vol. 49, no. 1

aclu news

Volume XLIX

January-February 1984

No. 1

ACLU Fights Visa Denials for Latin Critics

The ACLU filed three lawsuits chal-

lenging the Reagan Administration's

systematic denial of visas to leading

Latin American critics of American

foreign policy including Nicaragua's

Minister of the Interior Tomas Borge

and Hortensia Allende, widow of slain

Chilean President Savador Allende, and

two Cuban women leaders.

These suits are part of a concerted

campaign led by the ACLU and

members of Congress challenging the

Administration's calculated pattern of

denying visas to critics of the U.S.

foreign policy, thereby effectively

abridging the First Amendment rights of

Americans to meet with and hear the

views of these critics.

Northern California plaintiffs

challenging the visa denials are the Nor-

thern California Ecumenical Council

(NCEC), Representative Don Edwards,

and The New College of California. Ad-

ditional plaintiffs include other members

of Congress, the City of New York,

various members of the Harvard faculty,

and groups who had issued speaking in- .

vitations to Borge, Allende and other

Latin Americans who were denied entry.

_ The pattern of partisan visa denials

started when the Northern California

Ecumenical Council, joined by the Com-

mission on Social Justice of the Catholic

Archdiocese of San Francisco and Stan- (c)

ford University, invited Mrs. Allende to

speak in San Francisco as part of Inter-

national Women's Day last March, ac-

cording to ACLU Northern California

Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich.

Speaking at a press conference at the

ACLU-NC offices on December 15,

Ehrlich said, ``Mrs. Allende's exclusion

from the United States, it turned out,

was not an isolated event. Rather, the

Reagan Administration was employing

ae evin Bambu

omas Borge cannot speak

Nicaragua's

in the U.S.

the visa power to shape and limit

political debate within the United States.

The purpose of this policy has been to

deny Americans the chance to hear and

meet with significant and respected

critics of U.S. policy and advocates of

policies and social systems which differ

from ours.

"This practice of ideological exclu-

sions is inconsistent with the basic

premises of a free society. The Adminis-

tration's actions flagrantly violate consti-

tutional guarantees of free speech and

assembly embodied in the First Amend-

ment,'' said Ehrlich.

~ New Limits on Police

at Demos

On December 1, the ACLU-NC

finalized a settlement with the Sacra-

mento Police Department which vindi-

cates the constitutional rights of anti-

racist marchers who were subjected to

chilling and abusive tactics by police dur-

ing a lawful protest march in Sacramento

on November 22, 1980.

The settlement, filed in Sacramento

_Superior Court, was negotiated by

ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan Schlosser

with the city of Sacramento and in-

cludes a new Police Department parade .

permit policy.

The settlement terminated the ACLU

lawsuit brought in July 1981 on behalf of

the International Committee Against

Racism (INCAR) and participants in the -

1980 INCAR ``March Against Racism.'

Each and every marcher was required

down frisk

_ photographic

to go through a metal detector search

_which was videotaped by the police. The

police also subjected marchers to pat-

searches, intensive

surveillance, and

prevented spectators from joining the

march.

According to Schlosser, these actions

by the Sacramento police violated the

marchers' constitutional rights of

freedom of speech and _ association,

privacy, and freedom from unjustified

detentions and searches.

"The police treatment of the INCAR

marchers was a classic case of overreac-

tion,'' Schlosser explained. ``Marchers

who simply wanted to get their message

across were treated like criminal suspects

with videotaping, body frisks and other

intimidating tactics. continued on p. 2

ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby who is handling the cases along

with attorneys from the national ACLU

said, `"The use of the visa process to seal

our borders is an impermissible and un-

constitutional abridgement of free

speech. -

``We are seeking an injunction to bar

the government from using the McCar-

ran Walter Immigration Act to violate

the. -fuarantees of the First

Amendment,'' Crosby said.

According to NCEC spokesperson

Dianne Rennack, when Allende's visa

was denied the State Department told her

that Mrs. Allende ``is a highly placed and

active official of the World Peace Coun-

cil, and the Peace Council is affiliated

with the Soviet Union, both ideologically -

and financially."'

``What the State Department was real-

ly saying,'' Rennack explained, ``is what

Mrs. Allende had to tell us was too

dangerous for -Americans to hear.

Neither I, nor any person in this country

needs that protection. We have a right to

speak about, to learn about and to

criticize U.S. foreign policy, no matter

how uncomfortable or embarrassing that

is for people who make that policy,'' she

added.

When asked whether Mrs. Allende

had entered the country before, Rennack

explained that the former Chilean First

Lady had been to the U.S. under every

administration since 1973, except for this

one. ``It is interesting to note that the on-

ly two countries that Mrs. Allende is not

allowed to enter are this one and her

own,'' Rennack said.

In April, the NCEC issued another in-

vitation to Mrs. Allende and in October,

the Boston Area Council on Latin

America invited Mrs. Allende to come to

Boston to discuss the current situation in

Chile and the involvement of the United

States in Latin America. The suit to

challenge the denial of the entrance visa

for her was filed in U.S. District Court in

Boston.

The second suit, filed in Washington,

D.C., alleges that Sandinista leader

Tomas Borge was denied his visa in

continued on p. 6

1984

Board Elections

As provided by the ACLU-NC by-

laws, revised in 1980, the ACLU-NC

membership is entitled to elect its

1984-85 Board directly. The

Nominating Committee is already

seeking suggestions from the member-

ship to fill at-large positions on the

Board.

ACLU members may participate in

the nominating process in two ways:

1. They may send suggestions for

the Nominating Committee's con-

sideration before March 30, 1984

(Address suggestions to Nominating

continued on p. 7

Inaugurate the ACLU's

50th Year

in Northern California

and meet with

I. F. STONE

-Washington's Muckraker Laureate

Friday, January 27

6 - 8 p.m.

Stephen Wirtz Gallery

345 Sutter St. (near Grant)

San Francisco

Tickets: $12.50 advance

$15 at door

ACLU Foundation, 1663 Mission St., S.F. 94103

Phone Orders 415-621-2493

aclu news

2

jan-feb 1984 3 : 3

New Limits on Cops

tA A OSG

ACLU Asks Court

to Hold Health Chief -

in Contempt for Fund Cuts.

In response to an announcement on

January 6 by Department of Health Ser-

vices Director Peter Rank that he would

_no longer certify claims for abortion ser- -

vices because the special fund created by

the Legislature for Medi-Cal abortions

had been exhausted, the ACLU filed an

emergency application to the court ask-

ing for maintenance of funding and a

contempt order against Rank.

Last July, in response to an ACLU

lawsuite (CDRR vy. Rank) the state Court

of Appeal issued an order that explicitly

prohibited the Department of Health Ser-

vices and other state officials from im-

plementing the Legislature's 1983-84

Budget Act restrictions on abortion fun-

ding. The court stated that neither

restrictions on general Medi-Cal funds

nor the special fund set up for abortion

services be implemented.

On filing the emergency application

on January 9, ACLU-NC attorney Mar-

garet Crosby said, ``Director Rank is in

clear contempt of court for violating the

court's stay order and taking steps to

prevent other state officials from com-

plying with the order.

**Rank's_ responsibility to certify

_ claims for payment is not exhausted be-

cause the special fund is exhausted,"

Crosby explained. Every day that abor-

tion payments are withheld, the destinies

of indigent women and teenage girls are

in jeopardy. Small providers, such as

clinics, simply cannot continue to per-

form surgery with no reimbursement.

`"Every week that passes increases the

expense, complexity and risk of the abor-

tion procedure,"' Crosby said.

