vol. 58, no. 5

aclu news

Non-PRrorit

ORGANIZATION

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

Permit No.4424

- SAN FRANCISCO, CA

Volume LVIII

September - October 1994

No. 5

Ballot Measures Will Divide, Bankrupt State -

eralded by a catchy baseball

Hoeesote: and a disingenuous

distress call, two unconstitutional

and fiscally irresponsible initiatives -

Proposition 184 and Proposition 187 -

threaten to sink the state of California this

November.

Proposition 184 will mandate that

judges issue lengthy sentences to non-

violent criminals. Proposition 187 will

' deny education and health care to more

than 400,000 children and adults. Both

will cost the state billions of dollars - one

in prison construction and maintenance

and the other in the loss of federal and

education funds.

Proposition 187 seeks to deny educa-

tion and all medical and social services,

except emergency medical help, to undoc- ~

umented immigrants. It requires all

government agencies - including local

police, hospitals, and schools - and all

licensed medical professionals to deter-

"These dangerous initiatives place core

civil liberties issues on the ballot at a time

when politicians are whipping up anti-

crime hysteria and intense xenophobia.

- Dorothy Ehrlich

ACLU-NC Executive Director

mine the residential status of everyone

whom they "suspect" of being in this

country illegally and then report those

persons to the Immigration and Naturaliza-

tion Service (INS).

This measure scapegoats immigrants

- documented and undocumented - for

problems rooted in California's lengthy

New DHS Policy Bars

`*Kneglish-only" Rules at

Nursing Homes

s the result of a federal civil rights

An filed by a Latina nurses'

aide who was fired from her job at

a Gilroy nursing home because she spoke

Spanish on two occasions, the California

Department of Health Services (DHS)

issued a new policy in July to all nursing

homes statewide making clear that "speak-

English-only" rules are not authorized by

federal regulations except in narrowly

defined situations.

Jordania Reed, the terminated

employee, was represented by Christopher

Ho, staff attorney with the Employment

Law Center and ACLU-NC staff attorney

Edward Chen.

The new policy was arrived at through

discussions between DHS, the U.S. Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC), and Reed's attorneys. Numerous

nursing homes (including Reed's former

employer) had interpreted federal regula-

tions to require that only English be spoken

in those facilities in order to preserve

residents' "dignity." The DHS policy

declares that those regulations do not

support the use of English-only rules unless

staff are speaking to a monolingual English-

speaking resident of the facility or are in the

act of providing care to such a resident.

"Tt was unfair that I lost my job just for

speaking Spanish," said Reed, who is

currently employed at Saint Louise Hospi-

tal in Morgan Hill. "Being bilingual, if

anything, made me a better and more

valuable employee. I'm very pleased DHS

_ has decided that this sort of discrimination

doesn't belong in a professional workplace."

Reed, an immigrant from the Domini-

- can Republic, was fired by her former

employer, Driftwood Convalescent Hospi-

tal (since renamed and sold to another

owner), in January 1992 after two

instances in which she was written up for

speaking Spanish to co-workers in viola-

tion of Driftwood's English-only rule. In

neither instance was Reed speaking to or

providing care to a resident; in fact, she was

not even within earshot of any resident.

After Driftwood ignored Reed's

attempts to informally resolve her griev-

Continued on page 8

recession. It was put on the ballot

by two of former President Ronald

Reagan's top Immigration and Naturaliza-

tion Service (INS) officials, Alan Nelson

and Howard Ezell - people who have

turned immigrant-bashing into a calcu-

lated political tool.

The ugly tradition of persecuting recent

immigrants - including our Irish, Jewish,

Italian, Chinese, Mexican, Japanese and

most of our other ancestors - has repeat-

edly scarred this nation's history. And

Proposition 187 is simply the latest and one

of the most hateful of these attempts.

Political opportunism is the driving

force behind Proposition 184 - the "Three

Strikes You're Out" initiative. Although

the Legislature passed an almost identical

Three Strikes law last year, Proposition 184

would make modification or repeal of the

draconian measure nearly impossible.

Under Proposition 184, a person will be

sentenced to 25 years to life in prison

without possibility of parole if he/she has

-been convicted of two previous felonies

and then commits a third one. The manda-

tory life provision would apply even if the

third - so called "triggering" felony was

as non-violent as writing a bad check, steal-

ing fruit, or trying unsuccessfully to

break into a

vacant garage.

"This is a crucial election," warned

ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy

Ehrlich. "Both of these dangerous initia-

tives place core civil liberties issues on the

ballot at a time when politicians are

whipping up anti-crime hysteria and

intense xenophobia.

