vol. 50, no. 3
Primary tabs
e
S |
Volume XLXI
April 198
No. 3
Government Move Denied
Visa Ban Challenge Wins a Round ~
A State Department move to throw
out the ACLU lawsuit challenging the
barring of Chilean leader Hortensia
Allende from the United States was
rejected by the federal district court in
Massachusetts on April 2.
Chief Justice Andrew A. Caffrey
denied the government's motion to
dismiss the case of Allende v. Shultz. The
ruling differed from an earlier decision
from the U.S. District Court in Washing-
ton, D.C. in a similiar ACLU case which
upheld visa denials for other foreign
critics of U.S. policy including Nicara-
guan Minister of the Interior Tomas
Borge, former Italian military represen-
tative to. NATO General Nino Pasti, and
two Cuban. women leaders Olga Finlay
and Leonor Rodriguez Lezcayo (see
ACLU News, March 1985). The latter
case is on appeal.
~The ACLU-NC was first contacted in
March 1983 when human rights activist
The Reagan administration denied a
visa to former First Lady of Chile
Hortensia Allende-although she has
visited the U.S. under every previous
administration since 1973.
Courtesy of Casa Chile
Hortensia Allende, widow of the slain
Chilean President Salvador Allende, was
denied a visa to enter the United States
just one day before she was to arrive in
the Bay Area for a nine day speaking
tour in honor of International Women's
Day. Mrs. Allende was also scheduled to
speak in Boston.
Major Campaign
ACLU attorneys and civil rights lawyer
Leonard Boudin challenged the denial on
behalf of the Northern California Ecu-
-menical Council and the Boston Area
Council on Latin America. The suits are
part of a campaign led by the ACLU and
members of Congress challenging the
`Administration's calculated pattern of
denying visas to critics of U.S. foreign
policy, thereby effectively abridging the
First Amendment rights of Americans to
meet with and hear the view of these
critics.
Stop Covert Aid to the Contras
As President Reagan began his massive lobbying effort in Congress for continued
financing of the "covert" war in Nicaragua, Ray Hooker (center), a member of
Nicaragua's National Assembly who was kidnapped by the U.S. financed "contras"
for 58 days last fall, spoke at a March 13 press conference at the ACLU about
the death and destruction that the CIA-backed contra army has brought to Nicaragua.
Hooker was flanked by representatives of several Bay Area groups who are
mobilizing support to defeat the $14 million appropriation request in Congress,
including ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich (r.), Carlos Melendres
(I.), President of the Bay Area American G.I. Forum, Vivian Hallinan, Director
of Project National Interest and Kathy Galvin of the Bay Area Lawyers Committee
on Central America.
ak par
Ehrlich noted that the ACLU National
Legislative Office and Bill of Rights
Lobby had made defeat of the contra
funding request a primary focus of its
current lobbying effort. "The ACLU has
opposed all governmental covert
operations since 1976," Ehrlich explained,
"because the American public and
Congress are deprived of their right to
an open, informed and public debate on
U.S. foreign policy. Se
"The so-called covert war is only a
secret to those whose tax dollars are used
to finance it, not to those against whom
the war is directed," Ehrlich said
introducing Ray Hooker who had been
shot, seriously wounded and held by the
contra army on Nicaragua's Atlantic
Coast from September 1 until November
1, 1984.
"Only a few weeks ago," Hooker said, |
"a busload of postal workers volunteering
to pick coffee was attacked by the contras.
Thirteen women postal workers were
raped repeatedly and murdered. Fifteen
male postal workers were murdered. This
was not an isolated incident.
"Ronald Reagan calls these contras the
`moral equivalent' of your Founding
Fathers. Frankly, in Nicaragua we have
` more respect for your Founding Fathers
_ than that," Hooker said.
ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret
Crosby hailed the district court ruling. '
"The use of the visa process is. an
impermissible- and unconstitutional
abridgement of free speech," she said.
"The practice of ideological exclusion
is inconsistent with the basic premises of
a free society. The Administration's
actions deny American citizens the
opportunity to hear about foreign affairs
from people with a perspective which .
clashes with the official government
position. Since this exposure to dissenting
voices from abroad is essential for us to
make decisions about the conduct of
foreign affairs, the Administration's use
of the visa process to silence its critics
infringes fundamental free speech values," -
Crosby added. .
Immigration Act of 1952
Mrs. Allende's visa was denied under
Section (27) of the McCarran-Walter
Immigration Act of 1952 which permits
the government to deny a visa if the visitor
were to engage in activities which would
threaten the public interest.
The State Department claimed. that
since Mrs. Allende "is a member of both
the World Peace Council and the Wom-
en's International Democratic Federa-
`tion, organizations reputed to be inter-
national fronts for the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union," she fell into this
category. ~-
The govenment's case was based on ,
secret documents that ACLU attorneys
were given no opportunity to inspect. The
District Court ruling stated, "Summary
judgment may not be granted on the basis
_ of materials to which the party opposing
summary judgement is denied access."
"Although this Court is aware that
there may be a point at which the
theoretical ideals of the adversary system
must bow to the practical necessitics of (c)
preserving national security and interna-
tional relations, that point has not yet -
been reached in this case," the opinion
stated.
The judge added that the government
may renew. its motion if it can produce
unclassified material establishing, as a
matter of public record, a "facially
legitimate and bona fide" reason for their
refusal to grant Mrs. Allende a visa.
continued on p. 6
~ aclu news
april 1985
x
The ACLU-NC filed a lawsuit on
March 28 in Sacramento Superior Court
on behalf of two children who will not
receive funding for treatment of devel-
opmental disablilities unless records of.
_ their intimate personal behavior are
placed in a centralized state computer
system.
The children and their parents are being
represented by ACLU-NC cooperating
attorneys Mark White, Anna M. Rossi,
and Margaret A. Corrigan of the San
Francisco law firm of Rogers, Joseph
O'Donnell and Quinn and ACLU-NC staff
attorney Margaret C. Crosby. The ACLU
contends that the manner in which the
children's records are maintained in the
files of the state Department of Devel-
opmental Services violates their consti-
tutional and statutory rights of privacy.
Kyle White, 7, and Shoshana McAvoy,
11, are children with developmental
disabilities; they have been treated at the
Redwood Coast Regional Center and its
predecessor agency since they were
infants. Since 1979, the Department-of
Developmental Services (DDS) has
required all such regional centers, to
prepare and submit periodic reports on
the status and progress of each of the
centers' clients. These reports are known
as Client Development Evaluation
Reports or "CDER's".
