vol. 32, no. 10

'_enty-seven per

American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXII

New System Explained

SAN FRANCISCO, OCTOBER, 1967

All Memberships |

Fall Due on

November 1

Memberships in the ACLUNC are being placed on a fiscal

year basis starting with the new fiscal year on November 1.

In other works, all memberships will fall due on November

1 of each year and every member will be solicited to renew

his membership at that time.

Presently, memberships are

in effect for one year from

the time of receipt of dues. Con-

sequently, al] memberships and

subscriptions have had to be

handled individually, requiring

an inordinate expenditure of

clerical time and effort which

is urgently needed for other

aspects of our work

Inefficient System

Under that system keeping

track of the 8300 persons on the

mailing list has not been easy.

Many errors have occurred.

Therefore, in order to reduce

' operating costs and to establish

a more efficient system: of han-

dling memberships they have

been placed on an annual basis

by the Board of Directors.

Fortunately, most members al-

ready renew at the beginniny

of the fiscal year. Indeed, sev-

cent of the

ACLUNC's supporters sent in

their contributions during the

first six months of the current

fiscal year.

Your Help Needed

We urge the cooperation not

only of that 77% but especially

of the 23% whose memberships

and subscriptions expire during

Minor Loyalty

Oath Issue :

Settled in Berk.

The State Supreme Court has

still not decided whether it will

accept the question of the valid-

ity of the Levering Act loyalty

oath for decision in the Charles

Aronson case now pending be-

fore it. However, one minor loy-

alty oath issue was settled satis-

factorily last month by the Berke-

ley School Board.

Teacher-Aid

The chapter was approached

by Mr. Leslie Haber who had -

worked as a teacher-aid in the

Berkeley schools under the work-

study program of the Univer-

sity of California which is fund-

ed by federal government funds.

Mr. Haber worked until the close

of the school year on June 16,

1967, but was not informed that

the federal funding terminated

on June 3 and after that date

his salary would have to come

from the Berkeley School Dis-

trict. When Mr, Haber went to

collect his salary for the last 13

days of work he was informed

he would have to sign both a

non-Communist affidavit and a

-Levering Act loyalty oath, as re-

quired by employees of the

Berkeley School District. Haber

- refused to sign and was not paid.

Volunteer ACLU attorney Mal-

colm Burnstein wrote the School

Board that to require Mr. Haber

to sign the oath to obtain his

salary was "unjust, immoral, and

illegal" because of the oath re-

`quirement. After considering Mr.

Burnstein's request, the Berkeley

School Board voted last month

to pay Mr. Haber in full without

requiring a loyalty oath or non-

Communist declaration,

the last six months of the fiscal

year. We agree that at its in-

ception the new system will be

unfair to the latter group. We

eould, of course, require only

a partial dues payment from

this group during the first year

but to do this wouid again com-

plicate the handling of member-

ships. :

The Board of Directors an

the office earnestly solicits the

cooperation of every supporter

in bringing about this important

change in office procedures.

Vehicle

Forfeiture

Cases Won

California's vehicle forfeiture

law resulted in punishment for

the innocent. People test all title

in their vehicle to the state when

narcotics were found in their

car even though they were not

responsible for its presence and

did not know of it. If you loaned

your car to someone who pos-

sessed marijuana you lost your

car. Your only defense was that

the car was stolen.

Court Test .

ACLUNC challenged the con-

stitutionality of this aspect of the

law in the Alameda Superior

Court. The trial court found the

law constitutional, While appeal

was being pursued the California

Legislature repealed the vehicle

forfeiture' law. Its action, unfor-

tunately, was not retroactive and

the Attorney General proceeded

to forfeit cars impounded before

the effective date of the legisla-

tion.

No Purpose

' Assistant staff counsel Paul

Halvonik began negotiations

with Chief Deputy Attorney Gen-

eral Charles O'Brien in an en-

deavor to change Justice De-

partment policy. In a letter to

O'Brien Halvonik asked: "What

will. be accomplished by continu-

ing this litigation? We will both

expend a great deal of energy

and money for nothing. If we

succeed we will establish that a

law already repealed is uncon-

stitutional. If you succeed you

will have taken an innocent par-

ty's car for no purpose. Since the

law has been repealed my client

will not even serve as a horrible

example to parents who do not

search their children before

loaning them the car."

A, G. Agrees

O'Brien agreed to a stipulated

reversal in ACLUNC's case of

People v. One 1963 Rambler. And

then he went a step further, is-

suing a memorandum requiring

all vehicles impounded before

the repeal of the law and not yet

. forfeited by the state to be re-

turned to the owner if the owner

himself was innocent of any nar-

cotics law violations.

Number 10

C. 0.'s Right

To Fair Hearing

Defended _

The Board of Directors of AC-

LUNC voted last month to pro-

vide legal counsel to Roland Sil-

liman, who claims to be entitled

to an exemption from compul-

sory military service as a con-

scientious objector. The Board

did not have to go into the ques-.

tion of whether or not Silliman

would qualify as a conscientious

objector as it was obvious that he

was denied fundamental fair-

ness in the hearing procedure

to determine his qualifications

asaC. O.

A conscientious objector claim-

ant is entitled to a hear-

ing before a hearing officer ap-

pointed by the Department of

Justice. In Silliman's case the

hearing officer admitted on the

record that he was prejudiced

against the applicant because of

the applicant's views against

United States involvement in the

war in Vietnam and because of

the applicant's participation in

anti-war demonstrations. The

hearing `officer, an attorney

named Valentine C. Hammack,

recommended that the claim be

denied. However, the Depart-

ment of Justice then recommend-

ed that the hearing officer's

recommendation be ignored be-

cause of its prejudiced base but

stated that Silliman should still

be denied a conscientious ob-

jector classification because the

record did not indicate that he

qualified.

lt is ACLU's position that a

statutory right to a hearing is

not satisfied by a hearing be-

fore a non-impartial hearing of-

ficer. This position will be pre-

sented to the Selective Service

Appeal Board of the State of

California and if not accepted

there will be pursued in the Fed-

eral Court if Silliman in indicted

for failing to report for induc-

tion. The case is being handled

by volunteer attorney Demetrios

Agretelis.

San Jose Public Schools

San Francisco Initiative

Peace Vote

Wins in

State

Supreme Court

On September 18 the Supreme Court of California filed

an opinion allowing the citizens of San Francisco to vote on

the following proposition at the November 7 election: "It is

' the policy of the people of the City and County of San Fran-

cisco that there be an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal

of U.S. troops from Viet Nam

so that the Vietnamese people

can settle their own problems."

21,000 Signatures

The ruling came in a petition

for writ of mandate filed direct-

ly with the State Supreme Court

after a similar petition was de-

nied by the Superior Court in

San Francisco. The petitioners,

Edward J. Farley and a group

of persons known as "Citizens

For A Vote On Vietnam" sued

Basil Healey, San Francisco's

Registrar of Voters, after Healey

had refused to accept the signa-

tures of more than 21,000 voters

of the City and County of San

Francisco asking that the Viet

Nam question be placed on the

ballot. Healey refused to accept

the signatures because he had

been advised by City Attorney

Thomas O'Connor that under the

San Francisco Charter the citi-

zens had no power to place the

issue on the ballot since the ini-

tiative process was limited to

matters pertaining to "municipal

- affairs."

