vol. 51, no. 5

aclu news

NON PROFIT

ORGANIZATION

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

Permit No. 4424

San Francisco, CA

Volume LI

August/September 1986

No. 5

ACLU-NC on

the Elections

NO on 63

see p. 4

NO on 64

Keep the Courts

Independent

see p. 6

see p. 5

Notice to Our Readers

We have just been informed by the

U.S. Postal Service that we can no longer

use the second class mailing rate for the

ACLU News. We must now use the third

class mailing rate. This new classification

may result in some delay of delivery to

our readers. We are now adjusting our

print schedule so that the news and

notices inthe ACLU News are still timely.

We would like to apologize in advance

to our readers for this delay, and

especially to those who may get their

ACLU News too late to attend advertised

meetings and events. We ask you to bear

with us as we readjust our schedule to

include the longer mailing time. Thank

you. (c) Editor

Victory for Bilingual Voters

In a major victory for minority language

voting rights, the Ninth District Court of

Appeals decided on August 26 that U.S.

Attorney Joseph Russoniello's 1982 probe

of bilingual ballot seekers violated the voters'

constitutional rights.

The 6-5 ruling from the federal appeals

court came in the ACLU-NC case. Olagues

v. Russoniello which was filed in 1982 to

challenge the probe.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan Schlosser

praised the victory, saying, "It not only

affirms our contention that the investigation

was insensitive to minorities, it also affirms

that the probe imperiled fundamental -

constitutional rights.

"The U.S. Attorney's investigation was

outrageous," Schlosser said. "To focus on

people for no other reason than that they

applied for bilingual ballots has a very

damaging effect on participation in the

political process and on minority rights in

general."

Nine Counties

The ACLU-NC filed the class action

lawsuit with MALDEF and California

Rural Legal Assistance on behalf of Jose

J. Olagues, a Concord voter who requested

Spanish language voting materials, and

several organizations dedicated to assisting

Spanish and Chinese voters.

Shortly after being appointed U.S.

Attorney by President Reagan and three

weeks before the voter registration deadline

for the 1982 California primary elections,

Russoniello initiated an investigation of

bilingual ballot seekers in nine northern

California counties. The counties were

Alameda, Monterey, Napa, San Francisco,

San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz,

Contra Costa, and Sonoma.

Russoniello sought and received the

cooperation of the district attorneys to

forward randomly selected names of

bilingual ballot seekers so that he could

investigate their citizenship.

Among those investigated were Olagues,

who was running for the school board and

wanted to see how his campaign statement

appeared in the Spanish voting materials;

a deputy registrar of voters; and a

naturalized citizen who, when the INS could

not verify her status, was investigated by

the FBI at Russoniello's request.

Chilling Effect

The lawsuit charged that the investigation

was not only in violation of the U-S.

Constitution's guarantees of equal protection

and freedom of association, but also of the

Voting Rights Act which mandates multi-

lingual materials for persons who desire

language assistance at the polls.

The voter registration groups also |

documented that the unwarranted investi-

gation had a chilling effect on bilingual

ballot seekers and that its timing-three

weeks before registration deadline-

adversely affected the minority communities'

participation in the elections.

The court noted that the investigation had

frightened many new citizens out of

registering to vote, reflected in the drop-

off of. the usually high registration rate .

during the final weeks of the registration

drive.

In 1982, the ACLU request to USS.

District Court Judge Spencer Williams to

halt the investigation was denied. After the

investigation was over (producing no arrests

or evidence of voter fraud), a series of ACLU

challenges before Judge Williams all came

to naught; in September, 1985 a three-judge

appellate court upheld Williams' rulings.

Schlosser appealed to the full Court of

Appeals which accepted the case in January

because "it raises important voting rights

and constitutional issues relating to foreign-

born, recently registered voters who request

bilingual ballots."

Judge Harry Pregerson, ene for the

majority, said, "Voting is a fundamental

right. [The investigation] for all practical

purposes chose its targets based on race and

national origin.

"The courts have long recognized the

history of discriminatory treatment inflicted

on Chinese and Hispanic people," Judge

Pregerson noted.

The pipeline 0 out of the ed voters,

Continued on page 2

Medi-Cal Abortion Fund Victory (Round IX)

For the ninth consecutive year, the state

Court of Appeal struck down the Legis-

lature's cuts in Medi-Cal abortion funding.

On August 25, barely a month after the

ACLU-NC filed its challenge to the 1986/

87 Budget Act restrictions on the funds,

the appellate court ruled that the cuts were

unconstitutional.

The ACLU suit, Committee to Defend

Reproductive Rights (CDRR) v. Kizer, was

filed by ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby on July 10 on behalf of a coalition

of civil rights groups, women's organizations,

health care providers and taxpayers. A stay

issued by the Court only hours after the

appeal was filed prevented the state from

putting the cuts into effect or from notifying

Medi-Cal recipients about the restrictions.

The ACLU has challenged the cuts since

1978 when the Legislature first restricted

Medi-Cal funding for abortion. In every

previous case the court has ruled that the

cuts were unconstitutional.

95% of Funds

This year's restrictions would have denied

Medi-Cal funds to 95% of the 90,000

impoverished California women and

teenagers who need abortions.

Crosby noted that the U.S. Supreme

Court's Thornburgh decision in June

"reminded state and local governments that

their repeated efforts to frustrate women's

abortion rights would be blocked by the

courts.

"Yet year after year," Crosby said, "the

people of California witness the shameful

spectacle of state lawmakers violating the

highest law of the state-the Constitution.

Repetition of this charade only succeeds in

degrading the Legislature as an institution,"

she added.

"This is especially true this year as the

Budget Act cuts came only months after

the defeat of two major initiatives designed

to eliminate abortion funding for poor

women through the ballot. The proponents

of these measures could not even get enough

signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Moreover, public opinion polls show

widespread support for poor women's access

to abortion. The Legislature is thus not

representing majority opinion in their anti-

choice stance," Crosby added.

The Court of Appeal ruling reiterated the

1981 California Supreme Court decision

that the Medi-Cal system must include

public funding for abortion along with

medical care associated with childbirth.

"Single Subject" Rule

Crosby also noted that this year's Budget

Act restrictions violated the "single subject"

rule of. the California Constitution.

According to a decision in an earlier

lawsuit(Planned Parenthood y. Swoap), the

Budget Act cannot be used as a vehicle to

"substantively amend or change existing

statute law." Existing law provides public

funding for a comprehensive range of

medical services, including abortion.

This year's Budget Act restrictions

mirrored provisions from the last three

years, including setting up a fund for

abortion services separate from the general

fund for Medi-Cal benefits, which had been

struck down by the courts.

The Court order prevents state officials

from implementing the provisions of the

1986/87 Budget Act limiting Medi-Cal

abortion funding. It also prohibits the

Department of Health Services from

mailing any official notification of the

restrictions to Medi-Cal recipients.

aclu news

Aug./Sep. 1986

Death Penalty Reversed

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

reversed a death penalty on August 27, an

important victory in a climate which is

increasingly zealous about

punishment. :

The reversal came in a habeas corpus

proceeding on behalf of Robert Wayne

Vickers who was sentenced to death for the

murder of his cellmate in the Arizona State

Prison. .

The appeal was filed on December 9, 1985

by ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen, co-:

counsel Charles Breyer of the San Francisco

law firm of Coblentz, Cahen, MacCabe and

Breyer, and John P. Frank of the Phoenix

firm of Lewis and Roca.

The Court of Appeals determined that

"the trial court's failure to instruct the jury

on second degree murder violated due

process principles enunciated by the U.S.

Supreme Court."

Chen was pleased with the ruling, which

unless reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court,

now returns the case to the Arizona courts

for a retrial. "This case clearly demonstrates

the inherent fallabilities, inequities, and

arbitrariness of capital punishment," Chen

said.