Intimate Details
The CDER's contain answers to
detailed questions regarding each client's
medical condition, behavior, and personal
habits, including such intimate and highly -
sensitive matters as medication, toilet
Police Street Sweeps Upheld
-A month after hearing arguments that
the San Francisco police illegally use an
obstruction of the sidewalks law to "sweep
the streets" of persons they consider
undesirable, the state Court of Appeal
upheld the police practice.
- During a trial in San Francisco
Superior Court in 1982, the ACLU-NC
sought an injunction and a declaration
that the bad faith enforcement by the
police of Section 647c of the state Penal
~Code was unconstitutional. Evidence
produced at the trial showed that 94%
of the people arrested under 647c had
their charges dropped at their first
appearance in court and that less than
one in 200 is SE convicted of
obstruction.
When Superior Court Judge Lawrence
Mana upheld the police practice, ACLU-
NC staff attorney Amitai Schwartz took
the case to the Court of Appeal where
it was argued on February 7.
"Since the courts have struck down
vagrancy and loitering laws," Schwartz
explained, "the police now sweep the
streets of undesirables as they did under
the old laws - they just avoid submitting
the arrests for prosecution."
Ironically, the Court of Appeal opin-
ion, authored by Justice Harry Low,
made note of the statistics introduced at
the trial by the ACLU, that less than half
of one percent of charges under 647c
resulted in convictions. Even though only
17 of 3,940 arrests between August 1980
and July 1982 resulted in convictions, the
opinion stated, there was no proof of bad
faith or harassment by the police that
would make the practice unconstitutional.
~The ACLU-NC filed the lawsuit
Ramey v..Murphy on behalf of San
Francisco taxpayers including former
ACLU-NC Board Chair Drucilla Ramey.
Schwartz commented, "We are disap-
pointed that the Court did not tackle the
vagrancy and due process issues presented
by the case. After all, the people arrested,
for the most part, never receive any due
process at all."
Schwartz said that he will now petition
the state Supreme Court to hear the case.
Individual$20. ( )
( ) This is a gift membership from
Joint $30
"an an additional contribution of $----
Your Civil Liberties .
Ignore them
and they'll go away!
_ doin the ACLU
Address_.
| 0x00A7
|
|
| Name
|
; City
| Return to ACLU-NG, 1663 Mission St., S.F. 94103 _
J ee
Zip
training, level of bladder and bowel
control, "unacceptable social behavior,"
episodes of violence or aggression,
smearing of feces, inappropriate undress-
ing, "temper tantrums," and self-injurious
behavior.
Originally, CDER's were marked by
a name code to which the DDS `had
access, but submission of CDER's to
DDS was voluntary. In 1981, DDS
_adopted a policy that it would not provide
regional centers with funds for any client
unless a CDER was submitted.
After an administrative protest, several
clients, including the plaintiffs in this suit,
were allowed to have anonymous
CDER's placed in the DDS file and to
contingie receiving services.
Beginning in July, 1984, the DDS
altered its client identification system. The
DDS has now decided to maintain a
Client Master File on each client in its
computer files which matches a client's
name with the code used on his or her
CDER.
According to cooperating attorney
White, "The threatened submission of the
reports with client-identifying informa-
tion known to the DDS creates the
ACLU Files Suit to Keep Childrens' Files Private
ers, educators and other governmental
agencies.
Risk of Disclosure
"The magnitude of this risk cannot be
determined with certainty, but the effect
of any disclosure would be severe and
irreparable," White added.
"This causes the children and their
families emotional distress and injury to
their security and peace of mind."
Carole White, mother of Kyle, spoke
of her own reluctance to submit a CDER
for her son knowing that it would no
longer be confidential. "I can not in good.
_ conscience submit a CDER for Kyle,
given the potentially devastating conse-
_ quences it could have for him. Unjustified
access to the information contained in the
~CDER undeniably would prevent Kyle
from overcoming the difficult hurdles he
already faces in our society as a person
with developmental disabilities.
"As a parent and a citizen deeply
concerned about the rights of the disabled,
I can only add that any abuse of this
information to Kyle's detriment would be _
an ironic and tragic result of a system
supposedly intended to enhance the
"Any abuse of. this information to my child's det-
riment would be an ironic and tragic result of a system
supposedly intended to enhance the lives of devel-
opmentally disabled persons."
unnecessary risk that the client's highly
sensitive and personal information will be
made accessible to others outside of the
developmental disability services system,
including future or prospective employ-
COMPUTER,
VCR NEEDED
The ACLU of Northern California
needs the following equipment for use
by the legal, field, public information,
_and development departments:
cent NorthStar
puters, a hard disk, printers, and
modems;
0x00B0VCR video recorder (VHS format)
and large color monitor or TV; ~
sheets);
cent Legal-sized metal file drawers;
cent Paper folding machine.
Tax deductions available-call
Michael Miller, 415-621-2493.
"Advantage" microcom- -
e Heavy duty paper cutter (up to 100
opportunities of developmentally dis-
abled persons to lead more independent,
productive and normal lives within their
communities," she added.
The ACLU-NC lawsuit is seeking an
order from the court declaring that the
submission of CDER's under this new
system, if the parent or legal guardian
has refused to consent to that submission,
is in violation of the client's right to
privacy secured by the California Con-
stitution and the Lanterman Develop-
mental Disabilities Services Act. The suit _
is also seeking an injunction barring the
collection of such identifiable CDER's
over the objection of the client or legal
~ guardian.
The defendants in the lawsuit are the
Department of Developmental Services,
DDS Director Gary D. Macomber,
Redwood Coast Regional Center and its
Director G. David Peach.
Elaine Elinson, Editor -
aclu news
bt issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June- ee
August-September and November-December |
Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California
Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Nancy Pemberton, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director Sis
Marcia Gallo, a
ACLU NEWS (USPS 018- 040) =
1663 Mission St., 4th floor, San Francisco, California 94103. (415) 621-2488
Membership $20 and up, of which S0 cents is for a subscription to the aclu:news -
Chapter Page
hab (c)
and 50 cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.
aclu news
april 1985 3
S.F. Escort Services Law Struck Down
The state Court of Appeal overturned
a 1981 San Francisco ordinance giving
police the power to regulate escort
services, ruling that that the city ordinance
is pre-empted by state laws and represents
a disguised attempt to increase police
investigative powers. The ACLU-NC filed
an amicus brief in the case, Cohen v.
Superior Court, arguing that the ordi-
nance violated the California Constitu-
tion's guarantees of privacy; the brief was _
prepared by ACLU-NC cooperating
attorney Stephen Cone. |
The ordinance required that all estab-
lishments falling into the broadly defined
category of escort services maintain a
daily register, open to police and health
departments, showing the names and
addresses of patrons, their escorts, times
and places where escort services took
place and the feggcharged.
