vol. 68, no. 1
Primary tabs
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
ACL
Ts ae
BECAUSE
PAGE 9
Backlash Profile:
What's in a Name?
WHAT'S INSIDE |
PAGE 2
Landmark Settlement Marriages Shut Down:
for LGBTI Students | ACLU Files Suit
| PAGE 8
Reforming the SFPD:
SF's Proposition H
HISTORY IN THE MAKING:
SAME-SEX COUPLES WED AT CITY HALL
hey stepped out of San Francisco's City Hall and into the history books.
Thousands of same-sex couples braved wind, rain, and the wrath of the
anti-gay lobby this February, waiting hours for a simple privilege that had
been denied them for years: a marriage license.
FREEDOM
"We've waited 51 long years for this day, for the right to
get married," said Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79, the
first couple to wed at City Hall on Feb. 12, 2004. "We've
been in a committed and loving relationship since 1953."
Martin and Lyon were one of more than 3,000 gay and
lesbian couples to tie the knot in San Francisco after Mayor
Gavin Newsom, on just his 35th day in office, directed city
officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Spurred by President Bush's advocacy of a constitutional
amendment banning same-sex unions, Newsom was deter-
mined to take action. After consulting with legal advocates
for the LGBTI community, including ACLU of Northern
California (ACLU-NC) staff attorney Tamara Lange,
Newsom took a bold step. He instructed the City Attorney's
office to amend the City's marriage license to make the lan-
guage gender-neutral.
Newsom explained that he had taken an oath to uphold
the California constitution, including its promise of equal
protection for all Californians. "What we were doing before
last Thursday [Feb. 12], from my perspective, was clearly, by
any objective, discriminatory," he told CNN.
On Feb. 12, 2004, the City and County of San Francisco
began granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
ACLU STAFF WITNESS FIRST WEDDING
"It was profoundly moving," says ACLU-NC associate
director Bob Kearney. "What had been about politics and
strategy all week was brought back down to what really matters:
an intimate, personal relationship between two people who
want nothing more than to pledge their lives to one another."
ACLU staffers Kearney and Lange witnessed the marriage
of Lyon and Martin, and those of four other couples to wed
CAN =| 22 Red iE (c) Lis 61 F
VOLUME LXVIII ISSUE 1
PAGE 12
ACLU Forum:
Saving Choice, Saving Lives
CENTER SPREAD
Taking Back the Nation:
2003 Year in Review
GIGI PANDIAN
Couples line up outside City Hall, Feb. 17, 2004
that first day.
Lyon and Martin met in Seattle in 1950, moved to San
Francisco, and bought a house together in 1955. Lyon
worked as a journalist; Martin as a bookkeeper, and together
the women fought for LGBT rights. As gay seniors, Martin
and Lyon faced an extraordinary set of issues: would they be
allowed to share a room in a nursing home? What would
happen to one when the other passes away?
Now that they are married, they have achieved a lifelong
dream. "Del and I vowed on February 12, 2004, to `love and
comfort, honor and keep in sickness and health, for richer or
poorer, for better or for worse and be faithful as long as we
both shall live," says Lyon. "While we have lived these vows
for all our 51 years together, it was very meaningful and
important to do so as intended legal spouses."
As Lyon and Martin exchanged vows, continued on page 6
PATRIOT ACT ANTIDOTE: THE SAFE ACT
By Bob Cuddy, ACLU News Contributor
ver the last two years, a vigorous and broad-based
citizen campaign has persuaded local and state
governments to adopt resolutions opposing the USA
Patriot Act. Now, with the 260th resolution passing in
March 2004, and a storm brewing in Washington, DC, over
the reauthorization of controversial provisions that sunset
next year, civil libertarians are ready to up the ante. "It's
time to pressure Congress to bring the Patriot Act back in
line with our Constitution,"says Dorothy Ehrlich, executive
director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern
California (ACLU-NC).
"We want to build on the city council resolutions at the
national level," says Bob Kearney, associate director of the
ACLU-NC. "And we don't just want people to get angry: We
want them to get active."
The target of reform efforts is a bill that is currently before
Congress. The SAFE Act-SAFE stands
continued on page 4
The 2004 National ACLU Membership Conference is coming to San Francisco
JULY 6-8: STAND UP FOR FREEDOM
On July 4 we the celebrate the birth of freedom in America.
On July 6-8 we redouble our efforts to protect it.
Sign up at www.aclu.org, or call 212-549-2590
NEW CALIFORNIA MEDIA AWARDS
ACLU of Northern California executive
director Dorothy Ehrlich (right), with award-
winner Tram Nguyen of ColorLines, presented
the awards for best civil liberties journalism at
the New California Media (NCM) ethnic
media awards ceremony on November 18,
2003. The ACLU-NC was proud to
participate in NCM's annual EXPO and
awards, which brought together over 2,000
people to celebrate and learn about the ethnic
media's growing role in public communication.
NCM is a nationwide association of over 700
varied ethnic media organizations.
SHAPIRO LUNCH
DONORS GET INSIDE VIEW OF SUPREME COURT
By Stan Yogi, Planned Giving Director
ocal members of the ACLU's DeSilver Society got the
scoop on last year's U.S. Supreme Court term from
Steven Shapiro, national ACLU legal director, at a
special lunch on November 14.
Shapiro explained that although the Court ended its year
with two important decisions promoting civil liberties -
upholding the University of Michigan's law school affirmative
action program, and extending to lesbians and gay men
the fundamental right to establish intimate, personal
relationships-earlier decisions, including the validation of
California's draconian "Three Strikes" law, undercut civil
liberties. Shapiro predicted that if the justices uphold a
lower court ruling in the California case challenging the
constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of
Allegiance, the ACLU will be fighting against a constitutional
amendment to retain those words in the Pledge.
Later that day, Shapiro spoke to members of the ACLU's
Lawyers Council, which includes hundreds of lawyers from
academic,
the legal,
public interest, and
business communities,
whose leadership and
financial commitment
support the ACLU of
Northern California's
work. That evening, he
met with contributors to
the ACLU's endowment
campaign.
GIGI PANDIAN
The DeSilver Society is the ACLU's special recognition
group for supporters who have included the ACLU in their
estate and financial plans. The ACLU appears before the
U.S. Supreme Court more often than any other body or
organization except the Department of Justice. Shapiro heads
a team of over 50 lawyers in the ACLU's legal department,
and oversees the ACLU's strategy and presentation of cases in
the nation's highest court. m=
Shifting estate tax laws have implications for individu-
als and couples who have previously set up a Will or
Living Trust and also for those who haven't yet done so.
IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN LEARNING ABOUT:
= How the latest estate planning rules affect your
existing plans
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_2004.batch 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 How to establish an estate plan based on
current laws
= How to include the ACLU in your estate plans
Please join us for a special seminar with estate
planning attorneys.
ESTATE PLANNING IN A CHANGING TAX WORLD
Refreshments will be served at 6:30pm, and the seminar will begin promptly at 7:00pm. Space is limited, so reserve your place now by returning
the form below or calling Stan Yogi at (415) 621-2493, ext. 330, or e-mailing syogi@aclunc.org.
L_| YES, | WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THE BASICS OF ESTATE PLANNING
|_|] I CANNOT ATTEND, BUT PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU PLAN TO HAVE ANOTHER SEMINAR.
TOPICS COVERED INCLUDE:
= Goals of estate planning
= Changes in tax and estate laws
" The probate process
= Reducing estate taxes
" Providing more for the organizations and people
you care about.
MAY 12 AT 7PM
Monterey City Library
625 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA
FREE FOR ALL ACLU MEMBERS!
PLEASE RESERVE PLACES.
NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY: STATE: ZIP:
TELEPHONE: E-MAIL:
Please return to: Stan Yogi, Director of Planned Giving, ACLU Foundation of Northern California
1663 Mission Street, Suite 460, San Francisco, CA 94103
BOARD ELECTION
S
ULI
ACLUnews
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.
Quinn Delaney, CHAIR
Dorothy Ehrlich, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Rachel Swain, EDITOR
Gigi Pandian, EDITORIAL ASSISTANT
Underground Advertising, DESIGN
1663 Mission Street #460, San Francisco, CA 94103
415-621-2493
2 | ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF
SETTLEMENT WILL PROTECT (c)
LGBT! STUDENTS
By Derek Turner, ACLU Intern
n one of the most far-reaching settlements of its kind,
| the Morgan Hill Unified School District has agreed to a
reform of its harassment policies and a comprehensive
training program for its students and faculty. The settlement
brought to an end a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Northern
California (ACLU-NC) and the National Center for Lesbian
Rights on behalf of six students who faced unrelenting
harassment because of their sexual orientation.
At an emotional news conference at the ACLU-NC offices
on January 6, plaintiffs Alana Flores and Freddie Fuentes
emphasized the importance of the settlement. "I am so
happy that the district has finally recognized the seriousness
of this problem and is ready to do something to stop it," said
"The kind of abuse I had to deal with every day
when I went to school was
horrible. No student should
have to face that."
Flores.
IN THE NEIGHBORING
COMMUNITY OF GILROY,
JUST SOUTH OF MORGAN
HILL, SCHOOL DISTRICT
OFFICIALS ARE REEXAM-
INING THEIR POLICIES TO
ENSURE THAT ALL OF
THEIR STUDENTS HAVE A
SAFE PLACE 10 LEARN.
In addition to the policy
reforms and training pro-
grams, the school district also
agreed to a monetary award
in excess of $1.1 million.
Located just 10 miles
south of San Jose, Morgan
Hill is a school district that
serves over 9,000 students
in 15 different schools.
The plaintiffs in this case
students between
1991 and 1998 in three of
the district's schools, during which time they experienced a
were
torrent of verbal and physical homophobic attacks. Despite
repeated requests, school administrators and district officials
did not intervene to protect the students.
The school district denied any wrongdoing, arguing that
officials were not aware of their responsibilities under the
law. On April 8, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
"IF YOU'RE NOT GAY,
ruled that if a school district is aware that anti-gay harass-
ment is happening, it must take "meaningful" steps to stop
it, and sent the suit back to district court for trial. The rul-
ing covers all nine states of the court's jurisdiction, but will
likely be influential throughout
the nation.
The mandatory training pro-
THEN WHY ARE YOU
CRYING?"
gram will begin this school year
and run through 2007 for staff.
It will include exercises on how
A MORGAN HILL ASSISTANT to address anti-gay harassment,
PRINCIPAL TO ALANA FLORES panel presentations by students
who have witnessed or been vic-
tims of harassment, and education on the legal responsibili-
ties of district employees. There will also be periodic policy
reviews and a bimonthly discussion of school safety, includ-
ing the issue of anti-gay harassment, in staff meetings.
For students, the mandatory program will begin in the fall
of 2004 and run through 2008. Seventh graders will attend
a 50-minute training session that is exclusively about anti-
gay harassment, and ninth graders will do peer-to-peer train-
ings and discussions.
"This settlement serves both as a model and a lesson for
the rest of the country," says ACLU-NC attorney Ann Brick.
"Tt serves as a model that can be copied by schools across the
country that are committed to making anti-gay harassment a
thing of the past. For those schools that persist in taking a
hear-no-evil-see-no-evil approach to anti-gay harassment, it
is a lesson in liability."
Already, it appears to be working. In the neighboring com-
munity of Gilroy, school district officials are reexamining
their policies to ensure that all of their students havea safe
place to learn. "As a result of some of the issues that we heard
about in Morgan Hill, we thought it might be a good idea to
look at our training and our requirements," says Gilroy
District Superintendent Edwin Diaz. "Sometimes, when
something like this happens, it makes you look back again at
your own policies." =
MEDICAL MARIJUANA
In a victory for the First Amendment, the U.S. Supreme
Court declined to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling that
physicians have a First Amendment right to recommend
the medical use of marijuana to their patients. Noting that
"a doctor's recommendation does not itself constitute ille-
gal conduct," the court affirmed a lower court injunction
prohibiting the government from investigating a doctor or
attempting to revoke a doctor's prescription drug license
solely because he or she has recommended the medical use
of marijuana. The ruling was the result of a federal class
action lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Northern California,
the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project, and the
Altshuler Berzon firm on behalf of a group of physicians
and patients. The suit was filed in response to the govern-
ments attempt to undermine Proposition 215 by threat-
ening to revoke the prescription drug licenses of physi-
cians who recommend the medical use of marijuana to
their patients. Conant v. Walters
INTERNET SPEECH
The California Court of Appeal has ruled that Section
230(c)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 does
not provide absolute immunity from lawsuits for those
who post material on the Internet that was written by
someone else. Instead, the court held that if the Internet
LEGAL BRIEFS
THE! PLAINTIFFS
FREDDIE FUENTES was
_in the seventh grade
when he was sur-
rounded at a school
bus stop by a group
. including a a porno-
graphic picture of a
: NA FLORES
woman, bound an
responded,
_anymore," a
you =
Over $1.1 million.