"Each one of these initiatives threatens

to erode our rights. But, taken together,

these measures have profound implica-

tions for the future of civil liberties in this

state. It is truly hard to imagine what life

will be like in our state if we slam shut our

school and hospital doors and force people

into prisons and deportation.

"Those who value justice must make

an extra effort this election year to defeat

these mean-spirited, unconstitutional

initiatives," Ehrlich added.

The ACLU is active in campaigns to

defeat both initiatives. On pages 4 and 5

we present some basic facts and

arguments to help educate voters about

the danger to our state posed by Proposi-

tion 184 and Proposition 187.

2 aclu news

september - october 1994

Court Upholds Minors' Privacy

Protections for Abortion Decisions

30, the state Court of Appeal ruled that

the 1987 California law requiring

minors to obtain parental or judicial

consent for abortions violates the Califor-

nia Constitution's guarantee of privacy.

The three-judge panel upheld the perma-

nent injunction issued by San Francisco

Superior Court Judge Maxine Chesney in

1992 barring the state from enforcing the

law. Agreeing with ACLU arguments, the

appellate court ruled that the law would

harm the mental and physical health of

teenagers and undermine family harmony.

The decision came in American

Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, a suit

filed by the ACLU-NC, the National

`Center for Youth Law and cooperating

attorneys from the San Francisco law firm

of Morrison and Foerster in 1987. The

challenged law has never gone into effect

because of court orders issued in this

lawsuit, filed on behalf of the American

Academy of Pediatrics (California District

IX); the California Medical Association;

the American College of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists (District IX); Planned

Parenthood of Alameda/San Francisco and

Dr. Philip Darney, Director of Family

Planning, San Francisco General Hospital.

Linda Shostak, Lori Schechter, and

Annette Carnegie of Morrison and Foerster

have litigated the case as cooperating

attorneys for the ACLU-NC and the

NCYL. Plaintiffs are also represented by

ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby and Abigail English of the NCYL.

The American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists lauded the opinion,

stating that the "court has taken a very

positive step to ensure that vulnerable

young women have continued access to

reproductive health services."

[ n a unanimous decision issued on June

Overwhelming Evidence

In the unanimous appellate opinion,

written by Justice William Stein, the court

found the evidence to be "nothing less

than overwhelming" that the statute

injures the very goal it is supposed to

promote - the welfare of young women

and their families.

The challenged law "forces the minor

to divulge her procreative choice against

her wishes," Stein wrote. "In addition, a

minor who cannot or will not obtain

parental consent is required to divulge a

highly intimate choice to a complete

stranger [a judge]...in an extremely stress-

ful proceeding." The law also creates "the

possibility that a minor will be compelled

to bear a child against her wishes. It would

be hard to imagine a more egregious

breach of social norms."

During the month-long superior court

trial in 1991, thirty expert witnesses -

including doctors, psychologists, experts

on family violence, and judges from states

where similar laws are in effect - testified

about the disastrous effect of such laws on

the physical and emotional health of

teenagers who are forced to confront

unsympathetic parents or navigate a formi-

dable judicial system to obtain a court

order for an abortion. In addition, Califor-

nia physicians and counselors testified that

the state's current system affords sensitive

counselling to pregnant teenagers and

insures that they give informed consent.

Experts also testified that adolescents are

capable of making decisions about their

reproductive health care.

The appellate court concluded that

while California teenagers have obtained

abortions with informed consent for two

decades, the state was unable to show that

any harm had resulted during that period.

`With the help of health care profes-

sionals, and other adults whom they choose

to consult for guidance, California

teenagers make sound reproductive

decisions," said Shostak.

Existing California law authorizes

teenagers to make many important

decisions involving sensitive health care

without parental consent, including those

related to drug and alcohol treatment,

contraceptives, treatment of sexually

transmitted diseases, and all treatment for

childbearing.

Abortion is medically safer than child-

bearing, particularly for younger women.

The court found that "minors are at no

special psychological or emotional risk

from abortion, and, indeed, are less likely

than adults to experience any adverse

reaction to the procedure."

In California, approximately 300,000

abortions occur annually; 70,000 of those

are for teenagers. The law would affect

approximately 30,000 unmarried teenagers

under 18.

Burden on teens

"Reproductive health counsellors encour-

age teenagers to involve their parents in

their decisions, and most teens do," said

Shostak. "But a substantial number of

teens simply cannot go to their parents

because they live in families that, for many

reasons, will not be supportive to a

pregnant daughter. :

"What happens to the young women

who live in abusive or dysfunctional

families? The law places an enormous

burden on them. The overwhelming

majority go to court to persuade a judge to -

allow them to terminate an unwanted

pregnancy."

