vol. 36, no. 6

American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXVI

State Supreme Court

SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 1971

Void Candidate

Residency

Requirement

The Supreme Court of California has unanimously struck

down a Butte County Charter provision limiting candidates

for supervisor to persons who have resided in the county for

the previous five years.-

The decision came in the case of Jack H. Zeilenga, Jr., a

34 year old assistant professor at

Chico State College who is a

recognized spokesman for Butte

`County's: poor. Last June, Zei-

lenga attempted to run in the

primary as a candidate for su-

pervisor but the Board of Super-

visors refused to accept his

nomination papers on the ground

that he had not fulfilled the five

year residency requirement.

Cooperating Attorney

Zeilenga, represented by coop-

erating attorney Phillip L. Isen-

berg of Sacramento, brought suit

in the Butte County Superior

Court contending that the five

year residency period was un-

constitutional. The Superior

Court denied his claim and Isen-

berg took the case to the Sacra-

mento District of the State Court

of Appeal. That court found the

- requirement inconsistent with the

equal protection clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment and

struck it down. Butte then asked

the State's highest court to re-

view the controversy and that

court, earlier this year, agreed

to hear the case.

Rely on Lower Court Decision

The Supreme Court has con-

cluded that it is in agreement

with the decision rendered by the

Court of Appeal and adopted

most of that decision verbatim.

Among the language adopted

from the Court of Appeal's deci-

sion is the following:

"Perhaps in the horse and

buggy days the five-year require-

ment could have been reasonable,

but in these days of modern pub-

lic transportation, the automobile,

newspapers, radio, television,

and the rapid dissemination of

news throughout all parts of the

county, the requirement is un-

reasonable. It excludes certain

citizens from public office by a

classification which is unneces-

sary to promote a compelling

governmental interest. It is a.

built-in device to prevent compe-

-Continued on Page 4

Politics and the Customs Service

San Francisco

District Director

Restored to Job

George Brokaw has been restored to his position as Dis-

trict Director of Customs at San Francisco by Myles J. Am-

brose, Commissioner of Customs. Last December 31 Brokaw

was notified that the government proposed removing him

from the service because on grounds of health he refused to

accept a transfer to Boston. Pend-

ing disposition of the AWOL

charges, Brokaw was suspended

from his job and assigned to re-

viewing "internal controls."

Kennedy Appointee

Brokaw is a Kennedy appoint-

ee, but five years ago he and

other district directors were blan-

keted into civil service. On

March 10, 1970 seven district di-

- rectors, four of them Kennedy

appointees, were ordered trans-

ferred. For example, the direc-

tor in Portland was ordered to

Anchorage, Alaska and the An-

chorage man to Portland. The

latter is the only one who ac-

cepted the transfer. Of the re-

mainder, one accepted a demo-

tion while the others either re-

signed or retired. Brokaw is the

only one who fought what was

alleged to be a political intrusion

into the civil service. He was

represented by Ernest Besig, ex-

ecutive director of the ACLUNC.

Bronchial Ailment

`Brokaw is suffering from

chronic bronchietasis, His physi-

cian supported his claims that

Boston's severe winters would be

extremely detrimental to his

health and he advised him not

to make the transfer. Besig ar-

gued that the transfer was a

death warrant. Moreover, the

Commissioner not only knew

about Brokaw's illness before he

ordered the transfer but he also

knew that Brokaw would be act-

ing contrary to his doctor's or-

ders if he accepted the transfer.

Stipulation

It is also noteworthy that at

the time Brokaw applied for his

position he stipulated that he

would accept employment only

in San Francisco. Last January

22, the U.S. Court of Claims, in

Patterson v. U.S. declared, "We

believe that an individual who

accepts Federal employment

does not contemplate rotational

assignment, occupational and/or

geographic, unless the job de-

scription so svecifies." Maybe

that decision influenced the Com-

missioner's action.

The Decision

In any case, the Commission-

er, on April 9, decided that "In

view of all of the facts and cir-

cumstances in your case, it is

my decision to withdraw the no-

tice of proposed adverse action

and to cancel your reassignment

to the position of District Direc-

tor of Customs at Boston, there-

by restoring vou to the position

of District Director of Customs

at San Francisco retroactively to

December 1, 1970."

Brokaw. 60. earns $29000 a

vear. He becomes eligible for re-

tirement in five years.

No. 6

U.S. Supreme

Court Rules for

lb Otto Astrup

The United States Supreme

Court has unanimously ruled

that Ib Otte Astrup is eligible

for citizenship. The decision re-

verses District Court and Court

of Appeals decisions denying

Astrup's naturalization petition

on the ground that by avoiding

military service in 1950 he had

forever forfeited the right to

become a citizen.

Astrup was drafted in 1952,

submitted to induction but

failed to pass his physical. The

government contended that

Astrup would be eligible for

citizenship only if he actually

served in the Army. ACLUNC

maintained that the govern-

ment was working a forfeiture

on Astrup because of his in-

ability to pass a physical ex-

amination. Details on the As-

trup decision will appear in

next month's issue of the News.

George Hedley,

71, Dies

Dr. George P. Hedley, chaplain

emeritus of Mills College, died

on May 8 at the age of 71.

In January to March 1935, Dr.

Hedley served as the first execu-

tive director of the ACLU of

Northern California. He was not

replaced until Ernest Besig ar-

rived on June 23, 1935. Inciden-

tally, Chester S. Williams served

as Organizing Director from Sep-

tember 15, 1934 to January 1,

1935.

- Dr. Hedley, was a minister,

teacher, writer and lecturer. He

became a Methodist minister in

1924 but was ordained in the Epis-

copal priesthood in 1959. He is

survived by his wife, a daughter

and three grandchildren.

Parade Ordinance

State High Cor

Clears Seaside

Peace Marche!

V2 AJ 13INe3A

TINH Y Set

LOLS

AS 095%

The California Supreme Court has ruled six to

action brought by ACLUNC staff attorneys that |

ordinance of the City of Seaside is unconstitutio

therefore prohibited the trial of the group that has co

the-tw--

be known as the "Seaside Eighteen."'

Five Groups Excluded

Last Fourth of July the City of

Seaside delegated to its Chamber

of Commerce the authority to or-

ganize and hold the Fourth of

July parade. The Chamber of

Commerce permitted more than

180 supposedly patriotic groups

to participate, but refused to

permit five groups to participate,

apparently on the ground that

they were not patriotic. The

groups were the Women's Inter-

national League for Peace and

Freedom, Veterans for Peace,

~ Peace and Freedom Party, Mon-

terey Peninsula College Commit-

tee for Peace, and the Movement

for a Democratic Military. Mem-

bers of those groups marched

anyway, carrying a banner bear-

ing the words of the Declaration

of Independence.