Mandatory training for school staff and fa
ulty through the 2006-2007 school year, _-
including exercises on how to address anti-
gay harassment, and education on the legal -
responsibilities of district employees.
Pevedic pone: reviews ae a bimonthly dis- _
user has been put on notice that the material in question
is claimed to be defamatory, the user posts at his or her
own risk. The ACLU of Northern California, along with
the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed an amicus brief
in the case arguing that Internet health activist Ilena
Rosenthal could not be sued for defamation based on her
use of an Internet newsgroup to repost messages written
by another person. We pointed out that e-mail, news-
groups, and bulletin boards are often used to exchange or
forward items of interest written by others. By limiting the
protection afforded by Section 230, the court of appeal
has made it riskier to share the work of others via the
Internet. Barrett v. Rosenthal
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS
Anti-gay forces filed two lawsuits challenging
California's groundbreaking domestic partnership legisla-
tion, AB 205, which will provide domestic partners with
Ag Sys s
couples when it goes into effect in January 2005. All three
ACLU affiliates in California, along with the ACLU
national office, Lambda Legal, and the National Center
for Lesbian Rights successfully intervened in one of the
cases on behalf of Equality California and 12 same-sex
couples who need the protections that AB 205 will pro-
vide. We are also representing the same clients as amici in
the second case, and our request to coordinate the two
cases has been granted. -
We obrained an important win at the outset, when a
Sacramento Superior Court judge found the challenges to
the new law are unlikely to succeed and allowed the state
to continue its plan to implement AB 205. Summary
judgment briefing will take place over the next several _
a ee v, Pans
SAME-SEX PARENTS
The California Court of Appeals for the Second District
held oral argument in January in a case challenging the
validity of a non-biological mothers parentage decree.
Kristine and Lisa decided to have a child together. While
Kristine was pregnant with their child, they jointly
obtained a decree identifying Lisa as their daughter's legal
parent. Kristine and Lisa later ended their relationship,
and Kristine filed suit claiming that Lisa has no parental
rights. After oral argument, the Appellate Court ordered
additional briefing on several issues, including questions
about the possibility of a sexual-orientation-neutral inter-
pretation of California family law. The ACLU of Northern
California, the ACLU of Southern California and the
National Center for Lesbian Rights are participating as
amici and were permitted to present oral argument on
Lisa's behalf. Kristine H. uv. Lisa R
ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF | 3
PATRIOT ACT canines rom gage
for Security and Freedom Enhanced-aims to square the
Patriot Act with the U.S. Constitution by reforming its most
troubling provisions.
"The SAFE Act is our first concrete opportunity to start
rolling back what we know is wrong," says Kearney.
MAKING LIBRARIES SAFE
Libraries have been a concern almost from the day the
Patriot Act sailed through Congress, with the prospect of
government agents watching what we read sending a chill
down many ordinary Americans' spines.
Under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, government agents,
operating under the shield of an expanded Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, have virtually untrammeled
power to search innocent Americans library, bank or medical
records. All they need to do is declare to a judge that they
want the target's records for a counter-terrorism investiga-
tion. The judge cannot turn them down.
"It takes away the power of judges to review information,"
Kearney says, "and throws the balance of power toward the
police. It creates a rubber stamp, and it's ordinary Americans
who are paying the price."
TAKE ACTION
The SAFE Act would protect the privacy of library records,
medical information, and financial statements by requiring
individualized suspicion before the government can search
somebody's personal records. It would require the govern-
ment to show "specific and articulable facts" that the records
in question belong to a spy, terrorist or other foreign agent,
and would amend the law to clarify that federal agents may
not use "national security letters" to obtain the records of a
public library's computers without a court order.
ACLU AND LIBRARY ASSOCIATION URGE ACTION
Like the ACLU, the American Library Association
and its affiliates were out front early in raising the
alarm about the Patriot
Act. "The Patriot Act is
a clear and present dan-
ger to our civil liberties,
and is an assault on
free speech in an open
society, says Karen
Schneider, chair of
the California Library
Association (CLA)'s
intellectual freedom
committee.
ats: = why 9 as
President Bush urged
reauthorization of the
Patriot Act in his State of
the Union address, the
ACLU-NC and the CLA
teamed up to launch a
counteroffensive.
Full-page advertise-
ments ran in independ-
ent newspapers with a
combined circulation of
more than one million throughout the region, from
Monterey to Eureka. The ads (see p. 9) show a student at
work, with the words: "Don't you just hate it when someone
reads over your shoulder? Especially when that someone is
the Justice Department."
Through the ad campaign and other efforts, we called on
members of Congress to support the SAFE Act, and many
members swiftly answered the call. Congressmen Pete Stark,
George Miller, Sam Farr and Tom Lantos joined
Congresswomen Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey as cospon-
sors of the SAFE Act, with Rep. Lantos even writing a pow-
erful op-ed in support. In March, Democratic House leader
and San Francisco Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi also
cosponsored the bill, saying it would, "ensure that the
Attorney General's far-reaching powers are not abused."
"We support the SAFE act so that libraries can continue to
remain institutions of free expression and exploration of
ideas," says CLA president, Susan Hildreth.
REINING IN SEARCHES
Its not only personal records that are at risk under the
Patriot Act. The SAFE Act also reins in a provision that
allows the government to search innocent Americans'
property-without notification.
The SAFE Act would put an end to most "sneak and peek"
searches, permitting the government to delay notice of a
search warrant only for one of three reasons: preserving life
or physical safety; preventing flight from prosecution, or;
preventing destruction of evidence.
In addition, the SAFE Act expands protections now in
place against domestic wiretaps for foreign intelligence inves-
tigations. Under the Patriot Act, the powers to eavesdrop
were greatly expanded, and left open the possibility that fed-
eral agents could listen in on conversations between people
who were not targets of an investigation.
The SAFE Act would also ensure that key provisions
sunset in 2005.
