vol. 49, no. 2

Primary tabs

~ Volume XLIX :

March 1984

aclu news

No. 2

No Strip Searches for Jail Visitors

Random strip searching of visitors -

once routine practice at the Martinez jail

- is now prohibited as a result of a suc-

cessful ACLU challenge. On February 1,

`the Contra Costa County Board of

Supervisors approved a settlement which

outlines a new strip search policy and

provides monetary damages to two East .

Bay women who were victims of the

former strip search policy.

The ACLU filed its challenge to the

Contra Costa Detention Center's prac-

tice in 1982 on behalf of Karen Luke and

Shirley Banks. Luke was seven months -

pregnant when jail officials ordered that

she be strip searched before being al-

lowed to visit her inmate husband. Fear-

ing that the search might affect her un-

born child, Luke told jail officers that

she would rather forego the visit than

submit to the search.

At that point, a deputy placed Luke

under arrest and strip searched her. No

contraband was found as a result of the

search.

Shirley Banks was strip searched when

she went to visit an inmate on New

Year's Eve in 1981. Without her permis-

sion and without any grounds to believe

that she was carrying contraband, Banks

was forced to remove all her clothing and

submit to a body cavity search which in-

cluded squatting over a mirror. Again,

no contraband was found.

ACLU cooperating attorney Gary

Greenfield of the San Francisco law firm

of Shartsis, Friese and Greenfield said that

the new policy protects visitors' constitu-

tional rights to privacy.

"`No visitor may be strip searched

without reasonable suspicion to `believe

that she or he is concealing contraband

or weapons,'' Greenfield explained.

"In addition, prior to a strip search

Gay Group Has Right

to Boycott Coors |

In a summary judgment opinion

issued on February 17, U.S. District

Court Judge Spencer Williams ruled that

the efforts of Solidarity, a San Fran-

cisco-based gay rights organization, and

others to seek public support for a

boycott of Coors beer ``are constitu-

tionally protected by the First Amend-

ment,'' and that there is no basis for

Coors' $145,000 antitrust suit against the

boycott organizers.

The decision ended a lengthy and tur-

bulent lawsuit (Coors v. Wallace, et al.)

filed by the Adolph Coors Company

against Solidarity, the AFL-CIO Coors

Boycott Committee and its California

coordinators Howard Wallace and

David Sickler..The giant brewing com-

pany claimed that the defendants

violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by

conspiring to restrain trade and reduce

competition in the brewing industry by

promoting a boycott of Coors beer as a

protest against what they saw as the

company's unfair and discriminatory

labor practices and the use of profits for

right-wing causes.

ACLU-NC cooperating attorney Ar-

thur Brunwasser and staff attorney

Margaret Crosby represented Solidarity.

Union attorneys represented the boycott

~ committee and its agents.

The lawsuit grew out of what Judge

Williams termed the ``KQED incident."'

In 1981, the AFL-CIO Boycott Commit-

tee launched a successful effort to dis-

courage KQED television from holding a

special ``Coors Day"' as part of its an-

nual fundraising auction. A leaflet pro-

duced by Solidarity urging the boycott of

Coors products was brought by Howard

Wallace, a representative of the AFL-

CIO committee, to a meeting with

KQED officials. The event was subse-

quently canceled.

Judge Williams agreed with the

ACLU argument that the First Amend-

ment protects individuals and groups

who produce a publication from its use

by `others- "fo the -extent that

Solidarity's support aided Wallace's and

the boycott committee's efforts to dis-

suade KQED and Coors from holding

the planned `Coors Day,' and has sought

public support for the boycott among its

members and others in the community,

these efforts are constitutionally pro-

tected by the First Amendment,"''

Williams wrote in his opinion.

"`fOjne's right to engage in, or en-

courage, the maintenance of a consumer

boycott is functionally equivalent to the

First Amendment right to petition even

though the message contained within

that petition is not directed at a govern-

ment agency, official or policy,"'

he added.

As for the antitrust claim, Williams

noted, ``Even having shown [that there

was a Sales decline as a result of the

boycott], Coors would still, at best, be a

step removed from having shown an

anti-competitive effect on the national :

beer market, since it is well established

that the antitrust laws protect competi-

tion, not competitors."'

According to ACLU attorney Brun-

wasser, ``Antitrust suits brought against

community groups joining consumer

boycotts threaten to chill the exercise of

First Amendment rights. Judge Wil-

continued on p. 4 -

ichael Miller

Shirley Banks, strip search victim, and attorney Alan Schlosser, announcing the

ACLU challenge to strip searches of visitors at the Martinez Jail.

being conducted the visitor must be ad-

vised that she can refuse to be searched

and allowed to leave the jail."'

To ensure the policy is enforced, the

settlement stipulates that a visitor must

sign a Consent to Search Form agreeing

to be strip searched and the person

authorizing the search must put in writ-

`ten form the grounds for the search.

"The results of each strip search must

be documented and maintained in the of-

continued on p. 6

Victory in Medi-Cal

Abortion Fund Suit

he anti-choice efforts of the Deuk-

mejian Administration were de-

railed once again when the state

Court of Appeal ruled on January 24

that Medi-Cal funding for abortion must

continue despite attempts by the Legisla-

ture and Department of Health Services

officials to stop it.

Earlier in January, ACLU-NC staff

attorney Margaret Crosby had been

forced to file an application for con-

tempt and for a supplemental stay order

when Department of Health Services

Director Peter Rank suddenly stopped

certifying Medi-Cal claims for abortion

services. Rank, who issued a press re-

- lease on January 6 stating that he could

no longer certify claims because the

special fund set up by the Legislature for

Medi-Cal abortions had been exhausted,

claimed that he was uncertain of his legal

authority to pay for abortions from

general Medi-Cal funds despite the

Court's July 27 action prohibiting the

implementation of any funding re-

strictions.

In response, the Court of Appeal

unanimously ruled that legislative restric-

tions on the use of Medi-Cal funds for

abortion are illegal and the funding must

continue from the general appropriation

for health care services.

`*The Legislature is now attempting to

accomplish the same result, i.e., limiting _

funds available for abortions, through

the device of setting up a separate,

limited fund for abortions and thereby

achieving indirectly what it is prohibited

from achieving directly,' the Court

stated.

"If this court approved the Legisla-

ture's device, we would be in violation

[of the law] since we would be respecting

form over substance."'

The coust issued a peremptory writ

prohibiting state officials from enforcing

the unconstitutional restrictions on

Medi-Cal funding for abortion con-

tained in the 1983 Budget Act. The court

declined to punish Rank with contempt

but ordered him immediately to certify

all provider. claim$afor Medi-Cal abor-

tion reimbursement.

The Deukmejian Administration com-

plied with the court order - resuming

abortion payments that had been stalled

for 2 weeks - and announced that it

would seek review of the ruling in the

California Supreme Court.

According to Crosby, ``This decision

sends a message to the Legislature that

the courts will not abandon their duty to

protect poor women's reproductive

rights. The court bluntly says that, what-

ever the form, legislation designed to

terminate Medi-Cal funding for abortion

will be struck qown."'

@ aclu. news

| march 1984

~ Resurrectin

by Dorothy Ehrlich

ACLU-NC Executive Director

campaign for reelection may in

large part be waged on the civil

liberties battlefield. At least that was the

message he delivered on Day Number

One of his campaign trail.

