vol. 58, no. 6
Primary tabs
aclu news
Non-PROFIT
ORGANIZATION
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Permit No.4424
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Volume LVIII
esponding to lawsuits filed immedi-
R= after the election results were
in, state and federal judges blocked
the implementation of Proposition 187, the
ballot initiative which would deny educa-
tion, health and social services to children
and others who cannot prove that they are
legally in this country.
The first Temporary Restraining Order
was issued at noon on November 9 by San
- Francisco Superior Court Judge Stuart
Pollak in three cases protecting the right of
students to attend school.
In one of the suits, Pedro A. v. Dawson
and the State Board of Education, the
ACLU joined other civil rights organiza-
tions in representing children in Califor-
nia's public elementary, junior high and
high schools who would be barred from
school if the measure went into effect.
At a packed press conference preced-
ing the hearing before Judge Pollak,
National ACLU Immigrants' Rights
Project Director Lucas Guttentag noted
that this suit is one of many state and
federal lawsuits being filed in California to
challenge Proposition 187. "Proposition
187 is a frontal attack on the Constitution
- and is being challenged by lawsuits
throughout the state. This proposition is
the culmination of a hysteria over immigra-
tion created by politicians afraid to
confront the real issues facing California. I
am confident that the courts will send a
loud and clear message to the sponsors of
187 and to the entire country - Proposi-
tion 187 is unconstitutional, it is discrimi-
natory and it will never go into effect."
Pedro A. is a statewide class action suit
November - December 1994
STATE, FEDERAL COURT ORDERS
Judges Block Anti-Immigrant Measure
East Bay high school students joined thousands of students around the state in
marches and demonstrations opposing Proposition 187.
David Bacon
No. 6
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_1985.batch ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1986.batch ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1987.batch ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1988.batch ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1989.batch ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1990.batch ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1991.batch ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1992.batch ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1993.batch ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1994.batch 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 add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log that asks the court to permanently enjoin
Section 48215 of the California Educa-
tional Code - automatically enacted with
the passage of Proposition 187 - because
it violates the constitutionally guaranteed
rights of innocent children. The new
section mandates school officials to verify
the immigration status of all students and
their parents, exclude children based solely
on their undocumented immigration status,
and report all children and their parents to
state and federal authorities if they
"reasonably suspect" them to be in viola-
tion of immigration law.
The plaintiffs are five families and their
children who are currently enrolled in
California elementary and high schools
and California taxpayer Henry Der, the
Director of Chinese for Affirmative
Action. The children represent a class of
about 300,000 students who would be
excluded from California schools under the
provisions of Proposition 187.
Judge Pollak issued the TRO despite
- protests from lawyers from the state Attor-
ney General's office. The TRO is in effect
until November 29 and will be extended
until February 8, when Judge Pollak has
scheduled a hearing on the preliminary
injunction. The order states that all of the
defendants are prohibited from "barring
the public school attendance of any child
based upon his/her immigration status,
inquiring of the immigration status of any
child or any child's parent/guardian,
providing any immigration status informa-
tion [under Proposition 187] to any state or
Continued on page 8
Gas Chamber Banned in California
Ihe gas chamber is "inhumane and
has no place in a civilized society,"
decided U. S. District Court Judge
Marilyn Hall Patel on October 4 in a 75- 0x00B0
page opinion in the ACLU lawsuit Fierro
v. Gomez.
"The gas chamber is widely viewed as
an antiquated mode of execution, causing a
slow, painful and inhumane death," Judge
Patel stated, ruling the gas chamber "cruel
and unusual" in violation of the Eighth
Amendment.
"This decision is one small step away
from inhumanity," said ACLU-NC Death
Penalty Project Director. Michael
Laurence. "We knew that if any judge
looked at the evidence dispassionately, he
or she would conclude that California
slowly tortures people to death in the gas
chamber. Judge Patel did precisely that
kind of review in her opinion."
Laurence, along with cooperating
attorney Warren George of McCutcheon,
Doyle, Brown and Enerson and ACLU-NC
staff attorney Matthew Coles, filed the
civil rights lawsuit on behalf of Califor-
nia's Death Row inmates in April 1992 just
days before Robert Harris became the first
person to be executed in California's gas
chamber in 25 years.
This is the first time in the history of the
United States that any method of execution
has been ruled unconstitutional. "Judges
who faced this question were never before
confronted with the broad array of
This ts the first time in U.S. history that
any method of execution has been ruled
unconstitutional.
evidence that we presented to the court,"
explained Laurence. During a three-week
trial in the fall of 1993, the ACLU-NC
presented testimony from journalists and
other eyewitnesses to executions, toxicol-
ogy experts, neurologists, prison officials
and a legal ethicist. In addition, thousands
of pages of written testimony, including
declarations from Holocaust survivors
_who witnessed deaths by gas in Nazi
concentration camps, supplemented the
witnesses on the stand.
Savage, uncivilized
"Judge Patel has very carefully
documented that the gas chamber is a
savage, uncivilized way of executing
people," said attorney Coles. "This is the
right decision - it has finally brought
California into the 20th Century and
stopped a savage practice."
Judge Patel's lengthy ruling paid
careful attention to the fine points of
science, ethics and law that were examined
in the 1993 trial in San Francisco's U.S.
District Court.
Drawing on the expert testimony
presented by toxicologists and neurolo-
gists about the severity and duration of
pain during gas chamber executions, Judge
Patel concluded that condemned inmates
remain conscious for several minutes and
suffer intense pain. "Symptoms of air
hunger include intense chest pains, such as
felt during a heart attack, acute anxiety,
and struggling to breathe," Patel noted in
her opinion. There may also be other types
of pain, including "exquisitely painful
muscle spasms."
The ruling also drew on medical and
eyewitness accounts of San Quentin gas
chamber executions. Both Robert Harris
and David Mason remained conscious for
up to three minutes after exposure to
hydrogen cyanide gas, she noted, rejecting
Continued on page 2
BiLL OF ar
RisHis if
HONORING CONGRESSMAN DON EDWARDS
DECEMBER
on
"
aclu news
2
November - December 1994
Sues Nation's Largest Security Guard Firm
_ Job Seeker Challenges "Political Litmus Test''
`es a pre-employment examination
D which delves into applicants' views
on workers' rights, free enterprise
and drug laws violate the California Labor
Code's prohibition on employment discrim-
ination based on political activity or affilia-
tion? Veteran security guard Mel Thompson
thinks so. On October 20, Thompson
announced his class action suit against
Burns International Security Services, a
division of Borg-Warner Protective
Services, the largest security agency in the
country, to challenge its use of a pre-
_ employment "political litmus test."