LEFT-RIGHT ALLIANCE
The Patriot Act looks set to move to the eye of the
TAKE ACTION
: _on a oe i enforcement _
_ agencies. It is opposed by law enforcement,
including the California Police Chiefs
_ Association.
= The CLEAR Act would wake immigrant
communities afraid to talk to " or
report crime.
= The CLEAR Act a increase racial protling
American citizens and | permanent residents:
would be stopped or questioned based solely on
their 2 accent.
a their ethnic i edged f
election-season storm. President Bush laid down the gauntlet
during his State of the Union address, drawing protests from
Democrats when he urged Congress to renew provisions that
are scheduled to sunset next year, and, days later, threatened
to veto the SAFE Act.
Yet the Patriot Act has drawn fire from both sides of the
aisle. The ACLU-NC's Kearney notes that people from
across the political spectrum are battling with ever-increasing
vigor to save fundamental freedoms. "This is a rare and
important opportunity for the left and the right to come
together," he says.
Indeed, the SAFE Act is co-sponsored by conservative Sen.
Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and liberal Sen. Dick Durbin (D-
Illinois). A companion bill in the House of Representatives is
being carried by Rep. Butch Otter (R-Idaho). Liberal
Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts and conserva-
tive Jeff Flake of Arizona have signed on, as have others of all
political persuasions.
The breadth of the opposition is an indicator of the height
of the stakes, notes Kearney. "The Bush administration is
pushing for permanent changes to our rights," he says,
adding that those who say we need to retain these protections
only until the U.S. wins
the war on terror are
THE SAFE ACT-SAFE
STANDS FOR SECURITY
AND FREEDOM ENHANCED
- AIMS TO SQUARE THE
overlooking an impor-
tant fact: "There is no
one to surrender in a war
on terror."
TIME FOR A CHANGE
PATRIOT ACT WITH THE
U.S. CONSTITUTION BY
REFORMING ITS MOST
It has been more than
two years since a pan-
icked Congress passed
the Patriot Act, just 45
days after Sept. 11, 2001.
Fe eis,
opposition were few, and
TROUBLING PROVISIONS.
the voices of
quiet. But now that such
a broad range of individuals and organizations, including
several members of Congress who initially voted for the Act,
have joined the rising chorus of discontent, the ACLU-NC's
Ehrlich believes the tide may finally turn.
"Millions of Americans are demanding that freedom be
restored to keep America both safe and free," she says.
"It may take time, but eventually, their voices will surely
prevail. Passing the SAFE Act is the first scene in a much
longer drama." am
g
4 | ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF
SPECIAL REGISTRATION REDUX
parks flew when the Bush administration instructed males from a list of
mainly Middle Eastern countries to report to their local INS offices for
fingerprinting and registration. Under fire from a host of critics, includ-
ing the ACLU, the government later terminated a portion of the discrimina-
tory program. But for many, this partial victory only caused more confusion.
Here, associate legal director Jayashri Srikantiah cuts through the clutter.
More than 83,000 men and boys flocked to their local
immigration offices in the fall and winter of 2003. They were
registration and fingerprinting? These were regular people:
high school students, fathers, businesspeople, who had,
seeking to comply with the new National Entry Exit often unwittingly, over-
THE TYPICAL REGISTRANT
Registration System (NSEERS), or special registration, which stayed their visas.
required males over the age of 16 who were citizens and The programs sparked
WAS NOT A TERRORIST-
" nationals of 24 mostly Muslim countries to register with their outrage and widespread
local immigration office or face possible arrest and protest. In northern
WHAT TERRORIST WOULD activist
deportation. The program also required individuals to register California,
groups including the
ANGIW ot = Northern
California (ACLU-
NC) condemned spe-
at ports of entry to the United States.
VOLUNTARILY SUBMIT
Special registration caused mass confusion, fear, and worse.
Thousands were detained. And for many, their worst fears
TO REGISTRATION AND
were realized. Deportation proceedings were initiated against
almost 14,000 men and boys. Yet the typical registrant was cial registration at a
FINGERPRINTING? series of impassioned
rallies. The ACLU-NC
also wrote letters to members of the northern California
not a terrorist -what terrorist would voluntarily submit to
= RESOLUTIONS WATCH Le
"TOTAL NUMBER OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED
_ AGAINST THE USA PATRIOT ACT AS OF MARCH 2, 2004
congressional delegation demanding that the program be
terminated. The ACLU-NC and others condemned the pro-
gram as a discriminatory dragnet targeting individuals based
on place of birth rather than on individualized suspicion
based on behavior.
In the winter of 2003, the
announced that it
Bush
administration
would suspend por-
tions of the special
pro-
gram. Yet it was only a
registration
partial victory. The sus-
pended provisions were
those requiring that indi-
viduals re-register annually
with local offices, and that
people who registered on
Cities and counties continue to join the relentless entering the United States
march against the USA Patriot Act. As of March 2,
2004, the total number of resolutions passed
submit to a follow-up inter-
view. Other onerous provisions
books. For
instance, the program continues to
against the Patriot Act was 261. Since our last remained on the
_ report in July 2003, thanks to the work of numerous
ACLU chapters, activists, and allied organizations, sharply limit the ports allowed for
the fol swing communities in northern California _ the departure of those who have reg-
solu istered, and requires registrants to sub-
mit to in-person "exit" registration with
a designated immigration
official,
obscure location.
And for the 14,000
facing deportation, and
often at an
their families, the dam-
age is already done.
The
tion continues to
administra-
enforce other parts
of the special regis-
tration program,
- SAN RAMON (OCTOBER oO
_- SOLEDAD (OCTOBER 15)
a SACRAMENTO (NOVEMBER 13)
including require-
ments that regis-
trants inform the
. Department of
`Ios heels, New ee NY, a Dalles, TX, also o
tions in oy 2004.
Homeland Security
- passed anci-Patriot Act r re of changes of address
within ten days, and port-of-entry registration for citizens or
nationals of five Middle Eastern countries.
The Bush administration's decision to terminate only por-
tions of the program, along with its failure to publicize the
program's remaining requirements, has created further confu-
sion in immigrant communities. The administration has failed
to adequately notify immigrants of the program's require-
ments, even though the penalties for non-compliance may
include deportation. Those who unwittingly fail to satisfy the
departure requirements, for example, will be deemed in viola-
tion of the law and may face the penalty of being denied per-
mission to return to the United States.