"Anyone reading the trial transcript could ~

have seen Robert Vickers was convicted and

sentenced to die without a fair trial. Yet

his death sentence was affirmed by all the

Arizona courts as well as the federal district

court in Phoenix. It is frightening to realize

that Vickers was just one step away from

the gas chamber before his right to a fair

trial was finally vindicated," Chen added.

The trial judge had instructed the jury

that it could return any of three verdicts:

guilty of first degree murder, not guilty, or

not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury

was not given the choice of second degree

capital (c)

murder. It returned a verdict of first degree

murder and Vickers, in a separate hearing,

was sentenced to death. The Arizona

Supreme Court upheld the conviction and

the death sentence.

The appellate court stated, "The critical

distinction. between first and second degree

murder is the elemet of premeditation." The ~

court noted testimony by lay witnesses and

9 660x00B0

- a psychiatrist about Vickers' "impulsive and

bizarre" acts, apparently related to an

epileptic condition.

"Testimony attributing Vickers' conduct to .

an epileptic disorder might not have been

persuasive to a jury, but if it were, it would

allow a rational conclusion that the killing

was not premeditated," the Court concluded.

Middle Option

The Court's reversal was based largely

on a U.S. Supreme Court decision (Beck)

which held that the failure to give a second

degree murder instruction under such

circumstances violated due process because

depriving the jury of the "middle option"

between conviction for first degree murder

and acquittal renders the verdict unreliable.

A jury reluctant to completely acquit a

defendant could be forced to convict the

defendant of the capital offense even though

the jury was not entirely convinced of his

guilt.

The ACLU-NC petition for habeas

corpus raised seventeen constitutional

claims, including legal challenges to the

Arizona death penalty statute. Although the

court did not address those issues, it noted

some raised "substantial questions."

Prison Parking Lot Searches OK'ed

In June, the Marin County Superior Court

ruled that random parking lot searches of

prison visitors, challenged by the ACLU-NC

as a Violation of the Fourth Amendment,

were neither "unnatural or oppressive."

The ACLU-NC and the Prison Law

Office filed suit in February seeking to halt

the practice on behalf of six persons who

visit relatives in California prisons. The suit

was litigated by ACLU-NC cooperating

attorneys Richard Goff, Jonathan Hayden,

Cheryl Poinsette, and Richard DeNatale all

of the San Francisco law firm of Heller,

Ehrman, White and McAuliffe, ACLU-NC

staff attorney Alan Schlosser, and Donald

Specter of the Prison Law Office.

Frightening and Humiliating

The random parking lot searches of

visitors began in 1985, following a new

directive from the state Department of

Corrections. They are conducted on random

Saturdays at CDC prisons including San

Quentin, Duell Vocational Institute,

Vacaville, Soledad, and Folsom.

The ACLU-NC suit charged that these

searches are unconstitutional and unneces-

sary for prison security. They are conducted

in addition to the usual metal detector and

body searches of all visitors who enter the

prison gates. The parking lot searches

include all the contents of the cars (including

trunk and glove compartment), wallets,

handbags, and other personal belongings-

none of which typically enter the secured

`part of the prison.

Attorney Goff described the searches,

done by armed guards and police dogs, as

"frightening, humiliating, and a blatantly

excessive invasion of personal liberty."

Judge Henry Broderick, however, stated

that "No one visiting a prison should expect

the same measure of constitutional

protection as he would enjoy at a public

beach or park or his front driveway."

The court did note, however, that "no

person, property or auto should be searched

without the will of the person involved." If

visitors do not want to submit to a search,

they will be denied admission to the facility

but they will be allowed to leave.

One of the ACLU-NC plaintiffs had been

arrested when she refused to submit to the

search and attempted to leave the facility.

This practice "is in violation of the

[Department of Corrections] Director's own

rules and plaintiffs are entitled to a

preliminary injunction to remedy that

aspect of the search program," Judge

Broderick ruled.

The ACLU-NC and the Prison Law

Office filed a petition for a writ of mandate

seeking an immediate review of Judge

Broderick's decision in the Court of Appeal.

The petition was denied on August 27. The

plaintiffs will now seek an immediate review

in the California Supreme Court.

Bilingual Voters

Continued

Pregerson stated, raises serious civil rights

and constitutional questions. The practice

had a "chilling effect" on people who use

bilingual ballots and on organizations that

hold bilingual voter registration drives, he

added.

The ruling reverses Judge Williams'

decision that held that language minority

voters were not a "suspect class" entitled

to special protection from a court under

the equal protection clause.

In a ruling of "first impression," the Court

of Appeals held that. the targets of the

PRINT IN INK - LLShPORES

investigation-foreign-born, recently regis-

tered language minority voters- have "the

traditional indicia of a suspect classification

based on race and national origin." Thus,

the Court determined, the government has

the burden of justifying its investigation as

being "necessary to advance a compelling

government interest."

The appeals court remanded the case

back to the District Court to determine if

the government could meet this heavy

burden, and, if not, to issue injunctive or

declaratory relief to prevent similar

investigations in the future.

ALAM

Pitt ot S15 FORE BA

READ THE WARNING AND

STATEMENT PRIOR TO SIGNING

Options! SRE C) Me/ZGHE i Mes/ AC Lo) Missy IETS Ms deed ike A Gs

. : a aa ee : fone am a citizen of the United States

= Nomen Ba. (rst) (middie si Ele Hest Be and will be at least 18 years of age| RESMAR " 7 F-KM SE

a 4a at the time of the next election. | RR AMRE ALA. RBA

1 Resid - No., f']h(R) Street - ff =, Apt.No.- HIZCHeHE am- not imprisoned or on parole s . ee

Ww y eudeues teak (MeN vee Cees for the conviction of a felony. | cer- SESE BAL BSUS a a

"= 9 tify under penalty of perjury that | TRIAS MRED " SHIN SRE

= S City. Zip Code - ss BBAB the information on this affidavit is| BRASBES RIG RA o

Li Ss 3 true and correct. :

.2

16 Describe location of residence: (cross streets) Ziti ht HB C Hitt ) a Signature- 3%, Date- HR

On =

az e

x38

BOW Str S

oS Mailing Address (if different) - itt ( ANSE ELAS TA] ) WARNING : ce

: - Perjury is punishable by imprison- ALDRIF RE - AA Ki 2

= - - -- ment in State prison for two, three, 45 FE Oy BE a ENE

City - hi State HI Zip Code - sos. i 8 or four years. 0x00A7 126 Penal Code. HIF + SBP AE o

Date of Birth Hi4AH 3A

| 8 | Occupation - Hi %

(mo- KR /day-f} /year- 4 )

Name of State in USA or Foreign Country of Birth

HAE HBA C BSI AK

Political Party - a

(check one) ( {f-#)|-JH )

6 Yetephone (Optional)

RE RBRAE

Signature of person assisting (if any) uARATBEDTES | SC*C*"*d

WERE TABLA PAUSES

Be

PRIOR REGISTRATION PORTION:

Ai Leck PLAY

'f you are currently registered to vote in California fill in portion below.

DURA EAE DON EES 7 FES PUES

Name - ##%

AFFIDAVIT OF REGISTRATION -

( American Independent Party wR

1 Democratic Party fea ` i ee a le =

ae OO Libertarian Party film ee Wp eEL motes

Ss O Peace and Freedom Party AEA HR o eat

= O Republican Party SEAM Sy enah e 2

= s nglis!

: O Decline to state APA a

0) Espanol

O Other-$pound4th

Former Address - Li nisi tt

City - iff County - Be

ZB 885298

- 9 Political Party - Hoe

OFFICE USE

IHG HIN 88 BS fot Bk A

A July 29 ruling from the Los Angeles

Superior Court in an ACLU lawsuit could

bring about the registration of hundreds of

thousands of eligible low-income and

minority voters. The victory in Common

Cause of California v. Los Angeles County,

jointly filed by the ACLU of Southern

California, the ACLU-NC, and Human

SERVE, a national non-partisan voter

registration organization, is the first of its

kind in the country.