In a letter dated January 6, Rank ad-

vised state Controller Kenneth Cory that

he would not honor future claims for

Medi-Cal abortions during the 1983

fiscal year and urged the Controller not

to pay any further state money from the

general Medi-Cal appropriation for

Medi-Cal abortion services. The Con-

troller cannot issue warrants for reim-

bursement for services unless they are

certified by the Department of Health

Services.

``Moreover,'' Crosby explained,

`*Rank's issuance of a press release on

the same day generated media accounts

of the situation, which will cause' in-

digent women to believe that Medi-Cal

abortions are no longer available. This

may cause many women to forego exer-

cising their right to terminate pregnan-

cies - and they may suffer injuries for

which there is no compensation.

`*Rank's actions

politically motivated and reflect the

Deukmejian administration's antipathy

for abortion. But the poor women of

California should not be the victims of

this political game."'

Crosby's application asks the court to

issue a supplemental stay order directing

the state Controller and Treasurer to

issue and pay warrants for reimburse-

ment of provider claims for Medi-Cal

abortion services without certification

from the Department of Health Services,

until Rank again certifies claims.

In addition, she asks the court to

"secure compliance from respondent

Rank through contempt sanctions''

continued on p. 6

Letters

I am reminded by Michael Miller (We

Get Letters, ACLU News October) of an

incident that occured over a year ago

while I was helping gather signatures to

petition the I.N.S. to grant political

asylum to El Salvadoran refugees.

I was interrupted in my explanation of

the purpose of the petition by a

gentleman who launched into a diatribe

against refugees. I, like Miller, was ``lost

for a response,'' but his companion was

not. :

""But, George,'' she responded, her

eyes widening with disbelief - `you're a

refugee!'' Aren't we all?

Norman Henry

Oakland

What is wrong with ``chairwoman"' or

"`Congresswoman''? ``Person'' seems

affected and clumsy.

Let's face it, there have always been

distinctions between men and women -

aviator - aviatrix; the addition of ``ess''

to denote the female, etc. The generic use

of ``he'' simplifies exposition in writing

and speaking and does not denigrate -

women.

Sometimes by nit-picking we do more

harm than good!

Jean Nourse

Tiburon

The ACLU-NC is to be commended

for the defense of the rights of students

to read Ms. magazine without obtaining

a parent's written permission at Mt.

Diablo Unified School District.

I also applaud the ACLU-NC's at-

tempt to seek both damages and court

orders halting the use of unwarranted

strip searches by local law enforcement

officials.

It is my hope that the strip search

"measure AB 270, vetoed by the Gover-

nor, will be overridden by the

Legislature.

Gregory L. Christiansen

Sacramento

(c) ee @

I was appalled to read the story in the

August/September issue about the juror

jailed for contempt because she refused

to answer questions of a type not asked

of male jurors.

I almost skipped reading the section

on p. 8 - in which case I would have

missed the second appalling part of the

article - your identification of Superior

Court Judge Raymond Simmons as to

which governor appointed him when

such identification was not made for

Superior Court Judge Leach or Ap-

pellate Court justices Kline, Miller and

Rouse.

Robert Kahn

Lafayette

are obviously

pound3 AP Ne ee See eto YS oy

continued from p. 1

At the 1980 INCAR march in Sacramento police photographed and searched

protesters and refused to let bystanders join the march.

`Such police procedures brand the

marchers as `dangerous' and clearly in-

terfere with their goal of communicating

with the public, a goal protected by the

First Amendment,"' he added.

The new policy on parade permits ad-

dresses these basic issues:

Searches and Security Measures - No

participant or spectator of a march may

be subjected to a metal detector search or

pat down frisk unless there is reasonable

suspicion to believe that unlawful activi-

ty is occurring and that the individual to

be searched is armed and dangerous.

Similarly, no spectator may be prevented

from joining the march unless there is

reasonable suspicion that the individual

is involved in unlawful activity. This re-

quirement of individualized suspicion

(which is mandated by the Constitution)

will prevent the police in the future from

imposing a blanket policy of searching .

every person simply because she/he

chooses to join or observe a controver-

sial march.

Use of Cameras and other Audio-

visual Equipment - A decision to

photograph marchers must be made by

the Commander and marchers must be

informed in writing in advance of the

reasons why the march is to be photo-

graphed. The use of audio-visual equip-

ment must be organized to minimize in-

terfering with the event and discouraging

persons from lawfully participating.

The police shall not single out for

photographing those individuals speak-

ing at rallies, handing out literature or

engaging in other peaceful, constitu-

tionally protected activities.

All photographs will be sealed and

eventually destroyed. No films will be

disclosed or disseminated to other

governmental agencies for intelligence

purposes.

Number of Police Officers - The

number of officers assigned to a march

`shall be no greater in nature and extent

than reasonably necessary."'

`This settlement is very significant,''

said Schlosser, ``because it is a policy

which protects everyone who wishes to

join or Oserve a march in this city.

- "Tn Sacramento and throughout Cali-

fornia, police have taken extraordinary

and unnecessary measures against con-

troversial protests or dissident activities.

This new policy will ensure that all

groups are afforded their constitutional

rights of assembly and speech,''

Schlosser added.

According to the settlement, the new

policy will not be changed for five years

_without prior notification to the ACLU.

The settlement also provides for the

destruction of all photographs, films,

videotapes and audiotapes gathered dur-

ing the INCAR march and rally. That

destruction took place in the presence of |

ACLU attorney Schlosser after the set-

tlement was finalized.

The Police Department also agreed to

destroy all documents relating to their

earlier investigation of the INCAR

march including news articles about IN-

CAR and all documents and records

gathered as part of the background

check on INCAR ordered by the Assis-

tant Chief of Police prior to the 1980

march.

Schlosser noted that the new

Sacramento policy should be used as a

model for other police departments

around the state. |

ACLU-NC cooperating attorney

Mark Merin of the Sacramento law firm

of Kanter, Williams, Merin and Dickstein

worked with Schlosser on the case ([N-

CAR vy. Sacramento).

aclu news:

8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July,

August-September and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Davis Riemer, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director (2).

Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page i)

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)

1663 Mission St., 4th floor, San Francisco, California 94103. (415) 621-2488

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

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

Elaine Elinson, Editor

aclu news

jan-feb 1984

Three Fighters Honored at Rights Day

hen Fred Korematsu stood

W at the podium of the Sher-

aton Palace Hotel at the

eleventh annual Bill of Rights Day

Celebration on December 5 and said, ``I

will never forget the ACLU of Northern

California because it was the only

organization that stood by me 40 years

ago,' over 600 ACLU members and

supporters listened with pride.

Korematsu, who only a month before

had been vindicated by a federal court

ruling that his 1942 conviction for dis-

obeying the curfew and internment

orders for Japanese Americans was to be

set aside, received the 1983 Earl Warren

Civil Liberties Award for his courage in

fighting the wartime orders.

Korematsu shared the honor with

Gordon Hirabayashi, professor of

sociology at the University of Alberta in

Canada, and Minoru Yasui, attorney

and retired Director of the Denver Com-

mission on Community Relations - two

men with whom he also shared a half

century battle fighting to overturn the

wartime convictions.

ce Lair Smyser

ACLU-NC Chair Davis Riemer (1.) con-

gratulates Fred Korematsu.

The evening, which culminated the

ACLU-NC's successful annual fundrais-

ing campaigns, was opened by Executive

Director Dorothy Ehrlich. Ehrlich

presented the Lola Hanzel Advocacy

Award to Eileen Keech. Due to ill health,

Keech could not be there to accept the

award in person, but that did not stop

the crowd from showing their apprecia-

tion of the work she has done for almost

two decades to build the Berkeley

chapter of the ACLU and to inspire and

organize hundreds of other volunteers

(see sidebar).