The state of confusion has only been exacerbated by the
administration's institution of a new program termed US
VISIT. As of January 2004, 24 million foreign visitors to the
United States will be required to include fingerprints and
photos in their passports. By announcing the US VISIT
program, while maintaining the confusing and discrim-
inatory requirements of special registration,
the government continues to
trap unwary
ee immigrants
who have made
every effort to com-
ply with the law.
The ACLU and other
organizations are working to
ensure that immigrant commu-
nities know their rights, and will
continue to fight for America's new
"disappeared." The battle to end special
registration has only just begun. =
__*(R) Registrants must infor
__*PLEASE NOTE TH
PRIMARY REQUI
ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF | 5
SAME-SEX COUPLES cosines rom age
a crowd gathered outside City Hall. Word of the marriages
was spreading across the city, but many LGBTI rights
activists arrived not for the weddings but for a long-planned
rally: Feb. 12 is Freedom to Marry day. Assemblyman Mark
Leno (D-San Francisco) marked the day by introducing the
California Non-Discrimination Act, a bill in the California
Legislature that would permit same-sex marriage.
"The mood at City Hall was beyond excitement," says
Kearney. "The Mayor came out and people were effusive in
their praise. You could see people feeling validated in their
relationships in a way they never had before. We felt we were
witnessing history in the making."
THE QUEST FOR EQUALITY
With the media spotlight focused on the city, couples from
around the nation and world flocked to join the lines snaking
around the courthouse. The mood was by turns euphoric
and reflective as couples, some clad in wedding dresses and
tuxedos, others in sneakers and rain jackets, waited their
turn.
"We wanted to get married because we love each other,"
says Sarah Conner-Smith, who changed her name from
Sarah Conner after marrying her partner, Gillian Smith.
"Being married is the only universally understood way we
have of expressing the
depth
nence of our commit-
and perma-
"AMERICANS WILL LOOK
ment to each other." s
While love comes BACK ON THESE DAYS AND
first, for many cou WaNDER WHY WE EVER
ples, marriage is also
about equal recogni - EWIED TWO PEOPLE IN
tion under the law.
`Wes about "legal
LOVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY
rights," says Andrea
JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR
Fontenot of Santa
Barbara, who joined
the line with her part- | SEXUAL ORIENTATION."
ner, Erin, and their
baby daughter, Etta, at TAMARA LANGE, ACLU-NC
5:30a.m.on Tuesday,
Feb. 17. "Why make
some groups second-class citizens?" Fontenot is working to
legally adopt Etta, whose birth mother is Erin.
California and San Francisco have some of the strongest
protections for domestic partners in the nation, particularly
with AB 205, a state law that goes into effect next year, grant-
ing domestic partners the same benefits as married couples.
Even so, domestic partnerships fall far short of actual mar-
riage. Social security, immigration rights for noncitizen
spouses, and a range of other federal benefits remain out of
reach. In 1996, Congress passed the "Defense of Marriage
Act," anti-gay legislation that denies same-sex couples a laun-
dry list of benefits. To compound the situation, AB 205 is
being challenged in the courts by anti-gay activists.
"Denying same-sex couples the right to marry denies them
hundreds of important rights," says Lange.
Driven by the desire to solemnize their relationships, many
couples camped out overnight over the long President's Day
weekend, despite chilling rains. They were hoping to tie the
knot before anti-gay forces succeeded in their efforts to shut
the weddings down.
TAKING THE BATTLE TO THE COURTS
As soon as the mayor's plan took shape, attorneys from the
ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR),
and Lambda Legal began working alongside city attorneys to
stave off the inevitable attempts by anti-gay groups to stop
the weddings.
Sure enough, as soon as the weddings began, the Alliance
Defense Fund (ADF) and the Campaign for California
Families headed to court to challenge Mayor Newsom's
authority to issue the licenses in two separate lawsuits.
In both cases, superior court judges refused to issue stays
that would halt the weddings - in a clear indication that the
weddings were harming no one.
On Feb. 17, Judge James Warren also granted a motion by
the ACLU, NCLR and Lambda to intervene in the ADF suit
IN SICKNESS AND IN HEALTH
Sarah and Gillian
Conner-Smith will
never forget May 13,
2000: "We fell in
love at first sight and
have been in a com-
mitted relationship
since tau. day,
Sarah says.
Sarah and Gillian
have lived the mar-
riage vows "in sick-
ness and in health,
for better or worse"
despite not being
allowed to get mar-
ried. For two of the
four years Sarah and
Gillian have been together, one has had to support the
other both financially and emotionally through a severe
disability that required several surgeries and extensive
recuperation. Their love and commitment was so
strong, they did not need a marriage license to tell them
how to act in this time of crisis. But being legally
married would have made this experience easier
to endure.
"It is important to us that we have legal protections
for out relationship should we ever have to go through
Sarah and Gillian Conner-Smith (center l-r) shortly after
their wedding, with ACLU-NC staffers Tamara Lange and
Bob Kearney.
something like that again," Sarah says. "Being married is
the only universally understood way we have of express-
ing the depth and permanence of our-commitment to
each other."
Sarah, 35, and Gillian, 34, live in Oakland, California. m
on behalf of five same-sex couples, including Lyon and
Martin and the Conner-Smiths. The groups argued that
excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry violates
the equal protection and due process provisions of the
California constitution.
These provisions, they said, outweigh the petitioners' claims
that Proposition 22, the state initiative defining marriage as
between a man and a woman, outlaws the mayor's actions.
"Just as we told the state in 1974 when they passed a
statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman, that kind
of discrimination against same-sex couples violates the
California constitution's promise of equality," says ACLU-
NC executive director Dorothy Ehrlich. "Discrimination in
marriage was wrong then and it's wrong now."
SAN FRANCISCO TAKES THE LEAD
The controversy soon spread beyond San Francisco, with
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger instructing California
Attorney General Bill Lockyer to sue the city. Laws banning
same-sex marriage began moving through a handful of state
legislatures. And in
the most ominous
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS
move of all, President
Bush
endorsed a constitu-
FALL FAR SHORT OF ACTUAL oneal
tional amendment
MARRIAGE. SOCIAL SECU-
that would bar same-
sex marriage.