Thompson is represented by ACLU-NC
staff attorney Ed Chen and cooperating attor-
neys Brad Seligman, an Albany civil rights
lawyer, and Laurence Pulgram, Linda Foy
and Jay Kuo of Howard, Rice Nemerovski,
Canady, Robertson,-Falk and Rabkin.
The challenged test requires job appli-
_ cants to answer questions about their
attitudes concerning corporations,
employers, workers' rights and drug and
alcohol laws. Among the 100 True/False
questions are:
- Workers usually come last as far as most
companies are concermed.
+ Most employers try to underpay their
employees if they can.
# Companies provide only what they have
to for worker comfort. -
+ Most companies make too much profit.
+ Most employers really care about
improving working conditions for their
employees.
Most bosses are fair to their employees.
Marijuana should be legalized.
The drinking age should be lowered.
The government has no right to interfere
+444
man, wouldn't answer political questions on an employment exam.
Plaintiff Mel Thompson (center), flanked by attorneys Linda Foy and Brad Selig-
with a person who chooses drugs if its
doesn't hurt anyone.
+ Illegal use of marijuana is worse than
drinking liquor.
According to test documents, the
company can use the exam to determine
whether an applicant believes in "traditional
values" such as "free enterprise" or whether
the applicant is "anti-establishment
(counter-culture)." Applicants are told to
answer every question with "yes," "no" or
"2." Tf the applicant marks "?" as the
response to any item on the test, it is graded
as an incorrect answer.
"T don't see why I should have to pledge
allegiance to corporations to get a $7 an hour
job," said plaintiff Mel Thompson who is
bringing the case on behalf of all job appli-
cants in California who were required to
take the test. Thompson, who applied for an
unarmed guard position in San Francisco,
had been told he was an excellent prospect
for hire until he took the test. He checked (c)
"?" on the test for questions that probed his
political beliefs.
The lawsuit, Thompson v. Burns Inter-
national Security Services, charges that the
use of the test violates California Labor
Code Sections 1101-1102 which prohibit
employers from discriminating against or
coercing employees and applicants based on
their political attitudes, actions and affilia-.
tions. The lawsuit also charges that the use
of the test is an unlawful business practice
under the Business and Professions Code
Section 17200. The suit, which has been
filed as a class action on behalf of all appli-
cants and potential applicants for employ-
ment with Burns, seeks an injunction
prohibiting the use of the test as well as
damages of an unspecified amount for
applicants subjected to the test.
"This test allows an employer to attempt
to hire only job applicants who hold tradi-
tional, conservative political views about
corporations, the workplace and drug laws,"
said ACLU-NC cooperating counsel Brad
Seligman. "Liberals and progressives,
Democrats, Greens and Libertarians or
Peace and Freedom party members are likely
to be screened out by this test,' he added.
"It is: crucial that employers be
prevented from dictating the political beliefs
of their employees," said ACLU-NC staff
attorney Ed Chen. "The national ACLU
Workers' Rights Project and our state affili-
ate are determined to protect employees'
rights of free expression. Fortunately,
California labor laws prohibit employers
from discriminating on the basis of political
views and activities."
Cooperating attorney Linda Foy noted,
"The use of this test has a chilling effect on
the exercise of core political rights: it penal-
izes persons who decline to answer the test's
intrusive questions concerning their attitudes
toward workers' rights, among other issues,
and it sends a signal to applicants and
employees that `correct' political attitudes
and affiliations are being screened for and
are, in effect, job qualifications."
The suit, filed in San Francisco Superior
Court, is one of the largest cases concerning
employees' political activity in California.
Its outcome will have a broad impact on the (c)
nature of employment testing throughout
the state. e
Gas Chamber...
Continued from page 1
hydrogen cyanide gas, she noted, rejecting
the state's claim that unconsciousness is
almost immediate.
National consensus
Judge Patel also reviewed the testi-
mony of legal ethicist Frank Zimring and |
concluded that there was "a national
consensus rejecting the use of the gas
chamber as an acceptable method of
execution."
Professor Zimring's analysis of state
legislatures' laws concerning methods of
execution indicated that since the U.S.
Supreme Court reinstituted the death
penalty in 1976, "the overwhelming
majority" of states that used lethal gas had
dropped it as a means of execution.
Between 1972 and 1992, twenty-five
states had either dropped gas or adopted an
alternative method of execution.
Currently, only five other states -
Maryland, North Carolina, Mississippi,
Missouri and Arizona - still have laws
allowing the use of the gas chamber.
When the ACLU-NC first filed its
challenge, gas was the only method of
execution allowed in California. After the
Harris execution, the Legislature amended
the law to allow inmates to choose lethal
injection. The other states which use gas
also have the option of lethal injection.
"The gas chamber is viewed as an
antiquated mode of execution, causing a
. Slow, painful and inhumane death," Patel
concluded.
Pain and consciousness
Finally, Judge Patel's opinion distin-
guished the ruling on gas from the Ninth
Circuit's January decision in a Washington
state case, Campbell v. Wood allowing
hanging as a method of execution.
"Judge Patel took some pains to show
that lethal gas, unlike hanging, is not a
quick means of death," explained cooper-
ating attorney George.
Judge Patel stated, "While. the
Campbell court did not pinpoint a thresh-
old at which the time to unconsciousness
and the corresponding pain would violate
the Constitution, the court implied that the
persistence of consciousness `for over a
minute' or for `between a minute and a
minute and a half, but no longer than two
minutes might be considered outside
constitutional boundaries."
Patel's opinion noted that the extended
period of consciousness was heightened by
the "unscientific, slapdash manner," in
which San Quentin developed its execution
procedure.
During the trial, former San Quentin
warden Daniel Vasquez, who presided over
both the Harris and the Mason executions,
testified that he had never consulted with
medical experts in designing the gassing of
prisoners by hydrogen cyanide. Vasquez
also testified that he told condemned inmate
David Mason (who was executed a year
after Harris) gas would cause death in "two
to four seconds."
In written records, however, it was
shown that San Quentin's prison doctor
showed that both Harris and Mason had not
been definitely unconscious until three
minutes after they were exposed to the
lethal gas.
The decision was announced in banner
headlines throughout the state. Editorials
in USA Today, the San Francisco
Examiner and the Los Angeles Times
applauded the ruling. |
Only Governor Pete Wilson and Attor-
ney General Dan Lungren seemed disap-
pointed by the decision. In a hastily called
press conference on the afternoon of the
ruling, Lungren announced that he would
appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit.
