vol. 50, no. 3

e

S |

Volume XLXI

April 198

No. 3

Government Move Denied

Visa Ban Challenge Wins a Round ~

A State Department move to throw

out the ACLU lawsuit challenging the

barring of Chilean leader Hortensia

Allende from the United States was

rejected by the federal district court in

Massachusetts on April 2.

Chief Justice Andrew A. Caffrey

denied the government's motion to

dismiss the case of Allende v. Shultz. The

ruling differed from an earlier decision

from the U.S. District Court in Washing-

ton, D.C. in a similiar ACLU case which

upheld visa denials for other foreign

critics of U.S. policy including Nicara-

guan Minister of the Interior Tomas

Borge, former Italian military represen-

tative to. NATO General Nino Pasti, and

two Cuban. women leaders Olga Finlay

and Leonor Rodriguez Lezcayo (see

ACLU News, March 1985). The latter

case is on appeal.

~The ACLU-NC was first contacted in

March 1983 when human rights activist

The Reagan administration denied a

visa to former First Lady of Chile

Hortensia Allende-although she has

visited the U.S. under every previous

administration since 1973.

Courtesy of Casa Chile

Hortensia Allende, widow of the slain

Chilean President Salvador Allende, was

denied a visa to enter the United States

just one day before she was to arrive in

the Bay Area for a nine day speaking

tour in honor of International Women's

Day. Mrs. Allende was also scheduled to

speak in Boston.

Major Campaign

ACLU attorneys and civil rights lawyer

Leonard Boudin challenged the denial on

behalf of the Northern California Ecu-

-menical Council and the Boston Area

Council on Latin America. The suits are

part of a campaign led by the ACLU and

members of Congress challenging the

`Administration's calculated pattern of

denying visas to critics of U.S. foreign

policy, thereby effectively abridging the

First Amendment rights of Americans to

meet with and hear the view of these

critics.

Stop Covert Aid to the Contras

As President Reagan began his massive lobbying effort in Congress for continued

financing of the "covert" war in Nicaragua, Ray Hooker (center), a member of

Nicaragua's National Assembly who was kidnapped by the U.S. financed "contras"

for 58 days last fall, spoke at a March 13 press conference at the ACLU about

the death and destruction that the CIA-backed contra army has brought to Nicaragua.

Hooker was flanked by representatives of several Bay Area groups who are

mobilizing support to defeat the $14 million appropriation request in Congress,

including ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich (r.), Carlos Melendres

(I.), President of the Bay Area American G.I. Forum, Vivian Hallinan, Director

of Project National Interest and Kathy Galvin of the Bay Area Lawyers Committee

on Central America.

ak par

Ehrlich noted that the ACLU National

Legislative Office and Bill of Rights

Lobby had made defeat of the contra

funding request a primary focus of its

current lobbying effort. "The ACLU has

opposed all governmental covert

operations since 1976," Ehrlich explained,

"because the American public and

Congress are deprived of their right to

an open, informed and public debate on

U.S. foreign policy. Se

"The so-called covert war is only a

secret to those whose tax dollars are used

to finance it, not to those against whom

the war is directed," Ehrlich said

introducing Ray Hooker who had been

shot, seriously wounded and held by the

contra army on Nicaragua's Atlantic

Coast from September 1 until November

1, 1984.

"Only a few weeks ago," Hooker said, |

"a busload of postal workers volunteering

to pick coffee was attacked by the contras.

Thirteen women postal workers were

raped repeatedly and murdered. Fifteen

male postal workers were murdered. This

was not an isolated incident.

"Ronald Reagan calls these contras the

`moral equivalent' of your Founding

Fathers. Frankly, in Nicaragua we have

` more respect for your Founding Fathers

_ than that," Hooker said.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby hailed the district court ruling. '

"The use of the visa process is. an

impermissible- and unconstitutional

abridgement of free speech," she said.

"The practice of ideological exclusion

is inconsistent with the basic premises of

a free society. The Administration's

actions deny American citizens the

opportunity to hear about foreign affairs

from people with a perspective which .

clashes with the official government

position. Since this exposure to dissenting

voices from abroad is essential for us to

make decisions about the conduct of

foreign affairs, the Administration's use

of the visa process to silence its critics

infringes fundamental free speech values," -

Crosby added. .

Immigration Act of 1952

Mrs. Allende's visa was denied under

Section (27) of the McCarran-Walter

Immigration Act of 1952 which permits

the government to deny a visa if the visitor

were to engage in activities which would

threaten the public interest.

The State Department claimed. that

since Mrs. Allende "is a member of both

the World Peace Council and the Wom-

en's International Democratic Federa-

`tion, organizations reputed to be inter-

national fronts for the Communist Party

of the Soviet Union," she fell into this

category. ~-

The govenment's case was based on ,

secret documents that ACLU attorneys

were given no opportunity to inspect. The

District Court ruling stated, "Summary

judgment may not be granted on the basis

_ of materials to which the party opposing

summary judgement is denied access."

"Although this Court is aware that

there may be a point at which the

theoretical ideals of the adversary system

must bow to the practical necessitics of (c)

preserving national security and interna-

tional relations, that point has not yet -

been reached in this case," the opinion

stated.

The judge added that the government

may renew. its motion if it can produce

unclassified material establishing, as a

matter of public record, a "facially

legitimate and bona fide" reason for their

refusal to grant Mrs. Allende a visa.

continued on p. 6

~ aclu news

april 1985

x

The ACLU-NC filed a lawsuit on

March 28 in Sacramento Superior Court

on behalf of two children who will not

receive funding for treatment of devel-

opmental disablilities unless records of.

_ their intimate personal behavior are

placed in a centralized state computer

system.

The children and their parents are being

represented by ACLU-NC cooperating

attorneys Mark White, Anna M. Rossi,

and Margaret A. Corrigan of the San

Francisco law firm of Rogers, Joseph

O'Donnell and Quinn and ACLU-NC staff

attorney Margaret C. Crosby. The ACLU

contends that the manner in which the

children's records are maintained in the

files of the state Department of Devel-

opmental Services violates their consti-

tutional and statutory rights of privacy.

Kyle White, 7, and Shoshana McAvoy,

11, are children with developmental

disabilities; they have been treated at the

Redwood Coast Regional Center and its

predecessor agency since they were

infants. Since 1979, the Department-of

Developmental Services (DDS) has

required all such regional centers, to

prepare and submit periodic reports on

the status and progress of each of the

centers' clients. These reports are known

as Client Development Evaluation

Reports or "CDER's".

