vol. 67, no. 5
Primary tabs
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
ACL
WHAT'S INSIDE
oD
(-]
i-|
|
-
|
=
ae
BECAUSE
BREED OM :
hews
PROT EG 1 | 1 Sb EE
VOLUME LXVII ISSUE 5
pacu ed
Medical Marijuana
Victory
PAGE 5
Youth Explore
the "War on Drugs"
PAGE 6
j More on Prop. 54
race S
Board Elections
VOTE NOW!
PAGE 1 O
Patriot Act Under Fire
NO ON 54: A VICTORY FOR RACIAL JUSTICE
n October 7, Ward Connerly's Proposition 54 was decisively defeated by
a 64% to 36% margin. The measure would have banned the collection of
racial and ethnic data by any California state agency. More people voted
"no" on 54 than voted in favor of the recall or for Governor-elect Schwarzenegger.
What does this historic vote mean for California and the nation - and how
did it come about? ACLU-NC executive director Dorothy Ehrlich explains.
Statewide ballot measures have challenged the ACLU of
Northern California (ACLU-NC) for more than two
decades. We have suffered our share of major losses, from
the three strikes law to juvenile incarceration, from
Proposition 187 to Proposition 209. We have rarely been
able to beat back the most polarizing amendments to our
state Constitution once they appear on the ballot. Thus, our
overwhelming victory against Proposition 54 on October 7
was all the more extraordinary.
How did we snap our losing streak? It began nearly three
years ago when Ward Connerly, University of California
Regent and author of the anti-affirmative action Proposition
209, first proposed a so-called "Racial Privacy Initiative."
Connerly has carved out a career as a national leader of anti-
Non- Profit
Organization
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit No. 4424
| San Francisco, CA
[Sec SSE
|
|
|
racial justice measures, and this was to be one more feather in
his cap. But a small group of civil rights leaders came togeth-
er with a clear goal: forging a winning strategy to defeat this
measure and putting an end to the cascading cutbacks
on civil rights that have been enacted since the
Reagan era.
Connerly's proposal would have nearly
put an end to our work for racial justice by
eliminating the data that could prove or dis-
How
could you insist that school children be granted
prove racial disparities and injustices.
equal access to educational opportunities, if you
couldn't even learn what disparities existed in funding, test
scores, or school assignments? How could you stop the illegal
practice of racial profiling by law enforcement, if you were
How could health
professionals and social scientists pursue meaningful research
banned from collecting data statewide?
if they were prevented from knowing or asking why more
Filipina teenagers commit suicide or why white people are
more likely to be afflicted with Alzheimer's disease?
ALLIES IN HEALTH AND EDUCATION
We knew that Proposition 54, if it became law, would have
a profound effect on the lives of all Californians. Given the
DENISE MOCK
high stakes, it was clear that we had to expand beyond the
close-knit group of civil rights groups in the Bay Area to
build a truly statewide campaign. We also successfully fought
in court to force Connerly to change the name of the initia-
tive, because it was not about racial privacy at all. Indeed, the
information he hoped to ban is all voluntarily provided.
As we learned more about the measure, officially named
by the Secretary of State the "Classification by Race,
Ethnicity, Color and National Origin Initiative," it became
clear that the implications for health care posed the greatest
danger for the greatest number of people. As we began look-
ing for allies in the public health field, groups like Kaiser
Permanente and Breast Cancer Action quickly joined up,
providing expert advice and support. Over the next two
years, more than 50 of the leading national and
statewide health organizations - from the
American Cancer Society to _ continued on page 6
TIRE CMe ae eV
On December 14, 2003 join the ACLU of Northern California for
FREEDOM DETAINED: YESTERDAY AND TODAY
HONORING: DALE MINAMI and DON TAMAKI, representing
the legal team that overturned the conviction of Fred
Korematsu, who resisted internment and whose case paved
the way for reparations
PERFORMANCE BY: BOB WEIR, founding member of Grateful
Dead and RatDog, and Rop WASSERMAN, Grammy
Award-winning bassist
PRESENTING: PARALLELS IN PREJUDICE -stories of Japanese
Americans interned during World War II and Arab,
Muslim, and South Asian immigrants detained in the so-
called "War on Terrorism"
DATE. SUNDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2003,
2:00 PM - Reception (light refreshments, no host bar)
3:00 PM - Program
LOCATION: The Argent Hotel, 50 Third Street, San Francisco
(wheelchair accessible)
Admission price of $20 includes reception and program.
For more information see www.aclunc.org.
Call 415-621-2493, x382 to order your tickets now!
10 THE ACLU NEWS. READ
ARE YOU A MATCH?
BOARD CHAIR CHALLENGES ACLU DONORS
In September, ACLU of Northern California (ACLU-NC)
board chair Quinn Delaney and her husband, Wayne Jordan,
issued an innovative $100,000 challenge to the ACLU-NC.
Delaney said they offered the generous gift because: "This is
such a critical time for our civil liberties. The ACLU needs the
resources to mount a vigorous campaign to withstand the
assault on our civil rights and fight for justice."
The "Challenge from the Chair""challenges supporters of
civil liberties to think big and increase their support for the
ACLU. Gifts eligible for a match from the challenge fund must be
$500 or more, and matches will be capped at $24,999 per
donor. Here's how it works:
NEW GIFTS: If you are a new donor contributing $500 or
more to the ACLU-NC Foundation, the challenge fund will
match your entire gift.
INCREASED GIFTS: If you gave $500 or more last year and
increase your tax-deductible gift to the ACLU-NC
Foundation, the amount of your increase will be matched.
For example: if you gave $1,000 last year and give $2,000
this year, the $1,000 increase will be matched, making your
gift worth $3,000.
RETURNING DONORS: If you have not given for a year or
longer, and now make a gift of at least $500, the whole gift
will be matched.
`To trigger a match from the challenge fund, you must pledge
your gift in writing between September 11 and December 15,
2003, and pay by March 31, 2004. Pledges can be made by
pledge card or letter, and paid via cash, check, credit card, or
stock transfers - whatever is most convenient for you.
"This challenge is a very special opportunity for donors
to make the most of their gift to the ACLU,' said Cheri
Bryant, ACLU-NC's director of development. "At a time
when our civil liberties are under unprecedented attack, we
encourage every donor to dig deep and help us meet the full
$100,000 challenge."
For more information about the Challenge from the Chair,
contact Cheri Bryant, director of development, at 415-621-
2493 or cbryant@aclunc.org.
LAWYERS COUNCIL 15TH ANNIVERSARY
ACLU-NC's work.
JANE HONG
Lawyers Council co-chair Ruth Borenstein, ACLU-NC executive director Dorothy Ehrlich, guest speaker Tony West,
and co-chair Angel Garganta celebrated the Lawyers Council's 15th anniversary at a June 19 luncheon. West discussed
the civil rights implications of the John Walker Lindh case. The Lawyers Council includes hundreds of lawyers from
the legal, academic, public interest, and business communities, whose leadership and financial commitment support
MEMBERSHIP CONFERENCE ENERGIZES ACTIVISTS
By Allison Reid, Field Intern
ACLU members from throughout northern California
filled a sunny lobby, sipping coffee, meeting members from
other chapters for the first time, greeting familiar faces, and
looking through their brightly colored information packets.
In all, more than 120 people had gathered early on a
ACLU-NC associate director Bob Kearney addresses a packed
audience at the affiliate's annual membership conference.
Saturday morning, ready to focus their considerable energy
on becoming even more effective activists.