According to ACLU-NC staff attorney
Margaret Crosby, "The ordinance was
very intrusive into personal privacy. It
allowed police officers to scrutinize the
names of patrons, whom they dated,
where they went and what they did."
The 16-page unanimous Court of
Appeal opinion, authored by Justice
Jerome Smith, concluded that the ordi-
nance was enacted as a licensing scheme
but operates as a criminal statute.
"The ordinance does not merely seek |
to license businesses," Justice Smith
wrote, "it blatantly attempts to expand
police investigative powers in regulating
criminal sexual conduct beyond that
encompassed in the California Penal
Code.
"The daily register requirement and the
provisions. compelling disclosure of
fingerprints, photographs and prior
criminal records are information-
gathering devices to aid in the investiga-
tion and prosecution of alleged criminal
activities. Further, the daily register (as
written) even anticipates a certain level
of criminality. . ," the opinion stated.
The Court also cited testimony by
Mayor Dianne Feinstein and San Fran-
cisco police officials supporting the
passage of the ordinance as a crime
fighting measure during the 1981 hearing
before the Board of Supervisors. Cities
e
ene
are allowed to set licensing requirements
for businesses, the court said, but cannot
pass. licensing laws that are disguised
attempts to stop prostitution. -
The taxpayers' suit was filed in 1981
by San Francisco residents Bruce Cohen
and Keegan Low. When their challenge
to the ordinance was rejected by San -
Francisco Superior Court Judge Ira
Brown, they took their case to the Court
of Appeal where the ALCU-NC joined
the suit.
A Will to give to the ACLU
For more. than 50:years the ACLU of
Northern California has fought to defend
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Through the pages of history - red-
baiting, vigilantes, WWII internmentcamps,
HUAC, the Free Speech Movement,
Vietnam, civil rights, the women's move-
ment, gay rights and more - the ACLU
has pioneered the fight for individual
liberties.
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
bequests, contributed over $50,000.
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,
Inc.
If you need information about writing
a will or want additional information,
consult your attorney or write:
Bequests,
ACLU Foundation of Northern Califor-
nia, 1663 Mission Street, San Fran-
cisco 94103.
- Warrantless Searches of Childcare Homes OK'ed by Court
State inspectors do not need a search
warrant when making unannounced visits
to residential childcare centers, the U.S.
Court of Appeals ruled on March 28.
The ruling, written by Judge Warren
Ferguson reinstated most of a state law
that U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn
Hall Patel had struck down in 1981 when
she held that a warrant was needed. The
ACLU-NC and other public interest
- groups had argued as amici curiae in
support of Judge Patel's ruling that barred
state offficials from entering family day
care homes without a warrant.
The friends of the court brief, written
by San Francisco attorney Mary Dunlap -
on behalf of the ACLU-NC, California
N.O.W., the Child Care Coordinating
Council of San Mateo County, the San
Francisco Commission on the Status of
Women, Equal Rights Advocates and the
San Francisco Women Lawyers Alliance,
was submitted to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals in April, 1984.
A family day care home is a private
home in which regular care is given to
12 or fewer children, including the
_caregiver's own. Thousands of California
children are cared for in these facilities
which must be licensed by the state and
are subject to health and safety require-
ments.
The Court of Appeals stated, "We
conclude that warrantless inspections of
family day care homes do not offend the
Fourth Amendment. The majority of
children receiving care in family daycare
_ homes are under five years of age...
"The California Legislature was plainly
The ACLU argued that allowing state inspectors to search residential childcare
centers without a warrant is an attack on working parents who use and benefit
_ from family day care.
aware that such children, away from their
parents, need the special protection of the
state and that the interests, health, and
safety of children are of paramount
importance in our society. Parents who
use day care, especially low-income
parents who must place their children in
affordable day care while they work, must
be assured that strict monitoring of health
and safety conditions will keep their
children safe," the Court continued.
According to the ruling, searches must
be conducted only during business hours
and in areas where children have access.
Since the challenged State law did not
include. these limitations, it was held
-overbroad.
' In arguing against the warrantless
searches, attorney Mary Dunlap charged
that they constitute impermissible intru-
sions into the privacy of family day care
providers as they earn their living caring
for children in their own home.
"The Fourth Amendment protects the
home and is designed to protect against
precisely the types of searches at issue in
this case," Dunlap said.
"Citing tragic examples of child abuse
in family day care homes as justification
for warrantless searches mischaracterizes
_ the purposes of the licensing inspection,"
Dunlap explained.
If criminal activity is suspected in a
family day care homes, then a warrant
to search that home would be issued on
the showing of probable cause, the
ACLU-NC brief argued. Yet to justify an
exception to the warrant requirement, the
state argued that the purpose of the -
warrantless search is to detect instances
of criminal activity, namely child abuse
and molestation.
As Judge Patel had noted in the district
court opinion, five unannounced consen-
sual licensing inspections failed to detect
the instances of child abuse occurring in
the home of one of the most notorious
cases, that of Eleanor Nathan.
ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret
Crosby said, "Many serious abuses of
children are inflicted by parents - yet
society would not tolerate warrantless
searches by the government of all private
homes where children live.
"Because warrants are issued without
notice to the care given, the element of
surprise is not lost by requiring that a
warrant be obtained. We do not feel,
therefore, that the warrant requirement
_ places children at increased risk," she said.
"This position is unsupported by the |
evidence of the normal nature of family
day care providers and their home
environments. It is an unsupported attack
on the working parents who use and
benefit from family day care," Crosby
added. ?
The case, Rush v. Obledo, was initiated
in 1981 by several day care providers and
the San Mateo County Daycare Associa-
tion. They are represented by the San
Francisco Lawyers Committee for Urban
Affairs who have requested reconsider-
ation from the entire Court of Appeals.
aclu news
april 1985
4
Over a Doren Measures Introduced
Abortion Debate Heats Up in Sacramento
by Daphne Macklin
ACLU Legislative Advocate
Twelve years after the U.S. Supreme
Court's landmark abortion rights decision -
in Roe v..Wade and twenty years since
its Griswold v. Connecticut. decision
_ invalidating state law restrictions on
access to contraceptives, the fundamental
issue of personal privacy in reproductive
health care continues to dominate poli-
tical debate and legislative activity.
`Until recently, public policy both
supported and encouraged the use of
family planning services and fostered
access to reproductive health care services
for the poor and for adolescents as a
matter of good public health. But public
policy reflecting basic constitutional
rights as well as public health concerns
supporting planned families and respon-
sible sexual conduct now faces disruption
through the activities of anti-abortion
groups.