Intimate Details

The CDER's contain answers to

detailed questions regarding each client's

medical condition, behavior, and personal

habits, including such intimate and highly -

sensitive matters as medication, toilet

Police Street Sweeps Upheld

-A month after hearing arguments that

the San Francisco police illegally use an

obstruction of the sidewalks law to "sweep

the streets" of persons they consider

undesirable, the state Court of Appeal

upheld the police practice.

- During a trial in San Francisco

Superior Court in 1982, the ACLU-NC

sought an injunction and a declaration

that the bad faith enforcement by the

police of Section 647c of the state Penal

~Code was unconstitutional. Evidence

produced at the trial showed that 94%

of the people arrested under 647c had

their charges dropped at their first

appearance in court and that less than

one in 200 is SE convicted of

obstruction.

When Superior Court Judge Lawrence

Mana upheld the police practice, ACLU-

NC staff attorney Amitai Schwartz took

the case to the Court of Appeal where

it was argued on February 7.

"Since the courts have struck down

vagrancy and loitering laws," Schwartz

explained, "the police now sweep the

streets of undesirables as they did under

the old laws - they just avoid submitting

the arrests for prosecution."

Ironically, the Court of Appeal opin-

ion, authored by Justice Harry Low,

made note of the statistics introduced at

the trial by the ACLU, that less than half

of one percent of charges under 647c

resulted in convictions. Even though only

17 of 3,940 arrests between August 1980

and July 1982 resulted in convictions, the

opinion stated, there was no proof of bad

faith or harassment by the police that

would make the practice unconstitutional.

~The ACLU-NC filed the lawsuit

Ramey v..Murphy on behalf of San

Francisco taxpayers including former

ACLU-NC Board Chair Drucilla Ramey.

Schwartz commented, "We are disap-

pointed that the Court did not tackle the

vagrancy and due process issues presented

by the case. After all, the people arrested,

for the most part, never receive any due

process at all."

Schwartz said that he will now petition

the state Supreme Court to hear the case.

Individual$20. ( )

( ) This is a gift membership from

Joint $30

"an an additional contribution of $----

Your Civil Liberties .

Ignore them

and they'll go away!

_ doin the ACLU

Address_.

| 0x00A7

|

|

| Name

|

; City

| Return to ACLU-NG, 1663 Mission St., S.F. 94103 _

J ee

Zip

training, level of bladder and bowel

control, "unacceptable social behavior,"

episodes of violence or aggression,

smearing of feces, inappropriate undress-

ing, "temper tantrums," and self-injurious

behavior.

Originally, CDER's were marked by

a name code to which the DDS `had

access, but submission of CDER's to

DDS was voluntary. In 1981, DDS

_adopted a policy that it would not provide

regional centers with funds for any client

unless a CDER was submitted.

After an administrative protest, several

clients, including the plaintiffs in this suit,

were allowed to have anonymous

CDER's placed in the DDS file and to

contingie receiving services.

Beginning in July, 1984, the DDS

altered its client identification system. The

DDS has now decided to maintain a

Client Master File on each client in its

computer files which matches a client's

name with the code used on his or her

CDER.

According to cooperating attorney

White, "The threatened submission of the

reports with client-identifying informa-

tion known to the DDS creates the

ACLU Files Suit to Keep Childrens' Files Private

ers, educators and other governmental

agencies.

Risk of Disclosure

"The magnitude of this risk cannot be

determined with certainty, but the effect

of any disclosure would be severe and

irreparable," White added.

"This causes the children and their

families emotional distress and injury to

their security and peace of mind."

Carole White, mother of Kyle, spoke

of her own reluctance to submit a CDER

for her son knowing that it would no

longer be confidential. "I can not in good.

_ conscience submit a CDER for Kyle,

given the potentially devastating conse-

_ quences it could have for him. Unjustified

access to the information contained in the

~CDER undeniably would prevent Kyle

from overcoming the difficult hurdles he

already faces in our society as a person

with developmental disabilities.

"As a parent and a citizen deeply

concerned about the rights of the disabled,

I can only add that any abuse of this

information to Kyle's detriment would be _

an ironic and tragic result of a system

supposedly intended to enhance the

"Any abuse of. this information to my child's det-

riment would be an ironic and tragic result of a system

supposedly intended to enhance the lives of devel-

opmentally disabled persons."

unnecessary risk that the client's highly

sensitive and personal information will be

made accessible to others outside of the

developmental disability services system,

including future or prospective employ-

COMPUTER,

VCR NEEDED

The ACLU of Northern California

needs the following equipment for use

by the legal, field, public information,

_and development departments:

cent NorthStar

puters, a hard disk, printers, and

modems;

0x00B0VCR video recorder (VHS format)

and large color monitor or TV; ~

sheets);

cent Legal-sized metal file drawers;

cent Paper folding machine.

Tax deductions available-call

Michael Miller, 415-621-2493.

"Advantage" microcom- -

e Heavy duty paper cutter (up to 100

opportunities of developmentally dis-

abled persons to lead more independent,

productive and normal lives within their

communities," she added.

The ACLU-NC lawsuit is seeking an

order from the court declaring that the

submission of CDER's under this new

system, if the parent or legal guardian

has refused to consent to that submission,

is in violation of the client's right to

privacy secured by the California Con-

stitution and the Lanterman Develop-

mental Disabilities Services Act. The suit _

is also seeking an injunction barring the

collection of such identifiable CDER's

over the objection of the client or legal

~ guardian.

The defendants in the lawsuit are the

Department of Developmental Services,

DDS Director Gary D. Macomber,

Redwood Coast Regional Center and its

Director G. David Peach.

Elaine Elinson, Editor -

aclu news

bt issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June- ee

August-September and November-December |

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Nancy Pemberton, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director Sis

Marcia Gallo, a

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018- 040) =

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

Membership $20 and up, of which S0 cents is for a subscription to the aclu:news -

Chapter Page

hab (c)

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

aclu news

april 1985 3

S.F. Escort Services Law Struck Down

The state Court of Appeal overturned

a 1981 San Francisco ordinance giving

police the power to regulate escort

services, ruling that that the city ordinance

is pre-empted by state laws and represents

a disguised attempt to increase police

investigative powers. The ACLU-NC filed

an amicus brief in the case, Cohen v.

Superior Court, arguing that the ordi-

nance violated the California Constitu-

tion's guarantees of privacy; the brief was _

prepared by ACLU-NC cooperating

attorney Stephen Cone. |

The ordinance required that all estab-

lishments falling into the broadly defined

category of escort services maintain a

daily register, open to police and health

departments, showing the names and

addresses of patrons, their escorts, times

and places where escort services took

place and the feggcharged.

According to ACLU-NC staff attorney

Margaret Crosby, "The ordinance was

very intrusive into personal privacy. It

allowed police officers to scrutinize the

names of patrons, whom they dated,

where they went and what they did."