The first session, on the fight to defeat Ward Connerly's
Proposition 54, was packed. Some eagerly took notes; others
took a turn at the microphone (wielded by a busy volunteer)
to ask about tactics and share ideas. The lively exchange con-
tinued even as people headed to the next session, pausing
only to pick up a new piece of literature or pin a "Safe and
Free" button to a t-shirt or tote bag.
Attendees' enthusiasm never seemed to flag throughout the
full day of informational and strategic sessions. Topics
ranged from the Internet as an activist tool to discriminatory
law enforcement in the wake of September 11. Everyone had
a chance to learn something new, from their fellow members
as well as the ACLU-NC experts and other presenters.
First-time attendee Martin Zonligt described the conference
The Modesto resident said, "It
brought the civil liberties issues that are under the surface into
as "helpful and exciting."
focus, and helps us know what to look for." continued on page 11
01 and created a
Columbia ae `took a job with Shell
The
couple met through mutual friends in Berkeley,
Development Corporation in Emeryville.
marrying in 1939 when Valerie graduated from
U.C. Berkeley with a degree in psychology. _
As young adults, the Adelsons supported the
Lincoln Brigade, which fought fascists i in Spa
David a the fir un
ee University's nies law school program. By
ne the ce ae two yong daug
life serving che area's low-income pee of color. _
In 1970, the Adelsons' eldest daughter died of
Hodgkin's Disease, spurring an enduring
commitment to find a cure. [he Adelsons also
decided that her share of any inheritance would
go to charity.
"They were both very modest people but had
Jan Adelson Garcia
recalled of her parents. "They felt strongly about
very strong convictions,
supporting causes with the means they had."
The board and staff of the ACLU-NC are
deeply honored by the Adelsons bequest. =
AAW a reas
THE QUARTERLY PUBLICATION OF THE
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA.
Membership ($20 and up) includes a subscription to
the ACLU News. For membership information call
415-621-2493 or visit www.aclunc.org/join.html.
CHAIR
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
GUEST EDITOR*
EDITORIAL ASSISTANT
DESIGN
Quinn Delaney,
Dorothy Ehrlich,
Lauren Asher,
Gigi Pandian,
Underground Advertising,
1663 Mission Street #460, San Francisco, CA 94103
415-621-2493
*ACLU-NC director of communications
Rachel Swain is on maternity leave.
2 | ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF
WIN IN MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASE
By Stella Richardson, Acting Communications Director
In a victory for patients and doctors, the U.S. Supreme
Court declined to hear Walters v. Conant, a case concerning
doctors' First Amendment right to discuss the medical use of
marijuana with patients suffering from cancer, HIV/AIDS,
and other life-threatening diseases. This means that the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling, which allows doctors to rec-
ommend medical marijuana to their patients, stands in
California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and
Washington.
"The Supreme Court's action today protects doctors and
patients from government censorship of open and honest
discussions in the exam room," said Graham Boyd, Director
of the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project. "Patients
deserve access to accurate information about marijuana's
medicinal value in treating pain, nausea, wasting syndrome,
and other symptoms of life-threatening diseases."
The case arose after California voters passed Proposition
215 in November 1996, which makes it legal for patients
to grow and possess marijuana for medical use when a doc-
tor recommends it. Currently nine states (Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon,
and Washington) have legalized some form of medical mar-
ijuana.
The Clinton Administration reacted to Proposition 215
by threatening to revoke the prescription drug licenses of
doctors who recommended medical use of marijuana; the
Bush administration has continued that policy. The ACLU
represents a group of prestigious doctors and patients in
California who have suffered as a result of federal threats to
doctors who discuss marijuana as medicine.
Physicians have a long history of recommending mari-
juana to patients. A 1990 Harvard survey of more than
2,000 oncologists found that 44 percent had recommend-
ed marijuana to cancer patients undergoing chemothera-
py. Even as federal law prohibited physician prescription of
marijuana, the federal government itself has operated a
marijuana farm in Mississippi and has distributed marijua-
na to a small number of patients in its Compassionate Care
program - a measure that recognizes the growing body of
evidence that marijuana has legitimate medical uses for
some patients.
fundamental First Amendment values,"
"The federal government's current efforts to insert itself
between doctors and their patients when it comes to rec-
ommending medical marijuana is contrary to our most
said ACLU-NC
staff attorney Ann Brick. "The central purpose of the First
Amendment is to protect dissent from the government's
version of the facts on any particular issue, including the
issue of medical marijuana."
According to ACLU-NC plaintiff (and former board
chair) Dr. Milton Estes, "Now I can advise my patients on
the medical use of marijuana without fear of being crimi-
nally prosecuted or losing my license." m=
iodide about 2000 ah active AIDS a an
_ University of California Medical Center i in San Francis
author of over 70 publications on treatment of AIDS.
JUDITH CUSHNER is the director of a preschool program in
PCRS
San Francisco and the mother of two. She has fought
breast cancer since 1989. Medical marijuana was the
only relief she could get from the extreme nausea, retching, and mouth sores caused by _
a tigorous schedule of chemotherapy. Cushner believes that the federal governments _
threats to doctors could be the death sentence for patients like her who depend oo
honest and complete medical advice from doctors.
es CUSHNER
prescribes Marinol (a legal prescription ie with ee active
marijuana, THC) and other prescription drugs. When conven
or a patient poorly tolerates oral medication, Dr. Estes believes
can often help.
DR. MILTON ESTES
KEITH VINES is an assistant district attorney, decorated
Air Force officer, and father, whose bout with AIDS
has caused him to lose more than 40 pounds of lean body mass. Vines worked for
two years as a felony prosecutor in a federally funded program where he secured a
conviction in what was San Francisco's second largest marijuana seizure. With great
reluctance given his career in law enforcement and after failing to respond to other
medications that unsuccessfully treated his illness, Keith Vines used small amounts ts of
marijuana, which he credits with saving his life.
By Stella Richardson
EDUCATIONAL DIVERSITY
LEGAL BRIEFS
GS i eas
On September 4, parents and students who objected to
a diversity education program's message of tolerance for
lesbian and gay people dropped their lawsuit against the
Novato school district. They had sued the school district
for presenting a play entitled "Cootie Shots: Theatrical
Inoculations Against Bigotry" in two elementary schools.
The play tackles the issue of stereotypes and discrimina-
tion in an age-appropriate way, through short plays, songs,
and poems. It is performed by Fringe Benefits, a Los
Angeles-based educational theater company.
The ACLU of Northern California (ACLU-NC),
ACLU of Southern California (ACLU-SC), National
ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, and the National
Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) represented a group of
concerned parents and the theater company, which joined
the lawsuit to defend the school district's authority to
require mandatory attendance at diversity awareness and
tolerance-building programs. On July 11, 2003, the U.S.
District Court of Northern California granted a motion
allowing them to intervene as defendants in the case.
Apparently recognizing the strength of the interveners'
legal team and the weakness of their own case, the plain-
tiffs decided to walk away from the lawsuit, taking noth-
ing after nearly two years of litigation. Citizens for a
Rights v. Novato Unified School District.
FREE SPEECH
On September 12, parties to Kasky uv, Nike agreed to a
settlement that will include a greater investment from
Nike in workplace-related programs. The case involved a
claim that some of Nike's public statements about work-
ing conditions in overseas factories constituted false or
misleading advertising. Nike claimed that its statements
were part of a larger public debate and therefore entitled
to full First Amendment protection, not commercial
speech subject to the state's false advertising laws. The
ACLU filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court,
arguing that Nike's statements should not be treated as
commercial speech.