Parading Without Permit

When some of their leaders

later appeared at a City Council

meeting to protest their arbitrary

exclusion from the parade, they

were arrested and charged with

the violation of a Seaside ordi-

nance prohibiting taking part in

a demonstration or parade with-

out a permit.

No Standards

The Monterey Superior Court

refused to stop the trial of the

petitioners and the Court of Ap-

peal did likewise, but the Cali-

fornia Supreme Court granted a

stay of the trials and heard argu-

ment on the legality of the ordi-

nance. In late May the Court

issued its ruling that the ordi-

nance was unconstitutional be-

cause it contained no standards

governing the granting or deny-

ing of permits and therefore per-

mitted local authorities to deny

permits to unpopular groups.

_No Trial Without Frisking

Challenge to Marin

Search Procedures

After the tragic shoot-out at the Marin County Courthouse

last summer, new search procedures were adopted at the

Courthouse. Everyone entering the building must submit to

a search of his person by deputy sheriffs. Some people, un-

derstandably, refuse to submit to this indignity. Among them

is Franklin Burr who received a

citation charging him with

"narking on private property

without owner's consent.'"' Burr

appeared for his trial but refused

to submit to the search. Because

of his refusal to submit, he was

not permitted to enter the court-

room, was tried in absentia and

found guilty even though he was

on the ground floor of the Hall of

Justice ready for trial and that

fact was brought to the attention

of the trial judge by the court

clerk.

Probable Cause Necessary

ACLUNC is representing Burr

on his appeal of the conviction to

the Marin County Superior Court.

His appellate attorneys, volun-

teer Robert McCreadie of Novato

and staff counsel Paul Halvonik,

contend that it was unlawful to

require Burr to relinguish his

Fourth Amendment rights as a

price for exercising his rights to

be present at his trial and con-

front his accusers. They urge

that:

"The Fourth Amendment has

as its primary purpose protection

against general searches. We are

not unmindful of the tragic events

that resulted in the adoption of

the Marin security systems. But

the protections of the Fourth

Amendment do not extend only to

frivolous invasions of privacy;

the protections do not evaporate

when government is concerned

with discovering evidence of an

important crime or wishes to pre-

vent horrible antisocial acts. The

Fourth Amendment stands as a

barrier to intrusions into our pri-

vacy unless there is probable

cause to believe we are commit-

ting an unlawful act. "`Preemp-

tive strikes' by the police, no

matter what the evil they wish to

prevent, are precisely what the

Fourth Amendment prohibits."

ACLU Contentions

ACLUNC does not take the po-

sition that the Marin sheriffs

may not frisk for weapons when

they observe suspicious bulges

or that they may not require per-

sons to leave their packages out-

side the building or, in the alter-

native, present their packages

for inspection. But we do strenu-

ously assert that the police may

not search everybody who enters

a building for no other reason

than that the person is about to

enter the building. And we insist

that a person cannot be deprived

of his right to appear at his own

trial because he refuses to sub-

mit to the indignity of a search

unsupported by a probable cause.

Court's Opinion

Mr. Justice Sullivan's opinion

for the Court states that ``any .

procedure which allows licensing

officials wide or unbounded dis-

cretion in granting or denying

permits is constitutionally infirm

because it permits them to base

their determination on the con-

tent of the ideas sought to be ex-

pressed."' The Court held that

"the glaring and fatal defect in

the section . . . is that it contains

no standards whatsoever - let

alone standards designed to be

narrow, objective and definite-

to guide and govern the city of-

ficials in their decisions to grant

or deny permits.'' At one. point

in the opinion the Court charac-

terizes the statute as ``a bare-

faced example of uncontrolled

discretion."'

The result of the Supreme

Court's decision is that the trial

of the Seaside Eighteen will be

prohibited.

Contempt

Conviction

Overturned

Sidney Beugeleisen, a San

Francisco taxi driver who found

himself adjudged in contempt of .

the traffic court when he re-

ferred in testimony to an arrest-

ing officer as a "liar" has finally .

succeeded in having his convic-

tion for contempt and the result-

ing $500.00 fine overturned, Af- -

ter lengthy consideration Judge

Robert Merrill of the San Fran-

cisco Superior Court vacated an

earlier order denying relief and

granted an order annulling the

judgment of contempt against

Mr. Beugeleisen.

This may prove some embar-

rassment to Judge Charles Goff

of the San Francisco Municipal

Court, who imposed the judg-

ment of contempt, because Judge

Goff, presumably emboldened by

his earlier victory in the Superi-

or Court, has published an arti-

cle in the current issue of the

State Bar Journal explaining and

defending the very dubious legal

theory on which he placed Mr.

Beugeleisen in contempt. The

later order of the Superior Court

should fairly thoroughly under-

cut the credibility of that article.

Individual

Rights

Marshall Krause, former

ACLUNC Staff Counsel, will

offer a 3-week Summer School

course at San Francisco State

College from July 19 to August

6. The course will offer three

units of credit and is numbered

Political Science 171.002.

Selected subjects in individ.

ual rights will be covered such

as freedom of speech, press

and religion, establishment of

religion, unreasonable search

and seizure and equal protec-

tion of the laws. The class will

meet Monday through Thurs-

day from 12:30-4.

The tuition for Summer Ses-

sion is $25 per unit. For further

information obtain a registra-

tion bulletin from Summer Ses-

sion, San Francisco State Col-

lege, 1600 Holloway Ave., San

Francisco, Ca. 94132 or call the

College at 469-9123.

Radio, TV and

the ACLU

Part II

By Howard C. Anawalt, Law Professor, Univ. of Santa Clara

and Phil Jacklin, Professor of Philosophy,

San Jose State College.

(This is the second of a two part presentation. Last month

we described the need to build media access as the First

Amendment problem of our time. We also brought to the

readers' attention the action of the Board of ACLUNC estab-

_ ishing a special committee

policies to the Board and to ex-

plore possible action to establish

and protect public rights of ac-

cess. This month we review some

of the possible areas of ACLU

action.)

The Media and Change

The media are great creators

of our collective social judgments.