ACLU Intervention

The ACLU of Northern Cali-

fornia came into the case while

it was pending before Superior

Court Judge Byron Arnold. The

ACLU argued in a friend-of-the-

court brief that it was an arbi-

trary interpretatioy of the Char-

ter to limit the initiative process

to "municipal affairs" since the

Charter contained no such limi-.

tations on the initiative and al-

lowed citizens to vote on "any

ordinance, act or other measure

which is within the power con-

ferred upon the Board of Super-

visors to enact." The Charter al- -

so provided that "any declaration

of policy may be submitted to

the electors in the manner pro-

vided for the submission of ord-

Distribution of "Gideon

Bibles" Challenged

Distribution of "Gideon Bibles" in grades 5 through 12

of the San Jose Unified School District was challenged in

the Santa Clara county Suverior Court last month, Mrs.

Mary Ann Mettle of 1782 Curtner Ave., San Jose sought an

injunction to halt such distribution and the matter was set

for a hearing before Superior

Court Judge George H. Barnett

on September 28, too late to be

reported in this issue of the

"News." Mrs. Mettier is repre-

sented by James W. Stewart, a

volunteer attorney for the San-

ta Clara Valley Chapter of the

ACLUNC. :

By a 3 to 1 vote, the school

trustees voted to make the

Bibles available to a reported

24,000 students despite the ob-

jections of the ACLU and an

opinion of Santa Clara County

Counsel John R. Kennedy. -

"It is the conclusion of our

office that the San Jose Uni-

fied School District may not

distribute these Bibles in any

manner without violeting the

United States and California

constitutions," said the seven-

page opinion prepared by Dep.

County Counsel Maurice B. Hill.

The County Counsel's opinion.

was based on two theories. "The

first theory," said the opinion,

"is that the Bible distributed

by the Gideon International is.

a sectarian publication within

the prohibition of the California

Constitution and section 8453

of the Education Code.

Establishment Clause

"The second theory is that ev-

en though the Bible may not

be classified as a sectarian pub-

lication, the distribution of this

book by. a schoo] district would

violate the United States Con-

stitution as constituting an aid

to the establishment of religion."

The opinion noted that the

California Attorney General's

office had "expressly ruled"

that the Gideon Bible is sectar-

ian in nature and therefore

may not be distributed in the

public schools without violating

the Federal and State Constitu-

tions. =

Contents of "Gideon Bible"

The Gideon Bible consists of

the New Testament, Psalms and

Proverbs of the Old Testament

of the Protestant or King James

version of the Bibie, That ver-

sion is unacceptable to Catho-

lics as well as Jews, not to speak

of non-believers,

inances and when approved by a

majority of the qualified electors

voting on said declaration, it

shall thereupon be the duty of

the Board of Supervisors to en-

act an ordinance or ordinances

to carry such policies or prin-

ciples into effect."

Resolutions on Foreign Policy

The City Attorney argued that

the "municipal affairs' limita-

tion must be read into the

Charter because the legislative

power of the Board of Super-

visors only extended to munici-

pal affairs and even as to decla-

rations of policy the Board had

a duty to enact an ordinance on

' the subject which it could not

carry out in the area of foreign

policy. When it was pointed out

that the Board of Supervisors

had frequently enacted resolu-

tions on subjects of foreign pol-

icy, such as the recent Middle

East crisis, the City Attorney re-

sponded that these resolutions

were beyond the power of the

Board but since they were inef-

fective to accomplish any action

there was no occasion to chal-

lenge them. Judge Arnold agreed

with the City Attorney and ruled,

very regretfully as he put it, that

the citizens of San Francisco

could not vote on the issue.

Censorship Powers

When the case came before

the California Supreme Court,

the ACLU's friend-of-the-court

` brief was bolstered by another

argument. This was that the

Registrar of Voters was in ef-

fect exercising censorship pow-

ers by refusing to consider an

initiative measure for the ballot

on his own view of the legal is-

sues involved. The ACLU argued,

in a brief prepared by staff

counsel Marshall W. Krause with

the assistance of volunteer at-

torney Lawrence Popofsky, that

this was a judicial decision and

not an administrative. decision

and that the legality of the initi-

ative could be challenged only

in the courts and only if it re-

ceived a majority vote or was so

clearly unconstitutional that it

should not go on the ballot.

Self-Government :

The ACLU amicus brief also

stated. "The people are the

source of all governmental pow-

er and powers which they have

reserved: to themselves should

`not be grudgingly interpreted so

as to prevent people from taking

an active part in expressing opin-

ions for their own governing.

The interest of amicus is that

confidence be maintained in the

principle that ours in a self-gov-

erning community."

Resolution Power

The brief went on to point out

the large number of resolutions

on foreign policy which had been

adopted by the Board of Super-

visors and then characterized the (c)

initiative processes as the "reso-

lution of. the people." It stated

that this resolution power should

be liberally interpreted to pro-

tect democratic process and that

a narrow interpretation of the

San Francisco Charter would not

be in accordance with these

principles.

Public Spending

The brief pointed out the

strong interrelationship between

foreign spending and domestic

affairs, and expressed the obvi-

ous interest of the people of San

-Continued on Page 4

Letters ... to the Editor

Computerized Man

Editor:

I was much impressed by the

excerpts from "The Computer-

ized Man" by Justice Douglas in

the September issue. I should

like to take slight issue with one

statement and expand another

statement.

As a university professor, I am

very much of aware of the fact

that even such. apparently ob-

jective "items such as age, years

in high school, college degrees"

and the like can involve much

unsuspected subjectivity - on

the receiving end, in the in-

stance of the first two; on the ~

sending end, in the instance of

the third. Though the late John

F. Kennedy and I were the same

age at the time, he was being

called too young to run for the

presidency and I was being

called too old for an assistant

professorship. (We both made it

-he is now a martyred Presi-

dent, and I am a full professor.)

An acquaintance of mine, how-

ever, was turned down for can-

didacy for graduate school (he

`is still an excellent secondary

school teacher) because his rec-

ord showed that he had spent six

years in high school - inter-

preted as prima facie evidence

of his academic ineptitude. Even

a sworn statement by his high

school principal, since retired-

that he attended two years of

high school on a half-time basis |

- because he had to support the

family of his widowed mother-

had no effect on this arbitrary

decision. In the matter of "col-

lege degrees," it is the lack of

such a degree - since his record

shows that he attended the Uni-

versity for five years - which

presently handicaps a young man

of my acquaintance, His per-

formance was spotty: brilliant in

his specialty, mediocre to poor

in other subjects. But, though

his "grade point average" was

satisfactory for graduation, he

lacks the necessary credits in

physical education. As a profes-

sional ice-skater in high school

and college, he viewed the physi-

cal education program as "so

much Mickey Mouse" and re-

fused to comply.