The evidence from judges in other

states who have presided over adolescents'

abortion petitions showed that the process

caused great anxiety, delayed access to

abortion, and did not enhance the quality of

teenagers' decisions. Indeed, judges

approved virtually every petition. In the

majority of cases, the judges concluded

that the young woman was competent to

make an informed choice about her |

pregnancy. Where the judge found that the

teen was not mature, the court considered

that giving birth to a baby was not in her

best interest.

In the words of the Court of Appeal,

"the evidence disclosed that the judicial

bypass is a costly, unwieldy and essentially

pointless procedure which achieves no

purpose other than to cause stress to minors

and delay the implementation of their

decision to abort, thus rendering the

abortion more dangerous."

The State has filed a petition asking the

California Supreme Court to review the

case.

Court Dismisses Challenge by Anti-Choice Group

ACLU Defends Constitutionality

of Clinic Access Law

by Jean Field

n a major victory for the rights of

I women to seek reproductive health

care free from violence and physical

obstruction, U.S. District Court Judge

Irma E. Gonzalez dismissed an anti-choice

group's challenge to the federal Freedom

of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994

(FACE). The ACLU of Northern Califor-

nia, along with the national ACLU and the

San Diego affiliate, successfully argued in

a friend of the court brief that the new law

does not infringe on the constitutional

rights of anti-choice groups, and is neces-

sary to protect access to clinics.

"People who oppose abortion have the

right to speak, pray, chant and demon-

strate," said Margaret Crosby, ACLU-NC

staff attorney. "But they are not entitled to

use force or violence to interfere with

fundamental reproductive rights. The

First Amendment does not immunize

vigilante conduct, such as destroying

property, physically blocking access to

health care facilities, or injuring clinic

staff, regardless of whether it is ideologi-

cally motivated."

FACE, signed by President Clinton on

May 25, is a comprehensive federal law

enacted to remedy the epidemic of

violence at abortion clinics. It prohibits

the use of force, the threat of force, or

physical obstruction to intentionally

injure, intimidate, or interfere with an

individual because that individual is .

obtaining or providing reproductive health

services. In addition, the law punishes

intentional or attempted damage to

property at such clinics.

"The ACLU strongly supported FACE

in Congress, as a carefully drafted law

which prohibits only obstructive and

violent conduct, while allowing the peace-

ful expression of political and religious

beliefs," said Crosby.

To date, anti-choice groups have filed

eight lawsuits in courts around the country

attacking the constitutionality of FACE. -

Judge Gonzalez's July 6 ruling in Council

for Life Coalition v. Reno, which

dismissed the suit brought by a San Diego

anti-choice group, held that FACE did not

abridge the group's freedom of expres-

sion.

"The Court rejects as insupportable

any suggestion that shootings, arson, death

threats, vandalism, or other violent and

Rick Rocamora

Pro-choice advocates surround clinics to help protect staff and patients from

violence and obstruction.

destructive acts addressed by FACE are

protected by the First Amendment merely

because those engaged in such conduct

intend thereby to express an idea," Gonza-

lez wrote in her opinion.

In addition, the court rejected Council

for Life's claim that FACE violates the

rights of anti-choice protesters to freely

exercise their religion, stating that the

exercise of their religious beliefs does not

entail the use of force or making access to a

facility unreasonably difficult or

hazardous.

"The ACLU will defend the constitu-

tionality of the federal clinic access law in

lawsuits throughout the country to protect

women's right to implement their child-

bearing decisions," said Crosby. "At the

same time, we will monitor implementa-

tion of FACE, to ensure that police and

prosecutors do not misuse the law to

violate the right to peaceful protest." Hi

aclu news

6 issues a year: January-February, March-April, May-June, July-August,

September -October, and November-December.

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Milton Estes, Chairperson

Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Elaine Elinson, Editor

Lisa Maldonado, Field Page

ZesTop Publishing, Design and Layout

1663 Mission St., 4th Floor |

San Francisco, California 94103

(415) 621-2493

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

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

Locat 583 0x00B0

aclu news 3

september - october 1994

Sikh Children Return to School Wearing Kirpans

ajinder, Sukhjinder and Jaspreet

Roe: had more than their share

of excitement when they returned

~ to elementary school on September 12.