He did so three days later. Hi
aclu news
6 issues a year: January-February, March-April, May-June, July-August,
September -October, and November-December.
Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Milton Estes, Chairperson
Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director
Elaine Elinson, Editor
Lisa Maldonado, Field Page
ZesTop Publishing, Design and Layout
1663 Mission St., 4th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94103
(415) 621-2493
Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news
and 50 cents is for the national ACLU bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.
aclu news
3
November - December 1994
by Romi Bhatia
ver 175 high school journalists
() from throughout northern Califor-
nia gathered in the ASUC Build-
ing at U.C. Berkeley on October 12 for the
ACLU-NC "Writing Your Rights Confer-
ence." The conference was co-sponsored
by the Howard A. Friedman First Amend-
ment Education Project, the ACLU-NC
Student Advisory Council and the ACLU |
Berkeley Student Caucus.
The opened on a controversial note
with a debate on school uniforms between
Vallejo Senior High School ACLU Club
members Menwin Morales and Natalie
Adona. "This is a timely issue," explained
Student Advisory Council member Preet-
mohan Sabharwal, a student at San Jose's
Live Oak High School, as he introduced
the debate. "The Legislature has just
passed a law allowing school districts to
adopt uniforms."
Morales emphasized the need for
uniforms to deal with the increase in
gangs and crime in the community. "The
hostility surrounding apparel sometimes
makes students fearful of attending
school," Morales charged.
In response, Adona
reminded the audience of their
individual rights to freedom of
speech and expression.
"Sometimes this means challeng-
ing the rules and regulations that
high school administrations have
burdened students with," Adona
stated.
The debate drew a strong
response from the crowd. A dozen
students stepped up to the mike to tell
their stories and express their feelings.
Brie Mazurek, a junior from Live Oak
High School in San Jose, said "I don't
think that any school should adopt
uniforms because it is a clear violation
of the First Amendment." Another
student charged that school officials are
just relying on stereotypes when they
claim that a hooded sweatshirt or baggy
pants mean someone is a gang member.
Following the plenary, student-led
workshops were held on journalistic
ethics, diversification of newspaper staffs,
how to handle "hot topics," the ramifica-
tions of sex, graffiti art, and underground
newspapers. Resource speakers at the
workshops included Nanette Asimov of
the San Francisco Chronicle, U.C. Santa
Cruz journalism professor Conn Hallinan,
Inside/OUT publisher Rick Aguirre, Yo!
editor Kevin Westin and ACLU-NC staff
attorney Ann Brick.
A vivid example of the role of student
journalists arose in the "hot topics" session
where two students spoke of an editorial
they had written criticizing the mother of a
teenager who had committed suicide. The
mother had apparently blamed the school
newspaper for publishing an article which
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Journalists Suchin Pak (1.) and Kevin Westin spoke of promoting
youth voices in mainstream media.
High School
Reporter and conference participant Romi Bhatia.
Journalists
Learn to "Write Your
cones,
the mother believed had caused her daugh-
ter to commit suicide.
"We found ourselves overwhelmed by
these students' situation," said one
workshop attender. When journalism
professor Hallinan asked the group about
the ethics involved in this situation, there
was a great deal of argument - yet every-
one agreed that student journalists must
take responsibility for what they write and
must also take into account how it will
influence others.
I had the pleasure of facilitating a
workshop, along with Steven Shepard
from Live Oak High School, covering a
topic relatively unknown to the general
public and to ourselves. The focus was on
graffiti art - a new form of expression.
The session was honored to have a graffiti
Rights"
artist from San Francisco. Through his
presentation and frank response to our
questions, we discovered that graffiti art is
not just a new trend but a tradition that has
attracted people to express their artistic as
well as social and political ideas in a
creative form.
The guest artist told the audience that
because of lack of funding for the arts,
young artists are never encouraged or
given a full chance to show their creative
talent in school. The media has reacted
negatively to graffiti and law enforcement
is targeting artists unfairly.
The audience was astonished at the
artistic pieces he displayed in his slide
show from around the Bay Area and
beyond. One student commented, "Most
people look at graffiti art with a distorted
vision and fail to realize the beauty and
message that lies underneath."
Conference Photos by Rick Rocamora
The conference closed with a plenary
session on "How the 1964 Free Speech
Movement Helped (or Hurt) Student
Expression Today." The panel included
Professor Hallinan, one of the original
participants in the 1964 movement that
rocked the U.C. Berkeley campus, Suchin
Pak of KGO-TV's "Straight Talk `N'
Teens," and editor Kevin Westin of Pacific
News Service's Yo!"
"Writing your rights" was the theme of
the ACLU conference. After a full day, the
students realized that it doesn't matter
whether they write, voice, or spray paint
their rights - they have rights and the
power to express them in any way, shape or
form. -
Romi Bhatia is a student at Live Oak
High School in San Jose and a member of
the ACLU Student Advisory Committee. and
ACLU and Mi earthy
Z
was pleased to read in the ACLU News about Ernie Besig's 90th birthday celebra-
tion. I note that the ACLU was "profoundly involved" in the struggles against
McCarthyism and HUAC in 1960s.
My experience in 1951, however, with then-director Erie Besig was quite differ-
ent. When I phoned the ACLU office, after having been subpoenaed by the Burns
State Unamerican Activities Committee, Besig refused to render any support. "How
do we know that you are not connected with the Communists?" he challenged me.
I was not connected with the CP in any way, but Ernie didn't see fit to question me
further, nor to offer any advice or support whatsoever.
- Alice Hamburg
Berkeley
e regret that the ACLU of Northern California did not offer any assistance to
Alice Hamburg when she was subpoenaed by the Burns Committee. Although
Mr. Besig responds that he has no recollection of her phone call 43 years ago, a search
of the ACLU News of that period includes a number of articles about ACLU opposi-
tion to the Burns Committee. In 1952, the ACLU challenged the dismissal of a Salva-
_ tion Army worker who was fired after appearing before the Committee. In 1954,
ACLU-NC attorney Lawrence Speiser filed a lawsuit on behalf of four Pacific Gas and
Electric employees who lost their jobs after refusing to answer questions about their
political beliefs before the Burns Committee.
The ACLU was not immune from the insidious suspicions of the McCarthy era.
For readers who are interested in this crucial period, we recommend Samuel Walker's
In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU, especially Part IV,
American Inquisition. In addition, copies of the historical edition of the ACLU-NC's
ACLU News, which were created for the 50th anniversary of the affiliate, are avail-
able free of charge from the Public Information Department, ACLU-NC.