In introducing the Earl Warren Civil

Liberties Award recipients, Ehrlich

noted the irony of presenting that award

to three courageous men who had been

victims of a policy that Earl Warren im-

plemented as California's Attorney

General and Governor. ``The award, she

noted, ``was named not after the lesser

Attorney General and Governor but for

the great Supreme Court justice who, in

his memoirs deeply regretted the removal

order."'

"But, that, apology came much too

late to change the course of history -

and the internment of Japanese

Americans marks the greatest injustice,

the most sweeping act of racism of our

time,'' Ehrlich said.

Pointing out that in 1983 significant

moves had been made towards redress-

ing that massive wrong, Ehrlich warned

that the same government which accepts

that the internment was unjustified is

denying visas to leading foreign critics,

has issued secrecy orders for 3.7 million

federal government employees, is

destroying the Freedom of Information

Act, and excluded the press from

Grenada during the U.S. invasion.

ACLU-NC chairperson Davis Riemer

presented the awards to Korematsu,

Hirabayashi and Yasui explaining that

this affiliate `"working with Fred, fought

against the internment orders all the way

_ up to the Supreme Court. We are proud

to bear the legacy of this commitment to

justice by our affiliate,'' Riemer said. In

honoring the three men, he also thanked

them for sharing ``private moments as

public times."'

On accepting the award, Korematsu

told the story of how former ACLU-NC

Executive Director Ernest Besig came to

see him in jail and ``warned me that there

would be many difficulties in fighting

this case.

" I said I would stand by him all the

way - despite the difficulties. And

because the ACLU-NC stood by me,

_ words cannot express the appreciation I

have for you,'' Korematsu told the

crowd.

Gordon Hirabayshi explained that

when he saw the Exclusion Order posted

on telephone poles in Seattle, he was

confronted with a dilemma, `Do I suc-

cumb to the status of a second class

citizen, or do I continue to live like an

American and disobey this order?''

Hirabayshi became not a second class

citizen but a first-class fighter against

racism. Working with a team of local

civil liberties advocates during his im-

prisonment and forty years later with

`dedicated groups of young lawyers in

the Bay Area, Seattle and Portland,"' he

said, ``we are about to achieve remedial

justice."'

Hirabayashi also underscored the

irony and the importance of the Earl

Warren Award. "`If it were not for the

ambitious, able and young Attorney

General and his contribution toward per-

suading the Western Defense Command

to adopt the infamous Exclusion Order

based on ancestry, I would not have had

the occasion to become involved in a civil

liberties case. . . . I think the career of

Earl Warren reminds us all that an ally

of civil liberties exists within every per-

son. We therefore would do well not to

Gordon Hirabayshi and ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich.

| Lair Smyser

prematurely cast out potential supporters

by regarding them as permanent bigots."'

Noting that ``there were enough laws

on the books to have protected the

Japanese Americans during World War

II,'' Hirabayashi reminded the audience

that ``good laws are useful in our quest

for justice and fair play, but they are by

themselves not sufficient.

`"We need citizens and groups like the

ACLU, and their constant commitment

and vigilance for civil liberties,''

Hirabayshi concluded.

a Lair Smyser

Minoru Yasui told ACLU members

"`You are the heartbeat of the com-

munity."'

Minoru Yasui vividly described his ex-

perience on being the first of the three ar-

rested when the military curfew order

was imposed in March 1942. ``I sat there

in my cell gripping the bars and wonder-

ing who was going to right this wrong.

The national ACLU said `No.' The one

bright star was Ernest Besig and the

ACLU of Northern California.

"`These awards,'' Yasui said, ``are not

for individual efforts. But for volunteers

- like those of the ACLU and the legal

team for the coram nobis petition -

who create the heartbeat of the com-

munity.

"T think of the ACLU as the con-

science of the United States. It is your

work, then and now, that reminds us

that any time the rights of any person are

diminished it reduces the rights of .

us all."'

Eileen Keech

Awarded

Baa Keech, ``the backbone of the

Berkeley - Albany - Richmond - Ken-

sington Chapter of the ACLU-NC for

17 years,"' is the 1983 recipient of the

Lola Hanzel Advocacy Award.

Ty

Eileen Keech in the busy

Berkeley Chapter office in 1966.

The award was established in 1981

in honor of Lola Hanzel, an inspiring

and inspired ACLU-NC volunteer for

more than a decade before her death

- in 1980. It is presented each year at

the Bill of Rights Day Celebration to

an individual who has made an extra-

ordinary contribution to the organiza-

tion in a volunteer capacity.

Keech was one of the initiators of

the B-A-R-K Chapter's storefront

police complaint center in Berkeley in

the turbulent 1960's. As an organizer

`of the first official ACLU contingents

iin demonstrations, Keech played a

`major role in developing the ACLU-

NC as an activist and direct service

organization.

Keech remembers the early days

well. ``I moved here in 1965 from

New York, and just sort of stumbled

onto the ACLU. At first I came to

volunteer in the San Francisco office,

but in the mid-60's we opened the

Berkeley office to respond to the

many police complaints - and soon

it became a very, very busy place."'

When the police began using tear-

gas and making widespread arrests on

campus the ACLU complaint service

became very active in putting together

a legal panel and giving advice and

referrals.

For more than 15 years, Keech

organized, trained and coordinated

volunteers for the chapter telephone

hotline. ``It makes a difference, not

having a storefront office,'' Keech

- said, ``but we still keep our complaint

counselors busy!''

ACLU-NC_ Executive Director

Dorothy Ehrlich said that Keech was

nominated by the Board for the

award ``for her consistent dedication,

her activism, her talent and her ability

to organize other people."'

``She is loved and admired by her

chapter colleagues, the Board and

staff of the ACLU-NC and all whose

lives she touches so deeply with her

commitment to civil liberties,''

Ehrlich said.

aclu news

jan-feb 1984

New Dynamics in Sacra

1983 ACLU-NC I

mento: Review and Predictions

by Marjorie C. Swartz

Legislative Advocate

With a Republican Governor and a Democrat controlled Legislature, the dynamics

in Sacramento changed dramatically in.1983. Eight years of Jerry Brown had given

civil libertarians a sense of security with regard to the executive branch. Now sudden-

ly we had a governor who was pushing a Death Penalty Restoration Act, cutting the

budgets of the Public Defender's Office and the agencies responsible for enforcing

the health and safety of industrial and agricultural workers, and sponsoring legisla-

tion to harass welfare recipients by requiring them to sign up for make-work jobs. In

keeping with the year, the Governor also proposed a ``Big Brother'' to snoop on

welfare recipients: welfare fraud investigators (plain-clothed police officers) would

inhabit every welfare office in the state on the look-out for cheats. He also introduced

_a plan to breach the confidentiality of financial records by requiring certain bank

records to be matched against welfare records. Of these proposals, only the budget

cuts were enacted.

_. A governor hostile to civil liberties required legislative advocates to pay new atten-

~_.. tion to veto power. For instance, just when a piece of legislation became acceptable in:

its final amended fashion, the rumor would surface that the Governor was threaten-

ing to veto the bill unless changes were made to suit his agenda (generally contrary to

ours). The most notorious veto of all was his axing of the ACLU sponsored bill to

restrict police strip searching. Somewhat unexpectedly the bill had passed all commit-

tees and both houses. The glow of success was still bright when the Governor snuffed

it by vetoing the bill during the last few days of the time limit.