If the institutions and relations we

presently operate within need

change in any degree, our capa-

city to change will depend in a

large degree on whether we have

,opened our media of communica-

tions up to the new thoughts and

needs being expressed in our

communities,

There are a number of facets

to the work of opening radio and

television to the various voices in

our communities. One of these is

opening up radio and television

time for community groups and

political groups so that they can

reach a broad audience with their

ideas. Another facet is to assure

access of variety and authenticity

in the entertainment which is

broadcast. When the Black or

Chicano artist has the chance to

produce his work on the air, all

of the communities share the ben-

efit. We will receive the variety

and depth of art and entertain-

ment which exists in our country

and which we deserve to see. The

FCC has recently given an assist

in this latter area by establishing

a policy that broadcasting jobs

be available to persons of all eth-

nic backgrounds. Assuring that

broadcasting opportunities are ac-

tually made available is an essen-

tial civil rights project and can

be a strong force in eliminating

institutional racism in our culture.

Opportunities for Action

There are a number of opportu-

nities which the ACLU may con-

sider for action in opening up the

media. Here are some of the

media projects which we know

about that ACLU may be inter-

ested in:

1. Committee for Open Media

access proposals: Existing ACLU

policies fail to advocate a right

of access for spokesmen who rep-

resent every widely shared view.

FCC policy and station manage-

ment fall far short of this goal.

The FCC obliges stations to take

reasonable measures to assure

that items of controversy are

aired. However, FCC policy does

not recognize the right of com-

munity groups to insist on the

airing of controversy, when the

station in its judgment says no.

In other words, the FCC falls

short of guaranteeing access to

the voices of actual community

controversy.

It is impossible to urge a right

of access for every widely shared

view unless one can answer, in a

reasonable way, questions about

how access is to be allocated.

How can one identify the ``widely

shared views" that can claim ac-

cess rights? Who should choose

the spokesmen to represent these

views? How much time should

they have?

- The Committee for Open Media,

a San Jose group which Phil

Jacklin helped organize, has de-

veloped two proposed methods of

providing representative access.

The first of these is to provide

year-round access for sookesmen

of every ballot-qualified party.

This. access should be allocated

according to a principle of pro-

portional representation. Follow-

Page 2

ACLU NEWS

JUNE 1971

to propose appropriate new

ing the COM plan, a certain

amount of good viewing time is

set aside, e.g., 6:30 to 6:50 each

weekday evening. This time is di-

vided up so that each minor party

receives a percentage of the time

which corresponds to its percent-

age of total voter registration, or

else a minimum of 5%, which

ever is greater. Parties which

register over 30% divide the re-

maining time, the bulk of the

time. Each evening is given to

svokesmen at a particular level

of government-the Congress, the

State Capital, Citv Hall, the State

Legislature and the White House.

(Space precludes a detailed re-

port.) Such access would institu-

tionalize the critical function of

the loval opvosition. At the same

time, those in office could become

true leaders, statesmen not con-

strained by uninformable consti-

tuencies.

COM has also done some think-

ing about how access might be.

allocated to representatives of

citizen grouvs and minority com-

munities. The proposal here is

that each station provide time in-

cluding prime time throughout

the day, for 15-20 one minute spot

messages bv community-chosen

spokesmen. These spots would be

comparable to advertisements

and public service announcements

excevt that they would express

controversial views on matters of

public importance and they would

be controlled, not by corporations

or by the stations, but by the peo-

ple themselves. Snot messages

would cavture giant audiences as

ads do. They would be catalytic,

speeding analysis of issues in

other formats. Groups would gain

access by petition, ie., by pre-

senting the names of those sup-

vorting their request for time.

The petitions would demonstrate

that the group represented a

widely-shared view or concern.

2. Community Coalitions for

Media Change: As the fall 1971

license renewal period for the

San Francisco bay area stations

approaches, two community coa-

litions have formed to try to

bring change in programming,

access rights, and job and train-

ing opportunities. The Community

Coalition for Media Change is

working in the San Francisco-

Oakland area and the South-Bay

Coalition is working in the San

Jose-South-Bay area. These

groups goals are to negotiate with

stations for improvements in the

broadcasting and employment pol-

icies in order to meet the needs

of the Black, Chicano and Asian

communities.

We can revort briefly on the

recent activities of the South-Bay

Coalition. The coalition is pres-

ently comprised of representa-

tives from the Chicano and Black

communities in the area. It has

surveyed the performance of sev-

eral stations and is drawing in-

formation from the communities

concerning the particular needs

which should be served. The coa-

lition activity has already led to

some responses from local sta-

tions. For example, Channel 11

has introduced a new program

series which apparently will in-

auire into community issues

through interviews and panels

with persons who have a direct

concern with issues presented.

The need for service to the va-

rious communities is important.

An example is the Chicano com-

munity of the San Jose area. San

Jose has a very large Chicano

z Letters

... to the Editor

Compulsory Treatment

Editor: In answer to your ques-

tion about our withdrawal from

membership, we decided to with-

draw after twenty years of mem-

bership in both the national and

San Francisco ACLU because of

the recommendation of the June,

1970, Biennial Conference concern-

ing drug use. `"`The Conference

recognized the right to use and

possess narcotics and rejected

compulsory treatment of addicts"'

(Civil Liberties, July 1970). We

believe that society has a right to

protect its members against those

who commit crimes under the in-

fluence of drugs. So many of

these cases occur each week that

it is fatuous to argue that ". ..

addiction is not a crime and ad-

dicts can lead productive lives

if they are not forced to commit

crimes to feed their habits.'' What

about the many crimes com-

mitted because the habit has been

fed and the addict is out of touch

with the world around him? It is

small comfort to the victims and

their families to be told that drug-

users who commit crimes can be

prosecuted afterwards: but that

beforehand nothing should inter-

fere with the ``right'"' to be an ad-

dict.

If the ACLU withdraws this dan-

gerous recommendation, then we

will be hapvy to rejoin Mark

R. and Janine S. Rosenzweig,

Berkeley.

Don't Pull Out

Editor: I believe that involving

the ACLU in the Vietnam war as

a matter of policy is a mistake.

However, I also agree that to pull

out of ACLU for that.reason is

also a mistake. A reading of the

ACLU paper reveals continually

that a person with limited re-

sources, mistreated by a govern-

ment employee, who is sworn to

protect all the people, has only

the ACLU to turn to for help. The

ACLU will literally take the

abused person by the hand and

try to lead him to safety.. The

resources available for these

fights are miniscule compared to

the massive number of cases of

abuse of lawabiding citizens by

public officials.

