vol. 42, no. 4 (mislabled No. 12)

Volume XLII

June 1977

No. 12

- Final test for Death Penalty Bill

Legislation which would restore the

death penalty in California will meet its

final test before the state legislature,

when Senator George Deukmejian's

capital punishment measure, S.B. 155,

_returns to both houses of the legislature

for an override vote. (c)

Having received the Governor's

promised veto on May 27, S.B. 155 is

now the subject of a controversial

battle, as death penalty opponents wage

a determined campaign to stop the

legislature from approving an override.

A vote by two-thirds of the members

of both houses would restore state

executions in California. Since it is the

_ author's perogative to select the date for

the override within sixty days after a

veto, Deumejian is still counting pro-

death votes.

Whether or not the forces opposed to

the death penalty can muster the votes

necessary to sustain the Governor's veto

is unknown. On the Assembly floor S.B.

155 received the exact two-thirds

`Majority necessary for passage as an

urgency measure. The Senate vote

surpassed the needed margin by two.

Urgency measures, which take effect

almost immediately, require the ex-

ceptional two-thirds margin.

Death penalty opponents, by

changing one vote could stop the

restoration attempt if members of the

Assembly were to vote as they did on

May 16th.

Death penalty advocates insist that if

that were to occur they will bring the

~issue to the voters in the form of an

initiative measure. Many threaten that

continued on page 4

Chowchilla press an denied

An effort to ban the public and the

press from the triai of three defendants

in the Chowchilla kidnapping case was

stopped by the ACLU of Northern

. California, which recently intervened on

behalf of the San Francisco Examiner,

the East Bay Press Club, and the

Oakland Tribune, claiming that the

defendants' motion to close the court

room interfered with the nghts0 of a wes

press.

Counsel for defendants in the

Chowchilla kidnapping case had asked

Superior Court Judge Leo Deegan to

close the courtroom during the hearing,

which dealt with the search for, and

seizure of, reams of evidence acquired

during a four-county investigation of

ge crime. Defense attorney Herbert

Yanowitz had argued that the public

disclosure of evidence which he claims

was illegally obtained would prejudice

potential jurors.

Rather than asking for the courtroom

to be closed during hearings on the

admissibility of specific pieces of

evidence, the defense asked that the

entire pretrial hearing which could last

five weeks, be held secretly.

ACLU's assertion that this blanket

request violates the Constitution,

originally affirmed by the Superior

Court, has now been affirmed by the

California Court of Appeal.

On June 7 the Court of Appeal

denied the defendants request claiming

that there were not sufficient facts

provided' to convince them that

defendants would not receive a fair trial

im an open courtroom.

In February, the defendants were

granted a change of venue from Madera

County, where the alleged crime was

committed, to Contra Costa County,

having claimed that pre-trial publicity

in Chowchilla made it impossible for

defendants Frederick Woods, James

Schoenfeld and Richard Shoenfeld to

receive a fair trial in that jurisdiction.

The Schoenfeld brothers and Woods

are each accused of 45 counts, in-

cluding kidnapping and robbery of 26

Chowchilla school children and their

bus driver on July 15, 1976.

Deadly force by police rekuriera

In October, 1971, Dennis Kortum

was killed by the Pleasant Hill Police.

His brother, Brian, was seriously in-

jured. The Kortums had burglarized a

pharmacy in Pleasant Hill. They were

unarmed. As they left through the back |

door, according to their parents,

Pleasant Hill Police, alerted by a silent

burglar alarm, opened fire on them.

Since the death of their son, Fred and

Flora Kortum have sought to challenge

the Pleasant Hill Police Department's

unfettered use of deadly weapons in the

apprehension and arrest of fleeing

felony suspects.

Their six-year battle resulted in the

California Court of Appeal ruling that

the State Penal Code authorizes police

to use deadly force only when a felony

offense could be characterized as

"violent."

The State Attorney General has

appealed the decision to the California

Supreme Court.

The decision was_the- result of a

lawsuit filed by the Northern

California Police Practices Project in

June, 1975, in Contra Costa County

Superior Court. Volunteer Attorney

Nicholas Waranoff, Police Practices

Project Director Amitai Schwartz and

Anthony Amsterdam, ACLU Board

member and Stanford Law Professor,

- represented the Kortums and Pleasant

Hill taxpayers.