- Turning the clock back to the popular

slogans that secured his 1980 victory,

Reagan pledged that during his next term

he would ban abortion, return prayer

(and ``God and discipline') to the

schools, and provide for tougher laws

against pornography.

In the President's January 30 speech,

which was peppered with prayer and

biblical quotations, he also found room

to directly attack the ACLU.

Perna Ronald Reagan's 1984

Responding to the ACLU's criticism -

of his declaration of 1983 as the Year of

the Bible, he said, ``I wear their indict-

ment like a badge of honor.'"

An appropriate comment for the

group he addressed - 4000 national

religious broadcasters - for they had

surely come to hear the President with

some questions about where their

erstwhile champion now stood.

As a Self-identified leading force in the

election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 (re-.

member the ``Moral Majority''?) they

believed that their anti-civil liber-

ties agenda was ``their'' President's

agenda too. ~ |

But after four years, there is not much

to show for it. No new federal anti-

abortion laws were passed; no prayer in

the school amendments got through

Congress; no mechanism to enforce

chastity - like the short-lived squeal rule

- remained intact; even the jargon

about co-equal treatment of creationism

in science classes became a_ distant

memory... ;

At best, these anti-civil liberties forces

and their allies in government were able

only to maintain the status quo: abortion

_ funding is still denied to women who rely

on federal support; the ERA has been

blocked once again; and book bannings

continue on a local level. |

But when was the last time you heard

the Moral Majority claim a victory?

Have they lost confidence in the presi-

dent they took credit for electirig? ~

For the Moral Majority's President

had turned the focus of his administra-

tion's attention to another, more visible,

agenda - foreign policy/defense and

war, and the economy/inflation and

taxes. He took on a direct civil liberties

attack too - with his treacherous

behind-the-scenes campaigns to disman-

tle the civil rights enforcement machinery

and, through Executive Order, to erect a

wall of secrecy on government informa-

tion condemning generations to of-

ficial misinformation and _ ultimately,

powerlessness.

But while all of these issues represent

vital civil liberties interests, they are not

exactly what the Moral Majority had in

mind when they welcomed Ronald Rea-

gan to the White House.

Thus it is not surprising that in an elec-

tion year we witness a resurrection of

those ideals which this administration

had put on the shelf - but not forgot-

ten. This incumbent candidate does not

want to lose his loyal foot soldiers in the

midst of an election year. And what

hastens the troops to battle more avidly

than a common enemy?

g the Moral

fr~

Majo

rity v. the A

_ A Future for

Civil Liberties

. For 50 years the ACLU of Northern Cali-

fornia has fought to defend the Constitu-

tion and the Bill of Rights. Through the

pages of history - red-baiting, vigilantes,

WW Il internment camps, HUAC, the Free

Speech Movement, Vietnam, civil rights,

the women's movement, gay rights and .

more - the ACLU has pioneered the fight

for individual liberties.

And what about the next 50 years? Will

the ACLU be as strong, as dedicated, as

effective?

You can do something now to insure

that the ACLU will continue to fight - and

win - ten, twenty, and fifty years from

now, through a simple addition to your

will.

Every year thoughtful civil libertarians

have, through their bequests, provided

`important support for the ACLU. In 1984,

interest income alone earned by these be-

quests, will contribute over $35,000.

Making a bequest is simple: you need

only specify a dollar gift or a portion of

your estate for the American Civil Liberties

Union Foundation of Northern California,

AG.

If you need information about writing a

will or want additional information, consult

your attorney or write: Bequests, ACLU

Foundation of Northern California, 1663

Mission St., San Francisco 94103.

Responding to ACLU criticism, President Reagan said,

"I wear their indictment like a badge of honor."

The President's script calls for the

ACLU to enter. For what better enemy -

to target than an organization which has

managed to preserve the Bill of Rights.

through some extraordinary: battles with

this administration. Witness the presi-

dential nomination of Ed Meese, who

branded the ACLU a "`criminals' lobby" _

in the last smear campaign, to the highest -

legal office in the land.

Unfinished Battles

Fortunately, such attempts to discredit

the ACLU have not succeeded in thwart- -

ing our effectiveness in defending civil

liberties interests in Congress

at home.

- ACLU Legislative Director John

Shattuck reports, ``With varying degrees

of success, Congress in 1983 resisted the

President's effort to dominate the Civil

Rights Commission; blocked his pro-

posal to require lie detectors and secrecy

agreements to muzzle federal workers;

challenged his expenditure of funds for

covert operations in Nicaragua; refused

to allow him to defund and dismantle the

Legal Services Corporation; prevented

_him from implementing a regulation to

curtail the First Amendment rights of

organizations and individuals receiving

federal funds; rejected his effort to

legislate a system of tuition tax credits

for private and parochial schools - and

declined to enact other Administration

and

proposed measures damaging to abor-

tion rights, immigration, freedom of

information and criminal law."'

Much of this success is due to intensive

organizing by civil rights and civil liber-

ties activists throughout the country.

Close cooperation among allies has

created a significant and powerful voice

in Congress.

ACLU members in northern Califor-

nia, through the Field Program's Task

Forces and 16 chapters (see activities on

p. 8), have played a major role in taking

action to secure these victories.

The script the President is unfolding

brings ACLU activists even closer to

center stage. And as the election year

script plays out, ACLU-NC's strength

will be tested, not just by name-calling,

but by ever more serious calls to action.

Crosby Honored

ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby was honored by the Alameda-

San Francisco Planned Parenthood

for ``her outstanding commitment

and contribution to maintaining

reproductive freedom in California."'

In presenting Crosby with the

award, Kate Kristenien, President of

Planned Parenthood's Board of

Directors, cited her work in maintain-

ing Medi-Cal funding for abortion,

challenging the ban on late abortions

of the Therapeutic Abortion Act, and

providing expert counsel to state

legislative bodies on parental consent,

notification and other measures that

would erode abortion rights.

``We applaud you for your genuine

willingness to assist wherever possible

in maintaining equality in reproduc-

tive health care for all Californians,"'

Kristenien told Crosby.

Crosby was honored on January 26

at the Planned Parenthood annual.

meeting. Also awarded was KPIX

Editorial Director Suzanne Guyette.

Elaine Elinson, Editor

aclu news

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

Davis Riemer, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director {

Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page iz |

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040) :

1663 Mission St., 4th floor, San Francisco, California 94103. (415) 621-2488

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

L and 50 cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

CLU

Court Lifts Ban

on Mall Cam

tion drive.

Nuclear Freeze campaigners and

others-who were being denied access to

the Santa Rosa Plaza Shopping Center

for leafletting and registering voters are

now back on the mall as the result of a

superior court order issued in an ACLU

lawsuit.

Santa Rosa Plaza is the largest en-

closed mall in Sonoma County contain-

ing 99 stores and occupying six square

blocks in central Santa Rosa. The new

management of the mall issued rules in

January prohibiting any political group

from leafletting or approaching shoppers

to discuss issues. The mall management

went to court on January 12 seeking an

order to severely restrict the Freeze free

speech activities on its premises.

In response to the Plaza, ACLU-NC

cooperating attorney Marylou Hillberg

filed a counter-suit on January 25 in

Sonoma County Superior Court. The

ACLU suit sought to immediately enjoin

the Plaza from imposing their burden-:

some rules which substantially interfere

with the ability of the political groups

to communicate with the public at

the Plaza.