Therefore, any dimunition of

this activity caused by a dilution

of policy is a mistake. - Walter

Doebele, Citrus Heights.

community-the second largest in

the United States, being exceeded

only by Los Angeles. Coalition

demands with respect to this

community will include access for

spot messages, a Chicano pro-

gramming consultant to initiate

new programs, a Chicano news-

room, and bilingual children's

programs.

In the event that negotiations

fail, community groups like these

can pursue their interest in the

FCC licensing and rule making

proceedings. In a pair of deci-

sions in 1966 and 1969 Judge Bur-

ger (now Chief Justice) held that

representative groups have stand-

ing to be heard in licensing pro-

ceedings and that the license ap-

plicant is the party bearing the

burden of showing that he should

be licensed.

3. The ACLU media committee:

The newly formed ACLU commit-

tee on the media will be a focal

point for developing ACLU policy

and action on opening up the

media. The chairman is Al Ben-

dich. In the next months the com-

mittee will seek opportunities to

take action to make the media

effective First Amendment fo-

rums. The ACLU may be able to

assist efforts like those of the

Committee for Onen Media and

the coalitions, and it may under-

take specific projects of its own.

As a closing point-please send

your thoughts concerning media

change to the San Francisco of-

fice. The new committee is eager

to work with new ideas and really

get rolling.

Uniform Regulation

Court Challenge

Must Await

Military Appeal |

The United States Court of Appeals has held that the

Federal Courts are not available for a challenge to a general

order issued in 1968 by then Secretary of the Air Force

Harold F. Brown. The order provides:

"Air Force members will not

wear the uniform at any public

meeting, demonstration, or in-

terview if they have reason to

know that a purpose of the

meeting, demonstration, or in-

terview is the advocacy, expres-

sion, or approval of opposition

to the employment or use of

the Armed Forces of the United

States."

Four Involved

The appeal involved one air-

man, Michael Locks, who was

court martialed for violating

that regulation and sentenced to

a year at hard labor and a group

of other airmen who wished to

participate in an anti-war parade

and asked to have the order de-

eclared unconstitutional on the

ground that it inhibits their free

exercise of First Amendment

rights. :

Federal District Judge Alfonso

J. Zirpoli held that the airmen

other than Locks could come in-

to court and challenge the regu-

lation but upheld the regulation

on the ground that ``exclusion of

the uniform from the activity

here proscribed is essential to

the preservation of the symbolic

significance of the uniform."

Two to One Decision

A majority of the United

States Court of Appeals three-

judge panel, Judges Chambers

and Murrah, did not reach the .

question whether the regulation

is, as Judge Zirpoli held, consti-

tutional, They concluded that all

the plaintiffs, not only Locks,

would have to exhaust military

remedies and could not come in-

to federal court for a declara-

tion of their rights. The other

only challenge the regulation if

they are willing to violate the

regulation and, like Locks, submit

to incarceration in the Stockade

while an appeal proceeds

through military courts which

have never held such a regula-

tion unconstitutional.

Dissenting Opinion

Judge Shirley Hufstedler filed

the dissenting opinion. She

agreed that Locks would have to

exhaust his military remedies

but as to the plaintiffs who had

not yet violated the regulation,

she would hold that a federal

declaratory judgment action lies.

Judge Hustedler was also of the

view that the regulation is un-

constitutional. The dissent states:

"The regulation does not pro-

hibit wearing the uniform to

any public meetings at which

the employment of the Armed

Forces is a discussion topic. It

does not prohibit wearing uni-

forms to all public meetings. It

prohibits wearing uniforms only

to those meetings in which

there may be criticism of the

use to which the Armed Forccs

are put. Thus the uniform can

be worn to a meeting held in

praise of the use of our Armed

Forces in Vietnam. But a mem-

ber of the Air Force who wears

the uniform to a meeting in

which the topic may be criti-

cism of the use of our Armed

Forces in Vietnam is subject to

court martial, The regulation is

patently unconstitutional."

Staff counsel Paul Halvonik

has not yet decided whether to

ask the Supreme Court to hear

airmen, under this decision, can the case.

Albert M. Bendich

Irving Cohen

Richard DeLancie

Prof. John Edwards

Jerome B. Falk, Jr.

Beverly Ford

Rey. Aron S. Gilmartin

Sam Greenberg

Michael B. Harris

Francis Heisler

Donald R. Hopkins

Honorary Board Member:

Sara Bard Field

Mrs. Gladys Brown

Mrs. Paul Couture

Mes. Margaret C. Hayes

Prof. Carlo Lastrucci

Dr. Marvin J. Naman

Mrs. Thecdosia Stewart

John J. Eagan

Joseph Eichler

Dr. H. H. Fisher

Prof, Ernest Hilgard

Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California

CHAIRMAN: Howard H. Jewel

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Prof. Van D. Kennedy

Helen Salz

Ralph B. Atkinson

SEC'Y-TREAS.: Howard A. Friedman

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Besig

Anthony G. Amsterdam Neil F. Horton

Bern Jacobson

Clifton R. Jeffers

Ken M. Kawaichi

David Levin

Daniel N. Loeb

Ephraim Margolin

John R. May

Martin Mills, M.D.

Regino. Montes

Prof. Robert M. O'Neil Richard J. Werthimer

Nancy Peterson

GENERAL COUNSEL: Wayne M. Collins

STAFF COUNSEL: Paul N. Halvonik

ASS'T STAFF COUNSEL and LEGIS. REP.: Charles C. Marson

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Mrs. Pamela S. Ford

CHAPTER DIRECTOR: Carol R. Weintraub

Committee of Sponsors

Mrs, Paul Holmer '

Mrs. Mary Hutchinson Prof. Wallace Stegner

Prof. Wilson Record

Dr. Norman Reider

Henry Ramsey, Jr.

Eugene N. Rosenberg

Prof. John Searle

Warren H. Saltzman

Prof. H. K. Schachman

Mrs. Alec Skolnick

Kirk Smith

Fortney H. Stark, Jr.