The three Sikh children, supported by the

ACLU, had fought a legal battle that went

all the way up to the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals to ensure their right to attend

school while abiding by their religious

tradition which requires them to wear a

kirpan, a small ceremonial knife, under

their clothing. :

On September 2, the U.S. Court of

Appeals, after hearing oral argument on

August 11 in Cheema v. Thompson,

reversed a lower court decision and ruled

that the school district has "a duty under

the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to

avoid all unnecessary burdens on [the

students' religious liberty." The district

must "make all reasonable efforts" to

accommodate the religious beliefs and

practices of the 7, 8 and 10-year old Sikh

children who had not attended school

since January, the court ruled,

The court, noting that "the record is

replete with evidence" that school safety

concerns could be met while allowing the

children to wear the kirpans, instructed the

school district and the ACLU to work out

an arrangement that would allow the

"kirpans' to be blunted and firmly sewn

into their sheaths when the children

returned to school. The ACLU and the

Cheema family had sought this solution

even before the case went to court.

"The court recognized the importance

of accommodating sincere religious

beliefs," said ACLU-NC cooperating

attorney Stephen V. Bomse of Heller,

Ehrmann, White and McAuliffe who, along

with ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby is representing the children.

This is one of the first cases decided

under the Religious Freedom Restoration

Act, which was signed last November to

require governments to show a compelling

need for rules that restrict religious

practices. The law was drafted to counter-

act an earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling

that limited religious liberty.

The Cheema children are baptized

Khalsa Sikhs who live in the central valley

town of Livingston. They were suspended

from school last January after school

authorities learned that they were wearing

kirpans. The children declined to remove

the kirpans, as demanded by school

officials, because they are forbidden to do

so by their religion. The children were not

permitted to return to school since that

time.

On April 15 the ACLU-NC filed a suit

in U.S. District Court on behalf of the

children and their mother. Attorneys

Bomse and Crosby argued that the under

the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of

1993, the district was violating the

children's religious freedom by not allow-

ing them to attend school.

On May 27, U.S. District Court Judge

Garland E. Burrell denied the plaintiffs'

request for an order that would require the

Livingston School District to allow the

children to immediately return to their

classes. The ACLU-NC appealed Judge

Burrell's decision, and asked the appellate

court to expedite the argument and the

~ decision in order that the children be

allowed to resume school at the start of the

fall term.

At the Court of Appeals hearing,

Bomse argued that the kirpan is not a

weapon, but a religious symbol which

devout Sikhs are required to wear. In

response to the judges' questions about

school safety requirements, Bomse noted

the blunted, secured kirpan is much less

potentially dangerous than many items

commonly found in school, such as

baseball bats, compasses, or even sharp-

ened pencils.

The Ninth Circuit 2-1 opinion was

written by Judge Betty Fletcher. Judge

Charles Wiggins dissented.

Baptized Khalsa Sikhs undertake a

Gene Lieb/Turlock Journal

Rajinder (1.) and Jaspreet Cheema, accompanied by their mother and sister

Sukhjinder (partially hidden from view) head for school after a long court battle

over religious freedom. .

religious duty to wear five sacred symbols,

including the kirpan, at all times. The

kirpan is`a small, blunt knife, which is

never unsheathed except during religious

rituals in the temple. The kirpan worn by

the Cheemas is securely fastened into its

sheath, which is strapped onto the child's

body under the clothes. The other sacred

symbols are long hair, a comb, a steel

bracelet and special cotton undergarments.

Each of the symbols-known to Khalsa

Sikhs as the "S K's'"-has a special, and

different symbolic meaning.

Plaintiffs presented evidence that

school districts in Canada and in the

United States, including California, have

accommodated their Khalsa Sikh students

by allowing them to wear the five sacred

symbols. There has never been an incident

of kirpan-related violence or disruption in

school.

"The Cheemas and the Sikh commu-

nity have never been indifferent to safety,"

said Bomse. "However, there are hundreds

of years of experience and much

documentation in the record that demon-

strate that both religious freedom and

school security can coexist in the case of

the Sikh's requirement to wear a "kirpan."

Spurred by. the lawsuit, the Legislature

passed a measure during the final week of

the session to allow children in California

to wear kirpans to school without fear of

expulsion. The bill, which is on Governor

Wilson's desk, would remove criminal

penalties for carrying a knife on school

grounds, if the knife has religious signifi-

cance and if the school could set regula-

tions that would ensure the safety of all

students. At press time, it is still unclear if

Governor Wilson will sign the bill. @

ACLU Defends Garment Workers'

Right to Picket

en a seamstress who

was never paid her

wages for sewing

dresses for designer Jessica

McClintock heard that McClin-

tock had gone to court to keep her

from picketing in front of McClin-

tock's posh boutique in San

Francisco, she was angry but not

surprised.