I should like to second Justice

Douglas's comments on putting

into computers the results of in-

terviews "between the investi-

gator and the former teacher"

and the results of "the question-

naire. " Since I have been teach-

ing since 1938, I couldn't even

guess at the number - certainly

more than two thousand - of

times when I have been asked

by interviewer or questionnaire

to pass judgments on former stu-

dents. (And I'm not referring to

letters of recommendation or

questionnaires prompted by the

students themselves - those run

into the tens of thousands.) On

one occasion, I was asked by an

investigator from the Office of

Naval Intelligence: "Would you

recommend E-- B--- as

completely trustworthy in a posi-

tion of highest security clear-

ance?" It happened that I had

taught E. B. as a tenth grade

student in high school some ten

- years earlier. I explained that

I hardly felt qualified to make a

statement one way or the other.

The next question was: "Then

am I to put down that you

would not recommend him?"

How much did the computer rec-

ord of my ten-minute disserta-

tion upon the way persons

change between the ages of six-

teen and twenty-six, even though

I was maneuvered into giving an

answer of yes? More recently, I

was asked to fill out a question-

naire on a student whom I had

supposedly taught in 1961. I

searched my records and the rec-

ords in the Office of the Regis-

trar, and I could find no evi-

dence that I had ever taught a

ACLU NEWS

OCTOBER, 1967

Page 2

student by that name. I returned

the questionnaire, checked "No

Opportunity To Observe" in all

categories, with a covering let-

ter explaining that, to the best

of my knowledge, I had not

taught that student. Later I re-

ceived what looked like a form

letter stating, in effect, that my

failure to cooperate would have

to be construed as an unfavor-

able report on the person in

question. I immediately turned

that form letter over and sent

it back (this was from a private

corporation) with a somewhat in-

temperate denunciation of the

firm and its neolithic personnel

policies, About five months ago,

I got a lighthearted note from

the person in question, thanking

me for my favorable recom-

mendation, since he had got the

job, and explaining that - since

he had not been officially adopt-

ed by his foster-father - he had

changed his name back from

Hart to Allen, in accordance

with his birth certificate, in order

to apply for a job with the secur-

ity-conscious firm for which he

was working.

For these and many other rea-

sons, I view a National Com-

puter Center for People with al-

ternating amusement and alarm.

But, as time goes on, alarm takes

precedence over amusement -

especially since the article in

This Week Magazine last Sun-

day, which detailed the way in

which electronic eavesdropping

devices are freely available to

the general public. It is quite

possible, for example, that a

sophisticated electronic listening

device could print out every

word which I have typed in this

letter. Such a device would not

yet be available to the general

public, because of cost, but it

could be designed if the stakes

were high enough (may already

be in existence, for that mat-

ter) by a government agency,

like the F.B.I.

The horrifying fact is that

there is no effective law - and

no way of writing such an ef-

fective law - against the Na-

tional Computer Center for Peo-

ple nor against the proliferating

eletronic and non - electronic

eavesdropping devices, (Many

years ago, aS a joke, a pre-medi-

eal student friend of mine dem-

onstrated how we could listen in

on our. next-door neighbors by

putting his stethoscope against

the wall. We could hear every-

thing said - except when some-

body flushed a toilet. At the

time, it was hilarious. Now, I'm

not so sure.) - Will C. Jumper,

Ames, Iowa.

Civil Liberties

In Great Britain

ACLU members visiting Eng-

land are cordially invited by

Tony Smythe to visit the office

of the National Council for Civil

liberties, 4 Camden High Street,

_London, N.W. 1, of which he is

the General Secretary.

The problems with which NC-

CL deals are the familiar ones

of invasion of privacy, rights of

juveniles and military service-

men, censorship, and discrimi-

- nation against minority groups.

Particular problems of discrimi-

nation involve the gypsies and

Commonwealth immigrants and

their families.

Progress In

Death Row

Test Suit

In the latter part of August

Federal District Judge Robert

Peckham of San Francisco issued

his second order in the NAACP-

_ ACLU death row suit challenging

the constitutionality of Califor-

nia's death penalty. Peckham

ruled that the action would not

continue as a class action for all

condemned men and accordingly

lifted the stay he had granted -

for the entire row.

No Defeat

Superficially his order seemed

to be a defeat for ACLUNC and

the press so heralded it. If form

were more significant than sub-

stance Peckham's order would

indeed have been adverse. In

his order Peckham stated "Jus-

tice requires that no condemned

man who has standing to raise

any federal constitutional issue,

including any of the four com-

mon questions, should be exe-

cuted until such question is fi-

nally adjudicated." What that

means is that no man will be

executed until the constitutional

issues raised in the original class

petition are resolved.

Separate Petitions

Under the procedural guide-

lines set forth in the Peckham

order, each of the four named

petitioners must file an amend-

ed and separate federal habeas

corpus petition challenging the

death penalty and raising what-

ever other federal issues may

be presented by his case. After

that each must file a habeas

corpus petition in the State Su-

preme Court raising identical is-

sues in order to give the state

an opportunity to pass on the

constitutional questions first.

The stay of execution for the

four will continue while the state

remedy is being pursued.

Other Cases

All other men on death row

will also have to file individual

habeas corpus petitions. They

may raise the same questions.

presented in the original class

petition and any other federal

grounds they may have. If a con-

demned man has no attorney one

will be appointed by the court

to raise independent questions.

Lawyers of death row clients

have been provided with copies

of the original pleadings and

volunteer counsel Gary Berger

and Jerry Falk have pepared in-

structions for such lawyers de-

signed to facilitate participation

in the suit. In order to guarantee

that no man is executed because

his lawyer is unaware of the pro-

ceedings or because he has no

lawyer, Judge Peckham has in-

structed the Attorney General to

inform NAACP-ACLU counsel] as

each execution date is set. After

all the individual petitions are

filed the cases will be consoli-

dated on the common constitu-

tional issues and a hearing will

be held.

Who Won?

If the Attorney General views

the Peckham order as a victory

it might be well for him to con-

sider an ancient aphorism that

Justice Black is fond of quoting:

"One more victory like this and

I am undone."

Annals of Liberty

If there were no American Civil Liberties Union, this

would be a far different, far less free country. Dedicated as

it is to defending, defining and expanding civil liberty, the

ACLU is, one of our truly indispensable institutions. To read

its 46th annual report, just published by the ACLU is to be

reminded how patiently and skilfully it works for individual

freedoms both in and out of ccurt. In language a layman can

understand the report, 60 pages in length, reviews the year's

constitutional battle over censorship, free speech, wirttap-

ping, illegal police practices, and many other such issues.

These are well described as the annals of liberty -Editorial

San Francisco Chronicle, 9/7/67.

Is There

"A Right To

Turn On?"

"A Right To Turn On?"

will be the title of a panel

discussion sponsored by the

Mid-Peninsula Chapter of

ACLUNC on Thursday, Octo-

ber 26. The meeting will take

place at the Palo Alto High

School auditorium, 50 Em-

barcadero Road, Palo Alto

starting at 8:00 p.m. It is

open to both members of

ACLUNC and the public, The

panel will focus on the so-

cial, legal and civil liberties

issues involved in the appre-

hension, punishment, and

treatment of drug users and

abusers. Members of the panel

will include David Smith,

M.D., Director of the Alcohol

and Drug Abuse Screening

Unit, San Francisco General

Hospital and founder of the

Haight-Ashbury Free Medical

Clinic, and Paul N. Halvonik,

assistant staff counsel] and

legislative representative of

ACLUNC, Representatives of

local law enforcement and of

the judicial system will also

participate. Moderating the

panel will be Gregory K.