We thank Ms. Hamburg for her letter, and for her continued support of the ACLU-
NC and the continuing battle for civil liberties, despite her personal disappointment
with the organization in 1951.
- The Editor
CELEBRATING VICTORIES OF Oe civit ROHS MOVEM Ei cup CONTINUING STRUGG)p
AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF
NORTHERN
BiLLoF
-RiSHis
Dayen
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 4
Center forthe Arts Forum
at Yerba Buena Gardens
7Q1 Mission Street, San Francisco
Program (c) PM e Refreshments and No-Host Reception PM
Exhibit: High School "Freedom of Expression" Art Contest
m ENTER BAINMENT
Medea Project
Cultural Odyssey's Medea Project, a theater workshop for
incarcerated women founded by performance artist
Rhodessa Jones, takes theater to San Francisco's San Bruno
jail and brings inmates/actresses from the jail to theaters
outside. Medea Project performers confront issues of
violence, addiction and recovery, and recidivism. Since
1988, Jones has used her energetic, visionary approach
to performance art in San Bruno jail to create
powerful dramatic works that incorporate song,
dance, improvisation and monologues. "I tell
them," said Jones, "This is not Dream Girls. This
is not The Wiz. This is our lives."
oro BOR EN
P
Dr. Loco's Rockin' Jalapefio Band
Dr. Loco's Rockin' Jalapefio Band, led by Dr. Jose Cuellar, a professor of La Raza Studies
at San Francisco State, mixes social awareness with salsa, soul, rumba and RGB. The
group has taken its blend of progressive politics and danceable Chicano/Latino rhythms
around the West Coast, and shared the stage with artists ranging from Los Lobos to
Elvin Bishop. Describing the band's "movimiento music," the Los Angeles Times
recently stated "the exponents of `English Only' must wince at these lyrics."
$20.00 per person; $10.00 for seniors, low-income and students over 18; free for students under 18.
a | C is i iS) Ticket Office: Center for the Arts at Yerba Buena Gardens, 701 Mission Street, San Francisco CA 94103-3138.
Charge by phone and 24-hour event information: 415/978-ARTS = 978-2787
ree ==
one
.
oy) =
AAA:
`my
ae and
For the past twenty-one years, the ACLU of Northern California has granted the Earl Warren Civil Liberties
Award to a person or persons who have made major contributions in the battle for justice.
During COMGFEeSSMman Don Edwards' 3) .::5 ini
House of Representatives, he has played a leadership role in the passage of every piece of
civil rights and civil liberties legislation on the American political agenda. A former FBI
agent, in Congress he has been responsible for oversight of the FBI. As Vice-Chair of the
House Judiciary Committee and Chair of its Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional
Rights, Edwards paved the way in Congress for some of the most important civil liberties
laws this century. He passed up opportunities to head up other Congressional committees
so he could retain his position as monitor of the FBI and, as the New York Times called
him, "the field marshal in the battles over civil rights." He led the fight for the Voting
Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Civil Rights
Restoration Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act. In these efforts, Congressman Edwards worked side-by-side with
national and local ACLU staff and members in lobbying to undo past injustices and to
expand the civil liberties of all Americans, a task that was especially daunting during
the twelve years of the Reagan and Bush Administrations. This year, as Representative
Edwards retires from Congressional service, we honor his more than three decades of
legislating social justice in the United States.
LOLA HANZEL COURAGEOUS [ADVOCACY AWARD
In order to recognize and thank volunteers who have provided strength, dedication and leadership to the ACLU-NC
by their exemplary efforts, the Board of Directors established the Lola Hanzel Courageous Advocacy Award in
1981. Before her death in 1980, Lola Hanzel served as a volunteer at the ACLU-NC for more than a decade,
giving of her spirit and devotion in a way that inspired others.
(R)
ACLU-NC activist Howa ir d Lewis has a knack for doing the right thing at
the most unpredictable times. In 1953, during the Army-McCarthy hearings, Lewis - successful
businessman and real estate broker with a degree from Stanford - joined the ACLU. In 1963,
when he was the Director of the California Association of Realtors, he was the only one of
1,000 delegates at the annual convention to vote against the Associations' sponsorship of the
racist "Proposition 14." In fact, Lewis in 1964 became the Strategy Coordinator for
Californians Against Proposition 14, helping to send that measure - which would have
allowed racial discrimination in housing - down to defeat. That same year, he served as a
consultant to the President's Committee for Equal Opportunity in Housing. For almost a
decade, the ACLU has been fortunate to have this iconoclastic businessman and crusading
proponent for fair housing and racial justice as an activist on our chapter and affiliate
boards. Lewis served as an officer of the Mid-Peninsula Chapter from 1986-1993 and on
the affiliate Board from 1987-1993; of his tenure, Lewis says, "I argued all the time and
enjoyed myself thoroughly." His broad-ranging experience from the world of real estate to
the national campaigns against discrimination in housing have benefited the ACLU in the
most unexpected ways. For continuing to surprise us with his wisdom, his wit, his
leadership and his arguments, we thank activist Howard Lewis and honor him with the
Lola Hanzel Courageous Advocacy Award.
. aclu news
November - December 1994
by Herschel Farbman
n October 11, the Colorado
() Supreme Court struck down
Amendment 2, the anti-gay rights
_ measure passed by Colorado voters in
1992. The court's ruling in Evans v. Romer
made permanent an injunction issued
shortly after the election by the Denver
District Court.
The provisions of Amendment 2
prohibited any governmental body from
enacting any "statute, regulation,
ordinance, or policy" that might allow
claims of discrimination on the basis of :
sexual identity. If implemented, Amend-
ment 2 would have repealed laws protect-
ing gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals
already passed by several Colorado cities,
and prohibited the adoption of similar laws.
Perhaps its most damaging effect, accord-
ing to ACLU-NC staff attorney Matthew
Coles, would have been the short-circuiting
of public debate on the civil rights of gay
men, lesbians, and bisexuals. :
Coles challenged Amendment 2 along
with lawyers from the Colorado ACLU,
the National ACLU Lesbian and Gay
Rights Project, and the LAMBDA Legal
Defense and Education Fund. Plaintiffs
included individual Colorado taxpayers as
well as the governments of Denver, Aspen,
Court Strikes Down
Anti-Gay Measure in
Colorado
and Boulder - cities which had passed
gay rights legislation. Defendant Richard
Romer is the Governor of Colorado.