The Year That Was

The old Assembly Criminal Justice Committee was renamed Criminal Law and

Public Safety Committee (affectionately dubbed CLAPS). Assemblyman Byron Sher

(D-Palo Alto), a.conscientious legislator and law professor, was named chair and the

size was reduced from 14 to eight. For a constellation of reasons, explained below,

very few pieces of significant legislation passed out of the Committee.

In general, crime legislation took a back seat to fiscal problems in 1983. The

massive overcrowding of prisons convinced all but the most vengeful legislators to

call a moratorium on sentence increases and very few bills in that area were even in-

troduced. The disruption and chaos caused by Proposition 8 resulted in an additional

moratorium on procedural and evidentiary changes. Finally, a juvenile justice law

revision commission was working all through 1983 and most juvenile legislation was

halted pending their report.

There were major changes in the make up of the Senate in 1983 and the tenor was

much less conservative than before. This was reflected in the Senate Judiciary Com-

mittee where most civil liberties legislation is reviewed. Proposals to change jury vior

dire and to allow less than unanimous verdicts in criminal cases were unexpectedly

defeated by this committee.

In the area of reproductive freedom, a major set back occurred early in the session.

The most severe restrictions ever proposed on- Medi-Cal funding for abortions were

put into the budget. (These restrictions, however, were halted by an ACLU lawsuit,

CDRR y. Rank.) After that traditional low point, prospects brightened. Only one

restrictive bill, SB 245 (Speraw), passed its first committee hearing. The bill, requiring

parental permission before students could be excused from school for medical care

relating to contraception or abortion, was eventually defeated in Assembly Educa-

tion.

We did, however, face some stunning defeats. An ACLU supported measure to

regulate the use of chokeholds by police officers was resoundingly defeated on the

Assembly floor as well as one which was needed to strengthen San Francisco's new

Office of Citizen Complaints. Intense lobbying could also not prevent the passage of

. SB 64 (Davis), a bill to allow the Los Angeles Olympics Organizing Committee to

gain access to arrest records of potential employees. Although many ACLU re-

quested amendments to the original version were accepted which maintained some of

the confidentiality of the records, there is still a danger that people will be denied

employment on the basis of arrests, rather than convictions.

Finally, there were four proposals to allow law enforcement access to previously

a confidential welfare rolls. These all stemmed from an inflamatory article by a

Sacramento newspaper which made unsubstantiated claims that hundreds of fugitive

felons could be located if only access to welfare records were allowed. At one point

_all the proposals had been defeated, but one particularly tenacious Senator, Leroy

. Greene of Sacramento, managed to resurrect his bill and maneuver its passage.

~~ Because of federal restrictions, the bill is limited to county financed public benefit

programs.

What Lies Ahead

An unusually large number of issues that could not be resolved last year may

become headline items in 1984. These include election reform measures such as public

~ campaign financing and proposals to change the reapportionment process. A second

issue which became too controversial to resolve last year is employment rights of the

disabled. A comprehensive bill including disability and pregnancy discrimination

protections ran into a wall of opposition last year and attempts to resolve the prob-

lems will continue. AB 1 (Agnos), a bill to protect gay rights, will probably come to a

vote in the Senate in early 1984.

Only half of the anti-abortion bills introduced in the first half of the session were

set for hearing last year and it is expected that some of those not yet heard will be set

in 1984. Many of them violate the 1983 Akron decisions from the U.S. Supreme

Court (protecting the right to abortion from a variety of restrictions)and therefore

can be defeated on legal grounds. The law with regard to minor's rights is less settled

however and proposals in that area could be problematic.

The primary foci in ciminal law are attempts to expand the death penalty offenses,

limits on procedural rights in death penalty cases and attempts to undermine the jury

system (such as less than unanimous verdicts.) There are also proposals to limit at-

torney voir dire of juries which are expected to be brought to a vote. The report of

the juvenile justice revision commission is due to be released shortly and it is possible

that there will be increased activity in this area.

Overcrowding in prisons will also be a highly visible issue. Hopefully this year an

acceptable early release bill can be fashioned. Last year many members were reluc-

tant to vote for such a proposal for fear of appearing soft on crime, even though the

amendments requested by the Governor had watered down the proposal to such an

extent that there would have been few, if any, releases under its terms.

Finally, we have been vigorously organizing to mobilize an override of the Gover-

nor's veto of strip search restrictions. Many groups and individuals as well as

editorials in the media, have come forward to support the effort. Hopefully 1984,

contrary to Orwellian predictions, will see a decrease in police-state tactics and the

passage of a bill truly restricting strip searches of minor offenders.

Crime

AB 306 (Hauser) - Restitution

The Assembly Democrats developed a

package of bills to implement Proposi-

tion 8's mandate directing the Legisla-

ture to develop a restitution program

within one year. AB 306 is the portion

which triggers the restitution process at

sentencing. It requires imposition of a

restitution fine in most cases regardless

of whether or not the crime involves a

victim who suffered injury. (Other bills

included increasing maximum fines for

all offenses, lengthening the statute of

limitations for civil recovery of damages

and allowing restitution fines to be col-

lected by the State as a permanent civil

judgment.)

The only grounds of opposition to the

package were due process concerns

regarding the proposal to charge defen-

dants with resitution when they did not

injure a victim, in effect requiring the

person to pay for the crimes of others. In

addition, there were due: process prob-

lems regarding the method of determin-

ing the amount of restitution as no pro-

cedures were spelled out. It is also not

clear how restitution is to be assessed

when there is no damage or injury.

Action: AB 306 and other portions of

the package signed by the Governor.

ACLU: Opposed (only to portions of the

package)

SB 1100 (Maddy) - Death Penalty

As introduced, the Death Penalty

Restoration Act contained provisions to

override practically every Supreme Court

decision limiting or refining the death

penalty provisions. These included limi-

tations on funds for second counsel and

investigation, limits on the accused's

right to contest evidence prior to trial,

restrictions on jury selection, deletion of

the judge's ability to strike special cir-

cumstances and reduce a sentence of life

without possibility of parole to life with

possibility of parole, and permit 16 and

17 year olds sentenced to murder with

special circumstances to be sentenced to

life without possibility of parole. Most of

these portions were deleted by the Senate

Judiciary Committee before the bill was

passed.

In the Assembly, SB 1100 contained

other provisions including a provision re-

quiring capital cases to have preference

in the Supreme Court and requiring the

Chief Justice to file affidavits stating

why cases were pending beyond 150

days.

Action: Defeated in Assembly Criminal

Law and Public Safety Committee.

ACLU: Opposed

SCA 32 (Boatwright) - Misdemeanor

Juries

This bill would amend the Constitu-

tion to allow misdemeanor juries to con-

sist of between six and 12 instead of the

12 now required. The amendment re-

quires enabling legislation to set the exact

number. Although the amendment

passed Senate Judiciary, the enabling

legislation setting the jury size at nine for

a three year pilot project was defeated by

the same committee a few months later

in what appeared to be a change of

heart.

Action: Passed Senate Judiciary;

awaiting hearing in Senate Constitu-

tional Amendments Committee.

ACLU: Opposed

SCA 35 (Boatwright) - Parole

Would amend the Constitution to

allow the governor to affirm, modify or

reverse decisions of the parole authority

within 30 days of a parole decision. This

is in response to the Governor's inability -

to prevent the release of William Archie

Fain. =

Action: Passed Senate; awaiting hearing

in Assembly Criminal Law and Public

Safety Committee.