Police Practices attorneys had argued

that Pleasant Hill regulations, which

allow firearms in situations involving no

substantial risk of death or serious

bodily harm are unconstitutional. They

further argued that the lack of any clear

standards in the Pleasant Hill Police

Department's regulations allowed

officers too much discretion in using

their guns.

_ Ironically, the Kortums lost their

case, since the Court of Appeal found

the Pleasant Hill regulations consistent

with State statutes and held both

constitutional. The court, did however,

go on to say statutes and police

regulations allowing the use of deadly

force were imprecise, and that they

should be able to restrict the use of

deadly force to those offenses

~ characterized as violent felonies.

Future use of deadly force by any law

enforcement officer in the state, in the

Court of Appeal's language, "may be

resorted to only if the felony is forcible

and atrocious and one which threatens

death or serious bodily harm .. . to the

officer or other person."

The Court's new interpretation limits

the discretion an officer on the street

formerly had, and `establishes the

principle that only life-endangering

violence justifies resort to firearms.

- According to Schwartz, the Police

Practices Project intends to see that

the decision is communicated to street

officers throughout

California.

Northern (c)

What you can

do to stop

the death penalty

@ Contact your legislator im-

mediately urging that they vote to

- sustain the Governor's veto, Every

single communication counts.

`Send letters, make telephone

calls, and urge others to do the

same.

@ Extraordinary efforts must be

made to reach Assemblymembers

and Senators listed below who

voted for S.B. 155. Changing one

single vote on the upcoming

override measure could stop the

death penalty from being.

reanacted.

Assemblymembers

Wornum (D-Marin County)

Mello (D-Monterey/Santa Cruz)

Lockyer (San Leandro)

Egeland (Southern Santa Clara

County)

Mori (D-Hayward)

Senators

Foran (D-San Francisco)

Vuich (D-Fresno)

Gregorio (D-Menlo Park)

ACLU members

elect directors

In accordance with the amended

by-laws, members of the American

Civil Liberties Union of Northern

California, for the first time directly

elected ten directors of the Board for

three-year terms beginning in

September.

The December 1976 revision of

ACLU's_ by-laws, called for the

Board of Directors to be elected by

northern California's "members in

good standing" thus enfranchising

some 20,000 new voters. Ballots were

cast by approximately 2% of those

eligible.

A total of 390 ballots were

received, of which 62 were from joint

members (casting two votes) and ten

were ruled invalid by the elections

committee, giving a total of 442

votes.

_ Elected to fill three-year terms

were the following candidates:

- James J. Brosnahan

Mary C. Dunlap

Joseph R. Grodin

Neil F. Horton

~ Marshall W. Krause

Jonathan Lewis _

Doris Holmes Lowe

Eva Jefferson Patterson

Sanford Jay Rosen

Fay Stender

June 1977

aclu news

by David M. Fishlow

Executive Director

Political reform

v. civil liberties

_ Moves to "reform''

another of our political lives always

introduce a great many civil liberties.

problems along with the benefits their

proponents seek to provide.

Proposition Nine, the 1974 ballot

measure designed to clean up

California politics, is just such a law. In

at least two areas, real civil liberties

_ problems appear to have resulted from

its passage, one of them very directly (c)

affecting the ACLU.

A REQUIREMENT of Prop. 9 is

that professional lobbyists and those

who employ them file monthly

statements with the Fair Political

Practices Commission - also a

creature of Prop. 9 - listing each of the

bills on which they have lobbied and

any expenditures incurred by them in

the course of their lobbying. Though

the paperwork is a pain in the neck, and

though we have a strong distaste for .

filing government reports about the

exercise of our Constitutional right to

participate in politics, we file the

reports every month.

Prop. Nine also requires that the

Franchise Tax Board, the same state

agency which collects the income tax,

conduct an annual audit of

organizations which lobby, ostensibly to

verify whether the reports filed are .

correct. The detailed results of the audit

become a public record.