Stanley D. Stevens

Michael Traynor

Rt. Rev. Sumner Walters

Richard Johnston

`Roger Kent

Mrs. Ruth Kingman

Prof. Theodore Kreps

Seaton W. Manning

Rev. Robert W. Moon

Clarence E. Rust

Prof. Hubert Phillips

Norman Lezin

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

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

Subcription Rates -- Two Dollars and. Fifty Cents a Year

Twenty-Five Cents Per Copy ki so

=

Sacramento Merry-Go-Round

What's Doing In

The California

Legislature

As the 1971 regular session of the Legislature moves to-

ward the inevitable confrontations concerning the budget,

tax relief, and reapportionment, it becomes increasingly more

active and hectic. Although last year set an all-time record

for the length of the legislative session, the number of bills

introduced and the present prog-

ress of those bills seems to bear

out the persistent rumors that,

finally, the California Legislature

will come into the twentieth cen-

tury by abandoning the idea that

it can be a part-time body and

will remain in session year

round. The possibility is that the

Legislature will meet until the

end of July, recess for the month |

of August, and reconvene in the

fall.

In the meantime, this is the

status of the major areas of in-

terest to the ACLU:

The Death Penalty

The recent unfavorable deci-

sions of the United States Su-

preme Court concerning the

death penalty have focused an

enormous amount of interest in

Assembly Bill 13, by Alan Sieroty

(D-Beverly Hills). AB 13 would

repeal the death penalty outright

in California. The bill has not yet

been heard in the Assembly

Criminal Justice Committee, but

is scheduled for hearing on June

8. For the first time in many

years, it looks likely that the bill

will achieve passage through the

Committee and reach the Assem-

bly floor. Its fate there is uncer-

tain, although it is within the

`realm of possibility that the bill

could pass the Assembly and

reach the Senate. In the event

that AB 13 did find its way into

the Senate, however, it is not

likely to emerge, and even less

likely to survive the Governor's

desk.

If AB 13 fails, there is consid-

erable talk about legislation pro-

viding a moratorium on capital

punishment until other issues are

decided by state and federal

Fresno Chapter

Gives Civil

Liberties Award

At the Fresno Chapter's annual

dinner meeting on May 19 the first

recipient of the ACLU Civil Liber-

ties Award was honored. Dr.

Hubert Phillips, Professor Emer-

itus at Fresno State College, was

presented with an engraved

plaque which reads: FOR OUT-

STANDING CONTRIBUTIONS

TO THE EXERCISE OF CIVIL

LIBERTIES IN THE SAN JOA-

QUIN VALLEY.

Dr. Phillips, 86, was also pre-

sented with a framed brochure.

It cites his "`lifetime devotion to

the defense of civil liberties'? and

the fact that "che was an original

organizer of the ACLU of North-

ern California.'' He has a special

place in the hearts of Japanese-

Americans in the San Joaquin

Valley because the brochure says

`the was one of the few outspoken

critics of the evacuation of Jap-

anese- Americans during World

War II.'' The brochure also says

that "during the past two dec-

ades he has been an eloquent

spokesmen for academic freedom

and due process in higher educa-

tion, and has defended the impor-

tance of these principles for the

maintenance of a free and open

society."

The remainder of the program

included the showing of the film

"T am Joaquin," a film about the

recent purge of liberal professors

and administrators at Fresno

State College by the College ad-

ministration, and the election of

new Board members.

courts.

18-Year Old Vote

At this point in time it appears

nearly certain that Californians

between the ages of 18 and 21

will be able to vote in state and

local elections. How soon they

will be able to do so, and by vir-

tue of what legal authority, are

questions which remain in doubt.

A state constitutional amend-

ment providing for the 18-year-

old vote has passed the Senate

and is awaiting Assembly action.

A nearly identical amendment

originating in the Assembly has

passed that body and is awaiting

action in the Senate. No one yet

knows which of these amend-

ments will be the one eventually

to gain .the approval of both

houses. Although the votes are

almost certainly present to pass

one of the amendments (a two-

thirds vote is required), there is

still a great deal of disagreement

as to whether the amendment

should contain only a lowering of

the voting age, or whether it

should lower the age for all of

the incidences of adulthood ex-

cept for the consumption of alco-

hol. When this dispute is re-

solved, however, it is almost cer-

tain that one of the amendments

will go on the ballot, primarily

because in addition to its sub-

stantive merit the proponents of

the amendment are now able to

argue that maintaining separate

registration lists for federal and

state elections (as is now re-

quired) is an enormous unneces-

sary expense to the state. Wheth-

er the amendment will appear on

the June 1972 ballot, the Novem-

ber 1972 ballot, or at some spe-

cial election earlier than that has

not yet been settled.

In the meantime, at the fed-

eral level, 28 states have ratified

the amendment to the federal

Constitution providing for the 18-

year-old vote in state and local

elections. However, predictions

that the amendment would be

ratified by the necessary three-

fourths of the states (38) are be-

ginning to look overoptimistic.

Only a few states have legisla-

tures that are still in session

that have not passed one way or

the other on the amendment, and

in some of these states the

(Continued on page 4)

pected by the end of the year.

Supreme Court

To Hear Prisoner

Manuscript Rule

The State Supreme Court has

agreed to review a Court of Ap-

peal decision upholding Califor-

nia's Director of Correction rule

2505. That rule provides:

"To defray handling costs a

percentage established by the

Director will be deducted from

the payment received for each |

manuscript and deposited in

the Inmate Welfare Fund. The

percentage will be the same

as that established for paint-

ings [25%]. Prior to the sub-

mission of a manuscript for

publication, the inmate will

sign an agreement authorizing

such deduction."

Death Row Convict

The petition for hearing before

the highest state court was filed

by ACCLUNC on behalf of Nathan

Eli, a death row convict, who has

produced manuscripts but refuses

to enter into an agreement giving

the prison system 25% of any roy-

alties he will receive. Death row

inmates obtain little benefit from

the inmate welfare fund and Eli

thinks it absurd for the prison

system to contend it is only ask-

ing him to help the ``less fortu-

nate."'

Tax on Knowledge

The Eli petition, prepared by

staff counsel Paul Halvonik, at-

tacked the 25% rule on statutory

and constitutional grounds, The

statutory challenge is based on

1968 amendments to the Penal

Code which provide that an in-

mate "owns" any manuscripts

produced while he is in the

prison. The state says that its

25% take is merely a "tax" and

not an assertion of a property

interest in the manuscript. But

if the state required us to enter

into a 25% contract with it be-

fore we could sell our goods we

would not likely view it as a

mere tax. And even if it is viewed

as a tax. D2505 has a number of

constitutional infirmities. The

United States Supreme Court has

struck down as a "tax on knowl-

edge" special taxes assessed

against newspapers. The confisca-

tion of 25% of Eli's rovalties

would seem an analagous "tax on

knowledge."