Charging that L.A. County had been

running "shells of elections," ACLU-SC staff

attorney Mark Rosenbaum stressed that the

California Elections Code requires counties

to carry out voter registration "in such a

way as to reach most effectively every

resident."

Superior Court Judge Jack M. Newman,

apparently convinced by the ACLU that the

county is not trying hard enough to reach

a disenfranchised class of low-income and

minority unregistered voters, issued a

preliminary injunction ordering the county

to meet its legal obligations by requiring

20,000 employees to ask everyone seeking

county services if they would like to register

to vote.

The Boards of Supervisors in Alameda,

San Francisco and Contra Costa Counties

have, in the past few months, voluntarily

Voting Rights Expanded

~ authorized affirmative voter outreach

a a EEE

programs similar to the one ordered by the

Court. The ACLU lawsuit was brought after

the L.A. County Board of Supervisors

rejected a proposal for an affirmative

registration program. So

Board Elections

ACLU-NC members elected the following

candidates to terms on the Board of

Directors: Lorraine K. Bannai, Barbara A.

Brenner, Mary Lou Breslin, Milton Estes,

Charlotte Fishman, Anne Jennings, Mar-

shall W. Krause, Jim Morales, Fran Strauss,

and Bill Tamayo.

Each Board member is elected for a three-

year term and may serve no more than two

consecutive terms.

In addition, Francisco Lobaco and Jack

Londen were elected by the Board to fill

interim vacancies on the Board. Lobaco,

a former legal intern at the ACLU-NC, is

now Legal Director of the East Palo Alto

Law Clinic. Londen, a partner in the San

Francisco law firm of Morrison and Foerster,

served as an ACLU-NC cooperating

attorney in the Ms. magazine censorship

case and in Jamison v. Farabee, successfully

opposing the drugging of involuntary

mental patients.

Elaine Elinson, Editor

aclu news

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

August-September and November-December

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Nancy Pemberton, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director Kas

Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page a

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.

aclu news

Aug./Sep. 1986

198

Edward Asner-"Defend workers rights"

Campaign reception

Board member Jim Morales and Sparky

Harlen

Kathy Cramer prepares Bill of Rights"

CLU-NC A

nnual Conference

Tf 2 at Ore

Nomazizi Sokudela of the African National Congress

he setting in the middle of the wine country at Sonoma State

University was idyllic, but the breaking news of the day and the

speakers' dire warnings prepared ACLU-NC members well for the

Under the banner of "All of Us or None-

Working for Justice in 80's," more than 250

ACLU-NC members and supporters

gathered for the Annual Conference on

August 8-10 to hear expert speakers and

attend 12 different workshops on a broad

range of civil liberties issues. In the weeks

leading up to the Conference, the Meese

Commission on Pornography had put the

government imprimatur on censorship; the

U.S. Supreme Court upheld an antiquated

sodomy law; Governor Deukmejian vetoed

the bill outlawing discrimination against

people with AIDS; and President Reagan

peed in a bottle-and encouraged all

employers to make their workers do the

same. A plethora of civil liberties battles

were upon us.

That these burning issues-and many

more-were addressed concretely and

throughly was due to the unflagging efforts

of the Conference organizers: Field

Representative Marcia Gallo, the Confer-

ence Planning Committee, and the Sonoma

County Chapter. The 1986 Conference

Planning Committee was chaired by Debbie

Lee; included Marlene De Lancie, Patsy

Fulcher, Anne. Jennings, Russ Jorgensen,

Judy Newman, Alberto Saldomando, Tom

Sarbaugh, and Bill Tamayo; and was staffed

by Gallo, Development Associate Sandy

Holmes, and Field Program Intern Dan

Gross.

intense work to protect civil liberties that lay ahead.

The tireless Conference Crew included

Gross, Swift Pense, Jenny Pizer, Lyly Ung,

and Doreena Wong. Special thanks are due

to the Sonoma County Chapter, chaired by

Colleen O'Neal, for hosting the weekend

event-and for organizing the hottest dance

in Sonoma County on Saturday night with

music by Michael Bolivar and the Light

Force.

`The Conference opened with a Friday

evening keynote address by actor Ed Asner

on "Economic Justice and Civil Liberties."

Asner railed against attacks on workers'

rights, asserting, "The workplace is where

all of our civil liberties concerns-First

Amendment, equal protection, due pro-

cess-come together. Real liberty depends

on the economic ability to exercise it," Asner

said. Focusing particularly on employee

drug testing and discrimination against

workers with AIDS, Asner called on the

ACLU to "make sure that workers do not

have to abandon their nghts from 9 to 5."

A frightening picture of the future was

painted by Public Advocates Attorney

Angela Blackwell as she addressed the

Saturday morning plenary on "Emerging

Issues in Civil Rights." Blackwell focused

on the racist impact of massive cuts in social

spending, vividly documenting how "per-

Continued on page 7

Conference photos by Dick Grosboll |

State Senator Nick Petris

Conference Committee chair Debbie Lee

introduces Carol Vance

Garal Vance dissects the Meese Commission

on Pornography

(Bottom photos from I. to r.) Sonoma chapter

members Lucy Forest and June Swan;

ACLU-NC members prepare for battles ahead;

Development Committee chair Davis Reimer

and ACLU-NC Vice-Chair Barbara Brenner.

| aclu news

4 ug./Sep. 1986

-ACLU- NC Ballot Choices:

English- Only Measure Fosters Bigotry, Divisiveness

by Ed Chen

ACLU-NC Staff Counsel

roposition 63-the "English Only" ballot measure-is completely

at war with our constitutional tradition. This dangerous proposal

must be opposed by all those who value our state's proud history

of tolerance and diversity.

For 200 years, the Bill of Rights and .

subsequent Civil War amendments have

been the bulwark against governmental and

private infringement upon individual

~ freedom and social diversity. Proposition 63

would undermine this diversity by imposing

linguistic and cultural conformity upon us-

punishing those who fail to conform due

to their inability to speak English by cutting

them off from essential government services

and commerce.

Proposition 63 breeds intolerance and

bigotry. It perpetuates false stereotypes that

today's immigrants (largely Latinos and

Asians)-unlike prior European immi-

grants-trefuse to fulfill their obligations to

learn English and need to be ae into

doing so.

Worse yet, by isolating new immigrants

by erecting new barriers to governmental

services, commerce and the body politic,

Proposition 63 will retard rather than -

encourage their assimilation. Proposition 63

will cause needless divisiveness and

resentments while doing nothing positive to

increase English proficiency.

What Will Proposition 63 Do?

`The Enslist only proposal does not

simply declare English as our official state

language. It amends the California Consti-

tution to prevent the Legislature and state

officials from passing any law which

"diminishes or ignores the role of English

as our common language."

The measure is broad enough to

jeopardize multilingual 911 emergency

services, court interpreters for victims,

witnesses, and civil litigants, multilingual

public service announcements, and health

and social services.

The advocates of Proposition 63 have

explicitly targeted bilingual education (c)

programs which have proven to be effective

in teaching English as well as keeping

immigrant students from falling behind in

other academic subjects. They also oppose .

bilingual election material which enhances

an informed electorate and helps insure the

voting rights of all citizens.

English-only proponents even target

Spanish-language advertising. They have

already mounted protests against Pacific

Telephone for foreign language telephone

directories, Philip Morris for advertising

and MacDonald's for menus! Their Florida

spokesperson publicly stated that once they

obtain an English-only law for government

services, they will go after private businesses.

Some have even advocated the Federal

Communications Commission reduce the

number of Spanish-language broadcasts.

Who Is Behind Proposition 63?