The 16-page unanimous Court of

Appeal opinion, authored by Justice

Jerome Smith, concluded that the ordi-

nance was enacted as a licensing scheme

but operates as a criminal statute.

"The ordinance does not merely seek |

to license businesses," Justice Smith

wrote, "it blatantly attempts to expand

police investigative powers in regulating

criminal sexual conduct beyond that

encompassed in the California Penal

Code.

"The daily register requirement and the

provisions. compelling disclosure of

fingerprints, photographs and prior

criminal records are information-

gathering devices to aid in the investiga-

tion and prosecution of alleged criminal

activities. Further, the daily register (as

written) even anticipates a certain level

of criminality. . ," the opinion stated.

The Court also cited testimony by

Mayor Dianne Feinstein and San Fran-

cisco police officials supporting the

passage of the ordinance as a crime

fighting measure during the 1981 hearing

before the Board of Supervisors. Cities

e

ene

are allowed to set licensing requirements

for businesses, the court said, but cannot

pass. licensing laws that are disguised

attempts to stop prostitution. -

The taxpayers' suit was filed in 1981

by San Francisco residents Bruce Cohen

and Keegan Low. When their challenge

to the ordinance was rejected by San -

Francisco Superior Court Judge Ira

Brown, they took their case to the Court

of Appeal where the ALCU-NC joined

the suit.

A Will to give to the ACLU

For more. than 50:years the ACLU of

Northern California has fought to defend

the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Through the pages of history - red-

baiting, vigilantes, WWII internmentcamps,

HUAC, the Free Speech Movement,

Vietnam, civil rights, the women's move-

ment, gay rights and more - the ACLU

has pioneered the fight for individual

liberties.

You can do something now to insure

that the ACLU will continue to fight - and

win - ten, twenty, and fifty years from

_ now, through a simple addition to your

will.

Every year thoughtful civil libertarians

have, through their bequests, provided

important support for the ACLU. In 1984,

interest income alone earned by these

bequests, contributed over $50,000.

Making a bequest is simple: you need

only specify a dollar gift or a portion of

your estate for the American Civil Liberties

Union Foundation of Northern California,

Inc.

If you need information about writing

a will or want additional information,

consult your attorney or write:

Bequests,

ACLU Foundation of Northern Califor-

nia, 1663 Mission Street, San Fran-

cisco 94103.

- Warrantless Searches of Childcare Homes OK'ed by Court

State inspectors do not need a search

warrant when making unannounced visits

to residential childcare centers, the U.S.

Court of Appeals ruled on March 28.

The ruling, written by Judge Warren

Ferguson reinstated most of a state law

that U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn

Hall Patel had struck down in 1981 when

she held that a warrant was needed. The

ACLU-NC and other public interest

- groups had argued as amici curiae in

support of Judge Patel's ruling that barred

state offficials from entering family day

care homes without a warrant.

The friends of the court brief, written

by San Francisco attorney Mary Dunlap -

on behalf of the ACLU-NC, California

N.O.W., the Child Care Coordinating

Council of San Mateo County, the San

Francisco Commission on the Status of

Women, Equal Rights Advocates and the

San Francisco Women Lawyers Alliance,

was submitted to the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals in April, 1984.

A family day care home is a private

home in which regular care is given to

12 or fewer children, including the

_caregiver's own. Thousands of California

children are cared for in these facilities

which must be licensed by the state and

are subject to health and safety require-

ments.

The Court of Appeals stated, "We

conclude that warrantless inspections of

family day care homes do not offend the

Fourth Amendment. The majority of

children receiving care in family daycare

_ homes are under five years of age...

"The California Legislature was plainly

The ACLU argued that allowing state inspectors to search residential childcare

centers without a warrant is an attack on working parents who use and benefit

_ from family day care.

aware that such children, away from their

parents, need the special protection of the

state and that the interests, health, and

safety of children are of paramount

importance in our society. Parents who

use day care, especially low-income

parents who must place their children in

affordable day care while they work, must

be assured that strict monitoring of health

and safety conditions will keep their

children safe," the Court continued.

According to the ruling, searches must

be conducted only during business hours

and in areas where children have access.

Since the challenged State law did not

include. these limitations, it was held

-overbroad.

' In arguing against the warrantless

searches, attorney Mary Dunlap charged

that they constitute impermissible intru-

sions into the privacy of family day care

providers as they earn their living caring

for children in their own home.

"The Fourth Amendment protects the

home and is designed to protect against

precisely the types of searches at issue in

this case," Dunlap said.

"Citing tragic examples of child abuse

in family day care homes as justification

for warrantless searches mischaracterizes

_ the purposes of the licensing inspection,"

Dunlap explained.

If criminal activity is suspected in a

family day care homes, then a warrant

to search that home would be issued on

the showing of probable cause, the

ACLU-NC brief argued. Yet to justify an

exception to the warrant requirement, the

state argued that the purpose of the -

warrantless search is to detect instances

of criminal activity, namely child abuse

and molestation.

As Judge Patel had noted in the district

court opinion, five unannounced consen-

sual licensing inspections failed to detect

the instances of child abuse occurring in

the home of one of the most notorious

cases, that of Eleanor Nathan.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby said, "Many serious abuses of

children are inflicted by parents - yet

society would not tolerate warrantless

searches by the government of all private

homes where children live.

"Because warrants are issued without

notice to the care given, the element of

surprise is not lost by requiring that a

warrant be obtained. We do not feel,

therefore, that the warrant requirement

_ places children at increased risk," she said.

"This position is unsupported by the |

evidence of the normal nature of family

day care providers and their home

environments. It is an unsupported attack

on the working parents who use and

benefit from family day care," Crosby

added. ?

The case, Rush v. Obledo, was initiated

in 1981 by several day care providers and

the San Mateo County Daycare Associa-

tion. They are represented by the San

Francisco Lawyers Committee for Urban

Affairs who have requested reconsider-

ation from the entire Court of Appeals.

aclu news

april 1985

4

Over a Doren Measures Introduced

Abortion Debate Heats Up in Sacramento

by Daphne Macklin

ACLU Legislative Advocate

Twelve years after the U.S. Supreme

Court's landmark abortion rights decision -

in Roe v..Wade and twenty years since

its Griswold v. Connecticut. decision

_ invalidating state law restrictions on

access to contraceptives, the fundamental

issue of personal privacy in reproductive

health care continues to dominate poli-

tical debate and legislative activity.