ACLU: Opposed

Legislative Report

Ges cereal. ERB :

"Gov. Deukmejian, you are charged with vetoing the strip-and-earch

bill. . . : Please bend over... ." = as

Sores Aye, roe ; Pe oe Ie Rare ane F

es Paes a se

a eS RS Sey Ee aS 2a el

z a 5 F Moods = 6

a!) Ce oeat ee

B ys

te. 7 ee

ee pee 9

pre ee

~ : A cs es es

fend ree eae

First Amendment

ACA 23 (Johnson) - Political

Defamation

Passed in 1982 and now awaiting

placement on the next statewide election

is a Constitutional Amendment which

provides that an elected official shall be

removed from office upon a judicial

finding that he or she attained the office

~by defaming his or her opponent. This

bill would place on the ballot an identical

measure except that it removes the re-

quirement that the defamation con-

tributed to the election outcome.

Action: Passed Assembly Elections and

Reapportionment Committee; when it

came up for vote in the Assembly, the

Speaker moved to refer it back to that

committee, where it now awaits a second

hearing.

ACLU: Opposed

Police Practices

AB 104 (Statham) - Roadblocks

This bill would permit permanent

roadblocks throughout the state. Police

officers at these roadblocks would be

permitted to randomly stop motorists to

investigate whether they are driving

under the influence of alcohol.

Action: Awaiting hearing in Assembly

Criminal Law and Public Safety Com-

' mittee.

Privacy

SB 64 (Davis) - Olympics Security

As introduced, this bill would have

permitted the Los Angeles Olympic

Organizing Committee (LAOOC) and all

Olympics sub-contractors and conces-

sionaires to have access to previously

confidential criminal summary histories

of job applicants including arrests and

convictions for the purpose of security

certification. The bill was first amended

in Senate Judiciary to reinstate some

protections and limited access to ``rap''

sheets to the LAOOC. The bill failed

passage in the Assembly the first time

and was amended to allow the LAOOC

to deny security certification only on the

basis of convictions, but still allowed the

LAOOC to have access to arrest infor-

mation. In this form, the bill was granted

reconsideration and passed both houses.

Action: Signed by Governor.

ACLU: Opposed

SB 480 (Leroy Greene) - Welfare

Confidentiality

Under current federal and state law

the records of applicants and recipients

of public aid are confidential unless ac-

cess is needed to administer the aid pro-

gram. This bill permits local law enforce-

ment to gain access to the name, address

and description of persons receiving aid

from programs not covered by federal

law to determine if the recipient is the.

subject of an arrest warrant for the com-

mission of a felony.

Action: Signed by Governor.

ACLU: Opposed

Equal Protection

AB 1 (Agnos) - Sexual Orientation

This bill would define unlawful em-

ployment practice as including employ-|

ment discrimination on the basis of sex-

ual orientation.

Action: Passed Assembly and Senate

Judiciary Committee; awaiting vote in

Senate.

ACLU: Supported

AB 274 (Maxine Waters)

This is a comprehensive employment

discrimination bill which would expand

the definition of an unlawful employ-

ment practice to include refusing to hire

or employ a woman because of pregnan-

cy. It also contains protections against

employment discrimination of the

disabled. .

Action: Passed Assembly; failed passage

in Senate Finance.

ACLU: Supported

AB 2184 (Naylor) - Children in Housing

A recent California Supreme Court

decision held that condominiums. could

not discriminate against families with

minor children by denying them the right

to purchase units. This bill would have

oveturned this decision.

Action: Failed passage in the Assembly

Housing and Community Development

Committee; granted reconsideration and

awaiting new hearing.

ACLU: Opposed

ACLU: Opposed

AB 270 (Maxine Waters) - Strip Search -

In response to complaints of unneces-

sary strip searching, the ACLU spon-

sored this bill to regulate and limit the

practice. It covered people arrested only

for non-violent, non-drug related minor

offenses. It allowed a strip search in this

case if there was reasonable cause and re-

quired a warrant for body cavity

searches.

Action: Passed both houses; vetoed by

Governor.

ACLU: Supported

AB 1530 (Moore) - Chokeholds

This bill would have banned the police

use of trachea or bar-arm chokeholds. It

would have permitted carotid or v-neck

holds only. by officers who have been

trained. The use was restricted to situa-

tions in which lethal or deadly force

would be considered reasonable and

necessary to protect life.

Action: Failed passage in the Assembly.

ACLU: Supported

SB 34 (Presley) - Police Complaints

This is the perennial bill to enact a

misdemeanor which is defined as mal-

iciously and knowingly filing a false

complaint against a peace officer which

alleges felonious police misconduct.

Action: Passed Senate; awaiting hearing

in Asstembly Criminal Law and Public

Safety Committee.

ACLU: Opposed

aclu news 5

jan-feb 1984 9

Reproductive -

Rights

AB 435 (Herger) - Abortion Procedure

This bill requires that a woman be ad-

vised of the anatomical and_physio-

logical characteristics of the embryo or

fetus at the time an abortion procedure is

performed. | ee

Action: Awaiting hearing in Assembly

Judiciary Committee.

ACLU: Opposed

AB 1189 (Seastrand) - Informed Consent

This bill would require a woman to be

advised of alternatives to abortion and

the medical risks of the procedure.

Action: Awaiting hearing in Assembly

Judiciary Committee

ACLU: Opposed

SB 245 (Speraw) - Abortion and

Contraceptives

This bill would have required that

school district employees have written

parental permission before granting an

- excused absence to a minor pupil who is

going to a clinic or hospital during

school hours to obtain contraceptives or

_ an abortion. In addition to the usual

privacy problems of parental notifica-

tion, this bill could require school of-

ficials to violate patient confidentiality

by insisting on being informed of the

reason for any medical absence.

Action: Passed Senate; defeated in

Assembly Education Committee

ACLU: Opposed

SB 709 (Montoya) - Non-participation

in Abortions

This bill would require hospitals,

clinics and health care facilities to prom-

inently post notices advising medical per-

sonnel of their right to not directly par-

ticipate in abortion proceedings.

Action: Awaiting hearing in Senate

Health and Welfare Committee.

ACLU: Opposed

SB 123 (Alquist) - State Budget/Anti-

Abortion Control Language

Opponents of publicly-funded Medi-

Cal abortions for poor women again

defied the California Supreme Court rul-

ing in CDRR v. Myers. At one point

language was proposed which would

have forced a woman to continue a preg-

nancy at the risk of her own health up to

a point where a fetus might survive with

the assistance of mechanical devices:.

This proposal was replaced by new

language which created a _ separate

Special Financing Fund to serve as the

sole funding source for Medi-Cal abor-

tions. This device and other restrictive

language concerning Medi-Cal abortions

was halted in CDRR v. Rank. (The

Court of Appeals made its decision the

same day that the petition was filed.)

Action: Budget passed Senate and

Assembly; signed by Governor; mem-

bers of the Senate and Assembly have in-

tervened in the CDRR y. Rank case

arguing that the Legislature has sole

authority to determine how State monies

will be spent.

-ACLU: Opposed

: aclu news

6 jan-feb 1984.

Spain Plea Rejected by High Court

On December 12, the U.S. Supreme

Court decided that former San Quentin

Six defendant Johnny Larry Spain's due

process rights were not violated despite

~ the fact that the trial court judge had

private discussions with a juror which

were not revealed to his defense at-

torney.

The Supreme Court decision reverses

the rulings of the U.S. District Court

(1982) and the federal Court of Appeals

(1983) which stated that the trial court

judge had erred in not telling Black Pan-

ther Party member Spain's lawyer about

a juror who believed another Black Pan-

ther member had killed a close friend

of hers.

The Spain murder trial in 1977 was, at

the time, the longest trial in state history.

