee
Ce le EZ
REY CES Sy
Vis, oe 4 Lu ea 7
articulated in the decision seem
transferrable to other affirmative action
cases in both employement and
education."
Tobriner's opinion addresses itself to
the principle of affirmative action
_ programs as a necessary corollary of the
constitutional right of equal protection
beyond this particular case.
The opinion states, `"The affirmative
action plan at issue in this case is but
another small but significant step in
bringing about the full participation of
minority individuals in our society.
_ "Although the essence ofademocratic
society lies in its emphasis upon the
rights of the individual, the im-
plementation of those rights has been a
long and arduous process ... in the
light of the history and continuing
realities of racial discrimination, the
negation of discrimination is frequently
not enough."
: aclu news
March 1980
Final Round:
~ Leafletters v. Shopping Centers
The long-standing access battle
between shopping centers and
_ Jeafletters will enter the federal arena
on March 18 when the case of Robins v.
Pruneyard Shopping Center will be
argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case, which will have nationwide
implications for all kinds of protesters
and petitioners who use shopping
centers to gain access to the public,
originated from an incident in
November, 1975 at the Pruneyard
Shopping Center in Santa Clara
County. f
Two high school students and their
religion teacher were stopped by private
security guards from soliciting
signatures on a petition. The leafletters
left without a fight but took their case
to the Santa Clara Superior Court
_ which ruled against them.
_ The ruling was reversed on appeal,
however, when the California Supreme
Court ruled in March, 1979 that
privately owned malls are not immune
from the free speech and petition
provisions of the California Con-
~ stitution.
The Supreme Court decision
recognized the special and increasingly
important role that shopping centers
play in the public lives of Californians.
"Central business districts ap-
` parently have continued to yield their
functions more and more to suburban
centers ... The largest segment of the
country's population is likely to spend
the most significant amount of its time -
in suburban areas where its needs and
wants are satisfied; and shopping
centers provide the location, goods and
services to satisfy those needs and
wants,"' said the court opinion.
The court went on to quote from its
1970: decision, ``The shopping center
may no more exclude individuals who
wear long hair... who are black .. . or
who belong to the American Civil
Liberties Union merely because of those
characteristics or associations 2S
than may a city.
Pruneyard Shopping Center ap-
pealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on
the grounds that the California court
ruling infringes on their `federal
property rights'' as protected by the
Fifth Amendment. 2
The ACLU amicus brief, prepared by
cooperating attorneys Susan Paulus
and Susan Popik, argues that there are
no federal constitutional - property
rights, rather, the rights which ac-
company private ownership of real
estate are defined by the state. The
California Supreme Court, under this
state's property laws, cannot exclude
expressive activities. As staff counsel
Margaret Crosby explained, ""Zoning
for civil rights purposes has long been
accomplished by the state."'
- Despite the
earlier favorable
decisions however, the shopping centers
are still trying to prohibit and harass
leafletters on their property. |
Pruneyard Shopping Center
requested a stay from the Supreme
Court to keep leafletters out, but the
stay was denied -by Chief Justice
Rhenquist. This means that until the
Supreme Court makes its decision
(sometime before July) people continue
to have the right to leaflet and petition
at shopping centers.
Those who do, however, are being (c)
center
local
harassed by
managements
shopping
through
- regulations. The California Supreme
Court had noted that shopping centers
have the right to establish certain
"time, place' and manner' rules
governing speech and petitioning to
protect normal business operations.
Several California shopping centers
have established outlandish regulations
for petitioners - such as posting a
$3,000,000 bond - and essentially
erected barriers to freedom of speech
and association on their property.
~ FPPC
A state appeals court decision that
California's Proposition 9 prohibition
on contributions by lobbyists to
political candidates is unconstitutional
was left standing by the U.S. Supreme
Court on January 21.
The ACLU had entered an amicu
brief in support of the Institute of
Governmental Advocates, a lobbyists'
organization, because the original ban
violated the constitutional guarantees
_ of freedom of speech and association.
Curfew Ruling
Evidence obtained in an illegal stop
of a car cannot be used against a person
who later becomes a robbery suspect,
even if the arresting officer is not aware
at the time of the stop that it is illegal.
That is the opinion of the California Su-
preme Court issued on February 11 in
the case of People v. Teresinski.
The city of Dixon has a curfew ordin-
ance that makes it a crime to "loiter,
idle, wander, stroll or play" on the pub-
lic streets between the hours of 10PM
- and SAM if you are under 18.
The defendant, Robert John Teresin-
ski, was lawfully driving a car in a Dix-
on city street-in the middle of the night.