Hillberg characterized the Plaza's

rules as ``a flagrant disregard for Cali-

fornia's consitutional principles which

have repeatedly denied private owners'

attempts to unduly restrict free speech on

shopping center property.

On February 1, Superior Court Judge

William Betenelli agreed with the ACLU

and knocked out the Plaza's restrictions

on the political campaigners. A Tem-

porary. Restraining Order was issued

allowing the Freeze campaigners and

others to use the mall. A hearing on a

preliminary injunction was

February 22.

The groups represented in the ACLU-

NC cross-complaint are the Sonoma

County Nuclear Weapons Freeze Cam-

paign, the Northern California Freeze

Voter 84, a federally registered Political

Action Group, and. the Petaluma

Democratic Club.

Town Square

According to Jacques Levy, Chair of

the Freeze Campaign and a 30-year resi-

dent of Stant Rosa, ``Because Santa

Rosa Plaza serves so much as our `town

set for.

paigners

Members of the Sonoma County Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign had to go to

court to gain access to the Santa Rosa Plaza for their anti-nuclear leafletting and peti-

square,' and because it is part of our

downtown core urban renewal project

subsidized by taxpayers' tunds, Santa

Rosans and others view it as a natural

gathering place.

``We deem it crucial to our rights as

free Americans to have a continuing

presence there. We also expect to collect

a substantial portion of our 36,000

Freeze Voter force by being the one

shopping center that most Sonoma

County residents will visit in the course

Of a year.

- ACLU-NC

Schlosser, who has successfully litigated

more than a dozen suits against shopping

centers' attempts to limit free speech ac-

tivity, said that the rules issued by the

Santa Rosa Plaza management are some

of the most restrictive on the books.

They include a ban on activity between

Thanksgiving and Christmas and during

the two weeks prior to Easter, a ban on

activity during the weekends and on

weekday evenings, a rule that no more

than one group may use the shopping

center at a time, and a limit of one activi-

ty during a six-month period for any

political group.

In addition, campaigners may not

leaflet or solicit funds from shoppers,

and activists may not move more than

10 feet from the table to approach

shoppers.

Levy explained that these burdensome

regulations would make the anti-nuclear

and voter registration groups' efforts

totally ineffective. ``Our principal

method of operation is to send

volunteers to places where large numbers

of persons congregate so that we may in-

form them of our goal of making a

bilateral, verifiable nuclear weapons

freeze a key determining factor when

they vote for President and Congress in

the 1984 elections. We want to give them

the opportunity to join us and to register

if they are not yet registered voters."'

Levy said that to be restricted to only

one activity in six months, or only during

`daylight hours on weekdays would cause

the campaign irreparable harm because

many people can only shop in the even-

ings or on weekends.

`*It would be equally damaging for us

to be excluded on the grounds that only ~

one group can be in the Plaza at any

staff attorney Alan

Payment in

aclu news .,

march 1984 0x00B0

Police Bookstore Raid

An ACLU lawsuit against the San

Francisco Police Department for a

police raid on the Libertarian Book-

store resulted in an $8000 payment

from the City of San Francisco to the

Libertarian Party in January.

The lawsuit was filed by ACLU-NC 0x00B0

staff attorney Amitai Schwartz in

federal district court after the October

1981 raid. According to the ACLU law-

suit, in the course of a police search of

the bookstore, which houses the Liber-

tarian Party headquarters and its news-

paper, members of the SFPD Narcotics

Squad ransacked the back room of the

premises, confiscated and destroyed par-

ty membership lists, pulled books and

periodicals from shelves, and overturned

file cabinets. :

In 1978 and 1979, the Libertarian

Party sponsored city-wide initiatives

calling on the Police Department to

cease enforcement of marijuana laws

and asking for the abolition of the vice

squad. At the time of the raid, the Li-

bertarians were formulating a city-wide

police review board initiative.

_ The raid was in retaliation for political

efforts against the police, the ACLU

lawsuit charged.

Schwartz said that the settlement

represents a significant deterrent to

future abusive searches by the police.

``We are very happy with the settle-

ment,'' Schwartz said. ``Although it is

very difficult to put a financial price on

the First Amendment rights that were

violated by the search, the settlement is a

vindication in that the Party has been

compensated for the damage that occur-

red. Hopefully, the police will think

twice before they raid another bookstore

in San Francisco."'

The raid was carried out after a

judge issued a warrant on an under-

cover police officer's representation

that he bought one ounce of marijuana

from an individual who was renting of-

fice space within the bookstore. (Pos-

session of one ounce is presently pun-

ishable by a $100 fine.) All persons pre-

sent in the bookstore and Party offices

during the search were arrested, but all

charges were eventually dropped after

a San Francisco Municipal Court

judge ruled the search warrant had been

illegally obtained.

time. The Plaza covers from six to seven

city blocks and can easily accomodate

many groups at one time,'' he said,

noting that other shopping centers in

Santa Rosa designate numerous areas for

political protected activites.

"Santa Rosa Plaza is the only major

enclosed shopping mall that is deliberate-

ly obstructing our activities,"' said Levy,

"with their Alice in Wonderland rules

they are effectively tearing up the Bill

of Rights."'

No Complaints

In 1982,- ACLU attorneys Hillberg,

Schlosser and Martin Fassler were suc-

cessful in obtaining an injunction against

the previous owners of Santa Rosa Plaza

who were also attempting to restrict the

expressive activities of political cam-

paigners. Since then, the Freeze group

and others have been operating at the

center without incident. No complaints

had ever been raised by the management

against their activities of leafletting,

`gathering signatures, selling buttons and

bumper stickers and soliciting donations.

Schlosser added, ``In spite of the

California Supreme Court's 1979 deci-

sion clearly upholding the right of free

speech in shopping centers (Robins y.

Pruneyard Shopping Center), political

activists are still confronted by hostility.

and burdensome and unconstitutional

rules at many shopping centers in

this state.

``The ACLU remains committed to

fighting these restrictions in court so that

Californians can actually enjoy the rights.

articulated by the Supreme Court five

years ago,"' Schlosser said.

Correction

Lola Hanzel Advocacy Award winner

Eileen Keech asked us to correct an item

in last month's ACLU News by clari-

fying that Diane Joy (Schroerluke) set up

and ran the Police Conduct Complaint

Center during the period when the

Berkeley Chapter had a storefront office

in the 1960's.

Name

Reproached by Reagan,

Maligned by Meese...

Join the ACLU

Address

City

U Individual $20

Zip

L] Joint $30

and an additional contribution of $

L This is a gift membership from

Return to ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St., S.F. 94103

4 aclu news

march 1984

_ Appeal in Cop Libel Suit |

Against Reporters

On February 6 the fourth floor court

room in the California State Building

was crowded with journalists and media-

philes when ACLU-NC cooperating at-

torney Arthur Brunwasser stepped for-

ward to argue that a $1.6 million libel

Judgment against two reporters should

be reversed. :

The seven figure libel judgment

against Raul Ramirez and Lowell Berg-

man, awarded by a San Francisco jury

in 1979, was the result of a suit brought

by two city police officers and a former

Assistant District Attorney against the

reporters and the San Francisco Ex-

aminer because of a series of articles

published in 1976 about a controversial

Chinatown murder trial. The Examiner

articles reported that the three city of-

ficials had persuaded witnesses to give

false testimony in a case in which a

19-year old Chinese youth was con-

victed. eo

In addition to the $780,000 judgments

against each reporter, the Examiner was

ordered to pay $3 million in libel

damages for the series.