Sims, instructor of psychology

at the College of San Mateo.

Adverse Ruling

In Sunnyvale

Long Hair Case

Superior Court Judge Bruce F.

Allen of Santa Clara county last

month upheld the expulsion by

the San Jose Unified Schoo] Dis-

trict of Charles Kemling, 17, a

high school senior, for refusing

to cut his shoulder length,

blonde hair. Rather than lose

further schooling by taking an

appeal, the young man promptly

had his hair cut.

Kemling's

Mary Kemling, of 6044 Rainbow

Dr., Sunnyvale, testified that

they approved of their son's

hair length and style. Two high

school teachers, Bernard G.

Hubb, head of the English De-

partment a Lynbrook High

School where Kemling attends,

and Victor K. Ulmer, an English

parents, Jo and -

Prisoner Law

Book Case Moves

To Ct. of Appeals

The fight to guarantee reason-

able law book use for inmates

of state prisons has moved to

the United States Court of Ap-

peals. Last year the Department

of Corrections issued regulations

specifying a very limited num-

ber of books that will be made

available for prisoners, Under

those regulations prisoners can-

not have law books not on the

list in their possession nor can

prison libraries contain books

not listed. This regulation is not

merely restrictive, it is retro-

gressive. The removal of books

from the library and from pris-

oners smacks of book burning.

Prisoners brought suit in the

federal court to enjoin enforce:

ment of the order. San Fran-

cisco attorney John Wahl was

appointed to represent them.

In the District Court litigation

ACLUNC acted as amicus curiae,

contending that the regulations

were unreasonable and infringed

on the due process right of reas-

- onable access to the courts by

prisoners. In July, Federal Dis-

trict Judge Albert Wollenberg is-

sued his order refusing to con-

vene a three-judge court to con-

sider the constitutional claim. He

based his order on the conclu-

sion that the suit did not raise

"a substantial federal question."

John Wahl has appealed Wollen-

berg's order to the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals and ACLUNC

is again participating as amicus

curiae. In the appellate brief as-

sistant staff counsel Paul Hal-

vonik argues that Judge Wollen-

berg has, in legal effect, dis-

missed the suit on the merits and

that he is without jurisdiction to

enter such an order unless a suit

is clearly frivolous; something

the law book suit is not.

teacher at Fremont High, testi-

fied that long hair doesn't af-

fect the educational process. The

boy himself testified he liked

long hair and wore it in this -

fashion by preference.

Kemling was represented by

attorney Norman Howard, volun-

teer attorney for the Santa Clara

Valley Chapter of the ACLUNC.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

ERNEST BESIG .. . Editor

503 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, 433-2750

Subscription Rates -- Two Dollars a Year

Twenty Cents Per, Copy

B 151

Ralph B. Atkinson

Dr. Alfred Azevedo

Mrs. Judith Balderston

Albert M. Bendich

Leo Borregard

Albert Culhane

Mrs. Natalie Dukes

Prof. John Edwards

Howard A. Friedman

, Robert Greensfelder :

Rev. Aron S. Gilmartin

Evelio Grillo

Mrs. Zora Cheever Gross

Francis Heisler

Neil F. Horton

Howard H. Jewel

Honorary Treasurer:

Joseph S. Thompson

Honorary Board Member:

Sara Bard Field

Mrs. Gladys Brown

Mrs. Paul Couture

Mes. Margaret C. Hayes

Prof. Carlo Lastrucci

John J. Eagan

Joseph Eichler

Dr. H. H. Fisher

Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California

CHAIRMAN: Prof. Van D. Kennedy

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Rabbi Alvin |. Fine

Helen Salz

SEC'Y-TREAS.: John R. May

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Besig

GENERAL COUNSEL: Wayne M. Collins

STAFF COUNSEL: Marshall W. Krause

ASST. STAFF COUNSEL and LEGIS. REP., Paul Halvonik

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Mrs. Pamela S. Ford

CHAPTER DIRECTOR: Mrs. Marcia D. Lang

Committee of Sponsors

Mes. Paul Holmer

Mrs. Mary Hutchinson Prof. Wallace Stegner

Morse Erskine

Prof. Ernest Hilgard Prof. Wilson Record

Dean Robert A. Keller.

Prof. David Levin

`Gerald D. Marcus

Ephraim Margolin

Prof. John Henry Merryman

Robert L. Nolan, M.D.

Prof. Robert M. O'Neil

Clarence E. Rust

John Brisbin Rutherford

Mrs. Alec Skolnick

Stanley D. Stevens

Stephen Thiermann

Cecil Thomas

Donald Vial

Richard J. Werthimer

Dr. Marvin J. Naman

Mrs. Theodosia Stewart

Rt. Rev. Sumner Walters

Richard Johnston

Roger Kent

Mrs. Ruth Kingman

Prof. Theodore Kreps

Rey. Robert W. Moon

Dr. Norman Reider

Prof. Hubert Phillips

Norman Lezin

THE rampant chaos of the dy-

ing days of the legislative session

defies description. The delibera-

tive committee process so care-

fully cultivated through the prior

seven months is abandoned as

lobbyists, legislative leaders and

administration representatives fi-

nally force important legislation

to issue.

Reapportionment

For example, SJR 45 (Marler),

calling for a constitutional con-

vention to overrule the United

States Supreme Court's reappor-

tionment decision in Reynolds v.

' Simms was introduced on Thurs-

day, July 27. It was out of com-

mittee the next day. On Monday,

July 31, it was on the Senate

floor ready for a vote. That was

_also the first day it appeared in

print, the first time the ACLU

had seen it. The bill was on the

Senate calendar from Monday

through Thursday. The resolu-

tion's sponsors had the 21 votes

needed for passage but they were

unable to get all the votes to-

gether on the Senate floor until

Thursday. The Senators had been

busy elsewhere in the turmoil,

trying to preserve what legisla-_

tive victories they had and, per-

haps, win some new ones. On

that Thursday when the bill was

taken up Senator James Mills

(D-San Diego) informed his col-

leagues that the resolution was

in violation of the adjournment

rules. The adjournment rules,

earlier adopted by the Senate

and adopted by the Assembly on

Tuesday, August 2, provided that

no bill could be heard in the

house of its origin after Tuesday.

The plotters had tarried too

long; they had the votes on Mon-

day but those votes were mean- -

ingless on Thursday. The chaos

that permitted SJR 45 to reach

the Senate floor without notice to

its opposition also resulted in its

defeat.

Fair Housing

Another proposed legislative

action that tottered on the brink

of success during a last-minute

thrust was a modification of the

State's fair housing laws. SB 9

(Burns-Schmitz) passed the Sen-

ate early in the session. It was

an outright Rumford repealer.

This column reported last May

that plans were afoot to amend

SB 9 to incorporate the more

moderate approach of a Rumford

"modification" bill, AB 729 (Bag-

ley). These plans languished

through June and seemed dead

through most of July. It looked

as if the Rumford Act was going

to escape the session unscathed

and substantially unassaulted.