RITY, IMMIGRATION RIGHTS
Yet others rallied to
FOR NONCITIZEN SPOUSES, the
Assemblywoman
cause. State
AND A RANGE OF OTHER Carole Migden mar-
ried her partner of 20
FEDERAL BENEFITS REMAIN years at City Hall on
Feb. 19. Talk-show
host Rosie O'Donnell
and her partner trav-
OUT OF REACH.
eled to San Francisco to solemnize their relationship. And
officials in New Paltz, New York; Portland, Oregon;
Sandoval, New Mexico; and Asbury Park, New Jersey began
issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
"It's hard to believe that not that long ago Americans did
not tolerate marriages between Catholics and Protestants or
between people of different races because they thought it was
immoral and violated God's will," says Lange. "As marriages
between same-sex couples become more common, most
Americans will look back on these days and wonder why we
ever denied two people in love the right to marry just
because of their sexual orientation." m=
TAKE ACTION
OPPOSE THE FEDERAL
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT!
Write your Members of Congress and urge them to
oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment (H.]. Res
56/S.]. Res 26). Tell them:
= Amending the Constitution is an extreme act.
The proposed amendment would deny the right
to marry to gay and lesbian couples and obliter-
ate the family rights that many same-sex and
unmarried couples now have. _
= The Federal Marriage Amendment is unneces-_
sary. Even though the country has strugeled _
with the question of marriage-the last law pro-
hibiting interracial marriage was overturned only _
35 years ago--we have never amended the
Constitution to define marriage. -
s The Federal Marriage Amendment rejects
___ American traditions of life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. None of our constitution-
al amendments restrict individual freedoms. In
fact, the amendments to the Constitution have
been the source of most of the Constitution's
protections for individual liberty rights.
To take action directly, visit our special feature at
www, aclunc.org.
6 | ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF
ANNA HAUPTMANN
ACLU clients Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper outside City Hall
before they learned that their wedding could not go forward.
eanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper had the champagne on ice
back at their Tiburon home as they drove over the Golden
Gate Bridge to San Francisco, ready to make the commit-
ment of a lifetime. Fifty family members and friends were at
City Hall, eagerly waiting for the women, who had been partners
for 15 years, to descend the marble staircase as a married couple.
But the euphoria soon turned to heartbreak as Rizzo, 57,
and Cooper, 48, became one of the first same-sex couples to
be denied a marriage license since February 12.
Moments before the couple was due to wed on Thursday,
March 11,the California Supreme Court ordered the City to
halt the weddings until the Court determined whether Mayor
Gavin Newsom had the authority to order city officials to
issue licenses to same-sex couples.
Television cameras swarmed around a tearful Rizzo and
Cooper as they greeted their dismayed friends. "Promise us
youll come back," Rizzo said. "One day, soon, we will have
our day. We'll be back."
WHAT IS FREEDOM?
YOUTH CONFERENCE TACKLES TOUGH QUESTIONS
By Jenni Lerche, Carlmont High School
undreds of students from cities and schools around the
region traveled to the Howard A. Friedman First
Amendment Project's Youth Rights Conference at San
Jose State University on October 30, 2003. From the confer-
ence's inception, it was clear that the attendees were passion-
ate and emphatic about the issues of the day. Posters displayed
around the main auditorium posed questions like, "What do
you think about California's new governor?" and "What is
freedom?" More so in past years, the black sheets of butcher
paper were soon filled with comments.
The conference began in an unconventional fashion.
Youth Activist Committee (YAC) members posed a series of
questions, such as, "Do you believe the death penalty is cruel
and unusual punishment?" or, "Have you ever had your rights
violated at school?" or, "Have you ever questioned your sexu-
ality?" If an individual's personal answer to the question was
"yes," then that person stood up. Following about ten minutes
of questioning and (mostly) silent responding, YAC members
provoked a lively discussion on how students were affected by
the questions, and what the questions made them think
about. Following the activity, students were treated to an
interactive performance from Flo-ology, a break-dancing two-
some. "The opening was excellent, and I mean terrific," one
participant said.
First session workshops featured an in-depth look at the
USA Patriot Act and freedom of speech, youth rights with the
police, drug safety and harm reduction, human rights and the
Drug War, and a teacher workshop called "Controversy in the
Classroom." The second session included seminars about stu-
dents' rights at school, flaws in the criminal justice system,
indigenous people's rights, white supremacy, independent
The following day, Friday, March 12, Rizzo and Cooper
joined five other same-sex couples who were prevented from
marrying as plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Northern
California (ACLU-NC), the National Center for Lesbian Rights,
and Lambda Legal in San Francisco Superior Court.
The suit argues that denying these same-sex couples the
right to marry violates the California constitution's guarantees
of equality, liberty, and privacy.
"We are eager to take this historic opportunity to end mar-
riage discrimination in California," said Tamara Lange, staff
attorney with the ACLU-NC. "Marriage is a commitment. It
is about sharing, love, trust, and compromise. Two adults
who make this personal choice to form a life-long commit-
ment should not be denied the right to marry just because
they are gay or lesbian."
Equality California and Our Family Coalition are also par-
ties in the suit.
For more on the suit and the plaintiffs, visit www.aclunc.org.
SHAYNA GELENDER
media, sexism as an institution, and marijuana.
YAC member Amanda Gelender, a junior at Castro Valley
High School said, "This was my first time facilitating a work-
shop for an ACLU conference, and it was an extraordinary
experience. I love working with my friends through the YAC,
but it's also constructive and worthwhile to reach out and talk
to my peers who may not have been exposed to activism yet. It's
so important to get youth involved and thinking about their
rights in order to empower a generation that is often overlooked
in society." =
SCHOOL SEGREGATION: HOW FAR HAVE WE COME?
f n 1954, an historic ruling integrated the nation's schools.
(c) In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled
that separate, segregated schools were inherently
unequal. Fifty years later, 30 high school students joined
together for a teach-in that explored the state of Martin
Luther King Jr.'s dream in contemporary California, and
posed the question: How far have we come?