`Until recently, public policy both

supported and encouraged the use of

family planning services and fostered

access to reproductive health care services

for the poor and for adolescents as a

matter of good public health. But public

policy reflecting basic constitutional

rights as well as public health concerns

supporting planned families and respon-

sible sexual conduct now faces disruption

through the activities of anti-abortion

groups.

Clearly, some voices within the anti-

choice movement openly disapprove of

consensual sexual activity except where

authorized by religious and legal sanc-

tions. And although this is not the opinion -

of a majority of Americans and Califor-

nians, the agenda promoted by these

interests threatens the availablity of

medical services for Californians reliant

on public care systems. Internationally,

it has meant funding for family planning

programs in developing countries has -

been slashed or curtailed because abortion

services, legal within the United States,

are offered or subsidized by international

health care assistance projects.

WHAT and YOU WANT

ABIRTH CONTROL

DEVICEP

ui OLDER "au

~AREYOUHAVING -

WANTON SEX

WITH ee

ARENT YOU A LITTLE

YOUNG FOR THAT,

YOu jas ?

Sep

0 wR RENT Ri

eT aNTeEN ABOUT Ve : iit THEIR

EN ENMGER 3 TL ENJOY

Vulnerable Sectors

The assault on reproductive freedom

through access to medical care and

information is now directed at those most

dependent on publicly provided services.

The familiar battle over Medi-Cal

funded abortion services for indigent

women is expanding to include restricted

access for minors. Agencies that formerly

supported sex education and family

planning services are currently controlled

or dominated by anti-choice interests.

And in recent weeks, the American Life

Lobby, one of the most active anti-choice

groups in Sacramento, has lobbied for

restrictions on the use of [UD's (Intrau-

terine Contraceptive Devices). Their

arguments are not based on possible

health risks to women but on the belief

`that the IUD induces abortions. -

Minors

Over a dozen bills relating to abortion

rights have already been introduced by

the Legislature (see sidebar). The most

prominent issue involves parental consent

for minors seeking abortions or contra-

ceptives. Three such bills, SB 7 (Mon-

toya), SB 99 (Richardson) and AB 80

(Sebastiani) are now. the focus of a

vigorous letter writing campaign by anti-

abortion groups. Legislative offices report

receiving over sixty letters each urging

passage of these measures.

In other states, similar rules have been

invalidated or enjoined by court action.

Litigation pending in Minnesota and

Massachusetts plan to challenge the

measures as applied. In both cases

plaintiffs intend to show that parental

consent and judicial by-pass mechanisms

serve as a bar to abortion access for many

_ teenaged women. While the vast majority

of petitioners who do get to court have

their requests granted, significantly more

young women seek abortions farther

away from home, at greater costs. Other

young women continue their pregnancies,

- but as noted by a report from the

Minnesota ACLU, with tragic conse-

quences: five cases of -infanticide by

adolescents were reported since passage

of the law.

Related to the parental consent/

minor's access bills are several measures

that would require parental notice or

consent before a minor could be released

from school to seek medical care: AB 1541

(Seastrand), AB 1561 (Herger). Similar

measures were defeated in the last

legislative session. -

Currently adolescents may seek treat- ~

ment for reproductive health care matters,

drug and alcohol abuse and psychiatric

care without parental consent. The school

release measures are indirect attempts to

mandate parental consent.

Constitutional Amendment

The anti-abortion film The Silent

Scream, which was shown at the Capitol

January 22 and 23, has inspired SB 1009

(Doolittle) which would mandate a

sonogram be performed prior to an

abortion procedure, and SB 1155

(Richardson) which would require treat- _

ment to alleviate fetal pain. AB 2045

(Sebastiani) would establish an income

tax check-off program for the Unborn

Child Protection Fund.. And Senator

H.L. Richardson has introduced SCA 25,

the long expected constitutional amend-

ment prohibiting the use of Medi-Cal

funds for abortions except to save the

life of the woman.

The continuing debate over reproduc-

tive freedom has been fueled by the

attitudes and actions of President Reagan

and the new ascendency of the Religious

Right. The concept of constitutionally

protected personal privacy in the intimate

realms of both procreative choice and

sexual expression is clearly at risk. Most

ominously, clinic violence (including the

_alleged link to the bombing of the ACLU

National Legislative Office), vandalism

and assaults on patients and health care

workers evidence troubling new dimen-

sions to what was once a difference of

attitudes debated and discussed in legal,

political, and social circles.

As another long seige in defense of

reproductive freedom begins, it is impor-

tant that legislators and government

officials be reminded and educated about

their responsibilities under our constitu-

tional system. The principles of ordered

liberty are central to the concept of limited

governmental interference in matters of

an inherently private and intimate nature.

Measures that impact individual freedom

of choice in matters of familial and

personal privacy deserve the most-serious

review.

HELP WANTED

ACLU COMPLAINT

COUNSELORS

Volunteers are needed now for a

challenging position staffing the

ACLU-NC Complaint Desk. The work

entails answering phones, taking

down complaints and questions,

providing information and referrals

and learning about the ACLU via

consultation with staff attorneys on the

novel questions presented.

lf you are interested and can

commit one day a week from 10 a.m.

to 4 p.m., please contact:

Pat Jameson, ACLU-NC Legal

Department, 415/621-2493.

aclu news -

aprili985 5

A Day in the Life of an

ACLU Lobbyist

by Daphne Macklin :

ACLU Legislative Advocate

NOTE: The usual issues are alive and

_ well, but as a public service this article

documents, in a fictionalized form, life

in the ACLU Legislative Office.

"I've never seen a copy machine code

TILT,"' the repair person commented

and shook his head. ``This counting

gauge has been turned at least four

-times. Don't you ever give this thing a

rest?"'

Our flagging photocopier is an ac-

curate measure of the increased level of

legislative business this session. Although

we don't follow every bill in the hopper,

one out of five of, say, 9,000 measures is

quite a handful. Alternating weeks,

fellow lobbyist Margie Swartz and I

review all of the bills that are in print or

reprint each morning. Comments during _

the gleaning range from ``No, not this

one again!'' to ``Would you be-

lieve..."

The more whimsical legislative

endeavors turn up as "`resolution."' In

addition to a host of matters relating to

reapportionment, there were the usual

- congratulations extended to the Raiders.

The latter caused something of a flare-up

between the Bay Area and Southern

California delegations. And then there

are some that defy explanation - take

the proclamation honoring Michael

Jackson . . . please.

Denizens of The Building (the insiders'

reference to the Capitol - as in ``The

City'') have an informal ``10 Most In-

credible Bills'' list. Top nominees include

the state grass bill (no, not Humboldt

County's finest), a proposal to have the:

square dance made the state dance (not

something that would play well on Rus-

sian Hill, in North Beach or among the

_ slam dancers) and a call to establish a

`state Commission on Self-Esteem. After -

the passage of Proposition-24, a bill to

limit the number of measures a member

could introduce was timely, but generally

disfavored. It did amount to a kind of

censorship. Besides, the current system

allows each representative to at least pre-

sent his or her constituents with that

- grand illusion of diligent effort.