Clearly, some voices within the anti-
choice movement openly disapprove of
consensual sexual activity except where
authorized by religious and legal sanc-
tions. And although this is not the opinion -
of a majority of Americans and Califor-
nians, the agenda promoted by these
interests threatens the availablity of
medical services for Californians reliant
on public care systems. Internationally,
it has meant funding for family planning
programs in developing countries has -
been slashed or curtailed because abortion
services, legal within the United States,
are offered or subsidized by international
health care assistance projects.
WHAT and YOU WANT
ABIRTH CONTROL
DEVICEP
ui OLDER "au
~AREYOUHAVING -
WANTON SEX
WITH ee
ARENT YOU A LITTLE
YOUNG FOR THAT,
YOu jas ?
Sep
0 wR RENT Ri
eT aNTeEN ABOUT Ve : iit THEIR
EN ENMGER 3 TL ENJOY
Vulnerable Sectors
The assault on reproductive freedom
through access to medical care and
information is now directed at those most
dependent on publicly provided services.
The familiar battle over Medi-Cal
funded abortion services for indigent
women is expanding to include restricted
access for minors. Agencies that formerly
supported sex education and family
planning services are currently controlled
or dominated by anti-choice interests.
And in recent weeks, the American Life
Lobby, one of the most active anti-choice
groups in Sacramento, has lobbied for
restrictions on the use of [UD's (Intrau-
terine Contraceptive Devices). Their
arguments are not based on possible
health risks to women but on the belief
`that the IUD induces abortions. -
Minors
Over a dozen bills relating to abortion
rights have already been introduced by
the Legislature (see sidebar). The most
prominent issue involves parental consent
for minors seeking abortions or contra-
ceptives. Three such bills, SB 7 (Mon-
toya), SB 99 (Richardson) and AB 80
(Sebastiani) are now. the focus of a
vigorous letter writing campaign by anti-
abortion groups. Legislative offices report
receiving over sixty letters each urging
passage of these measures.
In other states, similar rules have been
invalidated or enjoined by court action.
Litigation pending in Minnesota and
Massachusetts plan to challenge the
measures as applied. In both cases
plaintiffs intend to show that parental
consent and judicial by-pass mechanisms
serve as a bar to abortion access for many
_ teenaged women. While the vast majority
of petitioners who do get to court have
their requests granted, significantly more
young women seek abortions farther
away from home, at greater costs. Other
young women continue their pregnancies,
- but as noted by a report from the
Minnesota ACLU, with tragic conse-
quences: five cases of -infanticide by
adolescents were reported since passage
of the law.
Related to the parental consent/
minor's access bills are several measures
that would require parental notice or
consent before a minor could be released
from school to seek medical care: AB 1541
(Seastrand), AB 1561 (Herger). Similar
measures were defeated in the last
legislative session. -
Currently adolescents may seek treat- ~
ment for reproductive health care matters,
drug and alcohol abuse and psychiatric
care without parental consent. The school
release measures are indirect attempts to
mandate parental consent.
Constitutional Amendment
The anti-abortion film The Silent
Scream, which was shown at the Capitol
January 22 and 23, has inspired SB 1009
(Doolittle) which would mandate a
sonogram be performed prior to an
abortion procedure, and SB 1155
(Richardson) which would require treat- _
ment to alleviate fetal pain. AB 2045
(Sebastiani) would establish an income
tax check-off program for the Unborn
Child Protection Fund.. And Senator
H.L. Richardson has introduced SCA 25,
the long expected constitutional amend-
ment prohibiting the use of Medi-Cal
funds for abortions except to save the
life of the woman.
The continuing debate over reproduc-
tive freedom has been fueled by the
attitudes and actions of President Reagan
and the new ascendency of the Religious
Right. The concept of constitutionally
protected personal privacy in the intimate
realms of both procreative choice and
sexual expression is clearly at risk. Most
ominously, clinic violence (including the
_alleged link to the bombing of the ACLU
National Legislative Office), vandalism
and assaults on patients and health care
workers evidence troubling new dimen-
sions to what was once a difference of
attitudes debated and discussed in legal,
political, and social circles.
As another long seige in defense of
reproductive freedom begins, it is impor-
tant that legislators and government
officials be reminded and educated about
their responsibilities under our constitu-
tional system. The principles of ordered
liberty are central to the concept of limited
governmental interference in matters of
an inherently private and intimate nature.
Measures that impact individual freedom
of choice in matters of familial and
personal privacy deserve the most-serious
review.
HELP WANTED
ACLU COMPLAINT
COUNSELORS
Volunteers are needed now for a
challenging position staffing the
ACLU-NC Complaint Desk. The work
entails answering phones, taking
down complaints and questions,
providing information and referrals
and learning about the ACLU via
consultation with staff attorneys on the
novel questions presented.
lf you are interested and can
commit one day a week from 10 a.m.
to 4 p.m., please contact:
Pat Jameson, ACLU-NC Legal
Department, 415/621-2493.
aclu news -
aprili985 5
A Day in the Life of an
ACLU Lobbyist
by Daphne Macklin :
ACLU Legislative Advocate
NOTE: The usual issues are alive and
_ well, but as a public service this article
documents, in a fictionalized form, life
in the ACLU Legislative Office.
"I've never seen a copy machine code
TILT,"' the repair person commented
and shook his head. ``This counting
gauge has been turned at least four
-times. Don't you ever give this thing a
rest?"'
Our flagging photocopier is an ac-
curate measure of the increased level of
legislative business this session. Although
we don't follow every bill in the hopper,
one out of five of, say, 9,000 measures is
quite a handful. Alternating weeks,
fellow lobbyist Margie Swartz and I
review all of the bills that are in print or
reprint each morning. Comments during _
the gleaning range from ``No, not this
one again!'' to ``Would you be-
lieve..."
The more whimsical legislative
endeavors turn up as "`resolution."' In
addition to a host of matters relating to
reapportionment, there were the usual
- congratulations extended to the Raiders.
The latter caused something of a flare-up
between the Bay Area and Southern
California delegations. And then there
are some that defy explanation - take
the proclamation honoring Michael
Jackson . . . please.
Denizens of The Building (the insiders'
reference to the Capitol - as in ``The
City'') have an informal ``10 Most In-
credible Bills'' list. Top nominees include
the state grass bill (no, not Humboldt
County's finest), a proposal to have the:
square dance made the state dance (not
something that would play well on Rus-
sian Hill, in North Beach or among the
_ slam dancers) and a call to establish a
`state Commission on Self-Esteem. After -
the passage of Proposition-24, a bill to
limit the number of measures a member
could introduce was timely, but generally
disfavored. It did amount to a kind of
censorship. Besides, the current system
allows each representative to at least pre-
sent his or her constituents with that
- grand illusion of diligent effort.