Equal Protection

Taxing Eli for the benefit of

other inmates also raises ques-

tions under the equal protection

of the laws guarantee of the

Fourteenth Amendment. The

state prison system is an insti-

tution maintained for the protec-

tion of society as a whole. The

cost of maintaining the institu-

tion should not be arbitrarily

charged to one class of the so-

ciety. Eli is prepared to pay his

share of the taxes but he sees no

reason why, just because he hap-

pens to be an inmate, he should

pay a special tax for the benefit

of other inmates. :

The Eli case will likely be ar-

gued next fall; a decision is ex-

DR. HUBERT PHILLIPS (left) receiving award from Dr. Irwin Lyon at

ACLUNC Fresno Chapter meeting.

Sacramento Lobbying

issues.

members of key committees.

593 Market Street

San Francisco, Ca. 94105

(telephone: 433-2750)

June 22--A Day at the

Capitol for Members

An all day educational-lobbying session in the State Capitol

for ACLU members has been set for Tuesday, June 22. The day ~

will begin with car pools leaving each Chapter area to arrive in

Sacramento at approximately 8:15 A.M. Upon arrival the group

will be briefed by ACLUNC's legislative representative, Charles

Marson, and his ACLU of Southern California counterpart, Cole

Blease, on key bills to be heard that day in committee. This

promises to be a particularly interesting time to be in Sacra-

mento because of the capital punishment and prison reform

The day's program includes attendance at sessions of the

Assembly and Senate, committee hearings, an optional luncheon

with legislators, lobbying with individual members of both

houses, and a late afternoon no-host cocktail party attended by

- The cost of the luncheon with legislators will be a total of

$3.50, and although attendance is optional, reservations and pay-

ment must be made in advance. All participants will be asked to

contribute 25c for coffee and donuts to be served at the briefing

session. Whichever alternative you choose, the luncheon with key

legislators, or finding your own lunch, it is necessary for each

participant to return the coupon below. If there is enough in-

terest expressed, the office will arrange a charter bus (cost

estimate $3-$6) from San Francisco and the East Bay; if not, car

pools can be arranged if each participant will contact the chair-

man of his chapter. Remember, reservations must be made

in advance, to arrive in the ACLUNC office before Thursday,

June 17. Information, maps, and details will be sent to the par-

ticipants upon receipt of the coupon. E

To: Carol Weintraub Weser, Chapter Director

American Civil Liberties Union

I will be attending the civil liberties day in Sacramento, June

22. Please send me details and information.

(check one) I wish to attend the luncheon with legislators, and

enclose $3.50 to cover the cost [J

I will arrange my own lunch but wish to attend the

remainder of the day's activities [1]

Name@2 2 2322

Home telephone ............................-... Work telephone =...........0000000......

Name of chapter if any.............

Citys = = Zip........

Challenge to

Revocation

Of Credential

In 1967 Arthur Comings pleaded guilty to a charge of

possessing marijuana. Because of that conviction, the Depart-

ment of Education moved to revoke Comings' teaching cre-

dential. An administrative hearing, held on the Department's

charges that Comings' marijuana possession marked him as

a person of ``immoral'' charac-

ter, resulted in Comings' creden-

tial being revoked. The only evi-

dence introduced against Comings

at the hearing were the proceed-

ings in the criminal case which

established that Comings had pos-

sessed marijuana, There was no

evidence that Comings' teaching

ability had been affected by the

conviction, on the contrary, his

attorney, staff counsel Paul Hal-

vonik, introduced into evidence

affidavits of two New York edu-

cators with whom Comings had

worked subsequent to his convic-

tion attesting to his effective, con-

scientious teaching and the great

esteem in which he was held by

students.

Superior Court Decision

ACLUNC filed suit on Comings'

behalf in the San Francisco Su-

perior Court contending that there

was no evidence to support the

administrative conclusion that

Comings has an ``immoral"' char-

acter because he once possessed

marijuana. Judge Robert W. Mer-

rill, however, ruled that there was

evidence supporting the adminis-

trative determination that Com-

ings is a person of immoral char-

acter. Judge Merrill did not speci-

fy what the evidence was.

Discussion Appealed

ACLUNC has now appealed

Judge. Merrill's decision. In the

brief on appeal prepared by Hal-

vonik, volunteer attorney Robert

Parker of San Francisco and

Stanford Law Professor John Kap-

lan, ACLUNC contends that it is

unconstitutional to revoke a teach-

ing credential for marijuana pos-

session because that conduct in

no way reflects upon one's ability

to teach. It also urges that the

revocation of Comings credentials

would set a precedent that would

"decimate"? California's profes-

sional ranks.

Wide Use

Relying upon data gathered by

Kaplan for his book, Marijuana-

The New Prohibition, the brief

points to studies showing that 73%

of the student body of the Univer-

sity of California Law School at

Berkeley and 70% of the student

body at a California medical

school used marijuana. As for un-

dergraduates, a 1968 survey dis-

closed that 69% of Stanford's un-

dergraduates had used marijuana

and approximately 40% consid-

ered themselves regular users.

"One university after another,''

-the Comings brief states, ``has

surveyed its student body-often

with careful methodology-and re-

ported that its one time mari-

juana use ranged between 30 and

70%. Unless this court is of the

opinion that close to a majority

of the young educated population

of the United States is `shame-

less,' `depraved' and `sinister,' it

is difficult to see how it could

conclude that marijuana posses-

sion is an `immoral act.' "

_ Argument Delayed

Because of the congestion in the

appellate courts the Comings case

will probably not be argued until

next fall. It is, to our knowledge,

the first case challenging the revo-

cation of a professional license

because of marijuana uSe or pos-

session. .

ACLU NEWS

JUNE, 1971

Page 3

U.S. Supreme Court

Death Penalty

Attack Suffers

Legal Setback

It is now almost four years since ACLUNC, together with

the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, brought suit in the Federal!

District Court in San Francisco challenging the constitution-

ality of the death penalty as administered in California, No

one has been executed in California since that litigation was

begun.

We contended in that suit that

the imposition of the death pen-

alty in California is a violation

of due process of law because the

jury is not guided by any stand-

ards in making its determination

whether to gas someone. Jurors

are simply told that they may

kill or not without any sugges-

tion as to what may be mitigat-

ing or aggravating circumstances.