Our operating rule is to put on our

watch list any measure that seems to im-

- pact civil liberties. Even with that

generous a standard, at least two or three

other bills a day are commended to our

office ``as something the ACLU should

really take a-look at."' The resulting list

of Senate and Assembly measures runs

to five pages of statistical typing. This in

turn leads to the creation of the weekly

calendars that. rival short doctoral

outlines in length. Each week's calendar

notes every watch bill scheduled for com-

mittee hearing. For some committees the

entire agenda is attached with our bills

denoted by stars. Some weeks it's easier

to note the bills on which we have not

taken a position.

`I don't think this is going

anywhere,'' I commented to Margie

after reviewing an unlikely prospect for

-unanimous approval, ``What do you

_ think?"' She agreed but suggested I con-

tact the committee consultant. The com-

mittee secretary advised that that par-

ticular measure had been withdrawn, at

the author's request, but that the conslu-

tant needed to speak with us about

another matter.

"`Which of you handles bills that have

to do with the free speech rights of

women workers during elections on

educational matters?'

Margie and I felt that was a toss-up,

but as she had a schedule conflict, I took (c)

the call.

The consultant had little hope for AB

6013. "`I talked to Assembly Member

Snipe's aide about this one,'' the consul-

tant told me. ``She confided that it was,

well, introduced for a somewhat excep-

tional constituent."'

"`T think I know the type,"' I replied.

"Let me put it this way, if you don't

like the bill, they'll drop it."'

With that mandate, I reviewed what

looked for all the world like a constitu-

tional law bar question and I telephoned

Snipe's aide.

"Is there something seriously wrong

with the bill?'' she asked hopefully.

"Well, the federal Constitution's

supremacy clause is the first thing that

comes to mind."'

With that resolved, I went on to the

next bill on the calendar. Margie had

picked out her bills, but Rita Egri, our

legislative assistant, then handed us the

revised calendar (legislative files are .

notably ephermeral creatures). More

adds than drops, we all noted grimly, in-

cluding a bill that would allow confisca-

tion of an automobile as the sanction for

fishing over the limit.

By the end of the week, the copy

machine was back on duty. Rita had

turned several reams of paper into a

gross of well stuffed envelopes ready for

distribution to six score legislators, their

committees and staff. Meanwhile,

Margie and I had consulted with other

lobbyists strategizing on the more impor-

tant measures. Someone had an expert.

witness to testify about expert testimony

at legislative hearings. And someone else

had the perfect victim of housing

discrimination against single parent

families with multiple exotic pets.

Then, a wild rumor was confirmed.

Committee sessions for the week had all

been canceled. That put us a little

ahead.

Even the copier sighed.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby was honored by the Northern

California Pro-Choice Coalition at a

Sacramento reception on the 12th

anniversary of the landmark Roe v.

Wade decision. Crosby, who has

successfully defeated the Legislature's

annual attempts to cut Medi-Cal

funding for abortion for the last 7 years

was awarded by the Coalition for

"commitment to the cause of abortion

privacy and autonomy as fundamental

human rights."

Crosby was surprised with the

certificate of appreciation after she had

just completed filing the ACLU-NC

response to the latest attempt to

eliminate abortion funds in the Placer

County Superior Court case Fluty v.

- Swoap. .

Crosby Awarded

freedom of choice and: the ideals of -

Cashing in on an

Anti-Choice Case

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAN

PRESVANT. AS LONG ~ oe POOR.

: Address

MB Chia.

(c)OR77

Though the anti-choice forces have

made no J/egal headway in their latest -

and rather dubious - attempt to elim-

inate Medi-Cal abortion funds (Fluty v.

Swoap, see ACLU News, March 1985),

they are making a heavy-handed appeal

to fill their coffers based on the lawsuit.

A February [5 letter sent oft nationally

by the anti-choice ALERT Foundation

asks for emergency funds to help "two

young pro-life California attorneys in

saving 166 preborn children from being

godlessly murdered each month."

The letter, signed by nationally

renowned anti-abortion advocate Mrs.

Judie Brown, states:

"2,000 innocent unborn babies are at

_the mercy of the Superior Court in Placer

County, California...

"Within 24 hours after the suit was

: announced, ACLU lawyers were in court

petitioning the court... .

. and the ACLU has a very good

chance of winning since it is paid $500,000

a year by California taxpayers to protect

the funding of abortions...

".. . ACLU's past record is proof

enough - for the past 7 years the ACLU

has fought for the right of state-funded

clinics to slaughter 750,000 unborn

babies.

"The powerful ACLU has proven again

and again it has no conscience about its

action against God and against decent

moral Americans like you."

Mrs. Brown goes on with such lies and

distortions for four pages, ending with

an impassioned plea for $25, $50 or $100

to "fight the ACLU and save the lives

of these precious little ones."

The solicitation letter promises that the

"two brave young pro-life lawyers" whom

the readers are urged to support "pray-

erfully and financially" will be back in

court against the ACLU on March II.

In fact, the pro-life attorneys have taken

no further action in the case since J udge

Richard Couzens denied them a Tempor-

ary Restraining Order on January 10.

On February 15, the date of the

national fundraising letter, the pro-life

attorneys announced that they had

removed the case from the Placer County "

Superior Court's active calendar until

further notice.

And, by the way, the ACLU is not

"paid $500,000 a year by California

taxpayers to protect the funding of

-abortions." The ACLU receives no

government funding; all of the resources

to fight this civil liberties battle and others

come from ACLU members,

donors.

How DoI Make

My. CHOICE? Questions and Ans-

wers about Abortion, Sterilization,

Birth Control and Reproductive

Rights in California

The easy-to-use guide to repro- 0x00A7

ductive rights, prepared by Public In-

formation Director Elaine Elinson and

Staff Attorney Margaret Crosby, 0x00A7

answers questions like: Can a doctor |

or hospital refuse my request for an

abortion? Do I need my husband's/ |

parents' permission to get an abor- |

tion? Can I be sterilized without my 0x00A7

consent? and many more. |

A useful tool for-women's centers, |

schools, clinics and all those who have

even asked ``How do I make my

choice?' individual copies are available 0x00A7

free of charge by filling in the coupon

below. (Bulk orders are $10 for 100 0x00A7

_ brochures. )

; 1 want to know about reproductive rights i in California.