AND THERBE'S the rub. One of our (c)

staff attorneys who occasionally lobbies

for us received recently an ad-

ministrative subpoena, directing him to:

turn the following records over to the

auditors: "`1. Books of original entry

such as cash receipts and disbur-

sements journal; 2. Receipts for ex-

penditures; 3. Bank statements,

deposit slips, cancelled checks, and

checkbook; 4. Petty cash records such

as receipts, invoices, or vouchers;

5. Credit card statements and sup-

porting vouchers; 6. Supporting

documentation for any allocation

between lobbyist and other activities or

allocation to more than one lobbyist

account; 7. Professional diaries, ap-

pointment calendars, or other listings of

activities; 8. Correspondence with the

Fair Political Practices Commission,

Secretary of State, Attorney General, or

other State agencies; 9. Worksheets

with clients, etc.'' The list is not ex-

clusive, either.

In short, the ACLU, and every other

organization which lobbies on

legislation, is supposed to give the

political reformers unlimited access to

every single one of its records, to the |

point.of opening personal checkbooks

and appointment calendars of in-

dividual staff members. Invasion of

`privacy? You betcha!

The framers of the Constitution were

concerned about subpoenas and writs

of assistance. They had real concern

about allowing the state to intrude into

our homes, workplaces, and personal

effects without a magistrate having.

one aspect or:

decided that there was probable cause

- to believe a crime had been committed.

The Prop. Nine audit procedure seems

to be based on the presumption that

lobbying is somehow criminal `or un-

American. Civil libertarians are, and

should be concerned.

ANOTHER AREA of the law which

is producing problems is the special

burden which minority parties, such as

the Socialist Workers or the Com-

munist party, bear when it comes to

reporting the names of their con-

tributors, as parties are now required to

do. The Supreme Court has held that

where a party can demonstrate a special

need for privacy they should be

exempted from reporting requirements.

A Communist Party candidate in Santa

Clara county has received such anh

exemption from the FPPC, but it

appears the Attorney General's office

has refused to respect that exemption,

intending to proceed criminally against

the candidate for failure to file certain

- Prop. Nine reports. Others suing the

FPPC, are demanding that if an

exemption is granted to any part, it

must be applied to all parties, across

the board.

These issues, the result of a "reform"

measure's passage, are a long way from

being settled.

Ext ae ion

challenged

Governor Brown's claim that he has

the discretion to decide whether or not

to extradite American Indian

Movement leader Dennis Banks will be

supported by the ACLU of Northern

California in a amicus (friend of the

court) brief currently being prepared.

Banks was convicted in 1975 in South

Dakota of armed riot and assault with a

dangerous weapon. While on bail

awaiting sentencing, Banks fled from

South Dakota, forfeiting his right to

appeal. In February, 1976, Banks was

apprehended in San Francisco and

arraigned on a fugitive complaint.

Two days later Governor Brown

received a formal requisition from

South Dakota, demanding the arrest

and return of Dennis Banks for sen-

tencing by the South Dakota Court.

Brown has deferred action on the

South Dakota request for more than a

year, alleging first that the request was

technically deficient, and secondly,

asserting that an investigation must be

conducted to determine whether certain

constitutional considerations might.

require him to deny the request.

The Governor said he was concerned

that Banks might not receive a fair trial

in Custer County, South Dakota; that

Banks' life would be threatened upon

his return; and that Banks would suffer

brutal conditions of confinement by .

department

`found more

hearing is granted,

Governor's claim that he has a con- -

Plan for S.F. police

complaint office killed

Efforts to establish an Office of

.Citizen Complaints, staffed by civilian.

investigators and hearing officers, were

recently thwarted by the San Francisco

-Board of Supervisors who slashed the

proposed pilot plan from the San

Francisco Police Department's 1978

operating budget.

The proposal would have established

an impartial office within the police

responsible for in-

vestigating and hearing citizens'

charges of `police misconduct. Such

matters are currently investigated by

the police department's own Internal

Affairs Bureau.

This practice was strongly criticized

at a series of six public hearings on

police complaint procedures attended

by more than 600 local citizens who

appeared before the San Francisco

Police Commission.

The only organized opposition to the

Office of Citizens Complaints plan

came from the San Francisco Police

Officers Association, who argued at the

hearings, among other issues, that these

practices could adversely effect police

morale. However the police commission

convincing testimony

supporting the pilot project.