While benefiting factory workers and consumers world-
wide, the settlement means that the issue of what consti-
tutes commercial speech will not be resolved until the
question arises in another case. Earlier this year, after
hearing oral arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court conclud-
ed that its decision to review the Nike case was premature,
because it had not yet gone to trial. The U.S. Supreme
Court originally took the case after the California
Supreme Court issued a disappointing 4-3 decision giving
an extremely broad definition to the term commercial
speech. Kasky v, Nike.
CYBER-LIBERTIES
The California Supreme Court has asked a state court of
appeal to review the factual record in a case concerning
whether trade secret laws were violated when Bay Area
programmer Andrew Bunner and others found a program
on the Internet that enabled them to copy DVDs, and
then posted the program on their own websites.
The case began when a 15-year-old Norwegian boy dis-
covered the key to decrypting the copy protection system
on DVD movie disks and published his decryption pro-
gram ("DeCSS") on the Internet. The program spread like
wildfire, and the DVD Copy Control Association (DVD
CCA") filed suit to stop its ee, claiming the pro-
gram contained trade secrets.
The high court recognized that important First
Amendment principles are at stake in this case, but con-
cluded that publication of the program did not involve a
"matter of public concern." The Court said that the lower
court's temporary injunction, barring continued publica-
tion of the encryption program, could remain in place
while the court of appeal determines whether there was
any secret left to be kept.
The ACLU filed an amicus brief, arguing that while
the dissemination of real trade secrets can be stopped,
once trade secret information has already been wide-
ly disseminated, an injunction prohibiting further
republication is forbidden, even if those republishing
it suspect that the original posting of the program _
may have been apo DVD Copy Control
Association v. Bunner. w
ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF | 3
CALIFORNIA VICTORY
FOR FINANCIAL PRIVACY
By Amanda Canevaro, Communications Intern
Identity theft. Spam. Telemarketing. These and other side
effects of the technological age have made consumers acutely
aware of just how vulnerable their personal information can
be. But what should consumers do when the financial institu-
tions they trust are the ones putting their privacy at risk?
State Senator Jackie Speier responded to rising consumer
concern with her landmark legislation, the Financial
Information Privacy Act (SB 1). Signed into law by Governor
Gray Davis on August 27, SB 1 was four years in the
making. It promises to empower consumers with
direct control over their financial information
and decrease annoying telemarketing and
potentially damaging financial profiling.
Speier argued that a system where
financial institutions may sell and share
their customers' financial information
- including account balances, lending
history, and credit rating - leaves con-
sumers vulnerable to aggressive mar-
keting, financial profiling (targeting
low-income people and _limited-
English speakers for worse quality
products at higher prices), and fraud.
Speier and her pro-consumer and
pto-privacy allies, including the ACLU,
fought a hard battle with corporate inter-
ests and lobbyists that poured seemingly
unlimited money and power into defeating
the measure. After losing several key votes in
2001, Speier went back to the drawing board and
added several amendments to make the bill more attractive
to the banking industry.
But that wasn't enough. Determined opponents used over
$20 million and political influence to convince Assembly
members to vote no or abstain. On June 17, the bill only
managed to muster three "yes" votes from the 12-member
Assembly Banking and Finance Committee. With an almost
90% public approval rating, supporters of the bill had to find
a new path to fulfill the public mandate.
CONSUMERS CALL CORPORATIONS' BLUFF
Fed up with the stalemate, Californians for Privacy Now, a
group of consumer and privacy advocates backed by
E-Loan CEO Chris Larsen, launched a campaign
to place a more stringent financial privacy ini-
tiative on the ballot in March 2004. After
they easily collected more than the
required 600,000 signatures and threat-
ened to submit them on August 19,
banking and corporate lobbyists saw
the writing on the wall. They with-
drew their resistance and grudgingly
supported SB 1 with further
changes to address more of their
concerns. On August 18, the bill
passed the full Assembly by a
76-1 vote.
SB 1 works by blocking the sale of
financial information to third parties
without consumers' affirmative permis-
sion. Under SB 1, consumers must "opt
in" to let a financial institution sell their per-
sonal data and may "opt out" to prevent shar-
ing among affiliates, subsidiaries, or companies in
"joint-marketing agreements."
"Most people are very particular about disclosing personal
financial information to others, yet current federal law allows
banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions
By Bob Kearney, Associate Director
Now that the 2003 legislative session is over, ACLU-
NC's Sacramento lobbying team has many victories to cel-
ebrate as they begin laying the groundwork for 2004.
Several of the most significant civil rights bills signed into
law over the last several months were initiated and spon-
sored by the ACLU. To get the latest on our legislative
work and take action on key civil liberties issues, go to
http://www.aclunc.org/takeaction.html.
VICTORIES
SEX EDUCATION - In October Governor Davis signed SB
71 (Kuehl-D) into law, streamlining and updating
Californias confusing and contradictory sex education
laws. Sponsored by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood
Affiliates of California, SB 71 establishes a new definition
of comprehensive sexual health education, sets age-appro-
priate grade floors for required topics, creates a new uni-
form parental consent policy, and ensures that instruction
is age-appropriate, scientifically current, and_bias-free.
The bill continues to mandate HIV/AIDS prevention
education and to give schools discretion as to whether to
teach sex education.
DEATH PENALTY - Sponsored by the ACLU and backed by
strong public support, SB 3 (Burton-D) implements the
recent Supreme Court decision prohibiting the execution
of the mentally retarded. By implementing a pretrial hear-
ing solely to determine mental retardation, this new law
ensures that the issue of mental retardation is not biased
by the proceedings of the trial.
to trade and sell their customers' information with very little
restriction," said Valerie Small Navarro, a legislative advocate
in California's ACLU Legislative Office and a leading propo-
nent of SB 1.
The legislation also requires banks, brokerages, and insur-
ance companies to clearly disclose their information-sharing
policy in a plain English written statement to all of its cus-
tomers. Such notice was not required under previous law.
FEDERAL ROLLBACK THREATENED
While a tremendous victory for California's consumers, SB
l's success is not yet assured. Almost as soon as SB 1 became
law, the U.S. Senate undertook a review of the Federal Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA). Banking lobbyists argue that a sec-
tion of the FCRA bans states from enacting financial privacy
rules more stringent than the federal government's. That sec-
tion is set to expire at the end of this year, but corporate
interests want it made permanent. If they succeed,
Californians will be denied
the full range of important
protections that SB 1 pro-
5B1 WORKS BY BLOCKING
vides.
A decision on the FCRA
THE SALE OF FINANCIAL is due by then end of 2003,
INFORMATION TO THIRD when several of its provi-
slOlls) -seXpite, | Schators
PARTIES WITHOUT CON- Barbara Boxer (D) and
Dianne Feinstein (D) have
SUMERS' AFFIRMATIVE pledged to fight for SB 1,
faci own financial lob-
PERMISSION. soe :
bies that may hold even
more sway in Washington
than they do in Sacramento.
In late September, the
two lawmakers proposed the Feinstein-Boxer Amend-ment,
which would enforce at the federal level SB 1's "opt-out" pol-
icy for sharing information with subsidiaries and affiliates.
The status of other provisions, as well as the renewal of the
FCRA, remains undecided as of this writing.