A Dixon police officer thought the driv-
er and passengers were minors and
stopped the car for violating curfew. Af-
ter seeing a beer can in plain view, the
officer searched the car further.
During the course of the search, the
police officer found evidence which im-
plicated Teresinski in a robbery. That
evidence was suppressed in the trial
court on the grounds that it had been
unlawfully obtained.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled
that the police officer had made a
"reasonable mistake of law' and order-
ed that the evidence be admitted.
When the case was brought to the
California Supreme Court, the ACLU
entered as amicus curiae. The brief was
prepared by ACLU staff counsel,
Police Papers Public
"It's like seeing the Emperor's New
Clothes,'' said ACLU staff attorney
Amitai Schwartz, commenting on the
previously undisclosed California High-
way Patrol documents which must now
be made available to the public as a
result of a decision by the California
Court of Appeal in an ACLU lawsuit.
The litigation seeking disclosure
began in 1974 when the Northern
California Police Practices Project, an
organization against police abuse.
sponsored by the ACLU, NAACP, and
MALDEF, first attempted to gain
access to California Highway Patrol
(CHP) manuals.
At that time the CHP refused even to
discuss its procedures governing the
investigation of citizen's complaints. A
suit was filed seeking the procedures
which resulted in a decision compelling
their disclosure in 1976. :
In a second suit filed in 1976, the
Court of Appeal ruled last year that the
CHP was required to disclose further
sensitive portions of the police manuals,
although it did not define what those
non-sensitive portions might be.
As a result of the second suit, the
`CHP agreed to having settlement
meetings with the ACLU to determine
which portions of the documents must
be disclosed. For the first time in five
years, the CHP admitted that some of
the manual documents may not be
classified.
Staff attorney Schwartz was allowed
to see, subject to a protective order,
previously undisclosed CHP documents
for the purpose of determining with the
CHP which documents must be made
available.
"It was very surprising to see the
kinds of policies that the CHP wanted
`to keep from the public," Schwartz
said.
As a result of the settlement
meetings, a final judgment was entered
in the Sacramento Superior Court in
December. The effect of the judgment
is that about two-thirds of the in-
formation sought should now be
available to the public on resquest.
LE SSV SNS
= oN .
"The most significant aspect, beside
the fact that after two lawsuits the CHP
must have learned that openness is
generally required, is that for the first
time the California Highway Patrol will
publicly reveal its firearms policy,"
Schwartzexplained.
"But,' he added, "`it is a shame to
have spent five years in litigation to
force the CHP to make available the
sort of firearms policy that practically
every other police department in the
state was willing to discuss."
The case, which was brought under
the California Public Records Act,
constitutes a significant victory for the
opening up of police files. :
Prior to this settlement, the state's
largest police agency, with no
recognizable constituency to keep it
accountable, was operating in almost
total secrecy.
On February 27, judgment was en-
- tered awarding the ACLU $8,700 in at-
torney's fees to be paid by the CHP.
- Cops Must Know the Law
Amitai Schwartz, and ACLU-NC Board
member Marshall Krause also worked
on the case.
The brief filed by the ACLU argued
that the police had illegally obtained
the evidence used to convict Teresinski. .
According to Schwartz, ``The Court
of Appeal decided nine years ago that a
person in a moving car is not loitering.
And if that's not clear enough, it does
not take too much of an intellectual ex-
ercise to figure out that driving or rid-
ing in a moving automobile is not pro-
hibited by the Dixon curfew ordinance,
since a person cannot actually "`loiter,
idle, wander, stroll or play' in a moving
car.
The Supreme Court agreed with the
eo
ses
ROHN
ACLU argument. The ruling stated, ``If
we were to find the officer's mistake of
law reasonable under these circum-
stances, we would provide a strong in-
centive to police officers to remain ig-
norant of the language of the laws they
enforce..." --
Schwartz explained, "Ignorance of
the law is not an excuse for someone
accused of a crime. What the Court
said in the Teresinski case is that police
officers, like everyone else, must be
held to the same principle, and must
follow the law if they are to detain
people. :
. "After all, how can the police enforce
the law when they do not bother to find
out what it is?'" Schwartz concluded.
aclu news
March 1980
Cruising: Mayor Backs Down
After receiving a letter from the
ACLU-NC, San Francisco Mayor Dianne
Feinstein backed away from her widely
reported plan to "`send a $130, 450 bill
for extra police protection" (S.F. Chron-
icle 2/22/80) to United Artists, the pro-
ducers of the controversial movie Cruis-
ing.
The result is not only a savings to
United Artists, but more importantly, a
guarantee to other groups who wish to
exercise their freedom of speech - like
the ACLU perhaps - that they will not
have to start paying in cash for First
Amendment rights.