"The ACLU is representing Bergman

_and Ramirez,'' said ACLU-NC staff at-

torney Margaret Crosby who is handling (c)

the appeal with Brunwasser, ``because

the case raises very important First

Amendment issues and strikingly docu-

ments the potential of libel suits for chill-

ing inquiry into public affairs.''

At. the hearing, Brunwasser told the

appellate court, ``The evidence shows

`that two investigative reporters pursued

an elusive story for 18 months with ex-

treme diligence, to assure that an inno-

cent youth would not be wrongfully in-

carcerated for life for a crime which he

did not commit.

BOYCOLE crincsions.:

liams' opinion, by putting a mantle of

constitutional privilege on boycott sup-

porters, affords significant legal protec-

tion to consumer activists."'

During the course of the suit, Coors

sought to obtain private membership and

financial information from Solidarity. In

December 1982, a district court

magistrate ruled that Solidarity must

provide the company with the names of -

all members who had been active in

boycott efforts, the identities of con-

tributors to Solidarity, minutes of

Solidarity's meetings and other informa-

tion concerning the group and its ac-

tivities.

Coors. also asked for, and was

granted, reimbursement for the cost of

asking the magistrate for a ruling on the

constitutional issues of privacy and

associational freedom. The ACLU-NC

had refused to turn over Solidarity's

records without a court order.

``We felt that this probe represented a

real threat to associational freedom,"'

Crosby explained. ``People won't join

controversial organizations if they feel'

threatened in this way. Gay rights groups

are the type of organizations particularly

in need of this protection - as persons:

who disclose their homosexuality often

lose their jobs or even custody of their

children.-Society continues to discrimin-

ate,'' she said.

In June 1983, Judge Williams agreed

"Ramirez had voluminous notes to

explain whom he interviewed and why he

did what he did,"' said Brunwasser, ``yet

the trial court judge did not even allow

him to present his full testimony in

court."

The court must address an essential

issue, Brunwasser noted: were the defen-

dants acting in good faith in writing the

stories or did they do so in reckless dis-

regard of the truth.

""The court must make a thorough re-

view of the mental processes of those

who wrote the articles," .said Brun-

wasser, ``as the courts have held for over

100 years that a defendant must be af-

forded the fullest latitude in showing

good faith in publication."'

Brunwasser argued that during the

6-week libel trial in San Francisco

Superior Court with Judge Clayton W.

Horn presiding, the reporters attempted

to introduce extensive evidence concern-

ing the depth of their investigation.

However, much testimony was blocked

by the trial court.

Arguing that the police officers, Frank

McCoy and Edward Erdelatz Jr., and

former Assitant District Attorney Pierre

Merle had failed to prove that the articles

were false, and that the record fails to

disclose that the reporters knew the ar-

ticles were false, the ACLU is asking for

a reversal of the libel judgement and a

ruling that the news stories were pro-

tected by the First Amendment.

When the series in question was

published, Ramirez was on the staff of

the Examiner and Bergman was a free-

lance writer wo collaborated with him on

the story. Ramirez is now a reporter with

the Oakland Tribune and Bergman is a

television producer with CBS's Sixty

Minutes.

and remanded the case back to the

magistrate to be reconsidered in the light

of the compelling privacy issue. "`Indeed,

if membership in the Republican Party is

deemed inviolably private, then member- -

ship in a far less popular and far more

fragile association should be afforded at

least a similar level of protection,'' Judge

Williams wrote in his June 8 ruling.

Coors' attempt to obtain membership

information was held in abeyance pend-

ing the outcome of the summary judg-

ment motions (argued in August 1983.)

Because of Judge Williams' ruling this

month, Solidarity's lists will not

be disclosed. Soe

I. F. STONE

Washington's Muckraker Laureate

Michael Miller

Veteran muckraker I.F. Stone, who has witnessed and illuminated civil liberties

battles for decades, launched the ACLU-NC's fiftieth anniversary year at a January

reception at the Steven Wirtz Gallery in San Francisco. The reception, organized by

Board member Frances Strauss, drew 150 ACLU members and supporters, including

many who had crossed paths with Stone over the years. In an informal question-and-

answer style, rich with history, philosophy and personal anecdotes, Stone spoke of

_press censorship during the Grenada invasion, the Reagan administration's adulation

of secrecy, and the vital need for the ACLU. Stone even offered advice to those who

are starting out as reporters (``Read, see, think, study, be curious, learn history and

economics, and don't know everything before you start!'') and gained a huge round

of applause when asked when he was going to start up /.F. Stone's Weekly again.

_ Letters

As a lifelong member of ACLU, I

would like to commend the Board of

ACLU-NC for the development of its

evenhanded policy on ``Guidelines for -

Religious Meetings of Students in Ele-

mentary and Secondary Public School."'

While being on guard about those

_ religious zealots who wish to cram their

version of God down everybody's

throats, I believe that, on the other hand,

some strict constructionists of separation

of church and state actually wish to place

the state in an adversary position re-

garding expression of religious belief. It

seems to me that ACLU-NC's policy

carefully and appropriately delineates a

proper neutrality on the part of local

school districts regarding religious

expression, and, in doing so, protects the

rights of both those students who choose

- and who do not choose - to explore

those values in the company of others.

They tackled a difficult but important

issue, and I would like to commend the

Board for a job well done.

Lorenz Schultz, Pastor

Davis United Methodist Church

Davis

The ACLU-NC Guidelines for Reli-

gious Meetings of Students in Elemen-

tary and Secondary Public School were

published in full in the ACLU News

January-February 1984. -Ed.

*I am a 24-year member of the ACLU

and will always support it because of its

vital role in protecting our civil liberties

from the ``establishment.'' But I take

great exception to Tiempo Latino's

defamation of Quentin Kopp for his

stand on the elimination of Spanish and

Chinese election materials from San

Francisco voters.

I would hope that immigrants would

take pride in having the good fortune to

be living in the USA, and would learn

English as rapidly as possible so as to en-

joy our culture to the fullest as well as to

take part in it to the fullest. This does not

negate the values and satisfaction to be

derived from enjoying cultural events

and the language and music and

literature of the lands from which our

forebears came.

By no means should we discourage

people from taking their full place as

U.S. citizens by providing them with

election materials printed in languages

other than English.

Last but not least, I object to the

epithet ``racist'' and I don't blame Quen-

tin Kopp for suing Tiempo Latino.

Quentin Lopp was acting in accord with

the opinion of the majority of San Fran-

ciscans when he authored Proposition O

as evidenced by the fact that the proposi-

tion was passed by the voters.

Perhaps Quentin Kopp's suit will serve

to tighten up peoples' use of such

epithets and bring more considered ac-

tion. The ACLU can take any action that

it wants and I'll still support it.

Lenore M. Bravo

`San Francisco

As reported in the October 1983 issue

of the ACLU News, Tiempo

Latino published several articles in which

it characterized Proposition O as a racist

measure as it discriminated against per-

sons who need - and are required by

Jederal law to receive - language assis-

tance at the polls. Tiempo Latino never

called Quentin Kopp, the author of the

proposition, a racist. Nonetheless, Super- -

visor Kopp threatened to sue the small

community paper for defamation.