The Bar Association of San Francisco |

sponsored the proposal which was

drafted and supported by the Northern

California Police Practices Project

_ Legal Director, Amitai Schwartz.

Numerous' organizations and_in-

dividuals within San Francisco's legal

community, including the ACLU, had

.urged that the program be adopted.

More than thirteen years ago the

ACLU established a policy supporting

the establishment of independent

civilian police review boards. It was the

position of the ACLU, and other

supporters, that such impartial bodies

serve to preserve community confidence

in the police, and greatly enhance the

opportunity for the complaining citizen

and the accused police officer to be

treated fairly.

Before the proposal's final demise at

the hands of the Board of Supervisors it

had gained unanimous approval from

San Francisco's Police Commission.

Necessary approval also was received

incarceration in South Dakota's

allegedly racist penal system.

The ACLU and many other

organizations had requested that

Governor Brown consider these

charges, and that a full investigation of

those allegations take place.

To date the Governor claims that the

investigation of these matters is still

incomplete, and he has declined to

comply `"`mechanically'' with the latest

demand from South Dakota that Banks

be extradited.

ACLU volunteer attorney and Ad-

visory Counsel Ephraim Margolin will

file the ACLU's amicus brief in the

Supreme Court of California, if a

supporting the

stitutional right to use executive

discretion in processing requests:

`Introduced by Senators

from the Mayor, the supervisors'

Budget Analyst, and from the Board of

Supervisors' Finance Committee.

Recommendations from the Finance

Committee are rarely disregarded by

the full board. However on May 9,

breaking with tradition after a lively 2-

1/2 hour debate, the Board voted 8-3

for a motion by Supervisor Dianne

Feinstein deleting from the budget a

section which would have funded a one

year pilot operation of the Office of

Citizen Complaints.

Amitai Schwartz said the ` proposal

is still alive, and could be put forward

again by the Police Commission,' even

though the Board's decision has killed

plans to establish the pilot program this

year.

The Board of Supervisors, according

to Schwartz, "missed an opportunity to

establish this office which would have

an impact on the inherent unfairness of

the current system which allows police

officers to be the sole fact-finding

source in the investigation of police

misconduct by an individual."

Schwartz's model proposal, drafted

nearly two years ago, not only called for

civilian investigators and hearing of-

ficers, but guaranteed due process to

police officers and citizens who want to

testify before the hearing unit.

As presented by the Police Com-

mission the office would have been

responsible to the Chief of Police and

empowered to investigate allegations of

police misconduct or improper acts,

and would consider. challenges to

department policies or practices.

Son of S.1

U.S. Senate Bill One watchers pay

careful attention. Although S.1 may

have been killed, due to the organized

opposition of thousands of civil

libertarians throughout the country, it

survives, at least in the 95th Congress,

in the form of a son.-

The Son of S.1 is a new bill, 8.1437. ~

rs Edward

Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John Mc-

Clellan (D-Ark), the measure is a

second attempt at codifying Federal

criminal law. Fortunately many of the

most simister aspects of its predecessor,

S.1, have been omitted.

However, forces who opposed S.1

have been handed only a qualified

victory in the compromise bill which

has been rendered. Therefore, mindful -

of the many objectionable provisions,

the ACLU's Washington office will seek

to ammend or delete those sections of

the bill which offend civil liberties,

while carefully guarding those sections

which are consistent with constitutional

rights.

Write to your Congressmember and

request a copy of S.1437. By so doing

citizens can keep their representatives

aware of this bill's critical importance

to their constituents.

A detailed report on S.1437 - will

appear in the next issue of ACLU News.

LEGISLATIVE

June 1977

aclu news

Brown Crime Package-Part 2

The dismantling of S.B. 42

By Brent A. Barnhart

Legislative Representative

The successful passage of SB 42 -

after it had been log-jammed for nearly ,

a year in the Assembly Criminal Justice

Committee - was the direct result of

extensive brokering by the Brown

Administration. The Governor then'

believed that the new determinate

sentencing system would be a feather in

his criminal justice cap: a "Fair, but

Tough'' system that moved away from

outmoded. notions about "treatment''

and "`rehabilitation'', toward a simple,

proportional and _ uniformly-applied

punishment mechanism _ requiring

specific time-served for specific crimes.