In the letter, ACLU attorney Amitai
Schwartz had asked the Mayor to for-
mally clarify her position concerning
the billing of private parties exercising a
right guaranteed by the First Amend-
ment. The ACLU letter also said that
the ACLU would go to court, if neces-
sary, to protect the First Amendment.
In response to the ACLU letter, the
mayor's press aide, Mel Wax acknow-
ledged that the Mayor does not have the
authority to bill anyone for police ser-
vices to protect the exercise of free
speech.
Cruising, the United Artists film
which opened in San Francisco in Feb-
ruary to angry protests from the gay
community, stirred controversy over the
First Amendment rights of both the
filmmakers and the protesters.
The ACLU first became involved
when it was learned that the Mayor had
requested a screening of the film for city
officials prior to the opening and had
subsequently made attempts to block
the showing of the film.
At that time, ACLU Executive Direc-
tor Dorothy Ehrlich and staff attorney
Margaret Crosby wrote to the Mayor,
"Once again, and with a sense of mount-
ing frustration, we write to remind you
that the Constitution bars you from
suppressing controversial ideas expressed
through the medium of film.
"Last year we protested your halting
distribution of the barrio movie Boule-
vard Nights. Although we received no
response, we were heartened by your
early public statements about this
year's unpopular film, Cruising as you
appeared to have adopted our view:
that you lack the authority to serve as
the City's censor.'
When it was ie learned
that the Mayor was sending United Art-
ists a bill for police coverage for the
opening nights of Cruising, ACLU at-
-torneys again wrote to the Mayor. The
second letter asked for clarification of
the Mayor's position and stated that as
Letters continued from page 3
But, I cannot share your view, how-
ever you rationalize it, that we should
``put on the back burner'' the
examining of the visas of Iranian stu- .
dents or of other Iranian nationals, and (c)
I believe that those found invalid or in
violation be promptly deported, at their
own expense. To do otherwise is to in-
fringe upon the rights of the U.S. citi-
zenry, since "`rights'' seem to be the
basis of your contention to the contrary.
The course of action sought by Carter
and the Immigration Service is further
justified by Iranian public demonstra-
tions here and by such violent acts of
_willful and malicious destruction as the
pertinent Los Angeles riot late last year.
a result of her actions it was possible.
that `any person or group exercising a
right guaranteed by the First Amend-
ment or similar provision of the Califor-
nia Constitution is liable to be billed for
necessary police services in the discre-
tion of the Mayor...
"Since the City has a duty to provide
police services to protect the public
equally and the City may not charge a
fee for expression that is controversial,
your demand for payment is illegal."'
Feinstein did forward, in the words of
her letter to United Artists, `The bill
for extraordinary police services..."
which the police department made up .
for her.
However, Mayor's aide Wax said
"No `bill' was sent to United Artists.
Wax emphasized a sentence in Fein-
stein's letter which said, "I would hope,
as an expression of public concern and
responsibility, you will repay the City
for police action necessary to protect
not only your venture but the peace of
the City as well."
Board
Backs
Ballot
At their February meeting, the
ACLU-NC Board of Directors adopted
a resolution supporting the 1980
California Marijuana Initiative.
The initiative, which is sponsored by
the National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML),
is proposed for the November, 1980
statewide ballot.
In accordance with the ACLU policy
advocating the decriminalization of
marijuana, the Board gave its full
support for Section 1 of the initiative
which would remove criminal penalties
for the private possession, cultivation
and transportation of marijuana by
adults for personal use.
However, the ACLU resolution noted
that Section 2 of the initiative calls for
the establishment of a commission to
study the economics of a regulated
marijuana market, and took no position
on the establishment of such a com-
mission or the recommendations which
may result from such a study.
ACLU members who are interested
in the initiative campaign can receive
further information and petitions from:
~NORML, 2964 Fillmore Street, S.F.
CA. 94123. Telephone (415) 563-5858.
To hold that we are not currently
checking the visas of other visiting
nationalities does not constitute a valid
basis for winking at Iranian nationals.
The visas of all persons should be
checked in due course, and most are,
routinely, eventually. When funds are
limited however, it is not unjust nor un-
reasonable for our government to con-
centrate upon the violations of those
nationalities promoting their own
national causes in our country, acting
in an unlawful manner here, and whose
homeland is committing serious viola-
tions of the human rights of certain of
our citizens and violations of interna- -
tional law against the United States of
America.