*indicates letter has been shortened for

space.

Jail Buggings Halted

The San Mateo Sheriff Department's

practice of covert electronic monitoring

and recording of conversations between

jail inmates and their visitors, as well as

conversations between inmates in their

cells, has been stopped by a consent

decree signed by San Mateo Superior

Court Judge Gerald E. Ragan as a result

of an eight year ACLU lawsuit.

The January 25 decree was hailed by

ACLU-NC attorney Alan Schlosser as a

`landmark ruling for the privacy rights

of jail inmates and their visitors.''

""The practice of electronic monitoring

of jail conversations is commonplace in

jails around the state and the nation,"'

Schlosser said. ``Yet this indiscriminate

monitoring and tape recording..of,,con-

versations in jails is a substantial

deprivation of privacy, particularly since

it has been directed at private conversa-

tions between inmates and families."'

Schlosser explained that until the Cali-

fornia Supreme Court's.1982 decision in

this case (De Lancie v.:MeDonald) that

this practice violates the*civil rights of

prisoners, no court in the country had

provided any protections against this

practice. `"The consent decree, and the

new policies adopted by the San Mateo

Jail, provide the first implementation of

the new legal standard that such moni-

toring is impermissible if its purpose is to

gather incriminating evidence. It will

now be allowed only if jail officials can

establish that the monitoring is necessary

`for jail security,'' he added.

This kind of prisoner surveillance first

came to light in the course of the Patty

Hearst trial when San Mateo Sheriff

John McDonald testified that recording

prisoners' conversations with visitors

was routine practice at the jail.

The ACLU filed suit in 1976 on behalf

of a pre-trial detainee at the jail, his

wife, an attorney and three San Mateo

taxpayers.

`Orwellian' Position

Though the superior court originally.

dismissed many of the claims, in 1979 the

state Court of Appeal, agreeing with

ACLU arguments, ruled that the Cali-

fornia Constitution's guarantee of

privacy extends to jailhouse conversa-

tions. That decision reversed 20 years of (c)

U.S. and California judicial precedents.

- In the majority opinion, Presiding

Justice John T. Racanelli stated, `"The

detained citizen does not automatically

forefeit his basic rights as soon as the

jailhouse door clangs shut."'

Justice Racanelli's opinion called

Indian Woman to Be Free

t a press conference at San Francisco's American Indian Center, Gayla Twiss, Amy

f Richard McCauley |

Deer and Diane Williams (1. to r.) express community support for the release of

Eileen Rock Lowe.

On February 13, the Western Regional

Office of the U.S. Parole Commission

reversed an earlier decision and an-

nounced that Eileen Rock Lowe, a

35-year old Oklahoma Indian who was

sentenced to life imprisonment for kid-

napping a baby after a series of miscar-

riages and stillbirths, would be released

on June 1. :

_ Lowe is imprisoned at the Federal

Correctional Institution in Pleasanton

and has spent eight years in federal

prison. In 1976 in New Mexico, in a state

of distress after a series of miscarriages,

she took another woman's baby. She

took the baby home with her to Texas

and kept it for two days. The baby was

returned to the family unharmed. Lowe

was charged with the federal offense of

kidnapping across state lines and

sentenced to life.

Last October, with the support of

prison officials, the family of the child,

and the original prosecutor, Lowe re-''

ceived a presidential grant of clemency

making her eligible for immediate

parole. Despite the presidential grant,

and Lowe's exemplary prison record, she

was denied parole last December.

Calling on the Parole Commission to

"`adhere to its own rules,'' ACLU of

Southern California attorney Mark

~ Rosenbaum filed an appeal on behalf of

Lowe on February 3.

The presidential grant of clemency,

issued in the name of President Reagan,

stated, ``[C]urrent U.S. Parole Commis-

sion guidelines, which indicate the

customary range of time to be served

before release from prison for various

combinations of offense (severity) and

offender characteristics, suggest that a

range of from 40 to 52 months imprison-

ment would be appropriate... for

Lowe."'

Lowe had already served 93 months,

or more than twice as much time as in-

dicated.

At a press conference on February 9 at _

`San Francisco's

American Indian

Center, Rosenbaum joined Indian com-

munity activists Kathy Youngbear,

Gayla Twiss, Amy Deer and Diane Wil-

liams in calling for Lowe's release. Ac-

cording to reporters following the case,

the Parole Commission was ``besieged

with phone calls'' follwing the press con-

ference.

The Parole Board's reversal was an-

nounced four days later.

After her June release, Lowe plans to

attend a southern California college to

complete her studies in paramedic train-

ing, Williams said.

"Orwellian'' the position of San Mateo

officials that ``every detained citizen has

no right to private conversation with

anyone other than counsel."'

After the state appealed, the Cali-

fornia Supreme Court agreed to hear the

case. In 1982, the high court ruled that

private conversations of detainees can be

monitored and recorded only for security

purposes and not as a means of acquir-

ing evidence for prosecutors.

That decision reinstated the suit and

sent it back to the San Mateo Superior

- Court for resolution.

The Superior Court decree institutes a

Policy for Monitoring Inmate-Visitor

Conversations which goes into effect im-

mediately at the San Mateo Jail.

The new policy states that random

monitoring or monitoring for purposes

other than institutional security of con-

versations involving inmates and their

visitors will not be allowed.

To ensure compliance with the new

practice, a jail offical must document in

writing that each instance of monitoring

or tape recording of an inmate-visitor

conversation is necessary for the security

of the jail. This information must

be verified and approved by the

jail sergeant. .

Moreover, the Policy establishes strict

aclu news

march 1984

restraints on the disclosure of the con-

tents of jailhouse conversations

to anyone outside the Sheriff's De-

partment.

A permanent injunction was issued

preventing any jail authority from

monitoring or tape recording inmate

conversations over any telephone or any

conversation between an inmate and his

or her attorney, religious advisor

or doctor.

A second set of guidelines, the Policy

for Monitoring of Inmate Conversa-

tions, was also established by the court

order. It prohibits the monitoring of

conversations between jail inmates in

their cells for the purpose of gathering

evidence to be used in a criminal pro-

secution. :

This monitoring too must be justified

as necessary for jail security in writing by

a jail official.

ACLU attorney Schlosser said, ``In

light of the Supreme Court decision,

these legal standards are binding on all

jails in California. The policies adopted

by San Mateo should be a model for jails

throughout the rest of the state."'

Palo Alto attorney Thomas C. Nolan

and University of Santa Clara law pro-

fessor Dorothy Glancy joined Schlosser

as co-counsel in this case.

Defeat for

Anti-Choice Laws

` by Daphne Macklin

ACLU Legislative Advocate

California pro-choice supporters de-

feated all but two of the eleven anti-

abortion measures introduced in the

Legislature last year. The authors of

three anti-choice measures withdrew

their bills from policy committees with-

out hearings, essentially allowing them

to die without action. Four other bills

failed passage in the Assembly Health |

and Judiciary committees last spring.

The two remaining Assembly bills

failed passage in the Assembly

Judiciary and Assembly Health com-

mittees shortly before the January an- -

niversary of the historic Roe v. Wade

decision.