And then a Superior court judge

in Los Angeles held that the Un-

ruh Civil Rights Act applied to

an owner-occupied duplex hous-

ing accommodation. The rum-

blings in the Speaker's office

presaged his greatest power play

of the year. Unruh told civil

rights groups that he did not in-

tend to have the Unruh Act be-

come his "political epitaph." He

revived SB 9, amehded it to less-

en coverage and generally reflect

the spirit of Bagley's modifier.

In addition, he inserted a pro-

vision that would have weakened

the Unruh Civil Rights Act. It

took Unruh two days to push the

- new, re-fortified SB 9 through

two committees. It reached the

- Assembly floor during the last

week of the session. After a spir-

ited debate it passed the Assem-

bly with no difficulties. The op-

ponents of the bill were an odd

alliance. They included such fair

housing advocates as Willie

- Brown (D-San Francisco) and

John Miller (D-Berkeley) and

such foes of fair housing as.

- Charles Conrad (R-Sherman

Oaks) and John Collier (R-Los

Angeles). That same coalition of

liberal Democrats and conserva-

tive Republicans killed SB 9 in

the Senate on the last day of the

session. The liberals opposed the

bill because it weakened fair

housing laws; the conservatives

because it did not abolish fair

housing laws. Personalities also

played an important part. The

Speaker's heavy hand had _ as-

sured Assembly passage. The

Senate was another matter. Its

members resented attempts by

Unruh to push his bill through

their house. The defeat of SB 9

was as much a rebuke to Unruh

as it was a victory for fair hous-

ing. :

Mental Health

All last-minute legislative ma-

hneuvers were not defeated. The

last-minute gambit would not be

so popular if it did not promise

some chance of success. A happy

note was the passage on the final

legislative day of the Lanterman-

Petris-Short Mental Health Act.

This Act changes completely the

emphasis of California's mental

commitment laws. |

It reduces significantly the pres-

ent reliance on _ involuntary

commitment of the mentally

ill and substitutes local inten-

sive care units with limited in-

voluntary detention powers and

a variety of voluntary services.

There are supplementary but

limited coercive powers over

those who present a danger to

the lives and property of others

and a conservatorship for those

who are greatly disabled by rea-

son of mental ilness or chronicente

alcoholism that they are unable

to care for themselves, Addition-

ally, due process safeguards have

been introduced to insure that

those who are in need of in-

voluntary treatment genuinely

are in such need. This Act as

it originally passed the Assem-

bly was contained in Assem-

bly Bills 1220 and 1221, Assem-

bly passage was secured rela-

tively easily but the bills were

stalled in the Senate Committee -

on Governmental Efficiency. A

new plan was conceived: SB 677

(Short) had already passed the

Senate and died in an Assembly

committee. The substance of SB

677 was struck and the Lanter-

man-Petris-Short Act substituted

in its place. SB 677 was then

reviewed and passed by the As-

sembly. Since SB 67%, unlike

AB 1220 and 1221, was a Senate

bill, hence it could be sent back

to the Senate floor without the

necessity of consideration by the

Senate Governmental Efficiency

Committee. SB 677 was passed

by the Senate and signed by

the Governor. The revolutionary

nature of the new mental com-

`mitment act requires some time

for its implementation. There-

fore, the Act does not become

effective law until after the ad-

journment of the 1968 session

of the Legislature. But the Legis-

lature also passed another im-

portant mental commitment bill

that will go into effect before

the end of this year. That is

AB 288, authored by Assembly-

man John Burton (D-San Fran-

cisco).- AB 288 abolishes the com-

mitment of persons who are not

dangerous but are of such men-

tal condition that they are in

need of supervision or restraint.

Under Burton's bill commitment

will be limited to those persons

who are of such a mental con-

_ dition that they. are dangerous

to themselves or the person or

property of others and are in

need of supervision or restraint.

The new law also requires a

written statement of a physician

that a person is dangerous to

himself or others before a peti-

tion requesting judicial exami-

nation of the person may be

made or filed.

Search and Seizure

Two of the bills of great civil

liberties significance were passed

in the last legislative week. They

are SB 88, dealing with - pro-

eedures for raising the consti-

tutional objection of an unlawfu!

search and seizure and AB 1615

(Sieroty), requiring the Attor-

ney General to prepare a state-

ment in the English and Spanish

languages, of the rights of ar-

rested persons for distribution by

law enforcement agencies to such

persons. Sieroty's bill, unfortun-

ately, was vetoed by Governor

Reagan. The Governor did sign

SB 88. This bill was sponsored by

the District Attorney of. Los An-

geles County and, as originally

drafted, greatly limited oppor-

tunities to raise the constitution-

al objection that evidence ob-

tained by law enforcement was

the product of an unlawful search

and seizure. SB 88 sets up com-

plicated pre-trial procedures for

raising the search and seizure

question, and generally requires

that a pretrial motion to sup-

press evidence, with appellate

review for either the defense or

the prosecution side, be fol-

lewed. ACLU was successful in

getting a number of concessions

- from the bill's proponents, Most

of these relate to the pretrial

procedures but the most import-

ant concession gained by ACLU

was the inclusion within SB 88

of the federal rule permitting a

motion to suppress evidence dur-

ing trial in the discretion of the .

trial judge.

What Results?

That was how the _ session

ended. The ACLU program was,

on the whole, remarkably suc-

cessful. The most important leg-

islative advances of the entire

session occurred in that week

and the pattern of defeating

regressive legislation, established

through the entire session, con-

tinued to prevail. On balance

and from ACLU's standpoint it

was the best session in recent

memory. But we should not be

_ Summary

of 1967 |

the District Attorney in juvenile

court proceedings with the con-

sent of the juvenile court judge.

AB 1095 was opposed on the

Senate floor by Senator Harmer

(R-Glendale) on the grounds that

it would make an adversary pro-

eeeding of the juvenile court

hearings. Harmer supported Sen-

ate Bills 37 and 38. His theory,

apparently, was that the presence

of a District Attorney does not

make for an adversary proceed-

ing but the presence of a defense

attorney does. Or perhaps he

refused to be intimidated by

the hobgoblin of an intelligent

consistency. A number of repres-

sive juvenile law bills were de-

feated; most important among

these were Senate Bills 206 and

207 (Lagomarsino). They would

have greatly expanded the power

to detain juveniles and would

have provided that a juvenile

could be extradited to another

state without any extradition pro-

ceedings occurring in the State

of California.

Bail Reform

All attempts at bail .reform

were killed in the 1967 session.

The most important of these was

SB 1100 (Moscone). Moscone's

bill was an adaptation of the

Federal Bail Act which shifts the

burden from the defendant, who

presently has to establish that

he is entitled to be released to

the prosecution, which would

Legislative

Session (c)

by Paul N. Halvonik

ACLUNC's Ass't Staff Counsel

and Legislative Representative _

unduly optimistic. Too many of

the right results were reached

for the wrong reasons.. For ex-

ample, Rumford revision was

avoided not because of a dedi-

eation to the ideal of integra-

tion but because of the intran-

sigence of those who demanded

complete repeal of the fair hous-

ing laws. The Governor, who is

not conspicuous for his civil

liberties sympathy, is not as in-

experienced as he was in his first

year and it is reasonable to as-

sume that he will be better pre-

pared to translate some of his

programs into legislation during

the 1968 session.