Our operating rule is to put on our
watch list any measure that seems to im-
- pact civil liberties. Even with that
generous a standard, at least two or three
other bills a day are commended to our
office ``as something the ACLU should
really take a-look at."' The resulting list
of Senate and Assembly measures runs
to five pages of statistical typing. This in
turn leads to the creation of the weekly
calendars that. rival short doctoral
outlines in length. Each week's calendar
notes every watch bill scheduled for com-
mittee hearing. For some committees the
entire agenda is attached with our bills
denoted by stars. Some weeks it's easier
to note the bills on which we have not
taken a position.
`I don't think this is going
anywhere,'' I commented to Margie
after reviewing an unlikely prospect for
-unanimous approval, ``What do you
_ think?"' She agreed but suggested I con-
tact the committee consultant. The com-
mittee secretary advised that that par-
ticular measure had been withdrawn, at
the author's request, but that the conslu-
tant needed to speak with us about
another matter.
"`Which of you handles bills that have
to do with the free speech rights of
women workers during elections on
educational matters?'
Margie and I felt that was a toss-up,
but as she had a schedule conflict, I took (c)
the call.
The consultant had little hope for AB
6013. "`I talked to Assembly Member
Snipe's aide about this one,'' the consul-
tant told me. ``She confided that it was,
well, introduced for a somewhat excep-
tional constituent."'
"`T think I know the type,"' I replied.
"Let me put it this way, if you don't
like the bill, they'll drop it."'
With that mandate, I reviewed what
looked for all the world like a constitu-
tional law bar question and I telephoned
Snipe's aide.
"Is there something seriously wrong
with the bill?'' she asked hopefully.
"Well, the federal Constitution's
supremacy clause is the first thing that
comes to mind."'
With that resolved, I went on to the
next bill on the calendar. Margie had
picked out her bills, but Rita Egri, our
legislative assistant, then handed us the
revised calendar (legislative files are .
notably ephermeral creatures). More
adds than drops, we all noted grimly, in-
cluding a bill that would allow confisca-
tion of an automobile as the sanction for
fishing over the limit.
By the end of the week, the copy
machine was back on duty. Rita had
turned several reams of paper into a
gross of well stuffed envelopes ready for
distribution to six score legislators, their
committees and staff. Meanwhile,
Margie and I had consulted with other
lobbyists strategizing on the more impor-
tant measures. Someone had an expert.
witness to testify about expert testimony
at legislative hearings. And someone else
had the perfect victim of housing
discrimination against single parent
families with multiple exotic pets.
Then, a wild rumor was confirmed.
Committee sessions for the week had all
been canceled. That put us a little
ahead.
Even the copier sighed.
ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret
Crosby was honored by the Northern
California Pro-Choice Coalition at a
Sacramento reception on the 12th
anniversary of the landmark Roe v.
Wade decision. Crosby, who has
successfully defeated the Legislature's
annual attempts to cut Medi-Cal
funding for abortion for the last 7 years
was awarded by the Coalition for
"commitment to the cause of abortion
privacy and autonomy as fundamental
human rights."
Crosby was surprised with the
certificate of appreciation after she had
just completed filing the ACLU-NC
response to the latest attempt to
eliminate abortion funds in the Placer
County Superior Court case Fluty v.
- Swoap. .
Crosby Awarded
freedom of choice and: the ideals of -
Cashing in on an
Anti-Choice Case
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAN
PRESVANT. AS LONG ~ oe POOR.
: Address
MB Chia.
(c)OR77
Though the anti-choice forces have
made no J/egal headway in their latest -
and rather dubious - attempt to elim-
inate Medi-Cal abortion funds (Fluty v.
Swoap, see ACLU News, March 1985),
they are making a heavy-handed appeal
to fill their coffers based on the lawsuit.
A February [5 letter sent oft nationally
by the anti-choice ALERT Foundation
asks for emergency funds to help "two
young pro-life California attorneys in
saving 166 preborn children from being
godlessly murdered each month."
The letter, signed by nationally
renowned anti-abortion advocate Mrs.
Judie Brown, states:
"2,000 innocent unborn babies are at
_the mercy of the Superior Court in Placer
County, California...
"Within 24 hours after the suit was
: announced, ACLU lawyers were in court
petitioning the court... .
. and the ACLU has a very good
chance of winning since it is paid $500,000
a year by California taxpayers to protect
the funding of abortions...
".. . ACLU's past record is proof
enough - for the past 7 years the ACLU
has fought for the right of state-funded
clinics to slaughter 750,000 unborn
babies.
"The powerful ACLU has proven again
and again it has no conscience about its
action against God and against decent
moral Americans like you."
Mrs. Brown goes on with such lies and
distortions for four pages, ending with
an impassioned plea for $25, $50 or $100
to "fight the ACLU and save the lives
of these precious little ones."
The solicitation letter promises that the
"two brave young pro-life lawyers" whom
the readers are urged to support "pray-
erfully and financially" will be back in
court against the ACLU on March II.
In fact, the pro-life attorneys have taken
no further action in the case since J udge
Richard Couzens denied them a Tempor-
ary Restraining Order on January 10.
On February 15, the date of the
national fundraising letter, the pro-life
attorneys announced that they had
removed the case from the Placer County "
Superior Court's active calendar until
further notice.
And, by the way, the ACLU is not
"paid $500,000 a year by California
taxpayers to protect the funding of
-abortions." The ACLU receives no
government funding; all of the resources
to fight this civil liberties battle and others
come from ACLU members,
donors.
How DoI Make
My. CHOICE? Questions and Ans-
wers about Abortion, Sterilization,
Birth Control and Reproductive
Rights in California
The easy-to-use guide to repro- 0x00A7
ductive rights, prepared by Public In-
formation Director Elaine Elinson and
Staff Attorney Margaret Crosby, 0x00A7
answers questions like: Can a doctor |
or hospital refuse my request for an
abortion? Do I need my husband's/ |
parents' permission to get an abor- |
tion? Can I be sterilized without my 0x00A7
consent? and many more. |
A useful tool for-women's centers, |
schools, clinics and all those who have
even asked ``How do I make my
choice?' individual copies are available 0x00A7
free of charge by filling in the coupon
below. (Bulk orders are $10 for 100 0x00A7
_ brochures. )
; 1 want to know about reproductive rights i in California.