Standardless Sentencing

Shortly after the filing of the

1967 action and the granting of

stays of execution, Federal Dis-

trict Judge Robert Peckham re-

quired the LDF and ACLUNC to

return to the state courts and

raise the constitutional conten-

tions there. In 1968 the State Su-

preme Court, by a 4. to 3 vote,

ruled standardless sentencing con-

stitutional. In that same year, the

United States Supreme Court

agreed to hear the case of Max-

well v. Bishop raising the stand-

ards issue. After considering

Maxwell's case for two vears the

Supreme Court reversed his sen:

tence on other grounds while, at

the same time, agreeifig to con-

sider the issue in the case of Me-

Gautha v. California. Last month

the United States Suvreme Court,

by a 6 to 3 vote, held that stand-

ardless sentencing is not a vio-

lation of the due process clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The ovinion, written by Justice

John M. Harlan, holds that stand-

ardless sentencing is constitution-

al because no one is capable of

fashioning precise and intelligent

standards for the application of

the death penalty.

Dissents

Vigorous dissents were filed by

Justices Brennan, Marshall and

Douglas. Justice Brennan ob-

served that it was a bit too early

in the game to conclude that no

one could fashion standards for

the imposition of the death pen-

alty because no one had tried.

He refused to assume that the

Legislatures of the states of the

union do not have the ability to

rationalize the death penalty that

they wish to impose.

Basis for Stays Estimated

It was on the basis of the pen-

dency before the U.S. Supreme

Court of the standards questions

in the Maxwell and McGautha

cases that we were able to obtain

stays of execution for all men on

death row in California. The rul-

ing in McGautha, of course, re-

moves that reason for securing

stays of execution and the ma-

cabre fact of the matter is that

we may have to look forward tc

the resumption of the gassing of

human beings in California.

Two More Issues

But the battle is not over yet.

The standards issue is but one of

those raised in the 1967 litigation.

We also contended that the guilty

verdicts in death cases are not

the product of an impartial jury

because persons scrupled against

the death penalty are systemati-

`cally excluded from juries thus

presenting the defendant with a

prosecution-oriented trier of fact.

We also urged that the death pen-

alty is cruel and unusual punish-

ment.

New Hearings Likely

That 1967 suit is still viable.

The writs of habeas corpus filed

ACLU NEWS

JUNE 1971

Page 4

on behalf of the death row in-

mates were never dismissed but

simply held in abeyance pending

exhaustion of other remedies.

Those remedies have now been

exhausted and we shall move to

revive the Federal District Court

suit which is pending before Judge

Alfonso J. Zirpoli. There will like-

ly be an extensive evidentiary

hearing before Judge Zirpoli on

the cruelty issue and the issue

of the impartial jury. The LDF-

ACLUNC lawyer who will repre-

sent the condemned at the hear-

ing will be Stanford Law Profes-

sor (and ACLUNC Board Mem-

ber) Anthony G. Amsterdam who

has spearheaded the legal drive

against the death penalty through-

out the United States. No date

has as yet been set for the hear-

ing and no date will probably be

set until the end of Supreme

Court's term when that Court in-

dicates what it will do with the

120 death penalty cases on its cur-

rent docket.

Naturalization

Petition of

Atheist Delayed

Last month the Naturalization

Service reopened preliminary

hearings on the petition of Josef

F. Constandi of Oakland. When

Costandi appeared in the US.

District Court to be sworn in as a

citizen he told Daniel H. Lyons,

Naturalization Service represent-

ative, that since he was an atheist

he wanted to affirm his declara-

tion of allegiance and omit the

words ``So help me God." Lyons

stated he had instructions from

the court to present any "`out of

the ordinary case'' separately.

Consequently, action on his peti-

tion was delayed and a further

preliminary hearing held.

Testing Petitioner's Beliefs

At the hearing, Mr. Lyons said,

"T want to know how you became

an atheist. Why you want to take

the oath without the `So help me

God.''' At another point, Lyons

said, ``Now the purpose of this

hearing is to test your belief as

an atheist as you want to take

the oath of allegiance without the

words prescribed by the Immi-

gration and Naturalization Act-

`So help me God.' "'

Costandi said he wanted to be

represented by counsel and

sought assistance from the AC-

LUNG. He will be represented by

Ernest Besig, executive director.

Plywacki Decision

Back in 1953, ACLUNC's first

staff counsel, Lawrence Speiser,

successfully represented Wlady-

slaw Plywacki an atheist whose

petition for citizenship had been

denied by Federal Judge J.

Frank McLaughlin of Hawaii `"`be-

cause of his inability to subscribe

to a statutory oath of allegiance."

When the Attorney General con-

fessed error, the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals reversed Mc-

Laughlin's decision and he was

admitted to citizenship merely by

affirming.

Religious Freedom

The ACLU will challenge the

Government's right ``to test'' Co-

standi's beliefs as an atheist. The

ACLU will contend that Mr. Ly-

ons may not inquire into the suf-

ficiency of Costandi's belief that

there is no Supreme Being.

What's Doing in

The California

Legislature |

Continued from Page 3-

amendment is in serious diffi-

culty. Some states, such as Mis-

sissippi and Georgia, have gone

out of session without acting on

the amendment, and in other

states once considered favorable

(such as Virginia) resolutions

approving the amendment have

been killed in `Committee. Al-

though a few states such as Utah

and Wyoming are considering

special legislative sessions to

ratify the amendment, there are

probably not enough states which

can ratify the amendment by No-

vember 1971 to achieve the nec-

essary 38. It is likely at this

point that the federal amendment

will be ratified, but it will not be.

effective until November of 1972.

The primary reason for the delay

in most states is that the states

are considering amending state

constitutions to achieve the same

result.

Un-American Activities

A long-awaited victory over

the state Senate's Committee on

Un-American Activities has fi-

nally been achieved. Whether it

is symbol or substance remains

to be seen.

In May the Senate Rules Com-

mittee killed a resolution to re-

establish the famous committee

(known to many as the ``Tenney

Committee''). The votes were fi-

nally present to refuse to re-

establish the Committee largely

due to the recent unfavorable

publicity it has suffered concern-

ing its maintenance of the names

of certain senators in its files.

However, another Committee has

been created and will succeed to

at least some of the duties of the

Un-American Activities Commit-

tee. It will be called the Commit-

tee on Civil Disorder, and its

mandate will include investiga-

`tion of such things as bombing

and various illegal radical activi-

ties. Whether this will be pri-

marily a change of name, as re-

cently occurred with the federal

Committee on Un-American Ac-

tivities (now entitled the House

Internal Security Committee), or

whether the functions of intimi-

dation and exposure served by

the Tenney Committee will be

abandoned by the Legislature, is

something that no one yet knows.