"This is just like the shop we

worked in where the boss put up a

sign saying `No loud talking

allowed.'" the garment worker

said. "First the contractor silences

us inside the sweat shop. Now

McClintock tries to silence us

outside the sweatshop too."

But with the assistance of the

ACLU-NC, the picket lines will

not be silent.

Manufacturer McClintock

tried to derail the two-year old campaign

for back wages for the twelve seamstresses

who were left holding bad checks from

their now-defunct employer, a former

McClintock contractor. On July 20,

manufacturer McClintock went to San

Francisco Superior Court seeking a

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a

preliminary injunction against Asian

Immigrant Women Advocates to stop the

protesting garment workers and their

supporters from picketing her Sutter Street

boutique and her San Francisco residence.

McClintock, claiming that the picket-

ing is unlawful, impedes access to her

store, harassing, frightening and intimidat-

ing employees and customers, and calcu-

lated to destroy the peaceful atmosphere

necessary to conduct business, asked the

court to impose severe limitations. The

dress manufacturer asked the court to limit

picketing at the store to two persons -

eight feet apart - who must keep moving.

McClintock also asked the court to allow

only one picket on the block of her

residence.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen,

who along with cooperating attorney

Arthur Brunwasser and Asian Law Caucus

Garment wor

attorney Laura Foo is representing the

garment workers in opposing the injunc-

tion, said, "The picketing occurs weekly,

bi-weekly or monthly depending on the

height of the shopping season. Because

there is such widespread support for the

workers, there are anywhere from 15 to

150 pickets in front of the store.

The demonstrations, though perhaps

very vocal, have all been peaceful. The

police have been present at nearly all the

demonstrations and have never had to

make an arrest," Chen noted.

On July 20, San Francisco Superior

Court Judge Stuart Pollack granted the

dress designer a limited TRO regarding

pickets at the boutique, barring the demon-

strators from engaging in unlawful conduct

(including violation of San Francisco noise

ordinances - and requiring them to stay at

least five feet away from the face of the

building. He refused to limit numbers or

locations in any other respect. He also"

limited picketers to two directly in front of

McClintock's residence.

Subsequently, on August 25, the court

issued a preliminary injunction to remain

in effect until the case is tried. Over the

ACLU's objections, the injunction contin-

ing back wages picket in front of _

Jessica McClintock's headquarters, wearing masks to

protect their identity.

ues the TRO, except that AIWA

may maintain one leafleter by the

entrance to the boutique (since

McClintock has placed her own

leafleter in front of the door). The

court imposed additional limits

on residential picketing, limiting

the total number on McClintock's

block to seven.

AIWA, a community based

non-profit advocacy group,

started the campaign on behalf of

the seamstresses who had

worked for a garment contractor

who contracted with McClin-

tock for the production of cloth-

ing. The workers were owed

back wages of approximately

$20,000 which became uncol-

lectible as a result of the contrac-

tor's bankruptcy. AIWA

demanded, on behalf of the

workers, that McClintock assume respon-

sibility for these unpaid wages. McClin-

tock refused (though she subsequently

offered to pay a similar sum as a'charity"

to an organization which would distribute

money to the workers - an offer refused

by the workers).

"The issue of manufacturer responsi-

bility for wage obligations and working

conditions of its contractors is currently a

critical, much debated issue in the garment

industry," said Chen and "has been the

focus of political campaigns by garment

workers. Ironically, bills imposing such

responsibility were passed by the Califor-

nia Legislature, but were twice vetoed by

the governor. McClintock has publicly

opposed the legislation."

Leah Wise, a labor organizer from the

Regional Economic Justice Network, said

at a July 30 demonstration on support of

.the seamstresses, "Why is McClintock's

giant corporation using strong-arm tactics

to silence low-paid immigrant women

workers and their supporters. This is like

Godzilla versus Bambi. Why is she trying

to short-circuit public questioning of viola-

tions against sweatshop worker's rights?

What does she have to hide?"

-Minh Trinh

Tu

4 aclu news

september - october 1994

No on Proposition 134

WHAT PROPOSITION [84

WOULD DO:

f a person has been convicted of two

[:setess" felonies, the next felony

conviction - violent or not - would

trigger a third strike. That person must

then be sentenced to the greater of 1) three

times the ordinary term, 2) 25 years, or 3) a

term determined by the judge. Felonies

committed by a minor of at least 16 years

of age count as strikes. Also, if a person

has had one previous serious felony

conviction, the mandatory sentence for a

second conviction is doubled.

WHAT PROPOSITION 184

WOULD COST THE STATE:

The Department of Corrections

estimates that about $20 billion will be

needed over the next ten years to build

prisons to house those convicted under the

"three strikes" law. Additional operating

costs are estimated to start at $200 million

in 1995-96 and grow to about $6 billion

annually in the next thirty years.