The English-only proponents in California

are part of a national organization, "U.S.

English" of which S.I. Hayakawa is

honorary chair. U.S. English is attempting

to pass similar legislation in other states,

including Florida, New York, and Texas.

They have attempted to amend the U.S.

Constitution every year since 1981.

The movement appears calculated to play

upon xenophobia, racism, and _ anti-

immigrant sentiment. It is no coincidence

that the current English-only movement

comes at a time of rising resentment towards

the latest wave of non-white immigration

from Mexico, Central America, and

Southeast Asia, nor that many of its leaders

are involved in extremist anti-immigrant

organizations, such as FAIR. Proposition

63 introduced English-only legislation in

Congress as an amendment to the Simpson-

Mazzoli Immigration Bill.

The stereotype advanced by English-only

advocates of "disloyal, anti-assimilationist

immigrants" who refuse to learn English and

threaten to tear our "common bond," is not

only baseless but disturbingly similar to the

charge of disloyalty branded on Japanese

Americans to justify their internment in

World War II relocation camps. Although

there was no evidence of disloyalty, the

A statewide coalition, Californians

United Against Proposition 63, has been

formed to organize opposition to the

English-only ballot measure.

Californians United is supported by

a broad range of civil liberties and

minorities rights organizations, including

the ACLU affiliates of Northern and

Southern California, Mexican American

Legal Defense and Education Fund,

Join the Campaign-Fight Prop. 63

Californians United Against Proposition 63

1904 Franklin Street, Suite 900

Oakland, CA 94612

(415) 832-4917

Asian Law Alliance, Latino Democratic

Club, Japanese American Citizens

League, and many others. The Advisory

Committee includes Attorney General .

John Van de Kamp, San Francisco

Mayor Dianne Feinstein, Speaker Willie

Brown, Senator Art Torres, Ed Asner, -- |

and others.

Get involved in the campaign to defeat

Proposition 63. Contact:

government asserted that Japanese Amer-

icans could not be trusted because they

spoke Japanese, sent their children to

Japanese language schools, maintained

certain cultural and religious traditions and

thus had not assimilated into American

society.

Eastern and Southern Europeans in

justifying the imposition of English literacy

requirements for nationalization, voting,

and federal employment.

Social Unity or Ethnic Disharmony

nativists at the turn of the century against

Proposition 63 claim

Similar accusations were made by The woecnentssol Prope:

Continued on page 7

DILIGENTLY WORKING To SAVE OUR STATE FROMTHE... YOU.GOT`TILTHE COUNT S

SUBVERSIVE THREAT OF BILINGUALIS?H OF THREE TO THROW OUT, =

YOUR CULTURE! and

LANGUAGE 3 =

POLICE!

- s

a

ge S

D- s

cent G and

: os

a T iLOS GRINGOS ESTAN

CS i

Ze pos ` Locos!2No?

pe ee =

el ( Vez x 2 =n S |

wee se ae

FITZSIMMONS ogee ase

Myths and Facts

Myth: Today's immigrants refuse to learn English.

Fact: According to a 1985 survey by an independent marketing firm, 98% of Latino

parents surveyed, as compared to 94% of white and Black parents, felt it was essential

for their children to read and write English perfectly. Latinos, Asians, and other new

immigrants dominate the long waiting lists for over-enrolled adult English classes. In

Los Angeles alone, the waiting list exceeds 30,000.

Myth: Earlier immigrants were never given special language assistance; the best way

of teaching English is the "sink or swim" method.

Fact: As far back as the Continental Congress, government documents-including the

Articles of Confederation-were printed in German for the benefit of non-English speaking

patriots. In the 18th and 19th centuries, bilingual education in such languages as German

and Yiddish was common.

Fact: A recent study by the U.S. Department of Education shows that students in bilingual

education programs actually learn English faster than those in "immersion" programs

where only English is used. _

Fact: Although some early immigrants succeeded in the "sink or swim" method, many

did not. For instance, in 1911, the U.S. Immigration Service found that 77% of Italian,

60% of Russian Jews, and 51% of German children of immigrant parents were one

or more grade levels behind in school-far in excess of the 28% figure for native white

children. Moreover, because of economic progress, educational requirements are more

demanding now than those at the turn of the century when eee and manufacturing

work dominated the job market.

Myth: Voters, who are by definition citizens, are required to be literate in English and

should not need bilingual election materials.

Fact: U.S. citizenship requires only 5th grade English literacy. Today's ballots and voter

materials are far more complicated and exceed rudimentary literacy requirements for

citizenship.

Myth: Proposition 63 will not terminate bilingual services required for ible health

and safety.

Fact: Proposition 63 is very broadly worded and contains no explicit exception for 911

emergency operators or other health and safety services. The proposition gives any

individual or business the right to sue the government for a claimed violation-and

thus, if passed, is uncontrollable. Moreover, English-only groups have already advocated

an end to emergency service operators in Southern California and Florida.

Myth: Proposition 63 will create unity in California.

Fact: Proposition is divisive along racial and ethnic lines. English-only ordinances have

already caused friction and racial tension in such cities as Monterey Park and Fillmore,

California. Such laws breed intolerance and language bigotry while insulting language

minorities by assuming they do not want to learn English and must be punished into

doing so.

aclu news

Aug./Sep. 1986 5

No on Propositions 63 and 64

_ AIDS Proposal Endangers Rights, Health Care

by Anne Jennings ,

ACLU-NC National Board Representative

roposition 64, the LaRouche-backed AIDS initiative, is an ill-

conceived measure which would actually contribute to the spread

of AIDS. Overwhelmingly, public health and medical professionals

and associations oppose Proposition 64 because it would damage our

ability to control AIDS. -

The initiative has two basic provisions.

First, it would make AIDS a reportable

disease and "the condition of being a carrier

of the HTLV-III virus" a_ reportable

condition. While AIDS is currently

considered a reportable disease, state law

specifically protects the confidentiality of

AIDS antibody test results. In addition, the

state has set up a system of alternative test

sites where people can be tested anonym-

ously. Both of these key provisions are.

threatened by Proposition 64.

The second mandate of the LaRouche

initiative requires all health officers to

"fulfill all of the duties and obligations"

specified in Division 4 of the Health and

Safety Code, and to implement regulations

of the Department of Health Services.

Sounds straightforward? Not in this case.

This part of the Code deals with commu-

nicable diseases and authorizes the Depart-

ment of Health Services to establish

quarantines and isolate or quarantine

persons "when, in its judgment, such action

is necessary to protect or preserve the public

health."

Specific regulations require, for example,

the removal of persons from school who

have communicable diseases for the

prescribed period of isolation. They also

preclude persons known or suspected to be

infected with a communicable disease from

engaging in the commercial handling of

food until a health officer determines that

they are incapable of transmitting the

infection.

Moreover, there are also specific regu-

lations for'each of the reportable diseases

and new regulations would have to be

adopted for AIDS.

Proposition 64 will do nothing to stop

the spread of AIDS. Right now, the only

effective way to stop the transmission of

AIDS is to educate people to refrain from

the behavior by which AIDS is spread-

sharing IV needles, and unprotected sexual

intercourse, particularly with partners one

does not know extremely well and IV drug

users. Research into a cure and a vaccine

is also desperately needed. But the initiative

addresses neither education nor research.

Already the LaRouche initiative has

consumed far too much of the time, money,

and effort that should be devoted to

stopping AIDS. It must be defeated soundly

so that California can continue to develop

a rational and progressive public health

policy to defeat the AIDS crisis.

Why Is the Reporting of AIDS and/or

AIDS Antibody Test Results Bad?

There is not a great deal of objection to

reporting actual cases of AIDS. All cases

of many communicable diseases must be

reported to public health authorities.

However, there is great concern that

reporting of "antibody positive persons,"

that is, those who have been infected with

the virus that causes AIDS and have

developed antibodies to it, will expose such

persons to discrimination in employment,

housing, insurance, and other areas.