Moreover, the 1968 session will

occur during an election year

and legislators who held the line

in the obscenity and fair hous-

ing areas may be of a compro-

mise mind. What follows is a

summary of the civil liberties

highlights of the 1967 session.

Many of these battles will have

to be fought again in 1968.

_ Juvenile Law

AB 1095 (Biddle) was adopted

by the Legislature and signed by

the Governor. It adopts and ex-

tends the juvenile rights criteria

announced by the United States

Supreme Court in the Gault: de-

cision. It requires juvenile and

probation officers to admonish

juveniles of their constitutional

rights, indluding the right to.

counsel and the right to remain

`silent. It provides for adequate

notice of juvenile hearings to

both the juvenile and his parent

or guardian. At the hearings;

juveniles are to be afforded the

right to counsel, whether or not

indigent, and, if indigent, the

right to a transcript on appeal.

On the other side of the centoin,

Senate Bills 37 and 38 (Ken-

nick) allow the participation of

_ citing material of

-deeming social importance" to

- juveniles. It passed the Assem-

: bly unanimously but its moderate

approach resulted in its defeat

`in the Senate Judiciary .Com-

have to explain why a

person should not be released.

Moscone's bill also provided

speedy review of a decision not

to release an accused pending

trial. Moscone has indicated that

he will reintroduce the measure

in the 1968 session. Assemblyman

John Vasconcellos (D-San Jose)

who also had a bail reform bill

killed in the 1967 session (AB

2405) has also vowed to seek

bail reform again in the coming

year.

Capital Punishment

Once again all efforts to re-

peal the death penalty (SB 403,

Moscone; ABs 607 and 2375, Mc-

Millan) and place a moratorium

on its use (AB 606, Burton) were

defeated. Attempts to extend the

death penalty, such as SB 387

(Lagomarsino), were also' de-

feated. ae .

Obscenity

Senate Bills 78, 79 (Lago-

marsino), 96 (Carrell) and As-

sembly Bills 9 (Deddeh) and

1664 (Knox), all designed to ex-

pand the present obscenity law,

were defeated. The most impor-

tant bills were SB 78 and 79 and

AB 1664. SB

supported by the Reagan ad-

ministration and Attorney Gen-

eral Thomas Lynch. They passed

the Senate with only three dis-

senting votes but were killed in

the Assembly .Committtee on

Criminal Procedure. AB 1664 was

' the most reasonable of the new

obscenity measures; it prohibited.

the "pandering" of sexually ex-

"slight re-

mittee.

78 and 79 were - : ;

~ agent entered into a transaction

Rights of Aliens

There were some improve-

ments in California's anti-alien

laws, The one-year limitation up-

on service by alien librarians was

removed (AB 1253, Zenovich)

and limitations on the services

of alien physicians in local men-

tal health services were removed

(SB 989, Short) as well as limi-

tations on the obtaining of cer-

tain seasonal liquor licenses by

aliens (SB 1079, McAteer). Un-

fortunately an attempt to remove

the unconstitutional restrictions

on employment of aliens by gov-

ernment and on public works

were vetoed by Governor Reagan

(ABs 1048 and 1049, Sieroty).

Anti-Sedition

All anti-sedition measures were

defeated in the 1967 session.

These included an _ anti-Nazi,

group-libel bill (AB 141, McMil-

lan), a bill banning speakers on

campuses if they attempt to "in-

doctrinate" students in "com-

munism" (SB 734, Whetmore);

a poorly-drafted attempt to con-

form California's loyalty oath to

the requirements set forth in re-

cent United States Supreme

Court decisions (ACA 12 and

AB 93, Hayes) and a last-minute

effort by their author to place

the legislature on record as fa-

voring loyalty oaths (ACR 131)

Hayes. Attempts to repeal the

oath of non-disloyalty (AB 833

and ACA 33, Burton, were also

defeated.

Vehicle Forfeitures

California's vehicle forfeiture

law was repealed in its entirety

as an emergency measure that

went into immediate effect in

June of this year. (SB 429),

Miller). This bill passed while

ACLUNC was litigating the con-

stitutionally of the law. The pas-

sage of SB 429 made it unneces-

sary to pursue that suit.

Pre-emption

A number of bills were intro-

duced in this field. The ACLUNC

board has taken the position

that the pre-emption is not in

itself a civil liberties issue but

that it does pose civil liberties

. problems in the fields of ob-

scenity and loitering. A bill to

leave obscenity to local control

(AB 807, Wakefield) was killed

in early March by the Assembly

Criminal Procedure Committee.

The author of the bill joined a

unanimous committee in killing

it. A bill to leave the law gov-

erning loitering up to local com-

munities also died early in the

session. (SB 67, Sherman). All of

the pre-emption sound and fury,

in the end, signified nothing. No

changes were made in the pres-

ent law of pre-emption.

Right To Counsel

ABs 2111 (Harvey Johnson)

and 2546 (Meyers) and SB 936

(Lagomarsinio), all of which

would have resulted in indigents

paying for the services of the

public defender, were killed.

Civil Rights

_ As noted above, all of the many

attempts fo repeal or modify the

State's fair housing laws were

defeated. A number of bills: de-

signed to strengthen the fair

housing laws met the same fate.

Most imaginative among those

was AB 2249 (Miller). It would

have prohibited any racial or cog-

nate discriminations in housing

where a "public transaction" is

involved. A public transaction

was defined as a transaction in

which a real estate broker par-

ticipated. Thus once a real estate

neither he nor the seller could |

legally discriminate. This would

have remedied a defect in the

present law recognized by the

State Supreme Court in the case

of Vargas v. Hanson where the

real estate agent did not him-

self discriminate racially but the

owner did and the person dis-

criminated against was thus de-

nied recovery. Some minor ad-

-Continued on Page 4

ACLU NEWS

OCTOBER, 1967

Page 3 |

Women For Peace

Transit Ad

Case to State

Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court has been asked to grant

a hearing in the case of Frances Wirta and Madeleine

Duckles vs. A-C Transit District, the case involving the right

of The Women For Peace to place a political advertisement

`on the buses of a public transit company. The opinion of the

Court of Appeal, which the Su-

preme Court has been asked to

nullify, held that The Women for

Peace did not have the right to

place an ad concerning the war

in Vietnam because the transit

district was within its rights in

limiting political advertisements

to the times of an election with-

in the boundaries of the district

and to issues actually on the bal-

lot. The Court of Appeal re-

versed a trial court determina-

tion by Alameda County Super-

ior Court Judge Cecil Mosbacher

that The Women for Peace did

have a constitutional right to

place the advertisement.

Free Speech Standards

In the petition for a hearing

- to the California Supreme Court,

volunteer attorney Joseph Gro-

din and staff counsel Marshall

W. Krause argued that the Court

of Appeal had ignored First

Amendment standards and had

improperly applied Fourteenth

Amendment equal protection

standards. The petition points

out that restriction of political

advertisement to ballot issues at

-the time of an election prevents

any communication on many sig-

nificant problems which never

become ballot issues such as

conservation and civil rights.