____ Please send me a copy of How Do I Make My CHOICE?

copies of How Do I Make My CHOICE? Enclosed i is$__

: (Bulk orders are $10 per 100 copies.)

i Please send me ____

i Name

0x00A7 Cit

5 city

Zip

Send to: Pro-choice Brochure, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St., S.E 94103. Make checks0x00A7

: payable to ACLU-NC.

ee ee

private

foundation grants and other generous

RS ee

aclu news

6 april 1985

WWII Anti-Japanese Law Repealed

A painful chapter of California history

was closed last month when a measure

repealing Government Code Section

19573 which allowed for the dismissal of

state workers of Japanese descent was

unanimously approved by the Assembly -

Public Employees and Retirement

Committee. ~

The vote followed testimony by two

employees who were affected by the

statute which was enacted on an urgency |

basis shortly before Japanese American

internment was decreed. by President

Rooseyelt's Executive Order 9066.

Shizu Ueda explained that her notice

oi dismissal arrived on the same day she

was to receive a pay increase. George

Muraki, now a Sacramento architect, was

dismissed from a clerk's position he held

to finance his college education. Ironi-

cally, both later worked in the national

defense effort - Ueda as a clerk with

the Department of Defense and Muraki

as a military intelligence interpreter.

- One of the authors of the repeal

measure, Assemblyman Phil Isenberg,

described how there was hardly any press

or public criticism of the dismissal and

internment orders during the wartime

period. Muraki told the Committee that

the ACLU-NC wrote to inform him of

the status of its action challenging the

dismissal. The ACLU-NC was one of the

only organizations to challenge any of the

repressive measures aimed at Japanese

Americans during World War II.

Muraki added that he later turned

down a position with the state as an

architect. The memories of his dismissal

were too painful, he said.

Many state workers of Japanese descent lost their jobs under California law even

before the federal internment order was issued.

Jr. High Student - with Earring - Reinstated

When 13-year old Robert Tabler was

- suspended from Scotts Valley Junior

High School for wearing an earring, his

mother called the Santa Cruz Chapter

ACLU Hotline. Within 24 hours, Chapter

Legal Representative Robert Taren met

with Shirley Tabler and her son and

planned a legal strategy which was to get

the eighth grader - wearing his earring

- reinstated.

- After meeting with the Tablers, Taren

- contacted the Superintendent of Schools

- for the Scotts Valley School District and

. explained that he would initiate a lawsuit

-. on the student's behalf.

"Robert 's earring - which was a small

stud and only visible if he pulled back

his hair - caused no disruption to the

-. academic atmosphere in the classroom.

_- Phe principal himself later admitted this,"

~ Taren explained. |

"Moreover, it is sexually discriminatory

__ for boys, but not girls, to be prohibited

_ from wearing earrings. Two other boys

`in the school had been told to stop

wearing earrings and they had. Robert

- wanted to fight this," Taren added.

On March 25, less than a week after

Robert had been suspended, he was

reinstated at Scotts Valley Junior High

- thanks to the vigilance and effective

-work of the Santa Cruz Chapter.

Courtesy of JACL

__Calendar__

continued from p. 8

FIELD

COMMITTEE

MEETINGS

PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE: Wed-

nesday, April 3 at 7:30 p.m. and Wednesday

May | at 6:00 p.m. ACLU 1663 Mission

Street, 4th floor, SF, All Pro-Choice

supporters and friends welcome. Contact

Marcia Gallo, 415/621-2493.

RIGHT TO DISSENT SUBCOMMIT-

TEE: Wednesday April 3 at 6:00 p.m. and

Wednesday May | at 7:30 p.m. ACLU 1663

Mission Street, 4th Floor, SF. Contact

Contact Marcia Gallo, 415/621-2493.

| DRAFT OPPOSITION NETWORK:

(Usually second Tuesday-of month.)

Contact Judy Newman 415/567-1527.

IMMIGRATION WORKING GROUP:

Thursday, April 11 at 6:00 p.m. DiConcini/

Moakley Strategizing Session with sanc-

tuary expert, Terri Chin of Catholic Social

Services. Contact Cindy Forster 415/621-

2493.

Government Ban

continued from p. 1

"Although this is only a preliminary

step," Crosby explained, "it is an impor-

tant one." The judge has established that

Mrs. Allende's affiliation with organiza-

tions deemed subversive by the Admin-

istration cannot justify her exclusion

under Section (27) of the McCarran-

Walter Act.

"It follows that other ideological

grounds, such as her beliefs, writings and

prior speeches, cannot furnish a basis for

denying her a visa. Thus, the government

must provide a non-ideological basis for

Mrs. Allende's exclusion - for example,

a violation" of prior visa conditions,"

Crosby said.

As the government's motion to dismiss

for summary judgement was denied, the

case will proceed in the same district

court.

=

TOPICS |

Still Active After All These Years

The following article appeared in the

Oakland Tribune on March 20, 1985.

Richard Criley, cited below as chairman

of the UC Berkeley student anti-war

group is now Vice-chair of the ACLU

and a founding member of the Right to -

of yesterday |

March 20, 1935

BERKELEY - Nine University of California

students, four of them women, were arrested for

distributing anti-war handbills outside the Sather

Gate entrance of the institution today.

Police Judge Oliver L. Youngs, who first set

bail at $10 cash or $50 bond for each of the nine,

later released them on their own recognizance to

appear Monday-at-9 a.m. in police court here.

Richard Criley, ghairman of the campus

dup,said he aid appeal the arrests to the

Civil Liberties Union on the ground that they

constituted an infringement of the students' right

of free speech. The pamphlets heralded a meet-

ing of the student anti-war committee this after-

noon.

Dissent subcommittee. One wonders

what the City Attorney and the Police

Chief are doing today...

- Yesterday Criley appeared at the office of

City Attorney Frederick Hutchinson seeking a

license to distribute the handbills..He was told

that a city ordinance covering distribution did

not permit a hand-to-hand passage and that the

pamphlets could only be delivered to homes and

in mail boxes. |

Subsequently Police Chief John A. Greening

issued a warning to the students not to distribute -

the literature, but the order was defied, resulting

in the arrests. ee

Several hundred handbills telling readers to

"see the daily newspapers for news of imminent

wars" were confiscated by police at the time of

the arrests.

aclunews_-,

april 1985 t

Irv Cohen - Civil Liberties Champion

hen former ACLU National

Board member Irv Cohen died

of cancer on March 11, the

ACLU lost one of its staunchest fighters

_and one of its most valuable minds.

He knew the history of civil liberties

in California like the back of his hand.

From details of the discussions of the

founding mothers and fathers of the

ACLU of Northern California to the

heady days of the Berkeley Free Speech

Movement to current debate on the Board

"about religious meetings in schools, Irv

Cohen knew - and cared passionately

- about the struggle for civil liberties.