Since the LaRouche followers have

publicly stated that their program includes

the identification and isolation of all AIDS

carriers, there is much to fear if the initiative

passes. Placing persons who test positive

in such jeopardy is likely to discourage those

in high risk categories from even taking the

AIDS antibody test.

To the extent that the test is a useful tool

in counseling persons to refrain from high

risk sexual and intravenous drug behavior,

discouraging people from taking the test

may well increase the spread of the disease.

Colorado is a case in point: after the state

" instituted mandatory reporting, the numbers

of people undergoing the test declined.

Although the numbers have begun to rise

again, the number of people testing positive

is down- indicating that persons in high risk

groups are not being tested in as great

numbers as before. ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1984.batch ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1985.batch ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1986.batch ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log

In New York, where a physician's request

is required for a person to be tested in an

alternative anonymous test site, only 5,000

persons have been tested. In California,

40,000 people have volunteered to -be tested

in total anonymity.

Does Proposition 64 Really Add to the

Power of Public Health Officers? If Not,

Why the Fuss?

The danger in the second part of the

initiative lies in its uncertainty. No one can

predict how it will be interpreted by health

officials or by the courts. Its very

uncertainty invites litigation which would

distract us from the real fight against AIDS.

The followers of Lyndon LaRouche have

stated in their literature that all food

handlers, service workers, and elementary

and secondary school teachers should be

tested for AIDS antibodies and that all

those testing positive should be excluded

from employment. oe

To undertake such a program would cost

the state hundreds of millions of dollars;

additional lost tax revenues, welfare and

related costs could drive the price into the

billions.

This money would have to come from

existing programs that seek to fight AIDS

through education and research, as well as

from other vital state programs because the

state and local governments cannot expand

tax revenues much more.

Moreover, even if the state did not

undertake a program to identify all AIDS

carriers, employers would likely see passage

of the initiative as a green light to fire people

in sensitive occupations.

But Won't This Initiative Encourage

Greater Public Health Efforts at a Time

When We Should Be Doing All We Can

to Fight AIDS?

Proposition 64 makes no sense as public

health policy and every group in the medical

and public health fields has come out in

opposition to the measure. Here's why:

1) Proposition 64 is based on false

assumptions about how AIDS is spread.

All responsible medical authorities agree

that AIDS is spread only by unprotected

sexual intercourse of any kind, by injection

with contaminated blood as in sharing of

IV drug works, and from an infected mother

Barbara J. Maggiani

to her child. It is not spread through contact

with objects such as doorknobs, telephones

or toilet seats. It is not spread through casual

(nonsexual) contact. And it is not spread

through food handling. The premises of the

initiative are wrong and it will send the

public the wrong message about how AIDS

is spread and how to avoid transmission.

2) Proposition 64 would seriously disrupt

current efforts to stop the spread of AIDS.

Attaching penalties to being antibody

positive will only discourage testing,

discourage participation in necessary

research projects, and drive a wedge

Continued on page 7

Join the Campaign

Community AIDS Network (CAN)

Northern California Office-130 Church Street, San Francisco, CA 94114

Paul Boneberg, Outreach Coordinator 415-621-1145.

Alameda County-C.A.L.M. (Californians Against the LaRouche Measure),

1915 Bonita Street, Berkeley, CA 94703

Tom Broughan, Chair 415-549-2256

Fresno-Central California Coalition to Defeat LaRouche,

P.O. Box 4640, Fresno, CA 93744

Bill Gouge, Kay Vander Dorel

Trudy White 707-677-0469

Marin- Marin "No on 64," P.O. Box 223, Lagunitas, CA 94938

Alex Diefenbach 415-488-0885

Mendocino-759 South State, #107, Ukiah, CA 95482

Rebecca Sandridge 707-468-1158

Tom Rollier 707-485-0248

Sacramento-Sacramentans for Justice, PO. Box 161958, Sacramento, CA 95816

Dana Mitchell 916-443-1348

San Francisco-130 Church Street, San Francisco, CA 94114

Paul Boneburg, Outreach Coordinator 415-621-1145

San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz-B.A.Y.M.E.C., Box 90070, San Jose, CA 95109

Ken Yegar. 408-297-1024

Sonoma-Stop LaRouche CAN 64, P.O. Box 1054, Guerneville, CA 95446

Bobbi Morgan 707-869-0571

L.V.A.C., P.O. Box 7162, Santa Rosa, CA 95407

Karten Fitzpatrick or Laura Lawson 707-829-2613

Stanislaus-Stop LaRouche, Stanislaus, PO. Box 112-11, 1207 "J" Street,

Modesto, CA 95354

Alfred Rodriguez 209-526-5470

209-264-2439

Humbolt-471 5th Avenue, Trinidad, CA 95570

wee

aclu news

G Aug./Sep. 1986

Independence of the Judiciary- Vital Campaign

Forum on the

Judiciary

The final forum of the San Francisco

Chapter's series AN AMERICAN

TRADITION: OUR INDEPENDENT

COURTS will be held on Friday,

September 26 at 7 pm.

The Roundtable Discussion on the

Future of the California Supreme Court

will include: former California Supreme

Court. Justice Otto Kaus; Stephen

Barnett, professor of law, Boalt Hall, UC

Berkeley; Jane Kirkland, deputy Attorney

General, Sacramento; and Dennis

Riordan, attorney, Riorden and Rosenthal.

Moderated by Sacramento Bee legal

affairs reporter Claire Cooper, the

discussion will be held at Golden Gate

University School of Law.

For more _ information,

415-621-2493.

call

Patient Dumping

- Bill Dies

The proposed state law to prevent patient

dumping, co-sponsored by the ACLU,

reached the final rounds of the legislative

session and then died on the Senate floor

on Saturday evening, August 30.

ACLU Sacramento lobbyist Marjorie

Swartz, who worked around the clock to

seek compromise and passage of the bill,

vowed that the vital measure to provide

emergency medical care to indigent patients,

would be reintroduced next session.

By August 13, the original bill AB 3403

(Margolin), which the ACLU-NC helped

draft, had passed the full Assembly and

the Senate Health Committee. The following

week, however, it was defeated by one vote

in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

To save the most important provisions of

the measure, Assemblyman Burt Margolin

(D-LA) worked out a compromise with

Senator Ken Maddy (R-Fresno) who was

carrying a-competing bill (SB 1607),

sponsored by the California Medical

Association (CMA). That compromise was

incorporated into a compatible bill (SB

1952) which passed the full Assembly on

the morning of August 30.

"We raced over to the Senate," explained

Swartz, "to support the compromise. There

we were met by a full battery of CMA

lobbyists as. well as lobbyists from the

counties who put on a full court press to

oppose the bill." CMA wanted greater

compensation from the counties for services

provided to uninsured patients.

Swartz's efforts were joined by Margolin,

as well as lobbyists from the Alameda

Health Coalition, Western Center on Law

and Poverty, Kaiser, and Blue Cross. But

by 6 pm, the Senate vote was 18-14 against

the bill and it died.

Swartz praised the efforts of Margolin

who "never gave up" his efforts to provide

protection for the indigent patients who are

refused care at private hospitals.

"Basically, the CMA made it clear that

their members won't come off the golf course

to treat emergencies unless they are

guaranteed payment up front," said Swartz.

Swartz said that she will concentrate her

ACLU-NC Policy on the 1986

J udicial Confirmation Campaigns

ie independent judiciary constitutes one of the mainstays

in the defense of civil rights and civil liberties, as well as any

system of constitutional democracy. Challenges to the tenure

of judges based on partisanship or political concerns threaten

the ability of the judiciary to defend and expand these rights,

to preserve due process guarantees of judicial impartiality, and

to enforce legal protections established to advance human rights

and to meet human needs. :

While we affirm our position of making no endorsements

in elections for public office, the Board of Directors of the

ACLU-NC deplores and condemns the current campaign against

certain members of the California Supreme Court as an attack

upon the independence of the judiciary. We find that the efforts

to defeat them are based on wholly irrelevant considerations

that do not relate to their qualifications to hold office.