Coles praised the Colorado Supreme
Court's decision for offering a powerful
reminder that "government never has an
interest in ending debate on anything." The
state, in its defense of Amendment 2, had:
argued that deterring what it called
"factionalism" constitutes a "compelling
State interest."
In addition to its protection of public
debate, Coles also considered the court's
rejection of Amendment 2 to be important
as a precedent for challenges to other anti-
gay rights measures. Amendment 2 is only
the first in a series of state ballot initiatives
designed to take away government's power
to pass laws protecting the civil rights of
gay men and lesbians. Currently, similar
measures are on the ballot in Idaho and
Oregon. Attempts to put anti-gay initiatives
on statewide ballots failed in Michigan,
Arizona, Florida, Maine, Missouri,
Montana, Nevada and Washington, but
there are indications that, in some of these
states, attempts will be made again.
According to Coles, the ruling in Evans
provides the first precedent for challenging
these initiatives. "Similar initiatives
designed to take away government's
power to pass laws protecting the civil
rights of African Americans were struck
down in the late 50's and early `60s,"
explained Coles. "But those measures
were struck down because they constituted
racial discrimination. Cases concerning
the civil rights of gay men and lesbians
don't fit neatly into any existing federal
constitutional category."
Coles added that the Colorado ruling is
also precedent setting in that it represents
ACLU-NC Petitions Ninth Circuit for
Rehearing in Dr. Doe Case
by Jean Field
he ACLU-NC has petitioned for a
rehearing in Doe vy. Attorney
General after a three-judge panel of
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
that the FBI was entitled to ask a doctor
whether he had AIDS, and to stop sending
its agents to him for routine physical
examinations.
At the same time, the court ruled that in
general, federal law prohibits employers
from asking whether an employee has
AIDS, and that the agents were in no
significant danger of infection.
"The court's interpretation of the law is
a victory for people with HIV," said
ACLU-NC staff attorney Matt Coles, who
filed the case in 1988 on behalf of a doctor
who is now deceased. "But the outcome
just can't be squared with the record."
In its August 30 opinion, the court said
that the FBI tried to find out if the doctor
posed a risk to its agents, and received
evasive answers that allowed it to ask him
if he had AIDS. However, the FBI's testi-
mony itself indicates that Dr. Doe consis-
tently, and correctly, responded to its
questions by saying that if he had AIDS, it
would not have posed a risk to patients
during routine physical exams because he
was following federal guidelines for
minimizing risk.
"We need a rehearing so that the result
of the case is consistent with the court's
interpretation of the law," said Coles. "The
rights of people with HIV shouldn't exist
just in law books - they must be protected
in the real world as well." :
State Supreme Court to Review Parental
Consent for Abortion
by Jean Field
he California Supreme Court
ap announced September 29 that it will
review the Court of Appeal's ruling in
American Academy of Pediatrics y. Lungren,
which held that the state law requiring minors
to obtain parental or judicial consent for
abortion violates the California Constitu-
tion's guarantee of privacy.
"The Court's decision to take an
abortion rights case, its first in 13 years,
doesn't necessarily mean it's dissatisfied
with the Court of Appeal's ruling," said
ACLU-NC cooperating attorney Linda
Shostak. "It suggests that the Court is
seriously interested in the key issues of
privacy, parental rights and reproductive
freedom under the California Constitution
presented by this case."
The Court of Appeal's unanimous
opinion, issued in June, ruled that the state's
1987 parental consent law, which was never
enforced because of the ACLU-NC lawsuit,
did not further the state's asserted interests
in protecting the mental and physical health
of minors and in promoting family
harmony. The appellate court opinion
upheld the 1992 verdict issued by San
Francisco Superior Court Judge Maxine
Chesney after a month-long trial.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the Ameri-
can Academy of Pediatrics, California
District IX; California Medical Associa-
tion; American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists, District Ix; Planned
Parenthood of Alameda-San Francisco;
and an individual physician, Philip Darney,
M.D. They are represented by cooperating
attorneys Shostak, Lori Schechter and
Annette Carnegie of Morrison and Foerster;
Abigail English of the National Center for
Youth Law; and ACLU-NC staff attorney
Margaret Crosby.
Coles to Head National
Gay Rights Project
CLU-NC staff attorney Matthew
Ac has been selected to direct
the national ACLU Lesbian and
Gay Rights Project and the AIDS and Civil
Liberties Project. The Projects, which
have been based in the national office in
New York, will be opening an office in
San Francisco; Coles will divide his time
between the two sites.
Coles, an ACLU-NC legal staff
member since 1987, has litigated the affili-
ate's lesbian and gay rights cases,
defended the rights of HIV-infected
prisoners and health workers, and drafted
anti-discrimination and domestic partner-
ship laws for the state of California and
numerous cities. He has often collaborated
with the national Project attorneys on -
litigation in other states, most recently in
the successful challenge to Colorado's
anti-gay rights initiative Amendment 2.
Coles will assume his new post at the
end of the year, replacing William Ruben-
Matthew Coles, new Director of the
ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights
Project.
stein who has directed the Project since
1990; the first project director was Nan
Hunter. @
the first time that a major court has "stood
up to the loose use of Bowers v. Hardwick"
- the Georgia case that outlawed sodomy.
"States have attempted to use the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Bowers as an
all-purpose justification for anything that
disadvantages gay men, lesbians, and
bisexuals, arguing that moral disapproval
of gay people is a legitimate governmental
aim," Coles explained.
"In its Amendment 2 ruling, the
Colorado Supreme Court squarely says
that, while it may be o.k. for people to
disapprove of lesbians and gay men, and it
may be o.k. for the state to legislate in a
way that reinforces that morality, civil
rights laws are not necessarily about
approving or disapproving of the people
they protect."
- Attorney Suzanne Goldberg of the
Lambda Legal Defense and Education
Fund noted, "The ruling sends a clear
message to voters that it is a waste of time
and money to support anti-gay measures
that are so clearly unconstitutional."
Shortly after the ruling, the State of
Colorado filed a petition for review to the
United States Supreme Court.
Herschel Farbman is in intern in the
ACLU-NC Public Information Depart-
ment.
Court Won't
Change Ban
on Begging
by Jean Field
he Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
rejected the City of San Francisco's
attempt to overturn a 1991 ruling
that declared the state law prohibiting
begging unconstitutional.