. As of press time, only two bills re-

main: AB 709 (Montoya) which would

require hospitals, clinics and other

licensed health care facilities which

provide abortion services to post

notices informing employees of their

rights to refuse to participate in abor-

tion procedures on the basis of their

personal beliefs, and SB 245 (Speraw)

requiring that school district employees

have written parental permission be-

fore granting an excused absence to a

minor pupil who is going during school

hours to a clinic or hospital for contra-

ception or abortion.

The Speraw bill passed the Senate

but has been indefinitely delayed by the

efforts of pro-choice lobbying activity.

But it is instructive to look at the

legislative history of Montoya's anti-

choice bill to see what it takes to de-

fend reproductive rights in Sacramen-

to's inner sanctums. :

The proposal is among the more sub-

tle and vicious attacks on the free exer-

cise of reproductive choice pro-

pounded by the so-called Right-to-

Lifers. Not only would the measure in-

crease hospital costs in a frivolous

manner, but it would also serve to

undermine a patient's confidence in

her medical care during what is already

a traumatic emotional experience. In

addition, the notice requirement would

clearly serve to provoke, if not fuel,

conflicts between medical personnel

whose cooperation and collegiality are

essential to quality medical services.

How SB 709 managed to barely pass

out of the Senate Health Committee is

a classic example-of a miscue by a

usually trustworthy pro-choice legisla-

tor. During Senator Joseph Montoya's

presentation of the bill, Senator Her-

schel Rosenthal suggested that SB 709

be amended to require that notices only

be posted in areas where access is

limited to medical personnel. Rosen-

thal later left the hearing room before

all testimony on the measure was pre-

sented. Montoya amerided the bill in-

corporating Senator Rosenthal's

recommendation. With the author's

amendments the bill fell one vote short

of passage on the first committee

roll call.

As a procedural measure the bill was

placed ``on call,'' which meant that a

final vote would not be recorded until

the committee adjourned. During the

call, Montoya approached Rosenthal

who was in another committee and in-

formed him of the amendment (hear-

ings often conflict during deadline

periods). Rosenthal gave an ``aye''

vote, typically granted as a courtesy

under these circumstances.

vided the anti-choice forces a strong

vehicle in the hands of a skilled author.

SB 709 having passed out of the

Senate, will probably be referred to the

Assembly Health committee. As the

measure appears modest and relatively

unintrusive, committee members who

continued on/p. 7

Unfor-

tunately, Rosenthal's vote also pro-

ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1984.batch 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

aclu-news (c)

' march 1984

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Death Law Case

``Proportionality review of death

sentences is a guarantor of even-

handedness - a barrier set up to en-

sure that death sentences are not arbi-

trary and are given only to the most

serious offenders. We are disappointed

that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled |

in Pulley vy. Harris that the federal

Constitution does not require propor-

tionality review in all death cases,"'

said State Public Defender Michael

Millman.

``However,'' Millman emphasized,

"this decision does not mean that an

execution in the Harris case is

imminent."'

Millman was speaking at a press con-

ference at the ACLU-NC offices in re-

sponse to the U.S. Supreme Court's

January 23 decision that San Quentin

Death Row inmate Robert Alton Har-

ris is not entitled under the federal

Constitution to proportionality review

of his death sentence.

92)

The 7-2 high court decision in Pulley

v. Harris reversed the October 1982

judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals which held that California

courts must review sentences handed

down in similar crimes before sentenc-

ing a defendant to death.

The Supreme Court opinion noted

that the California Supreme Court was

free to consider Harris' claim of

disproportionality under state law if it

were so inclined.

``The California Supreme Court has

in the past undertaken review of

criminal sentences under the authority

of the California Constitution,'' Mill-

man explained, ``either at the defen-

dant's. request or on its own motion, to

determine whether the penalty imposed

was disproportionate to the offense for

which the defendant was convicted."'

Therefore, Harris may also seek.

state court review of his sentence un-

der the California Constitution, Mill-

man added.

``Thirty-four of the other thirty-six

capital sentencing jurisdictions in the

Peggy Sarasohn

Peggy Sarasohn, an active member

-of the San Francisco Chapter Board

of Directors for more than a decade,

died on February 11.

Sarasohn had a long history of in-

volvement with civil liberties causes.

According to ACLU-NC Board mem-

ber Linda Weiner who served with

Sarasohn on the chapter board,

`*Peggy's concern with civil liberties

was sharpened by her experience dur-

ing the McCarthy era when friends'

and colleagues' lives were ruined by

redbaiting and government miscon-

duct. She inspired many of us to in-

sure that such activities never take

place again. |

"She had unlimited energy and

dedication,'' Weiner said. ``A creative

and reliable worker, Peggy generously |

contributed her time and efforts to the

ACLU."

Weiner noted that it was Sarasohn

who recruited her and many others to,

serve as chapter board members and

ACLU-NC volunteers. ``The many

activists who currently work with the

~ACLU-NC will remain as her valu-

able and continuing contribution to

the organization."'

State Public Defender Michael Millman and ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy

Michael Miller

_Ehrlich respond to the U.S. Supreme Court's death penalty ruling.

United States undertake proportion-

ality review of death sentences,'' said

ACLU-NC executive director Dorothy

Ehrlich at the press - conference.

`*Therefore this decision should not be

seen aS a major setback nationally.'

It will, however, seriously affect

California and Texas, she noted.

`*This decision strips away one more

procedure which could help protect

against the freakish application of the

death penalty. It is disheartening to

find the highest court would require

less,'' Ehrlich said.

Millman said that Harris' case will

now be returned to the federal court

district in San Diego for futher hear-

ings, previously ordered by the Ninth

Circuit, on the denial of his motion for:

change of venue and on his challenge

to the arbitrary and discriminatory ap-

plication of `the death penalty - issues

which are separate from proportion-

ality review.

~The ACLU-NC has been a friend of

the court throughout Harris' appeal

process. Harris is represented by the

State Public Defenders Office and San

Diego attorney Michael McCabe. For

the 1982 hearing before the Ninth Cir-

cuit,

amicus brief with the State Public

Defenders' Office in support of Harris'

petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The brief was prepared by public

defenders Michael Millman, Charles (c)

Sevilla, Ezra Hendon and Eric

Multhaup and ACLU-NC staff counsel

Amitai Schwartz.

Harris was the first San Quentin

Death Row inmate to exhaust all his

state court appeals. Of the 148 other

inmates on California's death row only

two others beside Harris have had their

sentences confirmed by the California

Supreme Court. Appeals by the other ,

145 inmates

are pending before

the court.

Rights on Arrest Cards

The new ACLU-NC Rights on Arrest

cards have become this season's run-

away best seller. Hundreds of orders

from community organizations, agencies

and individuals have been filled - and

the first print run of the Spanish version

(2500) has already been exhausted.

Supporters at the Refugee Services

Program of Catholic Social Service have.

translated the cards into Vietnamese,

Laotion, Khmer and Polish - so now

the information is available in seven dif-

ferent languages!

Be sure that you have your rights in

your pocket. Order a Rights on Arrest:

card today by writing: Rights on Arrest,

ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St., San Fran-

cisco 94103. Single copies are free; addi-

tional copies are $5.00 per 50. Be sure to

specify language and quantity desired.

the ACLU-NC filed a joint

Criley

Awarded

A special award has been created by

the ACLU-NC's Monterey Chapter in

honor of veteran civil liberties lawyer .