New Brochure

"It is the duty from which judges may

not shrink to decide cases properly

brought before them, and it is no fault

of theirs if others seek to turn their

decisions to political purposes."

-Abraham Lincoln

The ACLU-NC's new brochure Setting

the Record Straight: The Independence

of the Judiciary demystifies the abstract

concept of an independent judiciary and

shows how it is the very cornerstone of

the protection of our most basic rights.

This pamphlet is a must for ACLU

members who are concerned about

keeping our courts independent and

strong.

Single copies are free of charge; bulk

orders are $5.00 for 50. Write to:

Independent Judiciary Committee,

ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street, San

Francisco, CA 94103.

State's (Bad) Solutions to Prison Problems

0x00B0 A previus moratorium on new construc-

tion as well as no significant rehabilitation

of existing aging structures has meant that

prison facilities are not only overcrowded

but also, physically, ina state of severe

deterioration. Because of overcrowding

California Department of Corrections

(CDC) has converted recreational areas

and work spaces into dormitories for

prisoners.

These conditions have a serious impact

on prisoners' living conditions and basic

rights. Legal actions to improve conditions

are pending which would force the CDC

to rehabilitate older facilities such as San

Quentin. The suits seek improvements in

plumbing, heating and cooling systems as

well as prohibitions on unhealthy and

inhumane conditions resulting from

double-celling and inadequate food and

nutrition.

eae nT

2s

) SUS

ae

[oe

iy

a

ee

POY

New Prison Sites

By Marjorie Swartz

ACLU Legislative Advocate

Yet rather than focus on solutions to

these significant, immediate problems, the

Legislature has concentrated on building

new prisons where to build them and how

to finance them.

alifornia's state prisons are more

than 160% over capacity. This

tragic statistic results from the

Legislature's heedless increases in criminal _

sentences and its refusal to seriously

consider alternatives to incarceration.

How is the Deukmejian Administration

dealing with this severe, statewide

problem? Rather than consider the

alternatives, it has launched the most

substantial prison construction program in

California history.

Just as the Legislature has not addressed

the problems raised by over-reliance on

incarceration, the CDC, for its part, has

a poor record of advising the Legislature

of the actual costs of increased sentences

in a responsible and effective fashion.

Prison construction projects are funded

through a combination of finance

arrangements, all of which require that

tens of millions of dollars be allocated out

of the state's general fund each year for

interest payments. Thus, prison construc-

tion and operation costs create a severe

drain on state funds, leaving less money

available for social programs.

efforts next session on winning support of

the counties so that they are made fully

aware that they will be reimbursed for caring

for indigent patients who arrive at county'

hospitals. Although the counties had fully

supported the orginal AB 3403, they

opposed the ultimate compromise because

it required maintenance of reimbursements

now made to private health providers.

Future Overcrowding

Ten new prison projects have begun

during the Deukmejian Administration.

The CDC plans to have these facilities

completed by 1990, but even then estimates

are that overcrowding will be at 120% of

this increased capacity. And these

estimates do not take into account new

sentencing increases which may occur in

the next four years.

Overcrowding in county jails poses

problems similar to those faced by the state

prison system: more than half of Califor-

nia's 58 counties are under court order to

reduce overcrowding.

The ACLU is heavily involved in legal

actions which have determined that the

blame for county jail overcrowding can

be laid at the feet of local governments.

For example, many large southern

California counties refuse to make

maximum use of existing programs that

allow for the release of pre-trial detainees

or non-violent offenders. Many sheriffs

and county supervisors have been so -

obstinate in their refusal to implement

these projects that they are being held in

contempt of court for failing to release

inmates in order to reduce jail populations.

Jail Bond Measures

Proposition 52, which passed

on June 3, is the third county jail bond

measure approved by the voters since 1982.

During the course of the Prop. 52

campaign, the ACLU and some religious

groups fought to require that counties

make better use of incarceration alterna-

tives as a condition of receiving jail bond

funds. The coalition successfully forced

language into Prop. 52 which gives priority

for funding to counties that make

responsible use of alternatives to jail. Some

of the counties that are the worse offenders

in this regard vigorously objected to the

inclusion of this language in the measure.

This opposition very nearly caused the

bond measure to be defeated in the

Legislature.

With Prop. 52's passage, the ACLU's

legislative efforts to ensure enforcement of

these conditions for receiving bond funds

will continue, as will efforts to prevent

funds from being distributed to obstinate

counties.

- aclu news

Aug./Sep. 1986 7

Founders Circle

Established |

`To encourage and actively involve its most

generous donors, the ACLU-NC Foundation

Board of Governors this spring established

the Founders Circle. Dr. Leonard Karpman

and Julius Young, co-chairs of the Founders

Circle, describe their primary task as

"bringing together those individuals who,

through exceptional generosity, have made

a special commitment of financial support

to the ACLU-NC Foundation."

Karpman and Young aim to bring 200

members into the Founders Circle by 1987

to commemorate the 200th Anniversary of

the signing. of the U.S. Constitution.

Membership in the Founders Circle is

contingent upon an unrestricted gift of

$1,000 or more, renewable annually.

"There are three principle reasons why

an ACLU donor would want to join the

Founders Circle," said Young. "First, there

is the strong personal satisfaction of making

a very special contribution to civil liberties.

Second, through Founders Circle events, we

NO on 63

YOU.GOTTILTHE COUNT

OF THREE TO THROW OUT.

c aS

- Continued from page 4

that by preserving our "common bond" of

English, it will preserve social unity. This

is a false premise.

First, the common bond of all Americans

is the shared belief and commitment to

democracy, freedom, and equality. Today's

immigrants from Latin America and

Southeast Asia, just as the Germans,

Italians, and Jews that preceded them, fled

from repression, war, and poverty. They all

share a common heritage-the quest for

_ freedom and opportunity. That common

heritage is America's common bond, and

it runs far deeper than the English language.

Second, today's immigrants want to learn

English and need not be punished into doing

so. Latinos, Asians, and other new

immigrants fill the long waiting lists for

adult English classes and a recent study

showed that 98% of Latino parents felt it

was essential for their children to learn to

read and write English perfectly.

Third, the characterization of today's

immigrants as "anti-assimilationists" is a

myth. A 1985 Rand Corporation study.

revealed that Mexican immigrants are

assimilating into our society in much the

same fashion as earlier generations of

immigrants from Europe and elsewhere.

The outcome of Proposition 63 has

national importance. If this measure passes

in California, the English-only movement

will be emboldened to escalate their already

existing campaigns in Florida, Texas, and

other states. Ultimately, they want to amend

the U.S. Constitution to outlaw even

federally-mandated language assistance

under such provisions as the Voting Rights

Act and the Bilingual Education Act.

will be meeting others who share a deep

belief in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

And finally, it is a rare opportunity to

participate in the growth and expansion of

our vital organization-the ACLU-NC."

At the first Founders Circle event on July

23 in Berkeley, Karpman outlined the goals

of the new group, which will be the

backbone of financial support for the

affiliate. Guest speaker at the event was

attorney James Brosnahan, a partner in the

law firm of Morrison and Foerster and a

member of the defense team of the recently

completed Tucson sanctuary trial.

Founders Circle members were treated

to a rare insight on one of the most

important political trials of the decade as

- Brosnahan, who for the past year defended

Mexican sanctuary worker Maria Socorro

Pardo de Aguilar, spoke of the importance

of the trial as an example of both the U.S.

government's attack on those who dissent _

and the courage of the Central American

refugees and the sanctuary defendants in

the face of that attack.