PROPOSITION | 84 VIOLATES THE

BAN ON CRUEL AND UNUSUAL

PUNISHMENT.

The law has drawn sharp criticism from

many judges, several of whom have

refused to enact its provisions charging that

the inflexible sentence requirements

violate the ban on cruel and unusual

punishment. Sonoma County Superior

Court Judge Lawrence Antolini, a former

prosecutor appointed by Governor George

Deukmejian, would not apply the manda-

tory sentence requirement and refused to

send a Santa Rosa man to state prison for

possession of a marijuana cigarette.

During sentencing, Judge Antolini said

that the law strips judges of their discretion

and predicted the law will bankrupt the

state by requiring increased prison

construction to keep up with those

sentenced under the law.

WHY SHOULD WE FIGHT

AGAINST THIS INITIATIVE? ISN'T

THREE STRIKES A LAW ALREADY?

"Three Strikes and You're Out" became

law on March 7 of this year, when Gover-

nor Wilson signed AB 971 as part of the

Special Session on crime. Proposition 184

will make matters worse because there is

one important difference with current law -

- the initiative, if passed, would require a

2/3 vote in both the Assembly and the

Senate to change it at all.

Thus, if this initiative passes, it will be

extremely difficult to alter any of its provi-

sions, even to adjust for its flaws, such as

including non-violent felonies as the first

strike.

IN OTHER STATES WHERE THREE

STRIKES LAWS HAVE BEEN

PASSED, THEY HAVE NOT

WORKED.

This is not a "new and effective" way to

fight crime. Currently, there are habitual

offender statutes in over 30 states.

Florida is a good example of the failure

of Three Strikes. In 1987, Florida experi-

mented with a habitual offender law. As

the prison filled with third strike prisoners,

it was soon realized that first-time offend-

ers had to be released. In 1993, Florida

abandoned its Three Strikes law.

Washington state's new Three Strikes

law has also led to harsh sentences for non-

violent crimes. One person was sentenced

to life in prison for robbing a store of $154.

THREE STRIKES DOES NOT JUST

AFFECT VIOLENT CRIMES.

Under this measure, the first two strikes are

based on "serious" felonies which include

many crimes which are not necessarily

violent, including burglary of an inhabited

dwelling, robbery, the sale or furnishing of

drugs to a minor, and grand theft involving

a firearm. Prior felonies will also include

those committed by a minor 16 or older.

Even though in juvenile court minors are

not allowed a jury trial, the results will still

count as a strike.

Even if a third felony is not violent and

not serious, such as writing a bad check, if

a person has two prior strikes, the third

felony qualifies for life imprisonment.

THREE STRIKES WILL NOT MAKE

US SAFER FROM VIOLENT CRIME.

California has increased its prison popula-

tion over the last twelve years, but the

crime rate has not decreased. Currently,

California spends $3 billion a year for its

prison system without reducing the level of

violence.

California already has the largest

prison construction budget in the world,

resulting in a prison system second in size

only to that of China, a country with 50

times as many citizens.

Over the past decade, more correc-

tional employees (26,000) have been

added to the state payroll than all other

state employees combined (16,000).

THREE STRIKES IS EXTREMELY -

AND UNNECESSARILY - COSTLY,

EVERY TIME WE LOCK SOMEONE |

UP FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE.

Criminal justice research indicates that a -

25-year old burglar stops being criminally

active at age 50. Yet if that person is kept

in prison for his natural life expectancy of

76, we have wasted 26 years worth of

prison space. Ata cost of $25,000 per year,

that's $650,000 we would waste just to

house that one offender. Multiply that by

even half of the 276,000 offenders which

Three Strikes will add to our prison system

and we will waste over $179 billion on the

first generation of Three Strikes prisoners.

Three Strikes would warehouse those

people who are less likely to be violent.

THE MONEY SPENT TO

WAREHOUSE AGING PRISONERS

WILL ROB THE STATE OF

RESOURCES FROM OTHER

SERVICES WHICH ARE NECESSARY

TO PREVENT CRIME.

Three strikes will not prevent crime; it

could only have an impact after crimes take

place.

Only when the conditions which cause

crime and violence are addressed can we

become safer. Yet the money spent on

Three Strikes will deplete funds for the

very services which have been proven to

decrease crime in the first place: education,

Headstart, housing, and job development.

_As Vincent Schiraldi, Director of the

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice,

noted, "We can choose to become a health-

ier society or we can consign every penny

of future funding toward failed system of

human warehouses. We must remember

that the measure of the criminal justice

system should be to have fewer victims,

and not just more prisoners."