"This decision is a victory for Celestus
Blair and for the constitutional rights of
people who must ask others for charity,"
said Michael Hallerud, ACLU-NC
cooperating attorney with the firm Pettit and
Martin.. Hallerud, along with ACLU-NC
staff attorney Margaret Crosby, repre-
sented Blair, who was arrested five times
in 1988 and 1989 for peacefully asking
people for money in downtown San
Francisco. He was charged with violating
California Penal Code Section 647(c),
which makes it a misdemeanor to
approach others on public sidewalks "for
the purpose of begging or soliciting alms."
Blair is no longer homeless and currently
works as a bus driver.
In 1991, U.S. District Court Judge
William Orrick ruled that a peaceful
request for charity is expression protected
by the First Amendment. He concluded
that the law violates the rights to expres-
sion and equal protection, by prohibiting
only one message: a request for alms.
The Court of Appeals' complex
decision, issued October 31, was based on
the procedural issues of the case, not the
constitutional merits of Judge Orrick's
ruling. After the 1991 decision, the City
presented a formal settlement offer, which
Blair accepted, resulting in a consent
judgment against the City. The City then
tried unsuccessfully to withdraw from the
judgment which included a $4,000
payment to Blair for damages.
The Court of Appeals said that it
lacked the power to address whether or not
the state law was unconstitutional, because
the settlement rendered the appeal moot. It
returned the case to Judge Orrick to decide
whether to vacate his decision in light of
the fact that the case has become moot.
The appellate court rejected the City's
request to vacate Judge Orrick's ruling.
"Judge Orrick's opinion is both princi-
pled and pervasive. It protects the funda-
mental rights of the most vulnerable
members of society," said ACLU-NC
attorney Crosby. and
aclu news
7
November - December 1994
New ACLU Lobbyist Brings Experience from Both Sides of the Barricades
Valerie Small Navarro
ast year, Valerie Small Navarro was
working inside a Congressional
office, being lobbied by advocacy
groups on immigration and civil rights law.
Today, Small Navarro is knocking on
legislators' doors helping to create a civil
liberties agenda in the state Capitol as the
ACLU' s new Legislative Advocate.
Small Navarro joins Legislative Direc-
tor Francisco Lobaco and Legislative
Assistant Rita Egri in the Sacramento
office. Lobaco was promoted to Legisla-
tive Director after the March departure of
Margaret Pena. The Legislative Office
represents ACLU members throughout
California on issues ranging from the death
penalty and sentencing to immigration and
welfare reform. Annually, ACLU lobby-
ists review over 3,000 bills to determine
their impact on civil liberties and lobby on
approximately 200 of them.
Small Navarro brings with her a wealth
of experience on both sides of the legisla-
tive barricades. Her previous position was
as the Legislative Aide to U.S. Representa-
tive Xavier Becerra, a first term Member of
Congress from Los Angeles.
On Capitol Hill, Small Navarro coordi-
nated the response to an onslaught of anti-
immigrant measures in the House of
Representives for the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus. She also drafted many
of the bills for the comprehensive
immigration package for members of the
California Democratic Delegation with the
assistance of advocacy organizations and
presented written testimony on the need to
repeal the employer sanction provisions of
the Immigration Reform and Control Act
(IRCA) to the Senate Subcommittee on
Immigration and Refugee Affairs.
"T benefited greatly by working with
the Washington Office of the
ACLU," Small Navarro said. "I
worked closely with national ACLU
Field Director Gene Guerrero in
drafting a bill that Congressman
Becerra introduced to create an
independent review commission to
monitor and investigate abuses by
the Border Patrol and the INS."
Prior to her work in Congress, Small
Navarro, a 1985 graduate of
Hastings College of the Law,
directed immigrant rights programs
for MALDEF (Mexican American
Legal Defense and Education
Fund), California Rural Legal
Assistance and the Centro
Campesino in Granger, Washing-
ton.
While working at MALDEF,
Small Navarro coordinated the
writing and edited the immigrants'
rights organizations U.S. Supreme
Court amicus brief in Barr v. Flores,
challenging the INS misrepresenta-
tions about the conditions for
children in detention awaiting
deportation hearings. -
She also contributed to the Valerie Small Navarro, new ACLU lobby
Fourth Circuit amicus brief in
Duane v. GEICO, arguing that alien-
age discrimination was prohibited by a
statutory provision that "all persons" shall
have the same rights to make and enforce
contracts as is enjoyed by "white persons."
Small Navarro, who was born in
Guayaquil, Ecuador and raised in Spain,
Holland, Trinidad and Tobago, and Norway,
has also worked in the international arena
as well. Based on her investigation of a
case in El Salvador, she filed a Human
Rights Complaint with the Organization of
Gerbode Foundation Grants
$20,000 for Planned
Giving Program
he Wallace Alexander Gerbode
Foundation recently awarded the
ACLU-NC its first capacity-build-
ing grant - $20,000 to underwrite the
development and expansion of the ACLU
Foundation of Northern California
(ACLU-NC) planned giving program.
This is the latest in a long series of success-
ful ventures between this San Francisco-
based foundation and the ACLU-NC. The
Gerbode Foundation in the past has been a
generous supporter of the ACLU-NC's
reproductive rights advocacy.
"This grant could not have come at a
better time," noted Dick Grosboll, Chair of
the Planned Giving Committee of the
ACLU-NC's Board of Directors. "We
know that between 1990 and 2015 a unique
generation of Americans will leave an
unprecedented amount of wealth to their
families and to institutions they care about.
The ACLU-NC needs its own proactive
and coherent planned giving program to be
sure that people who care about civil liber-
ties know that they can choose to designate
the ACLU as a charitable beneficiary."
The planned giving program will
promote two types of gifts to the ACLU.
The most familiar type is that provided for
through (1) a will, (2) a revocable living
trust, or (3) the beneficiary designation
form of a life insurance policy, IRA, or
pension/profit-sharing plan. Collectively,
these gifts are known as "bequests"
although technically speaking, "bequests"
refers only to gifts made by will.
The other important type of planned
gift is a life income gift. To make a life
income gift, a donor typically transfers
assets to the ACLU, to our pooled income
fund (called the Liberty Fund), or to a trust,
under an agreement that provides the donor
(and/or a person designated by the donor)
with income from these assets for his or her
lifetime. When the donor dies, what.
remains of these assets is available to the
ACLU for civil liberties advocacy. Life
income gifts provide the donor with signif-
icant lifetime income tax benefits in
addition to income.
"We are constantly reminded of the
importance of planned gifts here at the
ACLU-NC," noted Robert Nakatani, the
newly-appointed Director of Planned
Giving. "Take the case of Ralph Elias. Mr.