Born in Armenia, the long-time New

York City resident relocated to bucolic

Marin: County where he jogged the

running trails daily. Irv twice served as

the Chairperson of the Marin Chapter

Board; during his lengthy tenure as a

member of the ACLU-NC Affiliate

Board, he chaired the Chapter Committee

and was a member of the Executive

Committee. He was also one of the Board

members nominated by the staff to serve

on the Grievance Committee.

In 1975; the affiliate lost its then acting

Executive Director to a state appointment

by Governor Jerry Brown and was

desperately looking for an interim leader

while a new Executive Director search

was conducted. According to the ACLU

News of February, 1975, "The resourceful

Executive Committee wasted no time and

immediately arm-twisted Irv Cohen into

agreeing to serve as Acting Director.

Before Irv had time to come to his senses

and reconsider, the Board of Directors

approved the appointment. :

"There was another sonic on

contributing to the dispatch with which

the Board acted - everyone was afraid

Jerry Brown would hear about Irv and

invite him to Sacramento, too."

Irv was sent by the ACLU-NC to

represent our 20,000 members on the

National Board from 1977 to 1980. There

he brought to the national organization

some of the probing questions and

contentious style which was characteristic

both of this affiliate and our represen-

Frank Rowe

Led Fight Against California Tani Oath

Michael M per

Artist, teacher, author: Frank Rowe,

whose fight against unconstitutional.

them."

loyalty oaths spanned'3 decades died on

March 24 in Walnut Creek. Rowe,

authored The Enemy Among Us, a-

history of the California loyalty oath oe

during the McCarthy era.

At a December 1980 press conference

announcing the ACLU-NC's successful

challenge to the use of the loyalty oath

in the Richmond Unified School District,

Rowe joined plaintiff Marvin Schmid and

ACLU-NC

Schwartz in. condemning the McCarthy

era oath.

Speaking at the press conference of his _

27-year battle for reinstatement in his job

and for compensation for himself and

others, Rowe said, "I am in disbelief that

a school district in 1980 would attempt

_ to enforce this old oath.

"I feel saddened that after all we have

been through, school administrators do

not understand the Bill of Rights," Rowe

said. "There is a period of instability in'

1980 and that is the kind of atmosphere

where these kinds of things crop up. It

is important that we speak out against

_In 1980, The Enemy Among Us won

awards from the California Federation of

Teachers and the United Professors of

- California.

staff attorney Amitai

tative on such critical issues as affirmative

action and religious freedom.

As a writer and editor, Irv's many skills

and interests led him on diverse paths.

He was the film critic for Marin County's

weekly Pacific Sun and a freelance

contributor to the San Francisco Chron-

icles Sunday art review Datebook. His

novel, The Passover. Commando, pub-

lished by Crown Publishers in 1979, is

a modern day international thriller

steeped in Biblical allusions At the time .

of his death he was working on a

biography of Charles Erskine Scott, a

progressive intellectual and adventurer of

the 20's and 30's who was married to Sara

Bard Field, a founder of the ACLU-NC.

- He also graced the pages of the

affiliate's ACLU News with reviews of

books and oral histories pertinent to our

past. His knowledge of and enthusiasm _

for ACLU history helped create our 50th -

anniversary historical retrospective.

Irv generously dispensed his witty

advice to aspiring young writers, "Buy an

old oak wine barrel and fill it with brine,"

he said. "Stand in it every day for six

months or so. When your skin is as thick

as an elephant's, you can start to write.

That's when you will be able to take the

rejections."

Irv may have ounten his skin in

brine or literary rejection slips, but his

heart always remained, tender in dealing

with his colleagues -and friends. His

passion for civil liberties and his excite-

ment for life - its. jewels and its battles

- never dimmed.

Irv's wife Marna and his children lanl

and Judith Cohen-Baer are asking that

contributions in Irv's name be made to

the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Board of Directors of the ACLU-

NC wants to honor our own favorite son,

Irv Cohen, by pledging to carry on the

battle for civil liberties with as much

commitment, creativity, tenacity, and zest

as Irv did in his lifetime.

The above resolution was passed by the

ACLU-NC Board of Directors on April

ATT 1985.

Newly Revised!

432 pp.

ELLA

THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN

Susan Deller Ross and Ann Barcher

An-authoritative and up-to-date American Civil Liberties Union handbook

on how to cope with sex discrimination in employment, education, the

mass media, the criminal justice system, the courts, and elsewhere.

To order, send $3.95 plus $1 for postage and handling to: Literature

Department, ACLU, 132 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036. Also -

available from Bantam Books at your local bookstore.

RG Handbooks

Newly Revised!

THE RIGHTS OF GAY PEOPLE

Thomas B. Stoddard, E. Carrington Boggan,

Marilyn G. Haft, Charles Lister, and John RP Rupp

An American Civil Liberties Union handbook describing the rights of gay

men and women under present law, the common problems they face

and how the laws can and should develop. 208 pp.

To order, send $3.95 plus $1 for postage and handling to: Literature

Department, ACLU, 132 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036. Also

available from Bantam Books at your local bookstore,

RCL wanabooks

A Step By Step Guide

Center for National Security Studies

USING THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

This is a guide for the intelligent layman through the bureaucratic thicket of FOIA

requests and appeals. The reader is provided with step by step help, including sam-

ple letters and detailed guidelines for dealing with routine agency responses to

requests and appeals. As a resource since the 1974 FOIA amendments went into

effect, the Center for National Security Studies knows what the questions: have been

for getting personal files, for getting historical material, for keeping fees down or get-

ting fee waivers, and for planning request strategies. Revised in 1983. 20 pp. $2.00/

copy. Bulk rates available at $1 -00/copy for all orders of 25 copies or more.

ae

8

aclu news

april 1985

- BARK

BOARD MEETING: (Usually fourth

Thursday each month.) Volunteers are

needed to staff hotline. Contact Joe Dorst,

415/654-4163.

EARL WARREN

BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday

`each month.) Contact Larry Polansky,

415/530-4553.

FRESNO

BOARD MEETING: (Usually third

Wednesday each month.) Contact Sam

Gitchel, 209/442-0941 or Hague Foster,

~ 209/227-8082.

RECEPTION for Theatre Ensemble

"People Speaking" April 18, 7:00 p:m. at

Howard and Chris Watkins' house. See

local newsletter for details.

GAY RIGHTS

BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday each

month.) Tuesday, May 7, 7:00 p.m. at

ACLU 1663 Mission Street, #460, SF.

Contact Doug Warner, 415/641-7900.