No on Proposition 187

or more than 70 years, the ACLU

H has defended the Constitution and

`its Bill of Rights - including, the

Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of

equal protection under the law for every-

one in this country. That is the spirit of the

law. That is the letter of the law. And that is

exactly what Proposition 187 threatens.

WHAT PROPOSITION | 87

WOULD DO:

Though targeted at immigrants, Prop. 187

threatens the health, safety, and basic

constitutional rights of all Californians. It

would: a

Require public schools to check on the

immigration status of all children -

and their families - and immediately

report those children or family

members who do not have satisfactory

documentation to the INS. Undocu-

mented children would be expelled

from school.

Require law enforcement agencies to

determine the residence status of

anyone "suspected" of being undocu-

mented in to the INS. This includes

crime victims, and witnesses to crimes.

Bar provision of health services by any

licensed health care giver - which

includes every licensed doctor in

private practice - to anyone who

cannot prove their residence status.

Make it illegal to give preventive

health services to "suspected" undocu-

mented people. Even "suspected"

undocumented patients seeking

emergency care would be turned in to

the INS.

Bar suspected undocumented people

from attending California State

Universities and University of Califor-

nia campuses, even if they were willing

to pay higher non-resident tuition.

Make ita state felony to produce or sell

forged immigration documents, dupli-

cating several provisions of federal

law.

Require a two-thirds roll call vote in

Legislature or by voters to amend

provisions in any way, at any time in

the future.

WHAT PROPOSITION 187

WOULD COST THE STATE:

The independent California Legislative

Analyst has concluded that a total of $15

billion in federal education, health and

social welfare program funds would be

placed at risk because Proposition 187's

reporting requirements violate federal

privacy laws. :

One of the important statutes that

Proposition 187 would violate is the

federal Family Educational Rights and

Privacy Act (FERPA), which guarantees

the confidentiality of records in public

schools.

_ USS. Secretary of Education Richard

W. Riley stated that disclosure to the INS

of school information about children and

their families would violate FERPA. .

Enforcement, he warned, would jeopardize

every penny of California's federal educa-

tion funds - $3 billion in all.

Prop. 187 WOULD FORCE

PEOPLE TO DISCRIMINATE BASED

ON STEREOTYPES.

Under Proposition 187, state workers

would be turned into informers - required

to turn in to the INS anyone they "suspect"

might be undocumented.

How would these decisions be made?

By proficiency in English? Last name?

Skin color? Accent? These are false and

discriminatory criteria. Many of those

"suspected" of being undocumented would

be U.S. citizens and legal residents.

With California's melting pot heritage

any of us could come under suspicion.

Especially vulnerable, however, would be

California residents who look or sound as

if they might be Latino or Asian-Pacific.

PROPOSITION 187 ENDANGERS

PUBLIC SAFETY.

It's no accident that the top signature on the

ballot argument against Proposition 187 is

that of Los Angeles County Sheriff

Sherman Block. He and other law enforce-

ment officials, like San Jose Police Chief

Louis Cobarruviaz, recognize the measure

for what it is: A problem - not a solution

- for law enforcement.

That's because many people would be

afraid to go to the police if officers are

forced to turn in any victim or witness they

_ "suspect" is undocumented.

Crime would flourish as criminals prey

on the immigrant community, knowing

that many would not turn to the police.

Witnesses to crimes would not cooperate

with law enforcement out of fear of being

turned in as "suspected" undocumented

immigrants.

PROPOSITION 1|87 Is PLAINLY

UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND AT

ODDS WITH THE FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENT.

The California Senate Office of Research

says the poorly drafted proposition "`is

filled with provisions that collide with state

and federal laws, state and U.S. constitu-

tional protections and with state and

federal court rulings."

The U.S. Supreme Court, in decisions

spanning more than a century, has consis-

tently ruled that many fundamental rights

protect every person - whether

documented or not. That includes the rights

of due process and equal protection under

the law.

"Aliens, even aliens whose presence in

this country is unlawful," the Supreme

Court once observed, "have long been

recognized as `persons' guaranteed due

process of law."

The most important Supreme Court

decision on this question is a landmark

1982 case, Plyler v. Doe, striking down a

Texas law barring children of undocu-

mented people from public schools.

The Court held that: "Education

provides the basic tools by which individu-

als might lead economically productive

lives to the benefit of us all....Education has

a fundamental role in maintaining the

fabric of our society."

The Plyler decision held that the

Fourteenth Amendment bars denial of

basic services to undocumented people.