Accordingly, the Governor com-

missioned his Legal Affairs Assistant, J.

Anthony Kline to broker SB 42 through

- bringing together law enforcement

groups such as the District Attorneys

Association, The California Peace

Officers Association and the Attorney

General's office on the one hand, and

defense and prisoner groups such as the

ACLU, the Prisoners Union and the

Friends Committee on Legislation, on

the other.

However, before the ink was dry on

_the measure signed in September, 1976,

Brown was astounded to find that his

carefully crafted package was becoming

a law and order liability instead of an

asset. What the Governor did not

appreciate then - and still does not

- appreciate - is that every criminal

justice package bearing his im-

primature will inevitably be attacked by

Republicans as "too soft'' on crime.

Since Brown has successfully co-opted

Republicans' traditional fiscal con-

servatism issue, there's no other issue

available which is of such immediate

concern to California citizens, and so

susceptible to dramatic exploitation.

No. matter what the package, the

technical issues are sufficiently removed

from the average citizen's experience,

that few people know with any certainty

what is the actual effect of any sub-

stantive or procedural change. Con-

versely, the personal threat of violent

crime is an issue with which every

citizen is painfully familiar - and the

apparent intractability of the pervasive

-social problem makes it ideal for

political exploitation. Therefore, no

matter how "tough" a given crime

statute may be, it's always subject to the

claim that it's "soft'', or not "tough"

enough.

Both SB 42 and the Dixon Juvenile

Bill, AB 3121 (also passed in 1976) have

been attacked as ``too soft'' though in

reality persons subject to its provisions

are far more likely to experience stricter

penal sanctions than under previous

provisions.

politics deals with the appearance of

reality. What we are witnessing in the

1977-78 session is the world's greatest

limbo game: Attorney General Younger

and other Republican hopefuls con-

tinuously lower the stick to see how far

backwards the Governor can bend, and

how low he can go to move under the

stick. They've found he can move very:

low indeed. Sea level was reached with ~

AB 476, and excavation below sea level

is well underway.

The Governor has given Tony Kline a

new portfolio: refurbish SB 42 to

"make the cops happy', and to silence

any other areas of discontent - par-

But that is reality, and'

ticularly those agencies who presently

function under the indeterminate

system, and who must change their act

under the determinate system:

corrections officials, parole authorities,

judges, prosecutors, and probation

officers.

In the fall of 1976, a committee of the

affected agencies was created, known as

the Obledo Committee. Though

nominally chaired by Secretary of

Health and Welfare, Mario Obledo,

calling the shots for the committee -

and ultimately for the administration

- has been a very skillful and ex-

perienced Deputy Attorney General,

Brian Taugher. Taugher has for many

years represented the Adult Authority,

understands the California sentencing

mechanism very well, and knows better

than any other person how to go about:

dismantling those features of SB 42

which offend law enforcement and the

affected bureaucracies.

AB 476 was originally characterized

by the Administration as a minor

cleanup bill, to provide the new

Community Release Board time to set

the terms of current inmates according

to SB 42 determinate provisions, and to

-perform some minor adjustments -

"five or six minor changes'? - to the

sentencing, good time and parole

mechanisms. In a thorough analysis of

AB 476 put together by Deputy State

Public Defender Julia Newcombe, and

Prof. James Smith of the Prisoners

Union, AB 476 opponents were able to

show that the Administration's "five or

six changes" amounted to more than 90

substantive changes bearing the same

common feature: eath materially

weakening protections for the defen-

- dent and the prisoner.

The name of the game is power and,

discretion, and AB 476 assures that the

affected bureaucracies regain all of the

sentencing discretion and all of the

psychological leverage. that the

determinate sentencing structure was

created to eliminate. In supporting SB

42, defense and prisoner groups ac-

cepted the fancy that actual time served

under the system would probably be

longer, believing that `uniformity,

`determinancy and proportionality, plus

key due process features were well

worth the harsher sentences. The

nightmarish reality, however, is that

under AB 476 prisoners will suffer not

only harsher sentences, but will lose

nearly all of the uniformity, deter-

minancy, proportionality and due

process features as a result of the

administration's reinvestiture of un-

checked discretion in the agencies

`which administer the sentencing and

prison systems.