In addition to the improper contact be-

tween judge and juror, the trial was mar-

red by Spain's being bound and shackled

to a chair. The ACLU-NC was a friend

of the court in all of Spain's appeals,

arguing that both the judge-juror discus-

sion and the shackling were gross viola-

tions of Spain's due process rights and

therefore rendered the trial judgment

invalid.

Spain's attorney is acting Deputy State

Public Defender Dennis Riordan.

In an unusual move, the U.S. Su-

preme Court granted the State's petition

for certiorari, and then immedi-

ately decided the case against Spain,

without briefings or oral arguments.

Riordan then filed a petition for rehear-

ing with the high court. ``To denominate

this pleading a petition for rehearing is in

a sense misleading,'' Riordan said,

`""because Spain is seeking to be heard by

written brief and oral argument in the

Supreme Court for the first time.

Riordan noted that the ``summary jus-

tice'? dispensed by the court gave "`short

shrift'? not only to Spain's desire to ob-

tain a new trial but also to a number of

important questions of law concerning

jury taint which had been addressed by

the lower courts.

ACLU-NC attorney Alan Schlosser

prepared the amicus brief in support of

Spain's petition for rehearing. The brief

is also signed by the national Association

of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Cali-

fornia Attorneys for Criminal Justice,

and the William Hastie Bar Association,

organizations which have appeared as

friend of the court in earlier stages of the

Spain case.

Whether or not the high court grants

the petition for rehearing, the case will

not end here. The issue of the shackling

_of the defendant is still unresolved and

has been remanded to U.S. District

Court Judge Thelton Henderson for

resolution.

ACLU Asks Court to Hold

Health Chief in Contempt oinedion.:

which include a fine, imprisonment or

both.

As of press time, the court had given

Rank five days to respond to the applica-

tion.

Supreme Court ruled that such cuts were

unconstitutional and reaffirmed the right

of every woman - despite her financial

status - to choose whether or not to

WERE NOT AGAINST

FREEDOM of CHOICE-

ASAMATER OFACT. | yy

WEVE ALREADY ADE YouRS.

Every year since 1978, the state Legis-

lature has attempted to cut Medi-Cal

funding for abortion in an effort to

undermine a woman's right to choose.

Since 1978, Medi-Cal funding for abor-

`tion has been maintained solely because

of ACLU lawsuits on behalf of a coali- -

tion of Medi-Cal recipients, health care

providers, and reproductive rights

organizations. In 1981 the California

have a child. Despite that decision, the

Legislature has continued to defy the

court ruling and cut Medi-Cal funding

for abortion. In the 1983-84 Budget Act,

the Legislature created a limited ``special

fund'' for abortion services in the lastest

attempt to deny adequate funding for

abortions. The ACLU lawsuit, CDRR v.

Rank, was the sixth lawsuit filed by the

ACLU to maintain funding.

Visa Denial cocci.

We World

Former Chilean First Lady Hortensia Allende was barred from entering the U.S.

violation of the provisions of the Immi- -

gration Act and the Constitution and

solely for the purpose of preventing him

from speaking to American audiences.

Borge was scheduled to visit the

United States during the first two weeks

of December and had_ scheduled

meetings with a number of members of

Congress and public groups around the

country.

The third suit, also filed in

Washington, D.C., was brought on

behalf of the City of New York, the In-

stitute for Policy Studies and faculty

members at Cornell University and the

University of Chicago who were sched-

uled to meet with two Cuban women,

Olga Finlay, a lawyer, and Leonor

Rodriguez Lescano, a woman's federa-

tion and trade union leader. |

In each case the visa was denied under

Section (27) of the Immigration Act

which permits the Government to deny a

visa if the visitor were to engage in ac-

tivities which would threaten the public

interest. The ACLU charged that these

denials are part of a pattern of actions by

the Government to deny entry into the

United States of significant and re-

spected critics of American policy. The

complaints in each suit alleged that these

denials are in violation of the statute and

the Constitution.

Defendants named in the suit include

Secretary of State George Schultz, At-

torney General William French Smith,

INS Director Alan Nelson, and President

Reagan.

Other responses to the Administra-

tion's visa denials include: legislation just

introduced by Rep. Barney Frank

(D-MA) that would prohibit ideological

exclusions; and charges by Rep. Michael

Barnes (D-ME), Chair of the Foreign

Affairs Subcommittee on the Western

Hemisphere, that the visa denials restrict

access to information needed to evaluate

United States foreign policy. :

The ACLU-NC has just issued an

updated version of our popular

pocket-sized ``Rights on Arrest''

cards. The cards, which are available

in English, Spanish and Chinese, pro-

vide useful, accurate information

about an individual's basic rights

when confronted by a police officer.

The information on the cards was

compiled by ACLU-NC staff attor-

ney Amitai Schwartz in light of recent

court decisions. The Spanish version

was translated by Jaime

Reyes and the Chinese was translated

by Chinese for Affirmative Action.

Your Rights in Your Pocket!

Written in easy-to-understand lan-

guage, the cards are a useful tool for

everyone to have on hand.

Hundreds of the new cards have

already been distributed through

community organizations. You can

get your copy now at the ACLU of-

fice by writing ``Rights on Arrest'',

ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St., San

Francisco 94103 or calling

415/621-2488. Individual copies are

free of charge. Orders of 50 or more

are $5.00 per 50. When ordering

please specify quantity and language

desired. =

Coo Saye

aclu news

jan-feb 1984 a

Board, Chapters Make

Fund Drive a Success

~The ACLU Foundation of Northern

California's 1983 fund raising results

were up 23 percent, $54,000 over 1982.

The Major Gifts Campaign, under the

direction of Development Chair Bernice

Biggs, raised $208,000, an increase of

$36,000. The Bill of Rights Campaign,

led by first-year Chair Naomi Schalit,

jumped from $68,000 in 1982 to $86,000

for 1983.

-Both campaigns raise cdeducible

gifts for the ACLU Foundation of Nor-

thern California to support the ACLU-

the January Board meeting.

NC's five person legal staff, portions of

the public education and administrative

departments, and related fund raising

~ costs.

More donors and larger gifts made the

difference according to ACLU-NC As-

sociate Director Michael Miller. In 1982,

the highest single contrubition was

$10,000. For 1983, there were two

$10,000 gifts and one at $15,000. The

Bill of Rights Campaign added 125 new

donors for a total of over 900 contri-

butors.

Volunteers raise almost all ACLU

Foundation gifts. The ACLU-NC's 30

at-large Board members, assisted by

several other concerned ACLU members

-and Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich,

serve as fundraisers for the Major Gifts

Campaign in personal meetings with

prospective donors.

Chapter board members and other

grassroots volunteers, organized by

ACLU-NC Field Representative Marcia

Gallo, produce the majority of Bill of

Rights Campaign gifts through evenings

of telephone solicitation.

The 1983 Bill of Rights staff assistant

was Nancy Bien. Development Assistant

Jean Hom provided staff support for the

Major Gifts Campaign.

Michael Miller

Board fundraisers Tom Waddell (1.) and Dick Criley discuss this year's successes at

Computer Gift

North Star Foundation, recently

formed by North Star Computers, has

donated three of their ``Advantage''

micro-computers to the ACLU Founda-

tion of Northern California. The San

Leandro based company announced

their decision in December.

The ACLU's application to North

Star emphasized the need for extensive

word processing, maintaining a wide

variety of mailing lists, contribution

records, budgeting, and bookkeeping as

primary reasons for seeking data pro-

cessing equipment.

ACLU-NC Board member Sylvan

Heumann was instrumental in develop-

ing the proposal for North Star.