COMING ATTRACTION: Reception for

Gay Pride week in June. :

MID-PENINSULA

BOARD MEETING: (Usually last

Wednesday each month.) Contact Harry

Anisgard, 415/856-9186.

MONTEREY

BOARD MEETING: (Fourth Tuesday

each month.) Tuesday, April 23, 7:30 p.m.,

Monterey Library, Pacific and Jefferson

Streets. Contact Richard Criley, 408/624-

7562.

MT. DIABLO

BOARD MEETING: (Fourth Wednesday

every month.) Contact Barbara Eaton for

location, 415/676-5160 or 939-ACLU.

FUNDRAISER: Mt. Diablo has

purchased the house for the opening

Saturday performance, May 25, of the

Lafayette Dramateur's Production of

Agatha Christie's "Appointment with

Death". Tickets are $12.50. The theater is

located at the corner of Moraga Road and

School Street in Lafayette. Curtain time

is 8:00 p.m. Wine, cheese and hors

d'oeuvres provided . For reservatioons send

check to Guyla W. Ponomareff, 3433

Golden Gate Way, Suite C, Lafayette, CA

94549 or call 284-4300 (days) or Lucie

dissent. . ,

MARIN COUNTY

381-1088.

BOARD MEETING: (Third Monday

each month.) Contact Leslie Paul, 415/

Brandon (eves) 933-1284.

Field Committee

Priorities Set for 1985

by Macia Gallo

Field Representative

Increasing assaults on protest and

reproductive rights ... immi-

grants' rights ... draft opposition... and

the independence of the California

Supreme Court provided the framework

for the 1985 Field Committee Priority

Discussion held March 2 in San Fran-

cisco. 25 ACLU activists, representing

- chapters and organizing committees from

throughout northern California, reviewed

the work of the Field Program in 1984

and planned for expanded efforts in 1985.

Committee Affirms

Current Efforts

The ACLU-NC's Field Program coor-

`dinates the membership organizing work

of the affiliate and is directed by the Field.

Committee, a standing committee of the

Board of Directors. The Field Committee

is made up of the 16 chapter represen-

tatives to the ACLU-NC Board and 5

at-large members.

Each year, the Committee analyzes the

myriad of civil liberties issues confronting

ACLU activists and chooses priority areas

for concentrated action. Special organ-

izing groups are formed to lead mem-

bership organizing and education efforts,

build ACLU's coalition work, carry out

grassroots lobbying campaigns, and

develop media outreach projects in each

of the priority areas.

In 1984, the Field Program focused ou

the right to dissent as its top priority, with

pro-choice organizing and the defense of

immigrants' rights as second priority

areas. Draft. opposition work was

included as a third priority. The Com-

mittee reaffirmed the importance of

continuing current efforts in all of these

areas in 1985 due to continuing - and

accelerating - attacks on. each, and

added a new priority issue: independence

of the judiciary.

Independence of the Judiciary -

"California's periodic vote on retention

of justices was intended to be a safety

valve permitting the removal of a senile

or otherwise incompetent.judge," noted -

Richard Criley, Field Committee chair

during the Committee's discussion of this

issue. "It was not supposed to serve as

a judicial `popularity contest'. The

moment retention is made a partisan,

political contest, the independence of the

_ judicial branch is endangered."

Committee. members agreed that,

although the vote on retention of five

members of the California Supreme

Court is still more than a year away,

attacks on specific members of the Court

for not being "conservative" enough have

already been heated and widespread.'

ACLU's San Francisco chapter is now

planning a series of educational forums

Calendar.

_ Address:

NORTH PENINSULA

BOARD MEETING: (Third Monday this

month only. Usually held the second

Monday each month.) Monday, April 15,

Sears Bank, San Mateo. Contact Sid

Scheiber, 415/345-8603 (eves).

CHAMPAIGN BRUNCH: Sunday, May

19 at 1:00 p.m.; The first presentation of

the Meta Kauffman/Roy Archibald

Memorial Civil Liberties Award to Marian

Hemingway for her lifetime work-as a civil - :

libertarian. Keynote speaker Dru Ramey

will address "The Independence of the

Judiciary." Villa Hotel, 4000 S. El Camino

Real, San Mateo. $25. per person ($15.

limited income). For tickets call: Sid

Schieber 415/345-8603. (eves).

"SACRAMENTO

BOARD MEETING: Note change: Now

the second . Wednesday - each

month. Contact Mary Gill, 916/457-4088.

SAN FRANCISCO

BOARD MEETING: (Usually fourth

Tuesday each month.) Contact Chandler

Visher, 415/391-5110 -

-SANTA CLARA

BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday each

month.) Contact Steve Alpers, 415/792-

510. =

on the issues involved in preserving an

independent judicial system, and other

ACLU chapters in northern California

may develop similar projects. -

Texas Observer

SIGN ME UP ~

| want to be more involved in Field Committee activities

SANTA CRUZ.

BOARD MEETING: (Usually second

Wednesday each month.) Wednesday,

April, 10 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. All members

welcome. Contact Bob Taren 408/429-

0880.

SONOMA

BOARD MEETING: (Third Thursday

every month at 7:30 p.m.) 719 Orchard, |

Santa Rosa. Winetasting at every board

meeting. Contact June Swan 707/547-

- 7711. Volunteers needed to-take complaint

calls. Training at board meetings.

~ PRO-CHOICE COMMITTEE forming.

Call Sharon Simms 707/762-3964 (eves).

FORUM ON IMMIGRATION AND

SANCTUARY. Friday evening, May

10. Contact June Swan 707/546-7711.

STOCKTON

BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday

~ each month.) Contact Bart Harloe 209/

4946-2431 (days).

YOLO COUNTY

BOARD MEETING: Contact Michael

Laurence 916/756-8421.

continued on p. 6

Top Priority: Your Involvement

The extensive organizing efforts being

planned by the Field Committee cannot

be continued without the active involve-

ment of ACLU members. As a chapter

member or because of specific interest in

one of the priority areas, ACLU suppor-

ters can help stop the assaults on civil

liberties by devoting some time on a

regular basis to one of the organizing

groups. Please fill out the coupon below

and send it immediately to: Marcia Gallo,

Field Representative, ACLU of Northern -

California, 1663 Mission Street, #460, San

Francisco, CA 94103; or call for more

information: 415/621-2493.

Your time and energy can have a great

impact. Please join us today.

Name:

City:

Telephone: Day

Zip:

Night

I'm interested in working on the following issues:

________ Right to Dissent

_______ Reproductive Rights

immigrants' Rights

Independence of the Judiciary

___-- Draft Opposition

Please send me information about my local chapter.

Thank you! Together we can make a difference