The Founders Circle is planning other

educational events for its members.

comme -

aaa mae

Proposition 63 is more than a wolf in

sheep's clothing. While claiming the mantle

of cultural unity, this mean-spirited and ill-

conceived movement threatens to destroy

human lives as well as human relations, and

basic civil liberties.

NO on 64

Continued from page 5

between people in high risk groups and the

biomedical research and public health

communities. Additional restrictive mea-

sures would drive the disease underground.

It will also divert money and time now

devoted to education and research.

3) Proposition 64 would cost hundreds

of millions of dollars, possible billions, to

implement. If that is not what we want,

why pass the initiative? Public health

officials already have the laws they need

to combat the disease-what they need is

more money, for research and education.

This initiative is an expensive and futile

program to identify and isolate AIDS

carriers.

4) Public health policy should be set by

people who know what they are talking ~

about. Lyndon LaRouche is not qualified

to set public health policy. He and his

supporters have an extremist view that is

not shared by any responsible doctor or

public health professional. There is no

medical basis for the recommendations he

is espousing.

5) This initiative will affect every person

in California. According to official

estimates, there are approximately half a

million people in the state who have been

infected with the virus that causes AIDS.

All of these people have family and friends

who would be affected by what happens

to them. People in risk groups-hemophi-

liacs, receivers of past blood transfusions,

as well as the gay community and IV drug

users-would be affected. If mass testing

were implemented, it could affect all adult

Californians, and conceivably children as

well.

It is crucial to destroy the myth that AIDS

is limited to gay white men. Two out of

five Americans with AIDS are people of

color. Among women, half are black and

one in five are Latina. More than four out

of five U.S. children with AIDS are people

Michael Miller

Union Maid Photo

ACLU-NC Associate Director Michael

Miller left the affiliate he has served for

the last 8 years in July and headed for New ~

York City where he will continue his

fundraising and organizing work.

Miller came to the ACLU-NC in July,

1978-"the day of the first Medi-Cal

abortion funding lawsuit," he recalls-as

Field Representative. He organized ACLU

Annual Conference

Continued from page 3

sistent poverty" has created a black

underclass with little economic or political

power. Subsequent workshops developed

her themes, detailing issues such as

immigrant rights and racial violence,

workplace privacy, reproductive rights, and

the Meese Commission.

Abraham Lincoln Brigade veteran Milt

Wolff and special guest Nomazizi Sokudela

of the African National Congress/ Women's

Section spoke from their rich experience on

of color; 96% of prisoners with AIDS are

minorities.

Who Is Behind Proposition 64?

This proposition is the brainchild of

Lyndon LaRouche and its campaign is -

being organized by his extremist and tightly

knit organization, the National Democratic

Policy Committee. Over 600,000 signatures

put the LaRouche initiative on the ballot.

LaRouche and his organization are known

for being anti-Semitic and anti-gay. He is

a conspiracy theorist who, in an intervieew

with NBC, said that the British monarchy

is an agent of the Soviet Union and the

Queen of England is "the head of a gang

that is pushing drugs." LaRouche accuses

all his critics of being drug pushers and/

or gay, and his followers have used

intimidation and physical harassment .

against opponents.

LaRouche ran for President in 1980 and

1984 and is going to run again; his

organization has been trying to build

credibility and money by promoting causes

they think may be popular. Proposition 64

is LaRouche's way of attracting attention

`to his cause as well as attacking gays. If

this measure passes which group on the.

LaRouche hate list will be the next target?

_ Miller Bids Farewell to ACLU-NC

participation in the campaigns opposing the

two infamous Briggs initiatives and worked

with the northern California chapters.

In 1981, Miller became Associate Director

with primary responsibility for fundraising

and development. In that capacity, he

launched the affiliates Major Gifts

Campaign, which raised $275,000 last year,

about half the budget for the ACLU-NC

Foundation. Miller successfully recruited,

organized and trained scores of ACLU-NC

leaders into solicitation teams, in order to

conduct the ambitious campaigns.

On leaving the ACLU-NC, Miller said,

"It has been the people of the ACLU-

Board members, the Development Commit-

tee, the staff-that really kept me going

everytime. Their willingness to work so.

hard, made my job of fundraising easy."

The Development Committee presented

Miller with the Cecil B. De Mille Award

"for skilled and artful direction of a cast

of thousands in a multitude of roles and

countless responsibilities." And the affiliate

presented Miller with a plaque noting that

he "leaves us with fond memories, deep

friendships, and enough money in the bank

to keep us going."

Miller will be succeeded as Associate

Director by Martha Kegel, currently

Executive Director of the ACLU of

Louisiana. Kegel will join the staff in

January 1987; in the interim, Dennis Chew

is acting as a development consultant for

the 1986 Major Gifts Campaign.

Seon ome as oe oar

"The Militarization of U.S. Society."

The Saturday evening panel on "AIDS

and Civil Liberties" was an ambitious effort

to educate ACLU members on every aspect

of the AIDS crisis-from dispelling myths

about how AIDS is transmitted to

- mobilizing forces outside the gay community

(which is already highly organized around |

AIDS) to fight against the barrage of

discriminatory attacks on AIDS patients-

from the LaRouche initiative to HEW

directives. According to Pat Norman,

Coordinator of Lesbian/Gay Health

Services of the S.E Department of Health,

"Much of the initial perception about AIDS

came through sensationalized press stories. -

Most of the country therefore believed that

this was a gay disease-a white male gay

disease-and thought they could rest easy

because it was caused by those awful people

who did awful things. . ."

Judicial Elections

The last day of the Conference focused

on one of the most urgent fights facing civil

liberties in California: the independence of

the judiciary. Starting with a plenary session -

addressed by California Women Lawyers

President-Elect Pat Shiu, a series of

workshops dealt with what is at stake in

the California Supreme Court retention

elections, vis-a-vis crime and the death

penalty, consumer rights and environmental

issues, and privacy.

The Conference concluded with State

Senator Nick Petris offering a systematic

rebuttal to the "vicious campaign of lies and

distortions which are being used to slander

the current Justices." Petris received a

standing ovation when he blasted those

"who would have judges read popularity

polls intead of statutes or aim to make news

columns instead of decisions." The dynamic -

state Senator encouraged ACLU members

to "fight fiction with fact," and to use their

accumulated knowledge to protect the

independence of the judiciary.

8

aclu news

Aug./Sep. 1986

Bill of Rights Campaign Launched

|S Ea TR SE

Teedone

Kegs

BILL - OF ' RIGHTS ' CAMPAIGN

The 1986 Bill of Rights Campaign-with

its slogan "Let Freedom Ring"-was

launched at the ACLU-NC Annual Con-

ference in Sonoma in early August with a

successful reception and two fundraising

workshops.

The Bill of Rights Campaign is the

ACLU-NC's annual grassroots fundraising

drive. This year's campaign goal is $95,000.

It is organized by the Bill of Rights

~ Campaign Committee, which is part of the

Field Program and has a liaison with the

affiliate Development Committee.

According to Campaign Committee

chair, Richard Grosboll, "The Bill of Rights

Campaign is unique because it is chapter

activists and members who do most of the

work-otherwise known as `volunteering""

At the Bill of Rights Campaign reception,

Grosboll explained the origin of the 1986

Campaign slogan "Let Freedom Ring" to

ACLU members. "As in prior years, the

Campaign's primary fundraising method is

to telephone our members and ask them-

that's you-for an additional contribution

to support the ACLU-NC's legal and public

education work," Grosboll said.

"In a year of unprecedented violations

of civil liberties-random drug testing being

just one example-and with vicious attacks

on the independence of the judiciary, we

feel it is most important that we expand

our work.

- "To do that requires money," Grosboll

added. "So if you receive a call this fall from

an ACLU member, please be friendly and

please reach for that extra amount and give

a generous contribution to the Bill of Rights

Campaign!"