Francis Heisler - and its first recipient is

veteran civil liberties activist Richard

Criley.

The Francis Heisler Civil Liberties

Award, which is to be presented to a

Monterey area ACLU advocate for

extraordinary dedication to the cause of

civil liberties, was most appropriately in-

augurated with its presentation to

ACLU-NC Vice Chair Criley at the

chapter's annual meeting on January 28.

Criley currently serves as the Executive

Director of the Monterey Chapter, tak-

ing care of its day-to-day operations. He

is also an at-large member of the ACLU-

NC affiliate Board, serving as the chair

of the Field Committee and as a member

of the Task Forces on Dissent and

Reproductive Rights. Criley is a founder

of the local Reproductive Freedom and

Nuclear Freeze coalitions in Monterey.

in Monterey. ~ :

A civil liberties activist for more than

50 years, Criley is a founder and current

Executive Director of the National Com-

mittee Against Repressive Legislation. A

tireless fighter, Criley continues to clock

10,000 miles a year from Monterey to

San Francisco on ACLU business.

The award is named to commemorate

`the long and distinguished career of at-

torney Francis Heisler, who was himself

presented with the Earl Warren Civil

Liberties award by the ACLU-NC in

1977. Heisler joined the Chapter board

in presenting the award to Criley at the

annual meeting.

Strip Searches

continued from p. I

ficial records to the Sheriff's Depart-

ment. In addition, the regulations

governing the use of strip search must be

posted in the public lobby of the Contra

Costa Detention Center.

ACLU-NC staff counsel Alan Schlos-

ser, who worked with Greenfield and

cooperating attorney Charles Rice on the

case, noted that this was the second ma-

jor victory for the ACLU in challenging

the ``degrading and humiliating practice

of strip searching without cause."'

"Last year we won a case on behalf of

Marlene Penny, a Fremont mother of

four who was strip searched by the police

~ following a dog license infraction,"'

Schlosser said. ``Penny was awarded

$1000 in damages and a new policy was

instituted in Fremont prohibiting such

random strip searching for minor of-

fenders. We have a similar case pending

in Oakland (Scott yv. Oakland.)

"In addition,"' Schlosser said, ``we are

working hard to implement legislation in -

Sacramento which would prohibit this

practice throughout the state.'

Last year, Assemblywoman Maxine

Waters' bill restricting random strip sear- -

ches passed both houses of the Legisla-

ture but was vetoed by Governor

Deukmejian.

Waters, the ACLU and other sup-

porters are now lobbying hard for an

override of the Governor's veto.

This suit, Luke v. Contra Costa, was -

filed in Contra Costa Superior Court in

`June 1982. The out-of-court settlement

was approved by Judge David Dolgin on

February 1.

~ acilu.news... 7

march 1984

Anti-Choice Laws -

continued from p. 5

are moderate or neutral in their pro-

choice convictions may view SB 709 as

an easy ``aye'' vote, one easily ex-

plained to pro-choice constituents as

approval of an otherwise meaningless

proposal. At the same time, the "`aye''

vote on SB 709 would appease anti-

choice interests who may be threaten-

ing an Assembly member with a Right-

- to-Life challenger during the primary or

general elections.

The unfinished story of SB 709

stands as a parable and a warning for

pro-choice activists in 1984. Continued

success in defeating anti-abortion legis-

lation lies in the early defeat of these

bills in their respective policy commit-

tees. There the contents and the impact

of a measure are subjected to the

closest scrutiny. The committees are.

also critical points of contact with pro-

choice legislators through coalition,

organizational and constituent efforts.

Family Planning

To date only one of the newly in-

troduced 1984 bills specifically interferes ~

with reproductive choice. SB 1450 (Sey-

mour) is the Deukmejian Administra-

tion's attempt to place responsibility

for family planning services on the

local level through the generally dis-

credited ``block grant'' scheme. Accor-

ding to David Alois of Planned Parent-

hood Affiliates of California (PPAC),

Senator Seymour has agreed to remove

one of the specific references to a pro-

counseling from the bill. However, a

number of other issues remain unclear

and discussions are continuing. SB

1450 must be heard by its first policy

committee, Senate Health and

Welfare, by April 27th.

The Administration demonstrated

its hostility to state-funded family

planning services by its actions in July

1983: $9.5 million, or 25% of the State

Office of Family Planning 1983-84

budget, and nine staff positions were

cut during Governor Deukmejian's

first year in office. Practically, advo-

cates of reproductive choice must par-

ticipate in the formulation of any block

grant proposals to insure that some

level of services will continue to be pro-

vided for all California women.

Advocates of reproductive freedom

should understand that block grant

funding for family planning services is

a survival strategy fraught with

dangers. `Block grants'' are creatures'

of a myth which equates greater local

control with greater sensitivity to local

needs as result of more political, rather

than bureaucratic, decision-making. In

reality few of the constituencies served

by state funded family planning pro-

grams - poor and working class

women - have sufficient political re-

sources (read: time, money and influ-

ence) necessary to participate in the

often arcane politics of county and

local governments. We may soon see

that opponents of reproductive choice

may well have opted for a divide-and-

conquer strategy which statewide will

involve all 57 California counties.

hibition against funding pre-abortion

How Did Your Congress Reps Vote?

Each year, the ACLU National fae Office compiles Congressional voting

records based on key civil liberties measures. The 1983 voting records listed below are

based on 12 pieces of proposed legislation in the Senate and 8 in the House of

Representatives.

After each measure, and following each legislator's name, you will seea + ora -

A + indicates a vote in favor of the ACLU position; a - indicates a vote contrary to

the ACLU position. (``A'' following a legislator's name means that he or she was ab-

sent for the vote.)

A complete list of the records of all members of Congress is in the January 1984

issue Of Civil Liberties Alert. The Alert is the legislative newsletter of the national

ACLU and is available free to all ACLU members on request. For a subscription,

write: Civil Liberties Alert, ACLU/Washington Office, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue

SE, Washington, D.C. 20003.

House of Representatives

1. Abortion: Sinith(R-NJ) amendment to Treasury appropriations bill prohibiting

federal employees' health insurance plans from covering abortion. (Appropriations

bill subsequently was defeated). Passed 226-182. Yeas- Nays +

2. Covert Operations: Boland(D-MA)-Zablocki(D-WI) amendment to the 1983 In- :

telligence Authorization Act to prohibit U.S. covert support for military or para-

military operations in Nicaragua. Passed 228-195. Yeas+ Nays-

3. Civil Rights Commission: Edwards(D-CA) amendment prohibiting the President

from firing Civil Rights commissioners except in cases of neglect or malfeasance in

office. Passed 286-128. Yeas + Nays -

4. Abortion: Conte(R-MA) amendment to the Labor/HHs appropriations bill pro-

hibiting Medicaid payments for abortions (the old ``Hyde amendment'') with no ex-

ceptions. Passed 231-184. Yeas- Nays +

5. Covert Operations: Boland(D-MA) amendment to the 1984 intelligence authoriza-

tion bill removing funds for covert military operations in Nicaragua. Passed 227-194.