____ Please send me a copy of How Do I Make My CHOICE?
copies of How Do I Make My CHOICE? Enclosed i is$__
: (Bulk orders are $10 per 100 copies.)
i Please send me ____
i Name
0x00A7 Cit
5 city
Zip
Send to: Pro-choice Brochure, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St., S.E 94103. Make checks0x00A7
: payable to ACLU-NC.
ee ee
private
foundation grants and other generous
RS ee
aclu news
6 april 1985
WWII Anti-Japanese Law Repealed
A painful chapter of California history
was closed last month when a measure
repealing Government Code Section
19573 which allowed for the dismissal of
state workers of Japanese descent was
unanimously approved by the Assembly -
Public Employees and Retirement
Committee. ~
The vote followed testimony by two
employees who were affected by the
statute which was enacted on an urgency |
basis shortly before Japanese American
internment was decreed. by President
Rooseyelt's Executive Order 9066.
Shizu Ueda explained that her notice
oi dismissal arrived on the same day she
was to receive a pay increase. George
Muraki, now a Sacramento architect, was
dismissed from a clerk's position he held
to finance his college education. Ironi-
cally, both later worked in the national
defense effort - Ueda as a clerk with
the Department of Defense and Muraki
as a military intelligence interpreter.
- One of the authors of the repeal
measure, Assemblyman Phil Isenberg,
described how there was hardly any press
or public criticism of the dismissal and
internment orders during the wartime
period. Muraki told the Committee that
the ACLU-NC wrote to inform him of
the status of its action challenging the
dismissal. The ACLU-NC was one of the
only organizations to challenge any of the
repressive measures aimed at Japanese
Americans during World War II.
Muraki added that he later turned
down a position with the state as an
architect. The memories of his dismissal
were too painful, he said.
Many state workers of Japanese descent lost their jobs under California law even
before the federal internment order was issued.
Jr. High Student - with Earring - Reinstated
When 13-year old Robert Tabler was
- suspended from Scotts Valley Junior
High School for wearing an earring, his
mother called the Santa Cruz Chapter
ACLU Hotline. Within 24 hours, Chapter
Legal Representative Robert Taren met
with Shirley Tabler and her son and
planned a legal strategy which was to get
the eighth grader - wearing his earring
- reinstated.
- After meeting with the Tablers, Taren
- contacted the Superintendent of Schools
- for the Scotts Valley School District and
. explained that he would initiate a lawsuit
-. on the student's behalf.
"Robert 's earring - which was a small
stud and only visible if he pulled back
his hair - caused no disruption to the
-. academic atmosphere in the classroom.
_- Phe principal himself later admitted this,"
~ Taren explained. |
"Moreover, it is sexually discriminatory
__ for boys, but not girls, to be prohibited
_ from wearing earrings. Two other boys
`in the school had been told to stop
wearing earrings and they had. Robert
- wanted to fight this," Taren added.
On March 25, less than a week after
Robert had been suspended, he was
reinstated at Scotts Valley Junior High
- thanks to the vigilance and effective
-work of the Santa Cruz Chapter.
Courtesy of JACL
__Calendar__
continued from p. 8
FIELD
COMMITTEE
MEETINGS
PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE: Wed-
nesday, April 3 at 7:30 p.m. and Wednesday
May | at 6:00 p.m. ACLU 1663 Mission
Street, 4th floor, SF, All Pro-Choice
supporters and friends welcome. Contact
Marcia Gallo, 415/621-2493.
RIGHT TO DISSENT SUBCOMMIT-
TEE: Wednesday April 3 at 6:00 p.m. and
Wednesday May | at 7:30 p.m. ACLU 1663
Mission Street, 4th Floor, SF. Contact
Contact Marcia Gallo, 415/621-2493.
| DRAFT OPPOSITION NETWORK:
(Usually second Tuesday-of month.)
Contact Judy Newman 415/567-1527.
IMMIGRATION WORKING GROUP:
Thursday, April 11 at 6:00 p.m. DiConcini/
Moakley Strategizing Session with sanc-
tuary expert, Terri Chin of Catholic Social
Services. Contact Cindy Forster 415/621-
2493.
Government Ban
continued from p. 1
"Although this is only a preliminary
step," Crosby explained, "it is an impor-
tant one." The judge has established that
Mrs. Allende's affiliation with organiza-
tions deemed subversive by the Admin-
istration cannot justify her exclusion
under Section (27) of the McCarran-
Walter Act.
"It follows that other ideological
grounds, such as her beliefs, writings and
prior speeches, cannot furnish a basis for
denying her a visa. Thus, the government
must provide a non-ideological basis for
Mrs. Allende's exclusion - for example,
a violation" of prior visa conditions,"
Crosby said.
As the government's motion to dismiss
for summary judgement was denied, the
case will proceed in the same district
court.
=
TOPICS |
Still Active After All These Years
The following article appeared in the
Oakland Tribune on March 20, 1985.
Richard Criley, cited below as chairman
of the UC Berkeley student anti-war
group is now Vice-chair of the ACLU
and a founding member of the Right to -
of yesterday |
March 20, 1935
BERKELEY - Nine University of California
students, four of them women, were arrested for
distributing anti-war handbills outside the Sather
Gate entrance of the institution today.
Police Judge Oliver L. Youngs, who first set
bail at $10 cash or $50 bond for each of the nine,
later released them on their own recognizance to
appear Monday-at-9 a.m. in police court here.
Richard Criley, ghairman of the campus
dup,said he aid appeal the arrests to the
Civil Liberties Union on the ground that they
constituted an infringement of the students' right
of free speech. The pamphlets heralded a meet-
ing of the student anti-war committee this after-
noon.
Dissent subcommittee. One wonders
what the City Attorney and the Police
Chief are doing today...
- Yesterday Criley appeared at the office of
City Attorney Frederick Hutchinson seeking a
license to distribute the handbills..He was told
that a city ordinance covering distribution did
not permit a hand-to-hand passage and that the
pamphlets could only be delivered to homes and
in mail boxes. |
Subsequently Police Chief John A. Greening
issued a warning to the students not to distribute -
the literature, but the order was defied, resulting
in the arrests. ee
Several hundred handbills telling readers to
"see the daily newspapers for news of imminent
wars" were confiscated by police at the time of
the arrests.
aclunews_-,
april 1985 t
Irv Cohen - Civil Liberties Champion
hen former ACLU National
Board member Irv Cohen died
of cancer on March 11, the
ACLU lost one of its staunchest fighters
_and one of its most valuable minds.
He knew the history of civil liberties
in California like the back of his hand.
From details of the discussions of the
founding mothers and fathers of the
ACLU of Northern California to the
heady days of the Berkeley Free Speech
Movement to current debate on the Board
"about religious meetings in schools, Irv
Cohen knew - and cared passionately
- about the struggle for civil liberties.