The long road to SB1 tested proponents' patience and
ingenuity, but ultimately proved that consumers can beat
corporate interests in the battle for financial privacy. Privacy
advocates hope the law remains intact and serves as a model
for other states. @
SACRAMENTO REPORT
Front Yard Free Speech - AB 1525 (Longville-D and
Steinberg-D) extends free speech protections most of us
take for granted to private homeowners who happen to
live in common interest developments, such as condo-
miniums. Initiated by the ACLU, AB 1525 upholds the
First Amendment by codifying that common interest
housing developments may not prohibit homeowners
from placing signs on their lawns or windows.
LGBTI RIGHTS - We are happy to report three big wins for
LGBTI rights. AB 205 (Goldberg-D) extends to domes-
tic partners many of the same rights and responsibilities
currently given to married couples under state law. This
includes protections such as community property, finan-
cial support obligations, assumption of parenting respon-
sibilities, and mutual responsibility for debts. AB 196
(Leno-D) makes gender identity a category protected
from illegal discrimination, became law in August. And
AB 17 (Kehoe-D) prohibits the state from contracting
with vendors that do not offer benefits to the domestic
partners of employees that are equal to the benefits given
to married spouses of employees.
FINANCIAL PRIVACY - Brought back from the dead, SB 1
(Speier-D and Burton-D) makes it easier for Californians
to protect their personal financial information. When the
_ bill was voted down in committee, the threat of a ballot
initiative brought opponents back to negotiate, and the
bill was revived. SB 1 then sped through the legislature,
and Governor Davis signed it in August. Sadly, the U.S.
Congress is advancing legislation that undercuts the new
California law and provides much weaker consumer pro-
tections. (See article on this page for more information on
5B 1)
UPCOMING BATTLES IN 2004
POLICE REFORM - All three police reform bills supported
by ACLU-NC's Police Practices department have passed
the Assembly, but will not be taken up by the full Senate
until next year. AB 1119 (Wesson-D) would require law
enforcement agencies to implement "early warning sys-
tems' to identify problematic patterns of police officers.
AB 1077 (Wesson-D) would improve current complaint
procedures and allow complaints to be filed at locations
less intimidating than the police department. AB 1331
(Wesson-D and Horton-D) would require the Attorney
General to establish whistleblower protections in law
enforcement agencies.
STUDENT INTERROGATION - Also up for consideration in
2004 is AB 1012 (Steinberg-D), sponsored by the ACLU.
This legislation would increase parent participation when
AB 1012
would require school principals to seek the consent of par-
police seek to question children at school.
ents or guardians of elementary school pupils before
allowing students to be questioned. For high school stu-
dents, school principals would have to offer the opportu-
nity to have a parent or trusted member of the school staff
present during questioning. AB 1012 has been working its
way through the Assembly and has yet to be considered by
the Senate. w
4 | ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF
THROUGH OUR EYES:
"THE WAR ON DRUGS"
his summer, 17 high school students spent seven days traveling around
northern California to get an in-depth look at the "War on Drugs." The
trip, organized by the ACLU-NC's Howard A. Friedman First Amendment
Education Project, exposed students to a wide range of viewpoints on this com-
plex topic. Here, a student participant gives his personal perspective.
By Jackson Yan, Lowell High School senior
The fanfare of a boisterous group on a tour bus. Don't mis-
take us for a minor league baseball team. We are a lineup of
17 strong-willed, opinionated youth, five fabulous chaper-
ones, and one cool bus driver named Antonio. This past
August, we ventured around California to investigate the so-
called "War on Drugs." Over seven days, we tried to meet
people with as many points of view as possible.
One important concept we came across repeatedly was
"harm reduction." It's a nonjudgmental approach to helping
users by minimizing the consequences of drug use. Harm
reduction realizes that each drug user is different and needs
individually tailored care. It "meets individuals where they're
at," coming to terms with the fact that rehabilitation cannot
be forced. Harm reduction can range from fact-based drug
education to demonstrating safer ways to use drugs.
TRIP PARTICIPANTS AND CHAPERONES IN SANTA CRUZ. TOP ROW: Matt Atkin, senior, Maria Carrillo
High; Aaron Leonard, Friedman Project Staff; Cassandra Mitchell, Lick-Wilmerding High; Tynan
Kelly, junior, Carlmont High; Lani Riccobuono, Friedman Project Staff; Danielle Silk, Rohnert Park
High; SECOND ROW: Shayna Gelender, Friedman Project Staff; Amanda Gelender, Castro Valley High;
David Cruz, senior, Menlo Atherton High; Danni Biondini, senior, Mercy High; Laura Rosbrow, `03
grad, University High; Darline Ng, Lincoln High; Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt and Mayor Emily
Reilly (Santa Cruz); Lindsay Waggerman, Friedman Project Staff; THIRD ROW: Andrew Mok, sopho-
more, Monta Vista High; Nick Stromberg, junior, Urban High; Jackson Yan, senior, Lowell High;
Amelia Rosenman, senior, Lick-Wilmerding High; Hannah Dreier, Urban High; Erin Baldassari,
Maria Carrillo High; Maraya Massin-Levey, junior, School of the Arts; Jennifer Lerche, junior,
Carlmont High.
During our field investigation, we worked with the San
Francisco AIDS Foundation's needle exchange project, and
saw harm reduction in action. We gave packets containing
clean syringes and water, cotton, straps, and cookers in
exchange for users' dirty needles. Clean needles slow the
spread of diseases, and purified water helps prevent other con-
tamination. Clean cookers and straps are distributed as safer
substitutes for the bottom of a soda can and belts. People who
dropped by were so friendly and grateful for the packages.
They had absolute trust in the staff because the staff would
not judge them.
The current state of drug education is misguided, with
DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) teaching the cur-
riculum in many of our schools. They bring police officers into
classrooms and try to scare kids into blind abstinence from
drug use. They don't explain why people take drugs. It's cool
to explain the values of abstinence, but do not shortchange
young people. I had to rely on TV to get drug information.
The first time I heard about medicinal marijuana was on
"The Simpsons." We understand more than you think. Give
us honest and credible facts. We can make the safe decisions.
The victims of drugs are endless. The federal government
purports to only go after large-scale dealers. However, by
requiring judges to enforce mandatory minimum sentenc-
ing, nonviolent drug users are incarcerated with severe sen-
tences. This attacks the family structure and often destroys
life at home.
During our visit to Central Valley Women's Facility in
Chowchilla, Amelia Rosenman, a senior at Lick Wilmerding
High School in San Francisco, was espe-
cially moved.
"I was stunned by the women's intelli-
gence, sophistication, concern, `normalcy,'
kindness and humanity," she told me, "and
their fierce need to speak and be heard."
The prison is so overcrowded, due large-
ly to the increase in nonviolent drug
offenders, that there are plans to expand it.
We learned some reasons why people
do drugs. When we met Dorsey Nunn
and his friend from Free at Last, a com-
munity center in East Palo Alto, they told
us poignantly, "I didn't like the way I felt
about my myself, so I took drugs." They
also touched on the subject of race rela-
tions and drug use, pointing out that
rich, white people who otherwise would
not associate with them (as poorer black
men) had no problem getting high with
them. Drugs seem to be the only things
that don't discriminate.
We also met with the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA). They enforce the drug policies of the
federal government. Each officer told us they believed they
were doing what was just by upholding laws. Credit needs to
be given to these brave folks who just want to help people. But
the DEA is allowed to sidestep the civil liberties of others.
We learned more about that when we met with Wo/Men's
Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) in Santa Cruz.
They distribute free medicinal marijuana to people with seri-
ous illnesses. They do this legally under Proposition 215,
approved by California's citizens in 1993. Things were going
pretty smoothly at WAMM
until early 2003.