Students heard testimony on the current inequities in
California's school system, explored the concept of institu-
tional racism, and learned about the class-action lawsuit
Williams v. California, in which the ACLU and other
organizations are challenging the deplorable conditions in
which many students of color are forced to learn. Here,
one teach-in participant gives her perspective:
"Learning about institutionalized racism was fascinating
for me in a way I had not expected. I already had some
sense of the connection between economics and racism
that still segregates our schools and job markets. However,
during the presentation I was struck with questions about
the subtlety of racism in our society that I had not expect-
ed. Why do whites not realize, or choose to deny that
racism exists? Where does institutionalized racism COME
from? I have trouble believing that a select few white, high-
powered officials with a racist agenda are controlling our
job and real estate markets (although of course that IS pos-
sible). I have to wonder if racism is more deeply
entrenched in America than we know-so deep that we
TAKE ACTION ONLINE TO PROTECT CIVIL LIBERTIES: SIGN UP AT
cannot blame it on a few blatant racists or see its source.
Perhaps our society was and is so unequally constructed that
the past, and not a racist agenda, is spurring and perpetuat-
ing inequality. And perhaps-even more frighteningly-
money, and not racism is what drives racism today; thus being
born into a soci-
ety that revolves
around money
we are incapable
of escaping or
solving institu-
tionalized racism.
These are pes-
simistic thoughts,
I realize, but
COURTESY OF CLAIRE GREENWOOD
learning about
the history of Levittown and our school system, I have
to wonder."
- Youth Advisory Committee member Claire Greenwood,
The Urban School of San Francisco
"How Far Have We Come?" was the first in a series of teach-
ins organized by the staff of the Howard A. Friedman First
Amendment Education Project of the ACLU of Northern
California. The teach-in took place on January 18, 2004, and
involved students from Castro Valley, Pacifica, San Francisco,
San Mateo and Santa Rosa.
ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF | 7
REFORMING THE SFPD
n November, the voters of San Francisco passed Proposition H, a landmark police accountability measure.
Here, the ACLU News explores what this victory means for the future of police accountability- and how a
coalition of dedicated advocates won a David and Goliath battle against the powerful police union.
OPENING THE DOOR TO REFORM
By Elaine Elinson, ACLU News Contributor
"i roposition H has sent a wake-up call to those in power,"
pi: Richard de Leon, Chair of the Political Science
Department at San Francisco State University, the day
after the city's voters approved the most sweeping civilian
oversight measure in the country.
The change is long overdue. According to John Crew, for-
mer director of the ACLU of Northern California (ACLU-
NC) Police Practices Project, "The news accounts and offi-
cial reports detailing the Department's accountability failures
in recent months and years, simply echo dozens of prior
studies and exposes going back at least three decades."
The Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) was founded in
1982, largely at the inspiration of the ACLU-NC, when vot-
ers demanded that San Francisco create a civilian mechanism
to address the growing problem of police abuse.
Yet for years the OCC was hampered by a pattern of
obstruction and delay by the department. Case after case of
police misconduct was dismissed simply due to the depart-
ment's failure to cooperate. Moreover, the San Francisco
Police Commission often refused to exercise its oversight
function, balking at holding hearings on sensitive issues.
BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM
In March 2003, following a
series of high-profile scan-
dals in the police depart-
ment, Mark Schlosberg,
police practices policy
director of the ACLU-
NC, issued a report rec-
ommending seven steps
to reform.
8 | ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF
Law student Kelly Welch, one of a crucial cadre of volunteers.
They included: responsible and speedy compliance with
the OCC; improvement in the "early warning" system that
identifies problem officers; automatic disciplinary investi-
gation triggers; whistleblower protections; a ban on pro-
motion of officers with discipline problems; and an
increase in the accountability and independence of the
Police Commission.
Proposition H amended the City Charter to include sev-
eral of these measures. In addition, it helped to put a spot-
light on the issues. "H created a lot of space for other
things to happen," explained Schlosberg.
CREATING A CLIMATE FOR CHANGE
Prior to the election, the Board of Supervisors unani-
mously passed a resolution (Chapter 96 of the
Administrative Code) which mandated reporting on the
status of all pending cases against police officers, protocols
for document exchanges between the department and the
OCC, and studies by the Police Commission on the early
warning system and promotional practices.
"If H had not been on the ballot, these reforms might not
have enjoyed such widespread support," explained
Schlosberg.
According to Kevin Allen, who directs OCC,
"Proposition H is an important step for-
ward for civilian oversight of the San
The
civilian Police Commission now has
Francisco Police Department.
the power to hear and decide serious
charges of misconduct even in cases
where the Police Chief maintains that
no misconduct occurred."
In April, new members of the Police
Commission will be named. Thanks to
Proposition H, four will be appointed by
Mayor Newsom, and three by the Board
of Supervisors. This system of appoint-
ment will increase the independence of the
Commission, as its members will not be
beholden to one powerful elected official.
As Crew noted, "With the political sup-
port of the Police Officers Association always
on the line, San Francisco mayors have only
rarely demanded that their police commission-
ers aggressively pursue a reform agenda."
MODEL FOR THE STATE
Other aspects have imp-:oved as well. Mayor Gavin
Newsom has appointed Police Chief Heather Fong, the first
Asian-American woman to head a police department in
California. Chief Fong stated that protection for whistle-
blowers and new training gu.delines are among her top pri-
orities.
"Hopefully, we'll become even stronger because out of con-
troversy we have to learn our lessons, and we become
stronger and work closer together - so that's the hope I have
for San Francisco and the Department," Chief Fong told the
San Francisco Chronicle.
"We still have a lot of wor ahead," said Schlosberg, "and
not every problem will be solved by this package. But it is no
longer business as usual in San Francisco."
od the Mayor.
. ladependence Makes the Commision more
independent by staggering Commissioners
terms and ensuring that Commissioners
cannot be removed without i consent of
the eee
OFFICE OF CITIZEN COMPLAINTS. _
= Power to bring charges: Gives the occ the
power to bring misconduct charges directly to
the Police Commission, preventing dismissal -
of valid cases if the Police Chief tas to act or
seeks to bury cases. _ /
= Access to documents: Mandates ae the
OCC is empowered to receive all relevant doc
uments from the Police Department in mis-
conduct investigations.
PROP ii
HOW WE WON
By Elaine Elinson
]: passage of Proposition H "showed it was possible to
beat the police unions and possible to get police reforms
passed by the voters," said Mark Schlosberg.
As director of the ACLU-NC's Police Practices Project,
Schlosberg had long been frustrated by the inaction and iner-
tia of the San Francisco Police Commission. "I spent many
Wednesday evenings at the Police Commission meetings," he
says, "where the commissioners ignored serious complaints
by people who came to testify about serious incidents of
police abuse in their neighborhoods. Sometimes they would
adjourn the meetings after half an hour."