Elias, an unmarried man, was a dedicated,
quiet civil libertarian and left his estate to
friends and charities, including the ACLU.
His foresight and thoughtfulness meant
$14,000 in 1990, $54,000 in 1991, and
$15,000 so far this year for ACLU activities.
(The bequest is being distributed over
several years.) Revenue from bequests such
as Mr. Elias's enabled us to forestall serious
program cutbacks during these years."
Members who would like to receive
materials about the ACLU-NC's
planned giving program or assistance in
making a planned gift are encouraged to
call Robert Nakatani at the ACLU-NC .
office 415/621-2493. and
American States, Inter-American Commis-
sion on Human Rights.
And why did Small Navarro cross the
country and cross the legislative threshold to
work as a lobbyist for the ACLU? "In many
ways, I found Washington very frustrating,"
she says, "the climate in Congress is similar
to the climate here - there is a feeding
frenzy on crime and immigration. Who can
outdo the next guy to put more people in jail?
Meanwhile, where's the money for schools
or prevention?
"ve been wanting to come back to
California, and to branch out with my
work," Small Navarro explained. "I found
it very exciting working with the Congres-
sional Hispanic Caucus and Black Caucus
on crucial issues, and I hope to apply some
of those lessons here. I've been working in
the immigration arena for a long time, and I
want to explore more areas of civil rights."
ACLU-NC Executive Director
Dorothy Ehrlich said, "Our ACLU
Legislative Office in Sacramento enjoys a
remarkable reputation for its consistent
devotion to protecting individual rights
despite the hostile climate in the state
capital. Valerie and Francisco will be a
formidable team and can be relied upon as
a powerful voice for civil liberties."
Given the slew of legislation and the
small ACLU lobbying staff, Small Navarro
will be able to explore many new areas as
soon as the new session begins. She will be
focusing on reproductive rights, gay and
lesbian rights, affirmative action and civil
rights legislation.
But right now, given the intense
xenophobia that characterizes the Gover-
nor's political agenda and the state ballot
with Proposition 187, Small Navarro's
expertise on immigration has been called to
the fore.
Within days of arriving in Sacramento,
she became the coordinator for the phone
bank for Get Out the Vote/Voter Registra-
tion for Californians United Against
Proposition 187 in Sacramento and worked
with other civil rights groups to defeat the
measure.
"Lobbying for the ACLU to protect
civil liberties is a big responsibility," said
Small Navarro. "The immediate challenge
for me personally is patience - sometimes
people don't realize how really hostile the
climate can get. But I look forward to
taking on the challenge."
OTT h ae (el are
Terie Fe iG
iiietii ace
Mai
8 aclu news
November - December 1994
BCR elit
Monthly Meetings
Seymour Schwartz
- Santa Cruz Activist
Redwood (Humboldt County)
HALT, the Hate Action Limitation Team.
grandson. (c)
Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103.
Veteran civil liberties activist Seymour Schwartz died in Santa Cruz on October 5
at the age of 72. Schwartz served as a Board member and Treasurer of the Santa Cruz
ACLU Chapter. As a leader of the ACLU, Schwartz was instrumental in starting
A native New Yorker, Schwartz was a member of the American Stock Exchange
and a financial advisor. In addition to the ACLU, he was active in the Westside
Community Health Center, the Grey Bears, and the People's Democratic Club; at the
time of his death he was working to help pass the single-payer health care initiative.
According to Chapter Co-Chair Eleanor Eisenberg, "Sy always worked hard for the
chapter even when he was not an officer. He always served with good humor and a real
commitment to civil liberties. We're going to miss him."
In his honor, the Chapter is establishing the Sy Schwartz Award, to be given each
year in recognition of the outstanding contributions of a non-attorney Board member.
He is survived by his wife of 53 years, Martha Schwartz, two daughters and a
The family has requested donations in his memory be made to the ACLU-NC, 1663
Proposition 187...
Continued from page I
federal authorities, or otherwise interfering
with the school attendance of any child
based on the immigration status of the
child or the child's parent/guardian."
The lawsuit charges that denying
education to individuals based solely on
their citizenship is in direct violation of the
1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Plyler y. Doe because it denies equal
protection guarantees of the U.S. and
California Constitutions. The new law also
violates the privacy guarantees of the
federal Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA) and Article 1,
Section | of the California Constitution.
Ironically, the legal analysis of
the defendant, the state Depart-
ment of Education, and of the
Legislative Counsel agree with
that conclusion.
The case is being brought by
Peter Roos and Deborah
Escobedo of META; Robert
Rubin, Ignatius Bau, and Sara
Campos of the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights;
ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan
Schlosser, ACLU National
Immigrants' Rights Project
Director. Lucas Guttentag;
Kevin Fong and Ed Kolto of Pillsbury,
Madison and Sutro; and Ralph Santiago
Abascal and Ellen Braff-Guajardo of CRLA.
META attorney Peter Roos, who also
argued Plyler before the U.S. Supreme
Court, stated, "The voters of California
replicated the error of the state of Texas.
This suit is intended to undo that wrong.
The Supreme Court was particularly
concerned about the `lifetime hardship'
that would be imposed on innocent
children who would be marked with the
`stigma of illiteracy' for the rest of their
lives. These are the children that we repre-
sent today."
In striking down the Texas statute, the
Supreme Court ruled: "It is difficult to
understand precisely what the State hopes
to achieve by promoting the creation and
perpetuation of a sub-class of illiterates
within our boundaries.... whatever savings
might be achieved by denying these
children an education they are wholly
insubstantial in light of the costs involved
to these children, the state and the nation."
Lawyers' Committee attorney Robert
Rubin said, "Given the current anti-
immigrant climate that is being fostered by
Pete Wilson and other politicians, it is not
surprising that Proposition 187 was
approved by the voters. But it is precisely
in this type of climate that the courts must
ensure that-constitutional protections are
not undermined.
"The unconstitutional exclusion of
thousands of children is imminent,' Rubin
added. "That is why we sought an immedi-
ate court order to protect against this
immediate threat."
Declarations from educators and
school officials from around the state
document this need. For example, Superin-
tendent Darline Robles of the Montebello
Unified School District describes the
atmosphere of hostility in several schools
in her district towards Mexican and other
immigrant children which leads her to
conclude that, without judicial interven-
tion, undocumented children will be in a
situation of extreme vulnerability from
today on. "In order to adequately protect
my students, I feel that it is absolutely
essential that Iam armed with a court order
prohibiting the implementation of Proposi-
tion 187 or I will not be able to control
those teachers in my district
who will vigorously try to
take the law into their own
hands."