At this writing, AB 476 has cleared

the Assembly and is under fire in the

Senate Judiciary Committee, where the

Attorney General is doing his best to

influence Brown to make bad, terrible,

and terrible, horrendous. It will be

curious to see how low the limbo wand

will go.

In next month's article, we'll discuss

other aspects of the Brown Crime

Package which bear the common

feature: sell any and all protections

which may prove a political liability in

the politics of law and order: therein of

the mentally disordered violent of-

fender, appeal bonds, probation

subsidy, omnibus pretrial motions,

attorney voir dire and organized crime.

Pregnancy discrimination

ban before Congress

Bills to prohibit employment

discrimination on the basis of

pregnancy are currently before the

Congress.

H.R. 6075, and S. 995, drafted

originally by the Campaign to End Dis-

crimination against Pregnant Workers,

of which the ACLU is a participant,

would enact federal legislation

counteracting the recent U.S. Supreme

Court Decision in General Electric vy.

Gilbert.

In the Gilbert opinion the U-S.

Supreme Court handed down a

stunning rejection of the position that

discrimination against pregnant

workers constitutes sex discrimination.

The Court, instead, finding in a

majority opinion that since men do not

receive similar disability benefits, it is

not discrimination by sex to deny such

benefits to pregnant working women.

The decision left thousands of women

workers unprotected from possible

abuse by their employers, who may

- interpret the decision as a license to fire

pregnant women, to refuse to hire them,

to strip them of:seniority rights, to force

them on long unpaid leaves of absence,

or `deny them medical and sick leave

Jo Turner

remainder to doso.

`Discrimination On

California, the

Action needed to End Sex Discrimination

L] ACLU members are urged to contact their

Congressional representatives supporting those

who already sponsor H.R. 6075 and urging the

LJ Senators Cranston and Hayakawa must be con-

tacted and urged to support the Senate bill, S. 99S.

1 The bills are expected to reach the floor of both

benefits given other workers when (c)

disabled.

To obtain protection against such

lawful practices, Senator Harrison

William (D-N.J.), Augustus Hawkins

(D.-Calif.) and many other co-sponsors,

have introduced ``A Bill To End Sex

The Basis. of

Pregnancy." It amends Section 701 of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

to prohibit sex discrimination on the

basis of pregnancy.

Such discrimination is currently

prohibited by statute in many states. In

Unemployment In-

surance Law was amended effective

September 22, 1976 to provide benefits |

for normal pregnancy for three weeks

before expected delivery and three

weeks after actual delivery, as well as

benefits already paid for women suf-

fering complications of pregnancy.

A national effort is underway to win

passage of H.R. 6075 and S. 995. Moss,

Leggett, Phillip Burton, John Burton,

Miller, Dellums, Stark, Edwards,

Panetta and Krebs are California co-

sponsors of the House bill. Neither

Senator Hayakawa nor Senator

Cranston has yet to sponsor the Senate

version of the Bill.

houses within the next six weeks. Take action now. .

aclu news

8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, March-April,

July-August and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Richard De Lancie, Chairperson David M. Fishlow, ae Director

Dorothy Ehrlich, Editor

Publication Number 018040

814 Mission St. - Ste. 301, San Francisco, California 94103 - 777-4545

Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news

and 50 cents is for the national ACLU bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

| June 1977

`aclu news|

CHAPTERS

Gay rights

chapter proposed

Some ACLU members and

prospective members feel that civil

rights for gay persons is a prime

issue. In furtherance of their goal,

they plan to request the chartering of

a Gay Rights chapter within the

1 ACLU of Northern California

modeled on the highly successful

ACLU Gay Rights chapter in

Southern California.

ACLU chapter will be open to

anyone, irrespective of sexual or

affectional preference, who supports

.ACLU positions and activities and

who is dedicated to civil rights for

gay persons.

_ Persons interested in the for-

mation of the Gay Rights chapter

within the ACLU-NC are invited to

attend an organizational meeting on

Wednesday, June 22nd at 8 p.m. in

the ACLU offices at 814 Mission

Street, San Francisco.