In an effort to bring his concerns to the public, Schlosberg
began working on a report, "Roadmap to Reform:
Strengthening the Accountability Mechanisms of the San
Francisco Police Department."
While Schlosberg was researching the report, the
"Fajitagate" scandal broke. The series of events - in which
high-ranking members of the Department allegedly covered
up an assault by two off-duty officers - put a spotlight on the
broader issues of police accountability. Suddenly, everyone
was looking into the misdeeds of the SFPD.
Schlosberg moved quickly to finish his report. The ACLU-
NC sent it to the Board of Supervisors, continued on page 9
p R 0 P H continued from page 8
all mayoral and district attorney candidates, city agencies and
community organizations and, of course, the media.
In the heated Fajitagate climate, the response was swift.
Supervisor Tom Ammiano requested that reports be issued
from a number of city agencies. The City Controller issued a
statement that the oversight system of the Police Commission
was "lacking." The OCC
produced a report that
detailed the SFPD's "pat-
tern of obstruction and
delay." And in May, the
Civil Grand Jury issued
its own report, which
called for improved coop-
eration with the OCC.
The ACLU-NC began
meeting with La Raza
GIG] PANDIAN
Mark Schlosberg, police prac-
tices policy director of the
ACLU-NC, played a leader-
ship role in the campaign.
Lawyers Association,
Police Watch, National
Lawyers Guild, the Green
Party, the `Transgender
Law Center, victims of
police misconduct, Supervisor Ammiano's office, and other
advocates to hammer out the language for a serious police
reform measure.
In May, Ammiano brought the advocates' language to the
Board of Supervisors, which voted 7-4 to place the measure
on the November ballot.
The coalition then went into full campaign mode. They
sought endorsements-and won them-from all three
candidates for district attorney, four of the five mayoral
candidates, and scores of civil rights organizations and
community leaders. Advocates spoke all over the city and
issued press releases every step of the way.
But the Police Officers Association (POA) was a powerful
foe. The police union ran TV ads, sent out 300,000 pieces of
direct mail, and conducted auto-dial phone calls. When the
election financial reports were disclosed in February, they
revealed that the POA had spent $383,000 - more than six
times the amount that the "Yes on H" forces raised.
But the H campaign had something just as powerful: an
army of committed volunteers. "We never could have won
without the tireless efforts of our outstanding volunteers,"
says Schlosberg. "They walked precincts every weekend, made
5,000 phone calls, wrote letters to the editor and stood out-
side-rain or shine-holding "Yes on H" signs. They made
the difference." mg
DOCUMENTS SPARK NEW FEARS IN
"NO-FLY CASE
Imost one year after the ACLU of Northern California
(ACLU-NC) filed a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request on behalf of two Bay Area activists who
were detained at San Francisco airport because their names
appeared on a government "no-fly" list, the FBI has released
94 pages of classified documents related to the list.
The FOIA request was filed on December 12, 2002, on
behalf of Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordon. Months later,
charging that the FBI and
the Transportation Security
Administration violated
FOIA and the Privacy Act
by failing to provide infor-
mation about the "no-fly"
list and other government
watch lists, the ACLU-NC
filed a lawsuit demanding
immediate disclosure of the
requested records.
The suit sought informa-
Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordon
were detained because their
tion including why Adams
and Gordons names had
continued on page 11 names were on a "no-fly" list.
appeared
GIGI PANDIAN
BACKLASH PROFILE:
The ACLU continues to gather stories of individuals caught in
the backlash afier Sept. 11, 2001. This story came to us through
the Oakland-based Applied Research Center, which, last year,
organized a "Publics Truth" forum for people to share their stories.
KAWAL ULANDAY
Kawal Ulanday is a U.S.-born Filipino peace activist -not,
he stresses, a terrorist. But apparently, the FBI wasn't so sure.
In January of 2003 an FBI agent showed up at his door, ask-
ing about his connection
KAWAL WAS ASKED
WHERE HE WAS BORN; IF
HE, THE PEACE ACTIVIST,
KNEW ANY TERRORISTS,
AND IF HE HAD ANTI-
AMERICAN FEELINGS.
to Muslim terrorist groups
in the south Philippines.
Kawal had read about his
rights, but with the FBI
standing on his doorstep,
he felt he had no choice but
to comply. His brother had
recently passed away, and
he knew his family needed
him. Kawal was deter-
mined not to do anything
to risk being hauled away, even though he knew he had the
right to refuse to answer the agent's questions at his home.
Kawal was asked where he was born; if he, the peace
activist, knew any terrorists, and if he had anti-American feel-
WHAT'S IN A NAME?
ings. The agent commented that Kawal had no criminal
record, so he asked suspiciously why Kawal had changed his
name. As a Filipino who cares about the traditions of the
country, he had
his
name from his
changed
Spanish name
to a more tradi-
tional Filipino
motivated me
to fight even
name. 5
The experi- z
ence left Kawal =
shaken -_ but z
determined:
"In the end, =
the FBI visit Z
harder for jus-
tice,' Kawal
said. "The targeting of myself and other peace activists... in
[our] communities is only part of the reactionary hysteria
which has given birth to the Patriot Act and the Department
of Homeland Security." a
TO UE Vea Vin ala Be aes
OVER YOUR SHOULDER?
ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT SOMEONE IS
eS aS
se
TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE PATRIOT ACT AND RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
You shouldn't have to worry about being under surveillance simply because of what you're reading. But that's what could
happen since the PATRIOT Act was enacted. The government can indiscriminately search your library records, Internet
activity and bookstore purchases. And under these expanded government powers, you have fewer legal protections against
searches of your personal information such as banking, medical and membership records. It's time to bring the PATRIOT
Act back in line with the Constitution. And the SAFE Act, which was recently introduced in Congress, is an important
first step. It's supported by Democrats and Republicans in Congress and by organizations
across the political spectrum.
Contact your representatives in Washington and urge them to keep us both
safe and free by supporting the SAFE Act. After all, someone reading over your
shoulder should only threaten your personal space, not your freedom.
CALIFORNIA
LIBRARY
ASSOCIATION
VISIT WWW.ACLUNC.ORG/FREEDOM TO CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES IN WASHINGTON AND URGE THEM TO PROTECT YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF | 9