Commercial Convenience

The Court of Appeal, in justi-

fying these restrictions, said that

election advertising is predict-

able whereas non-election adver-

tising might come in sudden

bunches interfering with com-

mercial advertisements. The

ACLU's petition points out that

there is no evidence in the rec-

ord that any such event ever

happened and that this rule

_ would make commercial conven-

ience the measure of constitu- -

tional rights. However, it is the

right to freedom of expression

which enjoys a preferred posi-

tion under our Constitution and

not the right to advertise com-

mercial products. The latter can

be regulated by any reasonable

means and even prohibited; the

former cannot be infringed upon

except on a showing of com-

pelling state interest and the un-

availability of less onerous

means of regulation.

Lack of Information

The petition continues: "The

Court of Appeal makes a funda-

mental error when it states that

because all advertising on all

non-election issues is forbidden

there is no censorship. Basic to

an understanding of political at-

titudes is that lack of informa-

tion is propaganda for the status

quo. Change in attitude and posi-

tion cannot take place without

communication and _ prevailing

views will continue until they

are shown to be in error or re-

placeable by better views. Allow-

ing no communication on an is-

sue is a form of censorship none-

theless harmful because it is

hidden under an appearance of

impartiality."

Federal Court Decision

A federal district court in

New York has recently held that

the New York Transit Authority

could not refuse posters offered

as advertisements by the Stu-

- dents for a Democratic Society

merely because they were "poli-

ACLU NEWS

OCTOBER, 1967

Page 4

rights area. AB

tical' and not-at the time of an

election, Judge Bonsal wrote an

opinion in which he stated that

the only ground on which the

Transit Authority could decline

to accept the advertisements was

that they would create a clear

and present danger of unlawful

conduct.

The Supreme Court of Califor-

nia is expected to decide

whether or not to accept the case

for review sometime in October

or November.

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP

MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION

(Act of October 23, 1962: Section 4369,

Title 39,-United States Code.)

Date of Filing: September 11, 1967.

Title of Publication: ACLU News.

Frequency of Issue: Monthly.

Location of known office of publi-

eation: 503 Market St., San Francisco,

California 94105.

Location of the headquarters or

general offices of the publishers: 503

Market Street, San Francisco, Cali-

fornia 94105.

Publisher: ACLU of Northern Cali-

fornia, Inc., 503 Market Street, San.

Francisco, California 94105.

Editor: Ernest Besig, 503 Market

pireet San. Francisco, California

4105.

Managing editor: None.

Owner: (If owned by a corporation,

its name and address must be stated

and also immediately thereunder the

names and addresses of stockholders

owning or pole 1 percent or more

of total amount of stock. If not owned

by a corporation, the names and ad-

dresses of the individual owners must

be given. If owned by a partnership

or other unincorporated firm, its

name and address, as well as that of

each individual must be _ given.):

ACLU of Northern California, Inc.,

503 Market Street, San _ Francisco,

California 94105. No stockholders.

Known bondholders, mortgagees,

and other security holders owning

or holding 1 percent or more of total

amount of bonds, mortgages or other

securities: None.

Avg. No. Single

copies ea. issue

issue dur- nearest

ing pre- to

ceding 12 filing

: months. date.

Total No. Copies

printed (Net

press run) 10,250 9,000

Paid circulation:

1.-Sales through

dealers and carriers

street vendors and

counter sales None

2. Mail sub- :

scriptions 1,768 7,156

Total paid

circulation 7,768 7,156

Free distribution

(including samples)

by mail, carrier or

other means 1,982 1,694

Total dis-

tribution 9,750 8,850

Office use, left-

over, unaccounted,

spoiled after :

printing 500 150

TOTAL 10,250 9,000

I certify that the statements made

above by me are correct and complete.

ERNEST BESIG, Editor

Legislative

Summary -

Continued from Page 3-

vances were made in the civil

490 (Ralph)

makes it a misdemeanor wilfully

to discriminate in an appren-

ticeship program and AB 1453

(Bagley) provides an adminis-

trative remedy for such discrimi-

nations. AB 544 (Greene) expli-

citly authorizes the Fair Employ-

ment Practices Commission af-

firmatively to engage in educa-

tional programs designed to pro-

mote voluntary fair practices in

hiring; it carries a disclaimer

that specifically prohibits any

construction of the bill that

would promote hiring on a pref-

erential basis. A number of bills

that would have added desegre-

gation of employment and educa-

tion were killed,

Membership

At Record

High of 7227

ACLUNC's membership

reached a record high of 7227 on

August 31. This was an increase

of 279 members over a year ago

when the membership stood at

6948. In addition, there were 221

separate subscribers to the

"News" and a paid mailing list

of 7448.

Where Supporters Reside

More than 4 out of 5 support-

ers live in 51 communities hav-

ing 20 or more members. Fifty-

three per cent of the Union's

supporters reside in the ten

chapter areas. Six of the ten

chapter areas have shown a gain

in membership. Santa Clara Val-

ley made the greatest gain in

membership - 72, while Berk-

eley-Albany gained 66 support-

ers. Sacramento gained 44 mem-

bers (it lost 49 in '66), Mt. Di-

ablo 14, Monterey 11, and Marin

7. Mid-Peninsula lost 47 support-

ers, Santa Cruz 13 and Fresno

7. Stockton didn't change,

Chapter

On August 31, the chapters had

the following mailing lists (mem-

bers and subscribers): Berkeley-

Albany, 1366; Mid-Peninsula,

624; Marin, 484; Sacramento,

406; Santa Clara Valley, 352; Mt.

Diablo, 253; Santa Cruz, 128;

Fresno, 127; and Monterey

County, 126. Stockton is in last

place with 81 supporters.

Sonoma County presently has

a membership of 157. A proposal

to establish a chapter in that

area is still under consideration.

Following is the list of com-

munities in which the ACLUNC

has 20 or more supporters:

Increase

1967 1966 or

Decrease

San Francisco.. 1559 1436 123

Berkeley _.......... 1331 1265 66.

Oakland ==. 333 339 =(6)

Palo Alto ........ 279 295 (16)

Sacramento ...... 216 201 15

San | Jose: 22:2 164 142 22

Mill Valley ...... 134 128 6

Davis = 126 95 31

Fresno ............-- 117 (112 5

Menlo Park ...... 101 107 (6)

El Cerrito ........ 96 93 3

Stanford ............ 92 94 (2)

Santa Cruz... 87 87 -

`San Rafael ...... 86 82 4

Stockton. ............ 81 81 -

San Mateo ........ 77 86 (9)

Santa Rosa ...... TT 51. 20

Los Altos .......... (16... $0. (9)

Livermore ........ 67 59 8

Orinda ==. =3- = 630x00B0 58 5

Redwood City . 60 58 ee

Sausalito. .......... 60 66 (6)

Carmel] ............... 56 45 11

Richmond. ........ 54 49 5

Walnut Creek .. 53 50 3

Lafayette .......... 49 40 9

Los Gatos .......... 46 63 (17)

Hillsborough...........40 37 3

Mt. View .......... 36 36 --

Albany ...........:.. 35 #35 -

Daly City ........ 34 29 5

Napa *.2...2:225 32 41 (9)

Carmichael ..... 31 24 i

Castro Valley .. 29 29

Hayward .........- 29 33. (4)

Monterey ......... 29 31 (2)