Yeas + Nays -

6. Abortion: Procedural vote against Smith(R-NJ) amendment to Treasury ap-

propriations bill prohibiting federal employees' health insurance plans from covering

abortions unless the woman's life is endangered. Defeated 193-229. Yeas + Nays -

7. Civil Rights Commission: Procedural vote to cause the House to agree to the

Senate-passed Justice Department appropriations bill, which included funding for - ,

the Civil Rights Commission after the President fired three commissioners ``without

-cause.'' Congress later re-established the Commission and repudiated the Presiden-

tial firings. Defeated 170-235. Yeas - Nays +

_ 8. Equal Rights Amendment: Final passage of the ERA, including suspension of the

rules to limit debate and not allow any amendments to be offered from the floor.

(Two-thirds vote needed for passage.) Defeated 278-147. Yeas + Nays -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bosco(D)

Boxer(D)

Burton, S.(D)

-Chappie(R)

Coelho(D)

Dellums(D)

Edwards(D)

Fazio(D)

Lantos(D)

Lehman, R.(D)

Matsui(D)

Miller, G.(D) |

Mineta(D)

Panetta(D)

Pashayan(R)

Shumway(R)

Stark(D)

Zschau(R)

Po ee

epee ge ee

pede ab soe ee cee

[ee ee

+ 3 |

eee ee te

ap ar

+ +

Senate

1. Immigration/Legalization: Kennedy(D-MA) amendment to Simpson/Mazzoli im-

migration bill which would advance the legalization date for illegal aliens already in

this country to January 1982. Defeated 20-70. Yeas + Nays -

2. Immigration/Employer Sanctions: Hart(D-CO)-Levin(D-MI)-Kennedy(D-MA)

amendment to Simpson/Mazzoli immigration bill providing limited administrative

remedies for immigration-related employment discrimination resulting from the

employer sanctions provisions of the bill. Defeated 29-59. Yeas + Nays -

3. Immigration/Search Warrants: McClure(R-ID) amendment to Simpson/Mazzoli

immigration bill establishing a warrant requirement for workplace searches of

agriculture workers. Passed 62-33. Yeas + Nays -

4, Immigration: Final passage of Simpson/Mazzoli immigration bill, allowing limited

federal court jurisdiction over claims of political asylum and other immigration and

refugee matters; imposing criminal sanctions on employers who hire undocumented

workers; and requiring the President to develop a secure I.D. system for verifying

persons authorized to work `in the U.S. Passed 76-18. Yeas- Nays +

5. Abortion: Hatch(R-UT)-Eagleton(D-MO) constitutional amendment to overturn

Roe v. Wade. Defeated 49-50. Yeas - Nays +

6. Pre-publication Review/Secrecy Order: Mathias(R-MD)-Eagleton(D-MO) amend-

ment to State Department authorization bill prohibiting enforcement and implemen-

tation of President Reagan's March 11, 1983 Executive Order on Secrecy until April

1984. The Order requires life-long pre-publication review of all writings and speeches

of an estimated 115,000 federal employees. Passed 56-34. Yeas + Nays -

7. School Desegregation: Baker(R-TN) motion to table Helms(R-NC) amendment to

Justice Department appropriations bill limiting authority of federal courts to order -

busing as a remedy for unconstitutional school segregation. Defeated 29-52. Yeas +

Nays -

8. Abortion: Weicker(R- CT) motion to table Denton(R-AL) amendment to the

Senate's continuing appropriations resolution preventing federal employees' health

insurance plans from covering abortions unless the woman's life is endangered.

Defeated 44-51. Yeas+ Nays -

9. Abortion: Hatfield(R-OR) motion to strike Hoyer(D-MD) amendment to Heise

passed continuing appropriations resolution preventing federal employees' health in-

surance plans from covering abortions unless oe. woman' s life is endangered. De-

feated 43-44. Yeas + Nays-

10. Tax Exemptions for Racially Discriminatory Private Schools: Moynihan(D-NY)

motion to table Helms(R-NC) amendment to continuing resolution barring I.R.S.

from enforcing regulations regarding racial discrimination in private schools. Tabled

_ 51-28. Yeas+ Nays -

11. Civil Rights Commission/ Abortion: Thurmond(R-SC) motion to table

Jepsen(R-IA) amendment to Civil Rights Commission reauthorization bill which

would have restricted abortion rights. Jepsen amendment would have legislated

""Baby Doe Regulations'' and permanently prohibited Medicaid payments for abor-

tions. Tabled 42-34. Yeas+ Nays -

12. Tuition Tax Credits: Boren(D-OK) motion to table Dole(R-KS) amendment to

the Olympic Tariff bill establishing tax credits to parents who send their children to

private schools. Tabled 59-38. Yeas +. Nays -

L223 #4 #5 6 =F: 8 98 U0 1b 2

Cranston(D) to 8 et ct AA A A AK AA

-Wilson(R) +. A. +. + 7+) = =. = = fpound- = =

aclu news

march 1984

Focus on Dissent

At the annual Field Program priorities

discussion on February 11, represen-

tatives from ACLU-NC chapters decided

that fighting government secrecy and

limits on protest must be the primary ef-

fort for the membership action program

this year.

`Field program resources will be

mainly devoted to promoting .and pro-

tecting the public's right to know - and

right to take action - which has been

the focus of the Right to Dissent Sub-

committee,'' said Field Committee chair

Richard Criley, adding that important

organizing work underway on reproduc-

tive rights, draft opposition and immi-

grant rights will also continue.

Criley explained that the Right to Dis-

sent Subcommittee was. organized in

1981 as a monitoring group of the Field

Committee and has focused attention on

growing threats to civil liberties by the

Reagan administration in the name of

`national security."'

The Subcommittee has sponsored an-

nual media and public education cam-

paigns on threats to the Freedom of In-

formation Act, including the upcoming

FOIA rally at the Federal Building on

March 16 (see p. 8). Members have also

organized a Speakers Panel, several

grassroots lobbying campaigns, and co-

In collections

ACLU-NC News: 1984

Details

Title: vol. 49, no. 2 (March, 1984)
Creator: American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Date: 1984 March
Identifier: ACLUN_0525
Genre: newspapers
Physical description: 40.5 x 28 cm
Publisher: San Francisco (Calif.): American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Preferred citation: ACLU of Northern California News vol. 49, no. 2, 1984 March; PER ACLUN; California Historical Society.
Rights statement: In Copyright
Publication rights: Copyright (or related rights to publicity and privacy) for materials in this collection, created by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, was not transferred to the California Historical Society (CHS). Permission for reproduction or publication of materials in this collection beyond that allowed by fair use must be secured from the copyright holder.
Topical subject(s): Vigilantes
Refugees
Criminal justice
Freedom of information
Educational equity
Church and state
Capital punishment
Reproductive rights
LGBTQ rights
Immigrant rights
Named subject(s): AFL-CIO
Bergman, Lowell
Crosby, Margaret
Ehrlich, Dorothy
Gallo, Marcia
Heisler, Francis
Ramirez, Raul
Reagan, Ronald
Riemer, Davis
Rosenbaum, Mark
Schlosser, Alan
Schwartz, Amitai
Stone, I. F.
Swartz, Marjorie
Warner, Douglas
Warren, Earl
Free Speech Movement (Berkeley, Calif.)
Geographical subject(s): Sacramento (Calif.)
Monterey (Calif.)
San Quentin (Calif.)
Santa Rosa (Calif.)
Fresno (Calif.)
Oakland (Calif.)
Berkeley (Calif.)
Collection identifier: PER ACLUN