Committee, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mis-

sion St., S.F., CA 94103. Include

your suggested nominee's qualifica-

tions and how the nominee may be

reached.).

2. Fhey may submit a petition with

the signatures of 15 current ACLU

members. Petitions for nominations,

which should also include qualifica-

tions, must be submitted to the Board

`of Directors by May 30, 1984 (20 days

after the May Board Meeting.).

(Current ACLU members are those

who have renewed their membership

during the last 12 months. Only cur-

rent members are eligible to submit

nominations, sign petitions of

nomination and vote.)

ACLU members will elect Board

members from the slate of candidates

nominated by petition and by the

Nominating Committee. The ballot

will appear in the June issue of the

ACLU News.

ACLU-NC Board of Directors

nominating process:

ARTICLE VII, SECTION 3: The

final report of the Nominating Com-

mittee to nominate members-at-large

to the Board shall be presented at the

May Board meeting. Members of the

Board may propose additional nom-

inations. If no additional nominations

Board Elections continued from p. 1

The following bylaws govern the

are proposed by Board members, the

Board, by majority of those present

and voting, shall adopt the Nom-

inating Committee's report. If addi-

tional nominations are proposed, the

Board shall, by written ballot, elect a

slate of nominees with each member

being entitled to cast a number of

votes equal to the vacancies to be fill-

ed; the Board shall be those persons,

equal in number to the vacancies to be

filled, who have received the greatest

number of votes. The list of nominees

to be placed before the membership

of the Union for election shall be

those persons nominated by the

Board as herein provided, together

with those persons nominated by peti-

tion as hereafter provided in Sec-

tion 4.

SECTION IV: Any fifteen or more

members of the Union in good stand-

ing may themselves submit a nomina-

tion to be included among those voted

upon by the general membership by

submitting a written petition to the

Board not later than twenty days after

the adoption by the Board of the slate

of Board nominees. No member of

the Union may sign more than one

such petition and each such nomina-

tion shall be accompanied by a sum-

mary of qualifications and the written

consent of the nominee.

Board OK's New Policy |

After four years of intense debate, he ACLU-NC Board of Directors formally ap-

proved a policy on religious meetings of students in public schools at its December

1982 meeting.

The complexity of the issue - stemming from the First Amendment's guarantees

of free speech and association and of the separation of church and state - was

dissected for ACLU members in a debate in the last issue of the ACLU News -

(November-December 1983). The policy adopted by the Board in December ad-

dresses these complexities and will guide future ACLU-NC litigation in this arena.

The complete text of the new ACLU-NC policy follows:

Guidelines for Religious Meetings of Students

in Elementary and Secondary Public Schools

Students, individually or in groups,

are entitled to exercise their First

Amendment rights of speech, association

and religion in context of public elemen-

tary and secondary schools. For exam-

ple, students may engage in voluntary

prayer, individually or in groups; distri-

bute leaflets; wear buttons; and associate

with other students who share their reli-

gious convictions, subject only to rea-

sonable limitations as to time, place and

manner.

At the same time, the Establishment

Clause of the First Amendment requires

that public schools must neither foster,

nor become excessively entangled with,

religion. Accommodating students' First

Amendment rights with the First

Amendment's limitations on _ public

schools' involvement with religion is a

difficult task. We adopt the following

guidelines, recognizing that, as with any

guidelines, they are subject to revision in

the light of experience and the insight

of others.

1. Students may meet on school

grounds during free time during the

school day to exercise their First Amend-

ment rights of speech, association and

religion. While school administrators

may impose reasonable restrictions as to

time, place and manner, administrators

may not forbid students to. pray, to as-

sociate with other students, or to limit

their associations to those with shared

religious beliefs and practices.

2. Student religious clubs may not

identify themselves through use of the

school name. While an argument may be

made that use of the school name for

identification only is not such an involve-

ment of the public school with religion as

to violate the Establishment Clause, the

better view is that use of the school

name, even for identification only, is, at

best, meaningless and, at worst, decep-

tive. Use of the school name implies

sponsorship, which the Establishment

Clause forbids. Moreover, persons

solicited for contributions in the name of

a school-identified religious club will

reasonably assume that the school will

exercise some oversight that the money

will be spent for the purposes for which

it is being solicited. Similarly, parents

and others are likely to believe that

school administrators will assume

responsibility for the manner in which

school-identified clubs conduct their ac-

tivities, for example, in membership re-

quirements and outings. The Establish-

ment Clause forbids school authorities

from exercising such a supervisory role.

3. School facilities should be available

during the school day to religious associ-

ations of students on the same basis that

those facilities are open to individual

students or to a group of students who

are not part of a school-sanctioned ac-

tivity. For example, if school classrooms

are normally open to students during

lunch period or before the start of the

school day, those facilities may not be

closed to groups of students who associ-

ate for religious purposes. On the other

hand, school facilities that are not nor-

mally available to informal groups of

students may be made available to stu-

dent religious clubs only on the same

basis that they are made available to

other outside groups.

4. Public schools may not permit

sponsorship/leadership by school

personnel of student religious clubs. This

does not preclude a rule of general appli-

cation requiring the presence of school

personnel to maintain order. On the

other hand, public schools may not limit

the freedom of religion and association

of its employees

employees, including teachers, to use

their free time to associate with student

religious clubs.

5. Methods of publicity, such as

school bulletin boards, mewspapers,

yearbooks and telephone trees, should be

available to religious associations of

students in the same manner that they.

are available to other groups outside the

school. For example, if the school bulle-

tin board or newspaper normally publi-.

cize outside community events, such as

ACLU meetings, those avenues of

publicity should not be closed to an

association of students merely because it

_is a religious association. On the other

hand, if only school events are pub- (c)

licized, the school may not lend its

facilities to publicize religious events.

-Halterman on Board

Lee Halterman, District Counsel to

Congressman Ronald V. Dellums, was.

elected to the ACLU-NC Board of

Directors in October. Halterman has

worked in Dellums' Oakland office for.

13 years providing constituent assistance

on military and foreign policy issues. In

1978 he worked with the International

Commission of Jurists in Geneva and'

has a continuing interest in international -

human rights issues and their connection

to domestic freedoms of speech and ae

sent.

Halterman replaces Steve Block hie

resigned from the ACLU-NC Board to

teach law in Minnesota. Block was also

. the former chapeson of the Gay Rights

Chapter.

by forbidding -

a aclu news

_jan-feb 1984 (c)

_ Lobbying for Choice

by Marcia Gallo

ACLU-NC Field Representative

Eleven years after the U.S. Supreme

Court affirmed a woman's right to

decide whether and when to terminate

her pregnancy, pro-choice advocates

continue to face a host of national and

state legislative measures designed to

restrict or eliminate this right.

In 1983 alone, over one dozen bills

were introduced in the California Legis-

lature by anti-choice legislators; seven re-

main as we begin the second half of the -

current session.

Without consistent constituent pressure

and support, pro-choice forces in Sacra-

mento would not have been able to

defeat the measures sent to their doom in

1983. Without renewed efforts to high-

light the importance of reproductive

choice, especially in this, an election

year, we will face increased attempts to

cut off this most fundamental right.

- ACLU's Pro-Choice Task Force is co-

ordinating a special ``Lobbying For

-Choice'' Day on January 20. Task Force

members will meet with legislators

throughout northern California and urge

their support of reproductive rights. The

grassroots lobbyists will emphasize the

importance of public funding for

abortion.

``We plan to visit every northern Cali-

fornia legislator,'' said Task Force chair

Anne Jennings. ``Our delegations will in-

clude representatives of many organiza-

tions to show the range of people who

support choice. The members of the

Northern California Pro-Choice Coali-

tion have enthusiastically agreed to work

with us in this effort."'