Wider the orders on
U.S. Attorney General
John Ashcroft and Drug Czar John Walters, the DEA raided
WAMM. They handcuffed sick and wheelchair-bound
patients and stuck guns to their heads. WAMM was doing
everything legally under California law. These people have the
right to medicate themselves and relieve pain. That should
not be taken away.
It is ironic that the government puts so many resources into
enforcing dubious drug laws in the guise of "fighting the drug
war," yet drug rehabilitation is grossly under-funded. Drugs
don't discriminate, but rehab does. If you have money, Betty
Ford welcomes you. If you are poor, you have to rely on over-
crowded, poorly run, government-sponsored rehabilitation.
The best option would be to find a nonprofit agency that
cares, but those fill up quickly. If you are willing to get help,
help should be there for you, but it isn't.
The drug war is so complicated. Instead of prevention, the
government advocates for full punishment. They'll have the DEA
and other agencies camp out in poor neighborhoods where peo-
ple of color live even though many users are white. They go after
small-time, nonviolent offenders and incarcerate to the max.
A meeting with Chris Conrad from Human Rights and the
Drug War had me wondering even more about the liberties we
believe we have. He told us that relatives of drug users are
forced either to squeal or go to jail for crimes they did not com-
mit. The federal government can get away with using tactics of
blackmail, threats and murders. By labeling it the War on
Drugs, the civil liberties we all
come to love are denied.
THE FIRST TIME |
HEARD ABOUT MEDICI-
NAL MARIJUANA WAS
ON `THE SIMPSONS.'
WE UNDERSTAND MORE
THAN YOU THINK. GIVE
US HONEST CREDIBLE
FACTS. WE CAN MAKE
SAFE DECISIOINS.
After the full seven days, we
were happy to see that there
were organizations in
California to help those who
want it. We were upset,
though, at the policies and
measures that limit people's
rights and freedoms. The
revolving door between prison
and the streets is particular-
ly appalling. I must admit
with so much information, I
am even more confused,
though all the personal stories
lead me toward one direction.
More than ever, the status quo
of forced or inadequate rehabilitation, theft of rights, and incar-
ceration to the max doesn't work. It's imperative that we initi-
ate alternative approaches to tackling this epidemic, and tell
people about the struggles this drug war creates.
Fellow trip-goer Amelia Rosenman said it best about the
people who are victims of this "war:" "They gave me a chal-
lenge I plan to strive toward all my life: to walk through doors
they cannot approach and speak their truths to those who
wish to ignore them." m
ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF | 5
HOW THE ACLU-NC
HELPED BEAT PROP 54
rom trade union rallies in San Francisco to phone banks in Modesto,
the ACLU of Northern California played a key role in the defeat of
Proposition 54. Here are some of the highlights of the ACLU-NC effort:
The fight began almost three years ago, when Ward
Connerly first floated his idea for a ballot measure that would
ban the collection of racial and ethnic data in California.
Though it was hard to get people to focus attention on his
vague idea at that time, ACLU-NC executive director
Dorothy Ehrlich played a crucial role in developing an initial
team to prepare to fight the initiative.
Ehrlich stayed at the center of the opposition during the on-
again, off-again campaign, partnering with Eva Paterson of the
Equal Justice Society, Abdi Soltani of
Californians for Justice, leaders from
the California
Association, and others to cre-
Teachers
ate a strong core coalition.
Connerly's first attempt
failed, as he did not
get enough signa-
tures to qualify the
initiative for the
November 2002
ballot. The core
opposition group
stayed together,
however, knowing
that an infusion of
cash from conserva-
tive, out-of-state fun-
ders could easily pro-
vide the money Connerly
needed to get on the next
ballot.
Connerly's donors came through,
and Proposition 54 qualified for the next
statewide election, then set for March 2003. Ehrlich played
a leadership role in establishing the official "No on 54" cam-
paign: the Coalition for an Informed California. This broad
coalition eventually included
more than 300 organizations
ACLU MEMBERS DIS-
TRIBUTED MORE THAN
90,000 PIECES OF LIT-
and more. Ehrlich served on
ERATURE AT PUBLIC the
TRANSPORTATION STA- along with representatives of
representing health profes-
sionals, educators, trade
unionists, environmentalists,
law enforcement, students,
executive committee,
the California Teachers
TIONS DURING RUSH Association, Service
Employees International
HOUR, AT COFFEE Union, NAACP, Kaiser
Permanente, and the Mexican
American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund.
SHOPS, BOOKSTORES,
AND COLLEGE CAMPUS-
ES, AND AT HUNDREDS
OF LOCAL EVENTS.
PLANTING THE SEEDS
ACLU-NC board mem-
bers, staff, chapter activists,
and members throughout the
region mobilized to strengthen the campaign. ACLU-NC
Chairperson Quinn Delaney was one of the first major
donors: her $100,000 gift in the fall of 2002 provided the
seed money that helped pay for the polling, focus groups,
and professional staff necessary for a winning effort.
Delaney and her husband, Wayne Jordan, later organized
P:
"0 for by the Coalition'
the first fundraising event in California, which raised an
additional $80,000. ACLU-NC communications director
Rachel Swain participated in the statewide media team,
shaping messages and pitching stories.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS
In August, the campaign faced a new obstacle: an October
7 ballot for the gubernatorial recall. With a full five months
cut from the campaign timeline, the ACLU-NC board
decided to commit maximum resources to build the
most effective campaign.
As part of this commitment, the
ACLU-NC assigned Maya Harris,
the new director of its Racial
Justice Project, to be the full-
time northern California
political director for the
"No on 54" campaign.
ACLU-NC also allocated
space, staff, and resources
to set up the northern
California headquarters.
Harris quickly trans-
formed a __ sixth-floor
ACLU-NC office into a
war room, stuffed with
signs, bumper stickers, and
literature and buzzing with
volunteers and phone bankers.
With
Luqman, Harris spread the word about
the assistance of Amina
are
tof gn it
the campaign throughout the region. A
quickly organized speakers bureau sent "No on
54" activists to more than 50 venues throughout the state.
Harris was invited to speak at events with national civil
rights leaders Julian Bond, Jesse Jackson, Dolores Huerta,
and Kwesi Mfume, as well as at many community and edu-
cational events. At a moving anniversary celebration of
Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, Harris
warned the assembled trade union and civil rights activists of
the new threat to racial justice posed by Proposition 54. She
was met with thunderous applause - and scores of people
signed up to work on the campaign.
A media campaign, coordinated by Swain and former
ACLU-NC public information director Elaine Elinson, suc-
cessfully targeted the ethnic media and rural outlets in addi-
tion to the mainstream press. Harris's visit to the San Jose
Mercury News editorial board led to a scathing editorial
against the initiative. Harris and Ehrlich were interviewed
on numerous radio programs throughout the state.
GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN
ACLU-NC associate director Bob Kearney ensured that
ACLU members were on the frontlines of the grassroots
campaign. Working with Harris, Kearney conducted three
speakers' trainings, drawing more than 100 people who came
to learn about the most effective ways to warn their commu-
nities about Proposition 54. This incredibly diverse group of
volunteers came from trade unions, black sororities, syna-
gogues, churches and youth groups; they were students,
retirees, doctors, nurses, teachers, housing rights activists,
and people who identified themselves as "just plain con-
ous "
cerned citizens.