At the launching, over 45 people

volunteered to work on the Campaign; since _

- 1986 Bill of Rig

hts Campaign

Phone Night Schedule

September

Monday, September 22

Tuesday, September 23

Wednesday, September 24

Thursday, September 25

Monday, September 29

Tuesday, September 30

October

Wednesday, October 1

Thursday, October 2

Monday, October 6

Wednesday, October 8

Thursday, October 9 |

Tuesday, October 14

Wednesday, October 15

Thursday, October 16

Campaign Kick-Off

(San Francisco)

San Francisco

San Francisco

~ Oakland

San Mateo

Fresno; San Francisco

San Jose; San Francisco

Sacramento; San Francisco (SF Chapter) -

Oakland

San Mateo; Gay Rights (SF)

San Francisco

San Francisco (SF Chapter)

Sonoma; San Francisco |

Campaign Finale

(San Francisco)

Bill of Rights Campaign

Phone Night Reply Form

YES, you can sign me up for phoning on:

And

(Date)

(Night)

Zip

| We will send complete information on where phone nights will be held outside of San|

Francisco two weeks before the phone night is scheduled. All San Francisco phone nights}

will be held at the' ACLU-NC offices, 1663 Mission Street, San Francisco.

eee ee ee eee |

then, an additional 35 have committed to

phoning. "To be really effective," Grosboll

explained, "the Campaign needs 45 more

volunteers to set aside one or two nights

(two hours of phoning) to call ACLU-NC

members."

He added, "The phone nights are a lot

of fun because there are usually 8-15 ACLU

volunteers joining you-and a delicious

dinner is provided. I encourage all interested

members to join us in the fight to expand

_ the ACLU-NC's work for civil liberties."

If you can volunteer for the Campaign,

please call Sandy Holmes or Marcia Gallo

at the ACLU-NC: 415/621-2493. See box

this page for list of phone nights scheduled

between September 22 and October 16.

(Additional phone nights may be sched-

uled-please call for an update.)

Complaint Counselors

Needed -

A challenging volunteer position

awaits you as an ACLU "Complaint

Counselor'-taking complaint calls

and requests for assistance, referrals

and information, and helping to screen

cases for potential ACLU lawsuits.

The position requires volunteering

one day (or more) a week, from 10am-

4pm from people who can make at least

a two month commitment. Patience,

compassion, concern for civil liberties

and civil rights necessary. Legal

knowledge helpful, but not necessary.

Please call 621-2493 and ask for Jean

Hom.

-- SS aS se cokes cone quuee osm muEen GEESE GOES GE | GUnERS

Board Meetings

B.A.R.K. BOARD MEETING: (Usually

fourth Thursday) NOTE: Third Thursday,

September 18, 8:00 pm. Volunteers are

needed to staff hotline. Contact Florence

Piliavin, 415-848-4752. or 415-848-5195.

EARL WARREN BOARD MEETING:

(Third Wednesday) Wednesday, September

17, 7:30 pm. Orientation for new board

members will precede regular chapter

meeting, Wednesday, September 17, 6:00 pm.

Contact Beth Weinberger, 415-839-2743.

Annual Membership Meeting and Potluck

Supper on Saturday, September 27, 6:00 pm.

- Main Speaker: Senator Nick Petris. Contact

Beth Weinberger, 415-839-2743.

FRESNO BOARD MEETING: (Usually

third Wednesday) Contact Sam Gitchel for

details: 209-486-2411 (days), 209-442-0941

' (evenings).

MARIN COUNTY BOARD MEETING:

(Third Monday) Contact Milton Estes,

415-383-6622 (days).

MID-PENINSULA BOARD MEETING:

(Usually last Wednesday) Contact Harry

Anisgard, 415-856-9186.

MONTEREY BOARD MEETING: (Usu-

ally fourth Tuesday) Tuesday, September 23,

and Tuesday, October 28, 7:30 pm, Monterey

Library, Pacific and Jefferson Streets,

Monterey, but check with Richard Criley,

408-624-7562. Ralph Atkinson Civil Liberties

Award Event, Sunday, October 12, 1:30-5:30

pm, Santa Catalina School, Monterey.

Recipient of Award: Sylvia Villareal, present

Directing Attorney of CRLA, Monterey

County. $18 Reservation. Contact Richard

Criley, 408-624-7562. :

MT. DIABLO BOARD MEETING: (Usu-

ally third Wednesday or third Thursday)

Contact Andrew Rudiak, 415-932-5580.

NORTH PENINSULA BOARD MEET-

ING: (Second Monday) Contact Sid Scheiber,

415-345-8603.

SACRAMENTO VALLEY BOARD

MEETING: (Usually second Wednesday)

Contact Jerry Scribner, 916-444-2130.

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD MEETING:

(Usually fourth Tuesday) Tuesday, September

23, and Tuesday, October 28, 6:00 pm, ACLU,

1663 Mission Street, #460, San Francisco.

Contact Suzanne Donovan, 415-642-4890.

San Francisco Chapter Bill of Rights

Campaign Phone Nite, Tuesday, October 14,

5:30 pm. ACLU, 1663 Mission Street, #460,

San Francisco. Contact Suzanne Donovan,

415-642-4890. "An American Tradition: Our

Independent Courts," Friday, September 26,

7:00 pm, Golden Gate University, Second

Floor, Auditorium, 536 Mission Street, San

Chapter Calendar

Francisco. Tickets: $5 General Public; $3

ACLU members, San Francisco Bar Asso-

ciation and students. Sold through BASS or

at the door. For further information, call

415-621-2493.

SANTA CLARA BOARD MEETING: For -

further information contact: Michael Chatsky

408-379-4611.

SANTA CRUZ BOARD MEETING:

(Second Wednesday) Contact Bob Taren,

408-429-9880.

SONOMA BOARD MEETING: Contact

Andrea Learned, 707-544-6911.

-STOCKTON BOARD MEETING: (Third

Wednesday) Contact

209-948-4040 (evenings).

YOLO COUNTY BOARD MEETING:

(Fourth Thursday of each month) Contact

Larry Garrett, 916-758-1005.

GAY RIGHTS BOARD MEETING: (Usu-

ally first Tuesday) New Board member

orientation at 227 Hartford Street, San

Francisco, 7:00 pm. Contact Doug Warner

at 415-621-3900 for more information.

Eric Ratner,

Field Committee

Meetings

BILL OF RIGHTS COMMITTEE: Bill of

Rights Campaign Kick-Off and Training

Session, Monday, September 22, 5:30 pm,

ACLU, 1663 Mission Street, #460, San

Francisco. Contact Marcia Gallo,

415-621-2494.

DRAFT OPPOSITION NETWORK: Con-

tact Judy Newman, 415-567-1527.

FIELD COMMITTEE: Field Committee

Quarterly Meeting, Thursday, September 11,

6:00 pm, ACLU, 1663 Mission Street, #460,

San Francisco. Contact Marcia Gallo,

415-621-2494.

_ IMMIGRATION WORKING GROUP: (c)

Thursday, September 18, 6:30 pm, ACLU,

1663 Mission Street, San Francisco. Contact

Marcia Gallo or Cindy Forster, 415-621-2494.

INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY: (Usually

first Saturday of each month.) September 13,

10:30 am, ACLU, 1663 Mission Street, #460,

San Francisco. Contact Marcia Gallo,

415-621-2494.

PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE: Wednesday,

September 10, 6:30 pm, ACLU, 1663 Mission

Street, #460, San Francisco. Contact Marcia

Gallo, 415-621-2494.

RIGHT TO DISSENT SUBCOMMITTEE:

Saturday, September 13, 12:30 pm, ACLU,

1663 Mission Street, #460, San Francisco.

Contact Marcia Gallo, 415-621-2494.

SR SEIS OP eS SITES DE SSO ESM MESS