Born in Armenia, the long-time New
York City resident relocated to bucolic
Marin: County where he jogged the
running trails daily. Irv twice served as
the Chairperson of the Marin Chapter
Board; during his lengthy tenure as a
member of the ACLU-NC Affiliate
Board, he chaired the Chapter Committee
and was a member of the Executive
Committee. He was also one of the Board
members nominated by the staff to serve
on the Grievance Committee.
In 1975; the affiliate lost its then acting
Executive Director to a state appointment
by Governor Jerry Brown and was
desperately looking for an interim leader
while a new Executive Director search
was conducted. According to the ACLU
News of February, 1975, "The resourceful
Executive Committee wasted no time and
immediately arm-twisted Irv Cohen into
agreeing to serve as Acting Director.
Before Irv had time to come to his senses
and reconsider, the Board of Directors
approved the appointment. :
"There was another sonic on
contributing to the dispatch with which
the Board acted - everyone was afraid
Jerry Brown would hear about Irv and
invite him to Sacramento, too."
Irv was sent by the ACLU-NC to
represent our 20,000 members on the
National Board from 1977 to 1980. There
he brought to the national organization
some of the probing questions and
contentious style which was characteristic
both of this affiliate and our represen-
Frank Rowe
Led Fight Against California Tani Oath
Michael M per
Artist, teacher, author: Frank Rowe,
whose fight against unconstitutional.
them."
loyalty oaths spanned'3 decades died on
March 24 in Walnut Creek. Rowe,
authored The Enemy Among Us, a-
history of the California loyalty oath oe
during the McCarthy era.
At a December 1980 press conference
announcing the ACLU-NC's successful
challenge to the use of the loyalty oath
in the Richmond Unified School District,
Rowe joined plaintiff Marvin Schmid and
ACLU-NC
Schwartz in. condemning the McCarthy
era oath.
Speaking at the press conference of his _
27-year battle for reinstatement in his job
and for compensation for himself and
others, Rowe said, "I am in disbelief that
a school district in 1980 would attempt
_ to enforce this old oath.
"I feel saddened that after all we have
been through, school administrators do
not understand the Bill of Rights," Rowe
said. "There is a period of instability in'
1980 and that is the kind of atmosphere
where these kinds of things crop up. It
is important that we speak out against
_In 1980, The Enemy Among Us won
awards from the California Federation of
Teachers and the United Professors of
- California.
staff attorney Amitai
tative on such critical issues as affirmative
action and religious freedom.
As a writer and editor, Irv's many skills
and interests led him on diverse paths.
He was the film critic for Marin County's
weekly Pacific Sun and a freelance
contributor to the San Francisco Chron-
icles Sunday art review Datebook. His
novel, The Passover. Commando, pub-
lished by Crown Publishers in 1979, is
a modern day international thriller
steeped in Biblical allusions At the time .
of his death he was working on a
biography of Charles Erskine Scott, a
progressive intellectual and adventurer of
the 20's and 30's who was married to Sara
Bard Field, a founder of the ACLU-NC.
- He also graced the pages of the
affiliate's ACLU News with reviews of
books and oral histories pertinent to our
past. His knowledge of and enthusiasm _
for ACLU history helped create our 50th -
anniversary historical retrospective.
Irv generously dispensed his witty
advice to aspiring young writers, "Buy an
old oak wine barrel and fill it with brine,"
he said. "Stand in it every day for six
months or so. When your skin is as thick
as an elephant's, you can start to write.
That's when you will be able to take the
rejections."
Irv may have ounten his skin in
brine or literary rejection slips, but his
heart always remained, tender in dealing
with his colleagues -and friends. His
passion for civil liberties and his excite-
ment for life - its. jewels and its battles
- never dimmed.
Irv's wife Marna and his children lanl
and Judith Cohen-Baer are asking that
contributions in Irv's name be made to
the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Board of Directors of the ACLU-
NC wants to honor our own favorite son,
Irv Cohen, by pledging to carry on the
battle for civil liberties with as much
commitment, creativity, tenacity, and zest
as Irv did in his lifetime.
The above resolution was passed by the
ACLU-NC Board of Directors on April
ATT 1985.
Newly Revised!
432 pp.
ELLA
THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN
Susan Deller Ross and Ann Barcher
An-authoritative and up-to-date American Civil Liberties Union handbook
on how to cope with sex discrimination in employment, education, the
mass media, the criminal justice system, the courts, and elsewhere.
To order, send $3.95 plus $1 for postage and handling to: Literature
Department, ACLU, 132 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036. Also -
available from Bantam Books at your local bookstore.
RG Handbooks
Newly Revised!
THE RIGHTS OF GAY PEOPLE
Thomas B. Stoddard, E. Carrington Boggan,
Marilyn G. Haft, Charles Lister, and John RP Rupp
An American Civil Liberties Union handbook describing the rights of gay
men and women under present law, the common problems they face
and how the laws can and should develop. 208 pp.
To order, send $3.95 plus $1 for postage and handling to: Literature
Department, ACLU, 132 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036. Also
available from Bantam Books at your local bookstore,
RCL wanabooks
A Step By Step Guide
Center for National Security Studies
USING THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
This is a guide for the intelligent layman through the bureaucratic thicket of FOIA
requests and appeals. The reader is provided with step by step help, including sam-
ple letters and detailed guidelines for dealing with routine agency responses to
requests and appeals. As a resource since the 1974 FOIA amendments went into
effect, the Center for National Security Studies knows what the questions: have been
for getting personal files, for getting historical material, for keeping fees down or get-
ting fee waivers, and for planning request strategies. Revised in 1983. 20 pp. $2.00/
copy. Bulk rates available at $1 -00/copy for all orders of 25 copies or more.
ae
8
aclu news
april 1985
- BARK
BOARD MEETING: (Usually fourth
Thursday each month.) Volunteers are
needed to staff hotline. Contact Joe Dorst,
415/654-4163.
EARL WARREN
BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday
`each month.) Contact Larry Polansky,
415/530-4553.
FRESNO
BOARD MEETING: (Usually third
Wednesday each month.) Contact Sam
Gitchel, 209/442-0941 or Hague Foster,
~ 209/227-8082.
RECEPTION for Theatre Ensemble
"People Speaking" April 18, 7:00 p:m. at
Howard and Chris Watkins' house. See
local newsletter for details.
GAY RIGHTS
BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday each
month.) Tuesday, May 7, 7:00 p.m. at
ACLU 1663 Mission Street, #460, SF.
Contact Doug Warner, 415/641-7900.