San Anselmo... 29 32. (3)

Concord ............. 28 26 2

Sunnyvale ........ eel 238 4

Kentfield .......... 26 30 = (4)

Fairfax 32: 25 ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1946.batch ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1947.batch ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1948.batch ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1949.batch ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1950.batch ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1951.batch ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1952.batch ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1953.batch ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1954.batch ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1955.batch ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1956.batch ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1957.batch ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1958.batch ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1959.batch ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1960.batch ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1961.batch ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1962.batch ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1963.batch ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1964.batch ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1965.batch ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1966.batch ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1967.batch ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log =

Burlingame ...... 24 21 3

Modesto. ............ 230x00B0 25 (2)

-Portola Valley. 23 35 (12)

Saratoga ............ 23: 21... 2

Atherton .......... 22 = =

Fremont _.......... 21-33: 2)

Pacific Grove .. 21 ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1946.batch ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1947.batch ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1948.batch ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1949.batch ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1950.batch ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1951.batch ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1952.batch ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1953.batch ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1954.batch ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1955.batch ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1956.batch ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1957.batch ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1958.batch ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1959.batch ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1960.batch ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1961.batch ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1962.batch ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1963.batch ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1964.batch ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1965.batch ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1966.batch ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1967.batch ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1946.batch ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1947.batch ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1948.batch ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1949.batch ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1950.batch ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1951.batch ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1952.batch ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1953.batch ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1954.batch ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1955.batch ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1956.batch ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1957.batch ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1958.batch ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1959.batch ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1960.batch ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1961.batch ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1962.batch ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1963.batch ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1964.batch ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1965.batch ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1966.batch ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1967.batch ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log

Sebastopol ........ 21 s x

Woodside .......... 21 = ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1946.batch ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1947.batch ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1948.batch ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1949.batch ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1950.batch ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1951.batch ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1952.batch ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1953.batch ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1954.batch ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1955.batch ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1956.batch ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1957.batch ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1958.batch ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1959.batch ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1960.batch ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1961.batch ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1962.batch ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1963.batch ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1964.batch ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1965.batch ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1966.batch ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1967.batch ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log

Santa Clara ...... 20 = =

( ) indicates a decrease,

*Not on the list last year, so ex-

act increase not known,

Peace Vote Wins in

Continued from Page 1-

Francisco in stating their opin-

ions on how tax money is spent.

It pointed out that an ordinance

carrying a declaration of policy

into effect need do no more than

advise San Francisco's repre-

sentatives in legislative bodies

that the policy has been ap-

proved by the electorate.

Opinion by Chief Justice

The opinion of the Supreme

Court of California was written

by Chief Justice Roger Traynor

and joined in by Justices Peters,

Tobriner, Mosk and _ Sullivan.

Justices Burke and McComb

joined in a dissenting opinion.

Chief Justice Traynor wrote: "It

must be noted at the outset that

the acting Registrar of Voters

exceeded his authority in under-

taking to determine whether the

proposed initiative was within

the power of the electorate to

adopt ... It is not his function

to determine whether a proposed

initiative will be valid if enacted

or whether a proposed declara-

tion of policy is one to which the

initiative may apply. These ques-

tions may involve difficult legal

issues that only a court can de-

termine. The right to propose

initiative measures cannot prop-

erly be impeded by a decision of

a ministerial officer, even if sup-

ported by the advice of the City

Attorney, that the subject is not

appropriate for submission to

the voters. Given compliance

with the formal requirements for

submitting an initiative, the

Registrar must place it on the

ballot unless he is directed to do

otherwise by a court. . ." The

Chief Justice then stated that

the Court would decide the le-

gality of the initiative despite

the faulty foundation for the

case, since the parties had urged

it to do so.

Liberal Construction

The Court pointed out that the

initiative power must be liber-

ally construed to promote the

democratic process. It could find

no limitations in San Francisco's

Charter to support the City At-

torney's view that initiative

measures had to be concerned

with subjects which could be en-

acted into law by the Board of

Supervisors. "As representatives

of local communities, Boards of

Supervisors and City Councils

have traditionally made declara-

tions of policy on matters of eon-

cern to the community whether

or not they have power to effec-

tuate such declarations by bind-

ing legislation. Indeed, one of

the purposes of local government

is to represent its citizens before

Congress, the Legislature, and

administrative agencies in mat-

ters over which the local govern-

ment has no power. Even in mat-

The first right of a citizen

Is the right

To be responsible

sion from local problems."

California Supreme Court

ters of foreign policy it is not

uncommon for local legislative

bodies to make their positions

known... The fact that the

Board's duty `to carry into ef-

fect' approved policies is inop-

erative when the policy is be

yond the power of the Board to

effectuate, affords no basis for

restricting the right to declare

the policy. Only by construing

the paragraph narrowly against

the power of initiative could it

be held that the voters may only

declare policies that the Super-

visors could effectuate by ordi-

nance.

Popular Will

"Even under such a narrow

construction, however, the pro-

posed initiative is authorized,

for the Board of Supervisors can

enact ordinances carrying out

the declaration to express the

popular will. The Board by ordi-

nance can use the avenues of

advocacy available to it to ex-

press that will. It can, for ex-

ample, direct its legislative rep-

resentative in Washington to

make the people's position

known, re-name streets or build-

ings, or order the posting of the

declaration in public buildings."

The dissenting opinion of two

justices criticized the majority

for allowing the initiative proc-

ess to extend beyond municipal

affairs. The dissent thought the

citizens of San Francisco had

sufficient redress to express

their opinions in petitions to the

federal government and those of-

ficials actually responsible for

federal foreign policy, "There

are in every community militant

groups espousing controversial

causes of all kinds. History has

demonstrated that signatures to

petitions can be obtained for al-

most any conceivable purpose.

It takes little imagination to

name issues which one or an-

other group might desire to

force a municipal vote. [The dis-

senting opinion then named 15

controversial public issues.} Not

one of these issues is any further

removed from municipal affairs

than the agonizing problem

which is the concern_of the pres-

ent petition. And what would be

the ultimate effect of such

broadening of municipal elec-

tions? Apart from the illegality

of such action ,the injection of

issues such as these into munici-

pal elections would so embroil

the people of any community:

that where the candidates for

local office, seeking election

based on their individual records

of experience and their plat-

forms for municipal improve-

ments, and perplexing local is-

sues requiring close public scru-

tiny and attention, would be ut-

terly lost in the confusion

caused by the intrusion of such

highly volatile, non-municipal is-

sues. The quality of local gov-

ernment would greatly deterior-

ate in direct ratio to this diver-

JOIN TODAY

B 151

Seo eee coun

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

TELEPHONE NUMBER ...........

`Patron Membership ..............-- ee $100

Sustaining Membership. ... .....:5..-.4..-. 0. = 50

Business and Professional Membership ........... 7. 20

FamilyaWembership. 7 5. ee es 15

Associate Membership ...............5- es 10

Annuak Membership 2.304. 536. 3 8

Student Membership ...... ee 3

ACLU News Subscripton ....... Ce 2 $2.00

NAME: 2). es ee

ADDRESS. and ZIP CODE (2 32 .. e s

ere AMT. ENCLOSED..........

503 Market Street

San Francisco, 94105