If you are interested in participating

in ACLU action to support the rights

of gay people please clip and return

the coupon below to:

ACLU of Northern California

Attention: GRC

814 Mission Street, Suite 301

San Francisco, California 94103

Name

(s)

Address

City Zip_

Membership in the proposed

e@

Marin

New members of the Marin County

Chapter Board of Directors were

elected at the Annual Meeting May

18th.

Elected to serve were:

3 year term: Lawrence Baskin,

Russell Chiosso, Leon Ginsberg, Shaun .

Holman, Carlos Ynostroza, Grace

Hughes, Fran Miller, Marian Saunders,

Lawrence Grauman.

2 year term: Al Regan, Gretchen

Gray.

1 year term: Jean Bass, Richard.

Rubin.

Berkeley-Albany-

Kensington

The Chapter is sponsoring a pot luck

dinner featuring ACLU-NC Executive

Director, David Fishlow who will speak

about current civil liberties issues and -

will answer questions.

We expect a lot of discussion about

the Camp Pendleton case and the

ACLU's involvement in _ legal

proceedings regarding members of the

Unification Church.

All members are welcome to attend

and should bring food as follows: A-K, "

wine and/or dessert; L-R, main dishes;

and S-Z, salads.

The

Wednesday, June 29, 1977 at 7:30 p.m.

at the home of Jane Reggian, 2740

Hillegass in Berkeley.

`1965,

dinner will take place on,

Oakland

All members of the Oakland Chapter

please note that the Chapter potluck

dinner was held on June 4, and will

not be held on July 4 as previously

reported.

San Francisco

The second prize winner in the

Chapter's Third Annual Essay Contest

was Joleen Marie Pryal, a student at St.

Paul's High School. The topic: DOES

YOUR VOTE REALLY COUNT? The

essay is published as promised.

The right of suffrage is fundamental

to the United States of America. The

thirteen colonies broke with England

because they were denied participation

and equal representation in the British

Parliament. Men such as Thomas

Jefferson, Samuel Adams and Ben-

jamin Franklin established a form of

rule in which the people could. govern

themselves without resorting to an

anarchical society; democracy was their

_ invention.

In the United States. there exists a

democratic, representative, republican

form of government. It is democratic

because the people govern themselves;

representative because they do so

through elected representatives chosen

by ballot; and republican because the

government derives its power from the

officials who lead our country are ~

elected. In each state, the citizens vote

for the governor, members of the state

legislature and other officials who will

organize the affairs of the state. A

citizen also votes for the President of

the United States and for the

representatives and senators who will

represent their state in the United

States Congress.

In order to vote in a city election, a

person must live in the city. A person

voting in a state must live in the state.

He must be an American citizen and be

able to read and write.

The right of suffrage has not always

been granted to everyone. The Negroes

were denied this right because they were

considered property instead of human

beings. The fifteenth Amendment,

introduced February 26, 1867,

eliminated discrimination on the basis

of race, color or previous condition of

servitude. However, for many years to

follow, the white Southerners in charge

of registration and voting circumvented

the Fifteenth Amendment. They had a

series of discriminatory schemes and

soon there arose a problem of en-

forcement. Federal courts forced legal:

sanctions against discriminatory state

practices.

This proved to be inadequate to

combat widespread and _ persistent

discrimination because of the inor-

dinate amount of time and energy

required to overcome the obstructions

encountered in court lawsuits. So in

the Voting Rights Act was

adopted by Congress. In areas where

there is persistent discrimination, the

Attorney General may send federal

registrars to enroll voters if state and

local officials fail to do so. He may also

send federal authorities to supervise

elections and counting of ballots. As a

result, Negroes have since been per-

their inalienable rights;

Death penalt VY conmaed mani one ;

it will be a "`worse'' death penalty bill,

which conceivably could mean more

kinds of offenses would be subject to

the ultimate penalty, and fewer kinds of

procedural due process protections

- would be afforded the convicted of-

fender.

More importantly, proponents

contend that their threatened initative

drive would ``embarrass'' the Governor

and other Democratic legislators

bringing this popular "law and order"

_ issue to the forefront of public attention

for many months.

Democratic legislators, mindful of

opinion polls which indicate that the

majority of Californians support the

reinstitution of capital punishment,

have not allowed these threats to go

- unnoticed.