Plaintiff taxpayer Henry
Der stated, "To implement
187 will cost the taxpayers of
California a lot more money
than what its proponents
claim would be saved by
eliminating education and
health services to children in
vulnerable situations."
The two other suits
covered by Judge Pollak's
orders also deal with education. One is
brought by students in California's state
college and university system and the other
by the Los Angeles and San Francisco
Unified School Districts.
On the same day in Los Angeles, U.S.
District Court Judge William Byrne sched-
uled a hearing for a Temporary Restraining
Order Against Proposition 187 on Novem-
ber 16, and said that until that time no
provisions of the measure should be
enforced and no services shall be denied
under the newly passed law.
That court order came in response to
Gregorio T. v. Wilson which was brought
jointly by the ACLU-SC, the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Education
Fund, and other civil rights groups.
That suit charges that Proposition 187
violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution (Article VI) which gives the
federal government the power to regulate
immigration, by enacting immigration
laws that conflict with comprehensive
federal immigration policy.
The suit charges that the measure will
immediately imperil hundreds of thousands
of school children, thousands of people
needing medical care and untold others
who will be forced to forfeit their rights out
of fear of state sanction or deportation.
Three other lawsuits were filed in
federal court in Los Angeles at the same
time; numerous other suits are planned by
educational bodies, health care providers ~
and other service recipients and agencies. Bf
Chapter Meetings
(Chapter meetings are open to all inter-
ested members. Contact the Chapter
activist listed for your area.)
B-A-R-K (Berkeley-Albany-Rich-
mond-Kensington) Chapter Meeting:
(Usually fourth Thursday) Volunteers
needed for the chapter hotline - call
Tom Sarbaugh at 510/526-6376 for
further details. For more information,
time and address of meetings, contact
Julie Houk, 510/848-4752.
Earl Warren (Oakland/Alameda
County) Chapter Meeting: (Usually
second Wednesday) Meet at 7:30 PM
in the basement of the Temescal
Branch of the Oakland Library, 5205
Telegraph Avenue; use the rear
entrance. New volunteers welcome!
For more information, call David
Gassman at 510-835-2334
Fresno Chapter Meeting: (Usually
second Wednesday) Meet at 7:00 PM at
the Center for Non-Violence, 985 N.
Van Ness, Fresno. New members
welcome! For information on date and
time of meetings, call Nadya Coleman
at 209/229-7178 (days) or the Chapter
Hotline at 209/225-3780.
Lesbian and Gay Rights Chapter
`Meeting: (Usually first Thursday)
ACLU-NC office, 1663 Mission Street,
Suite 460, San Francisco. Mailings and
other activities start at 6:30 PM. Speak-
ers at 7:00 PM. Business meeting starts
at 7:30 PM. For more information,
contact Jeff Hooper at 510/460-0712.
Marin County Chapter Meeting:
(usually Third Monday) Meet at 7:30
PM WestAmerica Bank, 1204 Straw-
berry Town and Country Village, Mill
Valley. For more information, contact
Coleman Persily at 415/479-1731.
Mid-Peninsula (Palo Alto area)
Chapter Meeting: (Usually fourth
Thursday) Meet at 7:30 PM at the
California Federal Bank, El] Camino
Real, Palo Alto. For more information,
contact Paul Gilbert at 415/324-1499,
Monterey County Chapter Meeting:
(Usually third Tuesday) Next meeting
is Tuesday, November 15. Annual
meeting is Saturday, January 21 at 2:00
p.m. Call for information on December
meeting information. For more infor-
mation, contact Richard Criley,
408/624-7562.
North Peninsula (San Mateo area)
Chapter Meeting: (Usually third
Monday) Meet at 7:30 PM, at Planned
Parenthood, 2205 Palm Avenue, San
Mateo.
Chapter Meeting: (Usually third
Monday) For information on upcom-
ing meeting dates and times, contact
Christina Huskey at 707/444-6595.
Sacramento Valley Chapter
Meeting: (Usually first Wednesday)
Meet at 7:00 PM at Shakey's Pizza,
59th and J Streets, Sacramento. For
more information, contact Ruth Ordas,
916/488-9956.
San Francisco Chapter Meeting:
(Usually third Tuesday) Meet at 6:45
PM at ACLU Office, 1663 Mission, -
#460, San Francisco. For more infor-
mation, call the Chapter Information
Line at 415/979-6699.
Santa Clara Valley Chapter
Meeting: (Usually first Tuesday)
Meet on Tuesday, November 8 at 7:00
PM at the Community Bank Building,
3rd Floor Conference Room, corner of
Market/St. John Streets, San Jose.
Contact Larry Jensen at 408/995-3250,
for further information.
Santa Cruz County Chapter
Meeting: (Usually third Thursday)
Meet at 7:00 PM at the Women's Law
and Mediation Center, 104 Walnut
Avenue, Suite 203, Santa Cruz.
Annual meeting will be on November
17; social, election of new board
officials and presentation of the first
annual Sy Schwartz Volunteer award
and other volunteer awards. It will be
held at Calvary Church in Santa Cruz.
Contact Eleanor Eisenberg at 408/423-
5327 for further information.
Sonoma County Chapter Meeting:
(Usually third Wednesday) Meet at
7:30 PM at the Peace and Justice
Center, 540 Pacific Avenue, Santa
Rosa. Call Steve Thornton at 707/544-
S115 for further information.
Yolo County Chapter Meeting:
(Usually third Thursday) For more
information, call John Crawford at
916/757-6282 or the Chapter Hotline
at 916/756-ACLU.
FIELD ACTION
MEETINGS
(All meetings except those noted will
be held at the ACLU-NC Office, 1663
Mission Street, #460, San Francisco.)
Student Outreach Committee: Meet
to plan outreach activities. For more
information, call Marcia Gallo at
415/621-2493.
Student Advisory Committee: For
more information, call Marcia, Katrina
or Jamie at 4175/62 1-2006 ext. 52.
for
Ss ACLU 75th Anniversary Calendar
inchudes rare archival photographs illustrating highlights of ACLU history, beautifully reproduced on
Gniy $9.95
postage/shipping inchidedi
Yo order: Send this coupon with check/money order, payable to American Civil Liberties Union, to:
ACLU Dept. L P.O. Box 794 Medford, NY 11763
A orders must be prepaid.
Total Enctosed
Number of Catendars requested _
Name
high quality semi-gloss, recycled stock. Wail-styie calendar format. 12" x 127.
Address
City State