Paul Schulz
Sonoma
national
members attending the Women and the Law Con-
ference in San Francisco. (1. to r.) Edna Wells,
Karpatkin Attorney; Suzanne Lynn, Reproduc-
tive Freedom Project; Isabelle Katz Pinzler,
National Women's Rights Project.
Franklin v. Stanford
The decade-long case of Professor H.
Bruce Franklin who was fired from
Stanford for making anti-war speeches,
has taken a new turn as a result of a
February decision by the State Court of
Appeal.
The court decided, despite Stanford's
protestations, that the case must return
to Stanford's Faculty Advisory Board
for reconsideration of Franklin's firing
nine years ago.
Franklin, a tenured English
professor, was fired in 1971 because of
his participation in 3 anti-war demons-
trations.
The ACLU first filed suit in 1972 on
Franklin's behalf, alleging that the ter-
mination was a violation of his First
Amendment rights. The suit sought
Franklin's immediate reinstatement
with back pay.
After a lengthy trial the Santa
Clara Superior Court ruled in 1978
that of Franklin's four speeches, two
were constitutionally protected. Judge
John Flaherty ordered Stanford's
Faculty Advisory Board to reconsider
the penalty inflicted on Franklin.
At that point, Stanford asked the
trial court to enter a final judgment, so
that the University could appeal the
ruling that certain speeches were
protected before holding a second cam-
pus hearing.
However, at the ACLU's urging,
Judge Flaherty ordered Stanford to con-
duct the hearing and redetermine the
penalty before appeal, The Court of
Appeal affirmed that decision and
returned the case to Stanford.
According to staff attorney Margaret
Crosby, co-counsel for Franklin, `"This
is a very important ruling - and a real (c)
setback for Stanford, which attempted
to keep this case away from the univer-
sity community.
"In view of the fact that the court
found that the one speech which
_ from
Nominations ie:
ACLU members. Petitions for
nomination, which should also in-
clude qualifications, must be sub-
mitted to the Board of Directors by
May 1, 1980.
Current ACLU members are those
who have renewed their membership
during the last twelve months. Only
current members are eligible to sub-
mit nominations, sign petitions of
nomination, and vote.
ACLU members will elect Board
members from the slate of candi-
dates nominated by petition and by
the nominating committee. The bal-
lot will appear in a special May issue
of the ACLU News.
The following by-law governs the
-ACLU's Board of Directors nomina-
- school
Calendar
B-A-K
Wine and Cheese Party. Saturday,
April 12, 5-7 PM; All Souls Episco-
pal Church, Spruce and Cedar, Berk-
eley. Speaker: Congressman Ron
Dellums. $5.00 Donation.
preceded serious injury on campus was
constitutionally protected, the given pe-
nalty of dismissal was obviously inap-
propriate,' Crosby explained.
Co-counsel Alan Schlosser added,
"An ironic twist to this case is that in
order for Stanford to have Franklin
appear before the Advisory Board, they
will first have to lift the nine year ban
on his entering campus.
"The case arose from the strong anti-
war feeling among the university com-
munity -. and is returning to Stanford
at the very moment that student
activism is re-emerging around
opposition to the draft."
Deseereegation
In the latest round of California's
desegregation controversy,
Governor Jerry Brown vetoed SB 1244,
- Senator Alan Robbins' most recent
attempt to thwart school integration.
SB 1244 would provide that no Cal-
ifornia court could "`shift, ameliorate,
or modify" the plaintiff's burden of
proof in a school integration case,
making it virtually impossible to prove
segregation under the federal standard.
With the veto, Brown noted that the
Legislative Counsel had determined
that SB. 1244 was unconstitutional.
Brown also claimed that the bill would
"directly violate Proposition 1'' which,
as enacted by the voters last November,
requires California courts to apply
federal law in school desegregation
cases.
Senator Robbins immediately
responded that he would "ram the bill
down the Governor's throat'"' with a ve-.
to override.
Failing to gain enough Senate votes
after more than a week of pressure,
Robbins has announced that to get the
votes he "`plans a statewide compat
aimed at Brown himself.' a
The ACLU lobby, and other school
integration proponents, are working
hard in the legislature to make sure the
veto sticks.
ting process:
3. Recommendations and Nomi-
nations by Members of the Union.
Members of the Union shall have |
the right te suggest names for consid-
eration to the committee appointed
to nominate members-at-large to the
Board of Directors. Furthermore,
any fifteen or more members of the
Union in good standing may them-
selves submit a nomination to be in-
cluded among those voted upon by
the general membership by submit-
ting a written petition to the Board
not later than May Ist of each year.
No member of the Union may sign
more than one such petition and
each such nomination shall be ac-
companied by a summary of qualifi-
cations and the written consent of
the nominee. a