COMING ATTRACTION: Reception for
Gay Pride week in June. :
MID-PENINSULA
BOARD MEETING: (Usually last
Wednesday each month.) Contact Harry
Anisgard, 415/856-9186.
MONTEREY
BOARD MEETING: (Fourth Tuesday
each month.) Tuesday, April 23, 7:30 p.m.,
Monterey Library, Pacific and Jefferson
Streets. Contact Richard Criley, 408/624-
7562.
MT. DIABLO
BOARD MEETING: (Fourth Wednesday
every month.) Contact Barbara Eaton for
location, 415/676-5160 or 939-ACLU.
FUNDRAISER: Mt. Diablo has
purchased the house for the opening
Saturday performance, May 25, of the
Lafayette Dramateur's Production of
Agatha Christie's "Appointment with
Death". Tickets are $12.50. The theater is
located at the corner of Moraga Road and
School Street in Lafayette. Curtain time
is 8:00 p.m. Wine, cheese and hors
d'oeuvres provided . For reservatioons send
check to Guyla W. Ponomareff, 3433
Golden Gate Way, Suite C, Lafayette, CA
94549 or call 284-4300 (days) or Lucie
dissent. . ,
MARIN COUNTY
381-1088.
BOARD MEETING: (Third Monday
each month.) Contact Leslie Paul, 415/
Brandon (eves) 933-1284.
Field Committee
Priorities Set for 1985
by Macia Gallo
Field Representative
Increasing assaults on protest and
reproductive rights ... immi-
grants' rights ... draft opposition... and
the independence of the California
Supreme Court provided the framework
for the 1985 Field Committee Priority
Discussion held March 2 in San Fran-
cisco. 25 ACLU activists, representing
- chapters and organizing committees from
throughout northern California, reviewed
the work of the Field Program in 1984
and planned for expanded efforts in 1985.
Committee Affirms
Current Efforts
The ACLU-NC's Field Program coor-
`dinates the membership organizing work
of the affiliate and is directed by the Field.
Committee, a standing committee of the
Board of Directors. The Field Committee
is made up of the 16 chapter represen-
tatives to the ACLU-NC Board and 5
at-large members.
Each year, the Committee analyzes the
myriad of civil liberties issues confronting
ACLU activists and chooses priority areas
for concentrated action. Special organ-
izing groups are formed to lead mem-
bership organizing and education efforts,
build ACLU's coalition work, carry out
grassroots lobbying campaigns, and
develop media outreach projects in each
of the priority areas.
In 1984, the Field Program focused ou
the right to dissent as its top priority, with
pro-choice organizing and the defense of
immigrants' rights as second priority
areas. Draft. opposition work was
included as a third priority. The Com-
mittee reaffirmed the importance of
continuing current efforts in all of these
areas in 1985 due to continuing - and
accelerating - attacks on. each, and
added a new priority issue: independence
of the judiciary.
Independence of the Judiciary -
"California's periodic vote on retention
of justices was intended to be a safety
valve permitting the removal of a senile
or otherwise incompetent.judge," noted -
Richard Criley, Field Committee chair
during the Committee's discussion of this
issue. "It was not supposed to serve as
a judicial `popularity contest'. The
moment retention is made a partisan,
political contest, the independence of the
_ judicial branch is endangered."
Committee. members agreed that,
although the vote on retention of five
members of the California Supreme
Court is still more than a year away,
attacks on specific members of the Court
for not being "conservative" enough have
already been heated and widespread.'
ACLU's San Francisco chapter is now
planning a series of educational forums
Calendar.
_ Address:
NORTH PENINSULA
BOARD MEETING: (Third Monday this
month only. Usually held the second
Monday each month.) Monday, April 15,
Sears Bank, San Mateo. Contact Sid
Scheiber, 415/345-8603 (eves).
CHAMPAIGN BRUNCH: Sunday, May
19 at 1:00 p.m.; The first presentation of
the Meta Kauffman/Roy Archibald
Memorial Civil Liberties Award to Marian
Hemingway for her lifetime work-as a civil - :
libertarian. Keynote speaker Dru Ramey
will address "The Independence of the
Judiciary." Villa Hotel, 4000 S. El Camino
Real, San Mateo. $25. per person ($15.
limited income). For tickets call: Sid
Schieber 415/345-8603. (eves).
"SACRAMENTO
BOARD MEETING: Note change: Now
the second . Wednesday - each
month. Contact Mary Gill, 916/457-4088.
SAN FRANCISCO
BOARD MEETING: (Usually fourth
Tuesday each month.) Contact Chandler
Visher, 415/391-5110 -
-SANTA CLARA
BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday each
month.) Contact Steve Alpers, 415/792-
510. =
on the issues involved in preserving an
independent judicial system, and other
ACLU chapters in northern California
may develop similar projects. -
Texas Observer
SIGN ME UP ~
| want to be more involved in Field Committee activities
SANTA CRUZ.
BOARD MEETING: (Usually second
Wednesday each month.) Wednesday,
April, 10 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. All members
welcome. Contact Bob Taren 408/429-
0880.
SONOMA
BOARD MEETING: (Third Thursday
every month at 7:30 p.m.) 719 Orchard, |
Santa Rosa. Winetasting at every board
meeting. Contact June Swan 707/547-
- 7711. Volunteers needed to-take complaint
calls. Training at board meetings.
~ PRO-CHOICE COMMITTEE forming.
Call Sharon Simms 707/762-3964 (eves).
FORUM ON IMMIGRATION AND
SANCTUARY. Friday evening, May
10. Contact June Swan 707/546-7711.
STOCKTON
BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday
~ each month.) Contact Bart Harloe 209/
4946-2431 (days).
YOLO COUNTY
BOARD MEETING: Contact Michael
Laurence 916/756-8421.
continued on p. 6
Top Priority: Your Involvement
The extensive organizing efforts being
planned by the Field Committee cannot
be continued without the active involve-
ment of ACLU members. As a chapter
member or because of specific interest in
one of the priority areas, ACLU suppor-
ters can help stop the assaults on civil
liberties by devoting some time on a
regular basis to one of the organizing
groups. Please fill out the coupon below
and send it immediately to: Marcia Gallo,
Field Representative, ACLU of Northern -
California, 1663 Mission Street, #460, San
Francisco, CA 94103; or call for more
information: 415/621-2493.
Your time and energy can have a great
impact. Please join us today.
Name:
City:
Telephone: Day
Zip:
Night
I'm interested in working on the following issues:
________ Right to Dissent
_______ Reproductive Rights
immigrants' Rights
Independence of the Judiciary
___-- Draft Opposition
Please send me information about my local chapter.
Thank you! Together we can make a difference