Some key death penalty opponents

mitted to register and vote in greater

numbers.

Up until June 4, 1919, the right of

suffrage had only been extended to the

male populace, twenty-one years and

older. The Nineteenth Amendment

changed that in part by allowing the

women to vote. This Amendment was

the culmination of a struggle that began

in the 1840's. In 1890, women were

admitted full suffrage rights in

Wyoming. By the time the Amendment

was adopted, fifteen states and Alaska

had given them full suffrage, fourteen

states had given them "presidential

suffrage,' and two states had given

them the right to take part in primary

elections. Much of the opposition came

from the liquor industry who feared

that women would vote for regulation.

Actually, their. votes have not

significantly changed our

Then, on June 30, 1971, the Twenty-

sixth Amendment to the Constitution

was ratified lowering the voting age

from twenty-one to eighteen years of

age.

Our votes elect our leaders, but it

does not insure the actions of those they

elect. To prevent the usurpation of our

guaranteed American individual rights,

liberties and to insure that future

violations of our rights do not occur,

legislation is_ available in the form of |

new laws or even constitutional

amendments. It is our vote which

determines its legality.

The Declaration of Independence

and the Articles of Confederation are

the basis of the Constitution of the

United States of America. The Con-

stitution is judicially enforceable and it

establishes legal rights and duties. It

sets forth the principles and reflects the

standards of what might be called the

American Creed. This creed, with its

stress on the rights of men, equality -

under the law, limited government and

government by the consent of the

governed, is a constant challenge to

those who would subvert our

democratic process by denying persons

mainly the

right of suffrage.

"Does. Your Vote Really Count?" In

the election and the installation of our

Officials; in the institution of new laws

and policies - our vote is in-

dispensible; However, in the regulation

of our officials, it is: still less than

adequate.

politics. |

voted in favor of S.B. 155 when it

reached the Assembly floor clinging to

the belief that their constituents

overwhelmingly favored this measure.

Freshman Assemblymember Henry

Mello (D-Monterey) provided the

necessary "`aye'' vote which allowed

passage, stating, ``I've been

philosophically opposed to capital

punishment. My consideration is that if

we go through the initiative process,

we ll probably end up with an initiative

far broader and far worse than what we

have today."

That remains to be seen. There is no

evidence which would indicate that a

harsher death penalty bill would be

drafted for the purposes of an initiative

`campaign, let alone whether a tougher

bill than S.B. 155 could meet con-

stitutional standards.

However there is no question that the

legislators assume that their con-

stituents are carefully watching how

they vote, and they are sensitive to their

mail urging them to support S.B. 155.

This assumption has resulted in

many votes for capital punishment.

William Lockyer (D-San Leandro), a

sponsor of the Coalition To End the

Death Penalty in 1972, (an organization

initiated by the ACLU), writes in 1977

that, "the death penalty has never

proved to be a deterrent to crime."

Lockyer voted for S.B. 155 claiming

that it is "`popular" in his district.

- Lockyer was not an elected official in

1972.

As Governor Brown stated when he

vetoed S.B. 155 as a "matter of con-

science, statistics can be marshaled

and arguments propounded, but at

some point each of us must decide for

. himself what sort of future he would

want.

"For me this would be a society

where we do not attempt to use death as

punishment."

In the meantime the Governor and

Democratic party leaders do not appear

to be mounting a concerted drive to

"twist the arms' of appropriate

legislators to sustain this action.

Brown's ethical considerations are

being carefully weighed by politicians,

against the demands of those who elect

them - and greater weight a to

be given to the latter.

To that end the ACLU is waging a

campaign throughout California,

asking ACLU members to contact their

legislators and urge a vote to sustain the

veto. Whether this particular fight is

won or lost, the battle will not be over.

At the very least however, stopping S.B.

155 will forestall any executions for the

next two years, which is the minimum

time necessary for proponents to mount

an initiative campaign.

The ACLU, working in concert with

the Coalition Against the Death

Penalty, will continue this struggle, and

will attempt to insure that the voices of

the "silent minority" be heard -

echoing a plea to end legalized murder.

Plans are underway to begin a public

education campaign to alter the

existing pro-death penalty climate.