The annual ACLU-NC Membership Conference, held in
mid-September, helped prepare members for the tough fight
during the final month of the campaign. Chapters from Yolo
County to Monterey and Modesto to Mendocino imple-
mented a field plan that included phone banking, literature
distribution, and
informational
tabling.
efforts, the
Among
their
North Peninsula
Chapter hosted 45
phone bankers, and
nae ag `
TEE
the Sacramento
Chapter distributed
leaflets to mosques
in the area.
The ACLU-NC
communications
department created
a postcard, palm
cards, flyers, and a
special edition of the
ACLU News. ACLU
members distributed
more than 90,000 pieces of literature at public transporta-
tion stations during rush hour, at coffee shops, bookstores,
and college campuses, and at hundreds of local events. The
field operation also took to cyber-space, using "viral market-
ing" to reach voters who looked for election information on
the Internet.
FUNDRAISING
The ACLU-NC continued raising money to put the "No
on 54" message on the air via paid advertisements featuring
former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. ACLU-NC
board members contributed generously, led by Delaney and
two former board chairs, Milton Estes and Dick Grosboll,
whose fundraising party netted $50,000. In addition,
ACLU-NC Vice Chair Jon Street reached out to the legal
community and raised more than $30,000.
The ACLU-NC's coordinated, multi-faceted approach
helped create a winning strategy to defeat one of the most
dangerous initiatives on the California ballot in years. The
organization's ability to provide leadership to a broad coali-
tion, and to harness resources from fundraising, to media
savvy, to committed chapter and community grassroots work
will provide valuable lessons for future campaigns.
VIGOR teem.
the California Medical Association to the American Public
Health Association - signed on to oppose the initiative.
Proposition 54 would also have had a devastating effect on
efforts to provide equal educational opportunities for all
children in the state, so we turned to our allies in education.
The California Teachers Association and the National
Education Association offered extraordinary support. Given
their core commitment to diversity, the teachers' unions
played an important leadership role throughout the cam-
paign, insuring that we had the funds to deliver our power-
ful health and education messages to voters through a
sophisticated, statewide paid advertising campaign.
ROCKY ROAD TO RECALL
In January 2003, a team of top-flight campaign consult-
ants was hired to provide research and a winning electoral
strategy. They drove home the importance of communicat-
ing directly with as many of the state's 10 million voters as
possible, an expensive but essential goal. With that in mind,
we set our fundraising targets and campaign plan for an elec-
tion in March 2004.
This was a daunting enough timeline, but as the months
went by, a small grassroots effort to "recall" Governor Davis
grew from a trickle to a tidal wave, and suddenly we were
along for the rocky ride. First there was the possibility of
Proposition 54 being on a November ballot, which would
have shaved four valuable months from our campaign. But
6 | ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF
on July 23, we learned that the recall election - and the vote
on Proposition 54 - would take place on October 7. That
was a frightening moment: the election was now a mere 10
weeks away, yet we had raised less than one million dollars
and had not even completed the research necessary for a suc-
cessful campaign strategy.
Nevertheless, the Campaign for an Informed California,
which led the "No on 54" effort, numbered several hundred
organizations by August and kept gaining momentum. By
September, the Field Poll showed that a full 40% of likely vot-
ers were against Proposition 54, with the same number sup-
porting it. This dead heat was a tremendous advance over
polls in April and July, which showed the initiative leading by
more than 10 points.
But there were still more unprecedented twists and turns.
The Federal Court of Appeals' decision to delay the election
in an ACLU voting rights case (see article on this page) creat-
ied even greater uncertainty for several weeks until it was
resolved. Throughout this intense time, the campaign against
Proposition 54 was often drowned out by the din of the recall.
TV AND RADIO ADS
Despite these difficulties, our campaign was in full swing.
Through generous donors we were able to raise enough
money to advertise on radio and TV.
The campaign chose nationally respected spokespersons to
bring our effective messages to the airwaves: former U.S.
Surgeon General C. Everett Koop focused on the health dan-
gers; Spanish language ads played on Univision. In our radio
ads, Danny Glover and Jesse Jackson explained that core civil
rights issues were at stake.
Editorials in newspapers throughout the state echoed the
"No on 54" campaign's messages, urging a vote against the
initiative because it was bad for health, bad for education, and
bad for public safety. Six of the seven "top-tier" candidates
running for governor all came out in opposition to
Proposition 54 - only Tom McClintock supported it. Lt.
Governor Cruz Bustamante ran his own, separately financed
Meanwhile,
grassroots activities proliferated throughout the state, from
television ads in opposition to the measure.
web-based educational efforts, to local events and precinct
walking in communities of color, to statewide campaigning
by labor unions and environmentalists.
TURNING THE TIDE
In the last few weeks of the campaign, victory began to seem
not only possible, but increasingly likely. But what happens in
the last few weeks of the campaign is almost never the whole
story. When did Proposition 54 really begin to turn around?
Was it the University of California Regents' vote last spring
repudiating their own colleague Ward Connerly's proposal by
an overwhelming margin of 15-3 that started people think-
ing? Was it the rally and press conference in Sacramento last
spring where hundreds came from around the state, and every
state constitutional office holder publicly rejected the meas-
ure? Was it the opinion pieces and letters in newspapers up
and down the state that asked people to think about the seri-
ous consequences of this critical issue?
We may never know exactly how much each of these and
other critical steps along the way contributed to our ultimate
victory. But we do know that on Election Day, all the hard
work paid off.
According to the Associated Press: "Those who said
Proposition 54 would help unify California's racial groups
and create a colorblind society turned out to be right in one
respect: Voters of every race united to defeat it."
This decisive vote has both local and national reverbera-
tions. The cycle of anti-civil rights ballot measures has been
broken, and we have learned how to win. As we celebrate
our victory, however, we must also prepare to face the obsta-
cles that lie ahead.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the
University of Michigan affirmative action case, Ward
Connerly stated that he would target four states with meas-
ures to outlaw affirmative action. He has also threatened to
introduce another race information ban in California.
But California's voters have seen through Connerly's lies
and deceptions and have repudiated his vision of a society
where we are blinded to the race and ethnic discrimination
VOTING RIGHTS CASE HIGHLIGHTS
PUNCH-CARD PROBLEMS
By Elaine Elinson*
In a September 22 hearing watched around the nation,
ACLU attorneys made a principled stand for California
voters rights before an 1l-judge panel of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. The ACLU argued that the use
of obsolete punch-card ballots in at least six California
counties could potentially disenfranchise tens of thou-
sands of voters during the October 7 recall election.
According to lead attorney Mark Rosenbaum, of the
ACLU of Southern California (ACLU-SC), "The case
builr on our voting rights victory in 2001, when the
Secretary of State agreed that California counties had to
stop using the same obsolete, decertified punch-card
machines that caused the Florida 2000 debacle. [hose
machines - which are expected to invalidate an estimated
40,000 votes due to mechanical Haws - were supposed to
be phased out by spring 2004. Neither we nor anyone else
could ever have predicted that there would be an election
this year."
Less than 24 hours after hearing arguments, the Court
issued a unanimous, unsigned, |2-page decision that the
election would proceed as scheduled, but acknowledged
that `the argument is one
over which reasonable
jurists may differ."
"ITHE PLAINTIFFS ARE]
LEGITIMATELY CON-
CERNED THAT THE USE
OF THE PUNCH-CARD
SYSTEM WILL DENY THE
RIGHT 10 VOTE TO SOME
VOTERS WHO MUST USE
THE SYSTEM."