Marijuana

Assembly Bill 626 (also by

Alan Sieroty) would limit the

penalty for the possession of

marijuana to no more than 90

days. Although it passed the As-

sembly Committee on Criminal

Justice some time ago, it is in

some trouble on the Assembly

floor. Its fate there is probably

academic, since the Governor

has indicated every intention of

vetoing almost any legislation

that affects the marijuana laws.

He vetoed last year, for exam-

ple, a bill by a popular Republi-

can author which would merely

have placed the marijuana pro-

hibitions in a different section of

the Code other than the ``Nar-

cotics'' section. This reluctance

has extended to most of the

members of his own party on the

Assembly floor, where a few

weeks ago a bill which would

simply have removed marijuana

violators from the list of those

"narcotics offenders'? who must

register with the local police

failed to garner sufficient votes

to pass.

Tenure :

Assembly Bill 293, by John

Stoll (R-Leucadia) has been

passed favorably from the As-

sembly Education Committee and

will undoubtedly pass the floor of

the Assembly. Its provisions, re-

ported in an earlier issue of the

ACLU NEWS, have been suffi-

ciently improved so that Mr.

Stoll has gained the support of

the California Teachers Associa-

tion. This may give the bill a

momentum that cannot be

stopped. Further amendments

are expected in the Senate. -

Charles C. Marson, Ass't. Staff

Counsel and Legislative Repre-

sentative.

Court Upholds Ordinance

Maternity Leave

For Males; Not

For Females

Jean Lombardo has been an employee of Sonoma County

for 12 years. Last fall she gave birth to a child and attempted

to use six weeks of her accrued sick leave as partial com-

pensation for her absence from work due to the birth of her

child.

Sonoma County has a_ salary

ordinance governing the adminis-

tration of sick leave for county

employees. The ordinance pro-

vides:

"Sick leave may be taken by

a male employee in the event of

the birth of his child."

That is all there is to the ordi-

nance. It makes no mention of

female employees taking a ma-

ternity leave.

Sexual Discrimination

Mrs. Lombardo was obviously

the victim of an incredible sexual

discrimination, by county govern-

ment. Accordingly, ACLUNC

brought suit in the Sonoma Coun-

ty Superior Court on behalf of

Mrs. Lombardo in order to re-

cover her accrued leave.

In support of Mrs. Lombardo,

volunteer attorney Ronald F.

Coles of Santa Rosa contended

that giving men child birth leave

while denying it to women was a

vivid example of the discrimina-

tion in employment suffered by

females throughout the United

States. Coles pointed out that the

Residency

Requirement

Continued from Page 1-

tition against the county's old-

timers for the office of super- (c)

visor.''

Significant Omission

Although the Supreme Court

adopted most of the Court of

Appeal's decision, there was one

significant omission. The Court

of Appeal had ruled a one-year

residency requirement for candi-

dates was ``reasonable'' and held

that an Elections Code section

providing for one-year residency

for elective office in California

was applicable to Butte elections.

ACLUNC had disputed that por-

tion of the decision because there

is another Elections Code section

that provides that one is eligible

to run for most offices if he is

eligible to vote for that office.

There is a conflict between that

latter section and the one-year

residency requirement because of

a decision last fall, in an ACLUNC

case, striking down the one-year

residency requirement for voters.

ACLUNC can see no reason for

making the residency qualifica-

tions for candidacy more restric-

tive than those for a voter. The

length of one's residency may be

a factor which the voters will want

to consider in casting their bal-

lots among competing candidates,

but they should not be foreclosed

from voting for someone simply

because he has not been a resi-

dent for a period of one year.

traditional image of a sexual di-

vision of labor in which women

stay at home, assuming the re-

sponsibility for household and

child care, and men work outside

the home assuming responsibility

of monetary support, is an image

unrelated to reality. Only about

45% of U.S. families fit that tra-

ditional pattern. Indeed, in almost

two-fifths of U.S. families the

woman is the financial supporter

of the family. Given the size of

the female work force in the

United States, the discriminations

that women suffer have an enor-

mous impact on the entire society.

Coles urged that:

"This role of women as finan-

cial supporters of the family

has two elements. First, work-

ing womens' contributions are

`important to help lift families

out of poverty. Second, and con-

versely, discrimination against

women helps account for the

poverty of many families. This

situation arises in part because

women are funneled into low-

Jevel jobs and are: paid less

than men for the same work. In

recent years the pay gap be-

tween full-time emploved men

and full-time employed women

has been widening, not narrow-

ing. The sex line is as impor-

tant as the race line in deter-

mining salary.

"This discrimination is com-

pounded bv the Sonoma County

salary ordinance provision de-

nving female emoplovees sick

leave for childbirth but grant-

ing male employees such leave

for the birth of their children.

Such a result is the most ironic

form of sexual discrimination:

fathers are accorded a higher

status in the eyes of the law

than mothers.'

Judge Mahan's Decision

But Judge Lincoln F. Mahan

of the Suverior Court was uncon-

vinced. The Sonoma County ordi-

nance, he ruled, does nct conflict

with the Fourteenth Amendment's

guarantee of equal protection of

the laws because `"`all decisions of

the courts recognize that a gov-

ernment cannot function without

classifying its citizens for various

purposes and treating some dif-

ferently than [sic] others.

The difference in classification

has a sound basis in reason, in

that it allows the head of the

family a short time to care for

any emergency prior to the birth,

to be present at the proudest mo-

ment of his and her life, and

time to reassure her, his life part-

ner. To enlarge this emergency

situation was simply not within

the purpose or intent of the ordi-

nance."

The first right of a citizen

Ts the right

To be responsible `ee 15

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Patron; Membership "6: 6b ee $100

Sustaining Membership .......... ee 50

Business and Professional Membership ........ a8 225

Family Membersnip .. 022... -. se ee eo. 2 15

Annual Membership'... 1. ..:..-..2.. 6 eee 10

Student Membership ....... ee 7. 8

AGLU News Subsenption ...-........ ae: $2.50

NAME

ADDRESS and ZIP CODE

593 Market Street

eee eee erro eee eer eee ere e

cow ee eee e

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

wee eee recor eree see FP eo eee ee ee (c) @

eo oreo oreo eeeoer ere eeerer eee eee ooo (c)

pe AMIE ENGEOSED0x2122....- - Ee

San Francisco, 94105

All contributions tax deductible.