A special Pro-Choice Postcard Cam-

paign is also being launched by Task

Force members to insure that thousands

of messages reach Sacramento legislators

over the next three weeks.

To join a ``Lobbying for Choice''

delegation or to receive copies of the

Pro-Choice Postcard, contact Field De-

partment intern Linda Baker,

415/621-2494.

Gay Rights Chapter Membership Notice

ACLU members in northern Cali-

fornia are routinely placed on the

membership lists of local chapters ac-

cording to geographic area, with one

major exception. Any ACLU member

who wishes to be a member of the

Gay Rights Chapter - the only non-

geographic chapter in northern Cali-

fornia - must affirmatively request

as much.

The nature of ACLU's member-

ship records system is such that when

ACLU members move, they are reas-

signed to a new chapter. When Gay

Rights Chapter members move, many

are routinely reassigned to a new

geographic chapter (according to zip

codes), thus interested ACLU

members may lose touch with the Gay

Rights Chapter.

ACLU members in northern Cali-

fornia who want to belong to the Gay

Rights Chapter, or who want to con-

firm that they are already on the Gay

Rights Chapter membership roll,

should call or write the Membership

Department, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mis-

sion St., #460, San Francisco 94103,

415/621-2493. It would be helpful to

enclose the address label from the

ACLU News.

pws amen (3 | 41 CL nm LC

B.A.R.K.

BOARD MEETING: (Usually fourth

Thursday each month.) Thursday, Janu-

ary 26. Contact Joe Dorst, 415/654-4163.

EARL WARREN

BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday

each month.) Wednesday, January 18.

Contact Len Weiler, 415/763-2336.

FRESNO

BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday

each month.) Wednesday, January 18.

Contact Scott Williams, 209/441-1611.

GAY RIGHTS

BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday each

month.) Tuesday, February 7, 7:00 p.m.;

ACLU, 1663 Mission, San Francisco.

Contact Doug Warner, 415/863-0487.

MARIN

BOARD MEETING: (Third Monday

each month.) Monday, February 20. Con-

tact Alan Cilman, 415/864-8882.

MID-PENINSULA

BOARD MEETING: (Usually last Thurs-

day each month.) Thursday, January -26;

`Thursday, February 23, 8:00 p.m. at All

Saints Episcopal Church in Palo Alto.-

Contact Harry Anisgard, 415/856-9186.

MONTEREY

' ANNUAL MEETING: Saturday, Janu-

~ ary 28, Crossroads Conference Center in

~ Carmel. This meeting will conclude with

the presentation of the first ``Francis

Monterey County Chapter director

Richard Criley. For more information,

contact 408/624-7562.

MT. DIABLO

BOARD MEETING: (Usually third

Thursday each month.) Thursday, Janu-

ary 19; Thursday, February 16. Contact

Barbara Eaton, 415/947-0200.

NORTH PEN

BOARD MEETING: (Usually second

Monday each month.) Monday, January

13. 8:00 p.m. at Allstate Savings and Loan

in San Mateo. Contact Richard Keyes,

415/367-8800 (days.)

SACRAMENTO

BOARD MEETING: (Usually third Wed-

nesday each month.) Wednesday, January

18; Wednesday, February 15. Contact

Mary Gill, 916/457-4088 (evenings).

SAN FRANCISCO

BOARD MEETING: (Usually fourth

Tuesday each month.) Tuesday, January

24; Tuesday, February 28. Contact

Chandler Visher, 415/391-0222 (days).

SANTA CLARA

BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday each

month.) Tuesday, February 7. Communi-

ty Savings Bank in San Jose, 7:30 p.m.

Contact Steve Alpers, 408/241-7126

(days.)

SANTA CRUZ

BOARD MEETING: (Second Wednesday

each month.) Wednesday, February 8,

8:00 p.m.; Louden Nelson Center, Santa

Cruz. Contact Keith Lesar, 408/688-1666

SONOMA

BOARD MEETING: (Usually third

Thursday each month.) Thursday, Janu-

ary 19; Thursday, February 16. Contact

Andrea Learned, 707/544-6911.

ANNUAL MEETING: Friday, January

20, in Santa Rosa, Speaker will be

Dorothy Ehrlich, ACLU-NC Executive

Director, plus special guests. Good food,

prompt service. Contact Andrea Learned,

707/544-6911.

STOCKTON

BOARD MEETING: (Usually third

Thursday each month.) Thursday, Janu-

ary 19; Thursday, February 16. Contact

Bart Harloe, 209/946-2431 (days).

ANNUAL MEETING: Saturday, Feb-

ruary 25; guest speaker California

Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso on

"Individual Rights and Responsibilities: A

View from One Justice:'' 6:00: p.m. social

hour, 7:00 p.m. dinner; `"`The Prime Rib

Inn'' in Stockton; $10., chicken dinner or

$15., prime rib. Contact Bart Harloe,

number above.

YOLO COUNTY

BOARD MEETING: (Usually _ third

Thursday each month.) Thursday, Janu-

ary 19; Thursday, February 16. Contact

Harry Roth, 916/753-0996 (days.)

FIRST AMENDMENT ROAD SHOW:

Saturday, February 25, in Davis. A special

seminar on your rights to leaflet, petition,

canvass, and campaign. Contact Michael

Laurence, 916/756-8261 (days) or Marcia

Gallo, ACLU-NC, 415/621-2494.

FIELD

COMMITTEE

MEETINGS

PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE: First

tween 6:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. times.

Wednesday, February 1 - 7:30 p.m., all

pro-choice supporters and friends wel-

come. Contact Dick Grosboll,

415/387-0575 (evenings).

RIGHT TO DISSENT SUBCOMMIT-

TEE: First Wednesday each month, alter-

nating between 6:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.

times. Wednesday, February 1 - 6:00 p.m.

Contact Sarita Cordell, 415/647-4691

(evenings). `

*IMMIGRATION WORKING GROUP:

Monday, January 23, 6:30 p.m. at the

- ACLU-NC office in San Francisco, 1663 -

Mission Street, for the next meeting of the

Immigration Working Group. We will

have new information on the Simpson-

Mazzoli bill and will review a new "`immi-

gration fact sheet''. Contact Andrea

Learned, 707/544-6911 (days) or Marcia

Gallo at ACLU-NC.

*DRAFT OPPOSITION NETWORK:

Tuesday, January 24, 7:00 p.m., ACLU-

NC office in San Francisco, 1663 Mission

Street. We'll continue planning a ``Na-

tional Conference on the Draft'' for July

14 and 15, 1984. Contact Judy Newman,

415/567-1527.

*NOTE: Speakers from each group are

able to visit your chapter in the next few

months to give you a briefing on:

-the current status of the draft opposi-

tion movement. They will also show one

of three anti-draft videotapes/slide-shows

to your board members: ``Don't Let the

Draft Blow You Away," ``Choice or

Chance,'' or ``Conscience.'' (You'll

remember these films from the October

ACLU-NC Conference in La Honda.)

Contact Marcia or Judy Newman,

415/567-1527, for scheduling.

-civil liberties and immigration. Members

of the Immigration Working Group will

discuss the Simpson-Mazzoli bill (not dead

yet: still opposed by ACLU and coming

back before Congress soon), denials of

visas to Central Americans, and the grow-

ing church sanctuary movement. Contact

~ Marcia or Andrea Learned, 707/544-6911,

for scheduling.

Heisler Civil Liberties Award'' to (days). Wednesday each month, alternating be-