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
In a Statement on
behalf of the plaintiffs and
the three California
ACLU affiliates, ACLU of
Northern California
(ACLU-NO) executive
director Dorothy Ehrlich
announced that the group
"had reluctantly decided
the Ninth
verdict and
to accept
Circuits
would not ask the
Supreme Court to review
the decision."
The joint statement
also said, We remain
firmly convinced that using voting equipment officially
declared by the state to be obsolete, in a number of coun-
ties with a high concentration of minority voters, violates _
the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. We remain
deeply concerned over the fairness of the October 7 elec-
tion, but with the election just two weeks away, we do not
believe we should prolong the uncertainty any longer."
The counties thar still use punch cards are Los Angeles,
Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara and
Solano. They represent 44% of California's total population.
The case, Southwest Voter Education Project v. Shelley,
that tragically persists.
The ACLU-NC is well equipped to build upon this success.
Our Racial Justice Project, established five years ago, is a
tremendous resource in the continuing fight for equality.
Having already created a national model for fighting racial
profiling, and with this fresh victory on a statewide ballot
measure, we have the experience and momentum to take on
new challenges, like glaring inequities in our educational and
criminal justice systems.
It will be a long road, but we been energized by this
extraordinary success and strengthened by the new and
enduring partnerships that made it possible. The many les-
sons we have learned will serve us well as we chart our future
course towards racial justice. m=
ACLU of Southern California legal director Mark Rosenbaum
speaks at an ACLU-NC news conference directly following the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc decision to reinstate
the October 7 election. L-R: ACLU-SC staff attorney Catherine
Lhamon, ACLU-NC executive director Dorothy Ehrlich, Mark
Rosenbaum, ACLU-NC legal director Alan Schlosser, and ACLU-
NC staff attorney Margaret Crosby,
was filed in U.S. District Court after the recall election was __
set for October. Co-counsels included ACLU-SC attorney
Ben Wizner and ACLU-NC attorneys Alan Schlosser and _
Margaret Crosby. The plaintiffs included the Southw
Voter Education Project, NAACP California an
Southern Christian Pe Conference of Great
Angeles.
After District Court ide Sephee Vv. wil
against the ACLU in August, a three-judge Pp:
Ninth Circuit ruled on September 15 that the el _
should be delayed. Secretary of State Kevin Sh lley then _
appealed to the full Ninth Grenit, ee to. S
September 22 hearing. _
"(The plaintiffs are] leoiimaecly cence that he use
of the punch-card system will deny the right to vote to
some voters who must use the system," the Court stated,
but decided that the election should proceed because of
the 700,000 absentee ballots already cast and the enor-
mous resources already invested in the election. _
"We are disappointed by the Ninth Circuirs en banc deci-
sion, said ACLU-SC executive director Ramona Ripston,
"but we will press forward vigorously with our national cam-
paign for election reform and will fight to ensure the fairness
and accuracy of all voting procedures in oy future election,
including the 2004 Presidential contest."
_ The day after the election, research ete that
punch-card systems resulted in at least 176,000 disquali-
fied votes - four times more than expected, although not
enough to change the elections outcome, Said
Rosenbaum, "I hope this puts to rest claims thar these
[punch card] machines have any placeinademoctacy. s
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_1995.batch ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1996.batch ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1997.batch ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1998.batch ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_1999.batch ACLUN_2000 ACLUN_2000.MODS ACLUN_2000.batch ACLUN_2001 ACLUN_2001.MODS ACLUN_2001.batch ACLUN_2002 ACLUN_2002.MODS ACLUN_2002.batch ACLUN_2003 ACLUN_2003.MODS ACLUN_2003.batch ACLUN_2004 ACLUN_2004.MODS ACLUN_2005 ACLUN_2005.MODS ACLUN_2006 ACLUN_2006.MODS ACLUN_2007 ACLUN_2007.MODS ACLUN_2008 ACLUN_2008.MODS ACLUN_2009 ACLUN_2009.MODS ACLUN_2010 ACLUN_2010.MODS ACLUN_2011 ACLUN_2011.MODS ACLUN_2012 ACLUN_2012.MODS ACLUN_2013 ACLUN_2013.MODS ACLUN_2014 ACLUN_2014.MODS ACLUN_2015 ACLUN_2015.MODS ACLUN_2016 ACLUN_2016.MODS ACLUN_2017 ACLUN_2017.MODS ACLUN_2018 ACLUN_2018.MODS ACLUN_2019 ACLUN_2019.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log [he author is a communications consultant and owe .
public information director
ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF | 7
a
- BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ELECTION
VOTING INFORMATION
WHO CAN VOTE:
The by-laws of the ACLU of Northern California (ACLU-NC) call for the "at large"
Directors to be elected by our general membership. The label affixed to this issue of the
ACLU News indicates on the top line if you are a current member and thus eligible to vote.
Your label states "VOTE?" if you are eligible to vote, or "INELIGIBLE? if you are not eligible
to vote.
If your label states that you are ineligible to vote, but you have recently renewed your
membership, please send in your ballot with an attached note including your name and
phone number, so we can verify your renewal that was not yet processed as of the time the
labels were generated. If you are ineligible because you have not renewed your member-
ship but would like to do so at this time, please enclose your membership renewal check
in the same envelope along with your ballot. (Only non tax-deductible membership dues
payable to the ACLU, not donations to the ACLU Foundation, make you eligible to vote.)
HOW THE CANDIDATES WERE NOMINATED:
As explained in our special summer 2003 issue of the ACLU News, our by-laws specify
two methods for nominating candidates for directorships. Candidates may be nominated by
the current Board of Directors after the Board considers recommendations from its
Nominating Committee. Candidates may also be nominated by petition bearing the signa-
tures of at least 15 of our members in good standing. (One of this year's candidates was nom-
inated that way.)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOTING:
This year's candidates are listed on these pages in alphabetical order. We have 11 can-
didates running to fill 10 vacancies on our Board of Directors. You may vote for up to 10
candidates. You cannot cast more than one vote for any candidate. That is so even if you
vote for fewer than 10 candidates. If you share a joint membership with another member,
each of you can vote for 10 candidates. Do that by using both of the columns provided
for that purpose.
After marking your ballot, clip it and enclose the ballot and your address label from this
issue of the ACLU News in an envelope. Your address label must be included to ensure voter
eligibility. Address the envelope to:
Elections Committee
ACLU of Northern California
1663 Mission Street, Suite 460
San Francisco, California 94103
If you prefer that your ballot be confidential, insert your ballot in one envelope, then
insert that envelope plus your address label in a second envelope and mail that second
envelope to our Elections Committee at the address indicated above. In that case, we will
separate your envelopes before we count your ballot.
In order for your ballot to be counted, we must receive it at the address shown above by noon,
California time, on Thursday, December I 1, 2003.
As required by our by-laws, in order to have quorum for our election, we need at least
100 timely returned ballots from our members.
To help you assess this year's candidates, here are brief statements submitted by the can-
didates. We've also indicated, below, how they were nominated.
CANDIDATES STATEMENTS
JIM BLUME
During these perilous times when many of our hard-won and cherished civil liberties are
under assault, it would be a great honor to serve on the Board of the ACLU-NC.
From 1988 - 1994, when I previously sat on the Board, I was actively engaged on a variety
of committees including the Finance Committee and its sub-committee, the Endowment
committee, where I continue to serve. I also assisted ACLU National when it established its
Endowment Fund. I currently serve as a Board member of The Ploughshares Fund.
I am an investment advisor in the East Bay.
I hope you will support my candidacy for Board membership. I can assure you that I will,
if elected, serve will dedication and vigor.
NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: No
DONNA BRORBY
Eligible for one more term on the Board, I seek re-election
to make full use of the experience that I've gained on the
Board during the last five years. I am Board Chair of the
Development Committee and a member of the Executive
and Legal committees. I serve on the Board to be part of
fighting for individuals' civil rights and liberties against
encroachment by the government and the masses.
I grew up and attended public schools in Richmond,
California in the 1950s-60s where I learned much about
poverty, racial justice and civil rights issues. I graduated from Harvard University and Boalt
Hall Law School. I'm a civil rights litigator, primarily in the areas of prisoners' constitution-
al rights and employment discrimination.
NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: Yes
MARIANO-FLORENTINO CUELLAR
As a professor at Stanford Law School, I try to teach our
students about the extent and fragility of our country's lega-
cy of freedom. Because that legacy is under pressure in our
times, I focus my research and pro bono projects on promot-
ing government accountability through law. I hope you'll
give me the chance to join with you, the chapters, and the
staff to help the ACLU of Northern California protect our
country's legacy. I have three main priorities: helping to artic-
ulate our concerns about legal developments and constitu-
tional government to the general public; working with staff to respond to legal developments
in court decisions, legislation, and regulatory policy; and supporting our outreach to immi-
grants and communities of color.
NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: No
QUINN DELANEY
These challenging times present the ACLU with an oppor-
tunity to become an ever stronger voice for justice. Our mem-
bership has increased dramatically because people understand
the importance of an effective ACLU. As the current Chair of
the Board, I have the honor of working with an outstanding
group of committed individuals who work to safeguard civil
liberties and civil rights for everyone.
I have been associated with the ACLU for many years, first as a
volunteer attorney, then as a Board member and chair of the devel-
opment committee. In my professional life I am the director of a foundation focusing on racial justice.
8 | ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF
My commitment to the ACLU-NC and the issues it works on is unwavering. I hope you will
support my re-election to the Board.
NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: Yes
LAURA DONOHUE
I was honored to serve this past year as a member of the
ACLU-NC Board of Directors. The experience underscored
my belief that the most effective way to address increasing
limits placed on individual rights combines public advocacy,
judicial remedy, and dissemination of information. Outside
the ACLU, I focus on the intersection between individual
rights and counter-terrorist law. Acting Assistant Professor of
Political Science at Stanford University, for the past two years
I taught Security, Civil Liberties, and Terrorism. I am a
Fellow at Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation, where I am complet-
ing the project "Security and Freedom in the Face of Terrorism." I would welcome the oppor-
tunity to continue to apply my academic work to the goals and concerns of the ACLU.
NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: Yes
JAN GARRETT
As someone who was born with a disability and has worked in the disability civil rights field
for seven years, I know how important civil rights protections are. As an ACLU-NC Board
member, I hope to encourage the pursuit of more disability rights cases. As an attorney with
the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, I have had direct experience with many civil
rights issues. I also have experience as a past Board president of the AXIS Dance Company. The
ACLU-NC is uniquely positioned to take cases that the mainstream legal community cannot or
will not take. I would be proud to help ensure that those with the least power can turn to the
ACLU for protection. Thank you for your consideration of my nomination.
NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: Yes
BARBARA ZERBE MACNAB
Currently our nation faces major assaults on civil liberties
at all levels. Liberties lost are difficult to regain. The ACLU
becomes even more crucial as fear cripples the public will. A
longtime member of the ACLU, I am presently the chair of
the vibrant BARK Chapter whose dedicated Board fights to
preserve our rights. Chapters are essential in this fight. Some
of my past experiences are: two terms as Vice Chair of the
Earl Warren ACLU Chapter; founder and past chair of
NWPC of California; Chair, CDC Women's Caucus; Chair,
Berkeley Energy Commission and Commission on the Status of Women; past president, Local
1902, AFT; Lead Site representative, seven years, NEA Local; six times representative to the
NEA convention. I will serve you well if elected.
NOMINATED BY: Petition INCUMBENT: No
PHILIP euro. MONRAD
I am a partner in the law firm of Leonard Carder, LLP,
where we represent labor unions and individual employees in
employment litigation. I have served as an interim at-large
member of the ACLU-NC Board since last September. |
have been active in civil rights and social justice issues since
1970. At the present perilous moment, the ACLU is perhaps
the most courageous and effective counterbalance to the
forces fronted by Ashcroft, Cheney and Connerly. It is thus
more important than ever to maintain and expand the vitali-
ty of the ACLU. I urge everyone to give generously of their time and resources to that end,
and ask for your support in allowing me to do so as a member of the Board.
NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: Yes
RONALD TYLER
For thirteen years I have served as an Assistant Federal
Public Defender in Northern California. The people that I
represent come from many cultures and backgrounds, but
the unifying experience for all of them is a confrontation
with an inordinately powerful adversary within a legal system
unfairly designed to incapacitate rather than to mete out jus-
tice. As a criminal defense attorney, I stand as a bulwark
against the many excesses of that system.
I am honored to be nominated as a board member of the
ACLU. Working to protect and expand the constitutional freedoms of Northern Californians
is a natural outgrowth of my professional career. If I am elected as a board member, I pledge
to work diligently to further the aims of the ACLU.
NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: No
JEFF VESSELS
I am excited by the opportunity to remain engaged in the
ACLU's vital work. Prior to relocating to San Francisco this
spring to unite with my partner Gilberto, I was Executive
Director of ACLU of Kentucky for three years. I created
programs for young civil libertarians, established cadres of
volunteers in remote areas, and initiated a Major Gifts
Campaign and an Endowment Campaign. I also taught pol-
icy courses in the masters of social work program at the
University of Louisville. Prior to working at the ACLU, I
was affiliate Vice Chair and, in my 20s, organized activities in my small hometown. A mas-
ters degreed social worker, I am Director of Lavender Seniors of the East Bay. I am particu-
larly interested in fundraising and community organizing.
NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: No
CECILLIA WANG
When I recently thanked a Lawyers' Council donor for his
pledge, he replied: "If ever there was a time this was needed, it's
now." How true. Right now, our ACLU is battling for civil
rights and liberties, just as it has through history. I would be
honored to join in that fight as a board member. I am current-
ly an attorney at the law firm of Keker and Van Nest. From my
past work as an ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project lawyer and
public defender, and as a current member of the indigent crim-
inal defense panel for the San Francisco federal district court
and the ACLU Lawyers' Council, I know how vital the ACLU is to our community. Here's to
fighting the good fight together.
NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: No
ACLU-NC BOARD OF -
TSM ons) VAR)
Please vote by marking one square next to each candidate you support.
You may vote for up to 10 candidates out of the 11 on this ballot.
(Joint members: use both squares.)
-) -) JIM BLUME
_ |) DONNA BRORBY
~ _] MARIANO-FLORENTINO CUELLAR
~- -) QUINN DELANEY
~] LAURA DONOHUE
|) JAN GARRETT
~~ _] BARBARA ZERBE MACNAB
- -) PHILIP C. MONRAD
|] RONALD TYLER
-] C1 JEFF VESSELS
| -) CECILIA WANG
eS
lease clip and send along with your address label to
Elections Committee
ACLU of Northern California
1663 Mission Street, Suite 460
San Francisco, California 94103
Ballots must be received by noon on December 11, 2003.
ee ee ee ee ee ee en nee een een n eine ene ence nner ene ee eee eee ee eee ee ee en ee
e clip along titel eee
ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF | 9