The Court believed the collective welfare

of the United States transcends narrow

issues of immigration status. The decision

resonates far beyond public education.

Proposition 187's proponents have

tried to dress it in patriotic clothing. But

this initiative mocks the Constitution and

Bill of Rights, including the Fourteenth

Amendment's guarantee of equal protec-

tion and due process to everyone.

PROPOSITION 187 CONFLICTS

WITH THE CALIFORNIA

CONSTITUTION, TOO.

Article I, Section 7 of the California consti-

tution guarantees any person -

documented or not - equal protection

under the law. State constitutions have the

power to grant more - but not fewer -

rights and liberties than the U.S. Constitu-

tion. And court decisions have made

8 aclu news

september - october 1994

BEN HELLER

ties Award from the ACLU-NC Monterey Chapter, died of heart failure on July

22 at the age of 78.

"Tt will be hard to imagine the Monterey Chapter without his unshakable commit-

ment to the ACLU and the fight for justice," said ACLU-NC Executive Director

Dorothy Ehrlich. His record of achievement as a fighter for human rights is truly extra-

ordinary."

Heller, a Canadian who graduated from the University of Minnesota medical

school in 1941, served on the faculties of medical schools at Northwestern University,

the University of Arkansas, the University of Oklahoma and the University of

Minnesota.

In the 1950s, while at the University of Arkansas, Dr. Heller worked for racial

justice as a member of the NAACP Sit-In Advisory Committee, the Congress of Racial

Equality and the Arkansas Council for Human Relations. He was told by university

officials that he must cease his "outside activities" if he was to continue as a faculty

member. He resigned.

In 1974, Dr. Heller and his wife Doris Tullar retired to Carmel, where he became

active in the Monterey County Chapter of the ACLU. Despite his retirement plans, he

continued working at San Francisco's Native American Health Center and at the

United Farm Workers clinic in Salinas. In addition to serving on the Monterey Chapter

Board from 1977 to 1985, Dr. Heller worked on the Complaint Line and was the ACLU

representative on the Affirmative Action Committee of Monterey Peninsula College

Dr. Heller also became passionately involved in the movement to abolish the death

penalty. He coordinated abolition efforts for both Amnesty International and the

ACLU.

The Monterey Chapter honored Dr. Heller with the Atkinson Award in 1987 "for

his lifelong commitment to justice and freedom, as a participant in the freedom strug-

gles of the South, as a vocal opponent of the U.S. war in Vietnam, as a leader in the

crusade against the death penalty, as a voice of conscience whenever the good fight

must be waged for a more humane and just society."

In addition to his work with the ACLU, Dr. Heller was also active in Salvadoran

Medical Relief, the Nuclear Weapons Freeze, the Monterey Institute for Research in

Astronomy and the Chamber Music Society. The family suggests that memorial contri-

butions be sent to the Monterey Chapter of the ACLU.

D: Ben Heller, the 1987 recipient of the Ralph Atkinson American Civil Liber-

ROGER WINSTON

ducator Roger Winston, a Board member of the North Peninsula Chapter of the

H ACLU-NC, died on July 26 of cardiac arrest at his home in San Mateo.

Winston, a New Jersey native, came to the Bay Area in 1968 to work at Mills

College in Oakland.

Following a teaching stint at San Mateo High School, he became the Director of

Human Relations for the San Mateo Union High School District. Though he retired in

1987, he continued to serve as a consultant around racial issues to school districts in

. San Leandro, Newark and throughout the country.

"Roger really had a dream of equal opportunity for all races and was particularly

concerned with fostering black children's full potential," said ACLU-NC Chapter

Chair Emily Skolnick. "He mobilized our chapter around issues of equal opportunity in

education, and brought the ACLU into local coalition with the Black Forum and the

African-American parent/teachers organization. Our best memorial to Roger is for us

to continue this vital work around equality in education for all children," she added.

Winston also served as President of the San Mateo/Foster City Black Political

Forum.

English Only...

Continued from page |

ance, Reed filed a charge of discrimination

against Driftwood with the EEOC. The

charge was later broadened to include

DHS, which, according to Driftwood, had

forced it to implement the rule.

Under the agreement reached between

Reed and DHS, nursing home facilities

may require their staff to speak in the

language of the resident only when

"engaged in direct communication with, or

providing care to a resident." At all other

times, the policy makes clear that "there

are no regulations which prohibit staff

from conversing with each other in their

native tongue."

At a press conference announcing the

new policy, ELC attorney Ho said, "Drift-

wood's clumsy attempt to police the

speech of its workforce through an

English-only rule made the discriminatory

assumption that overhearing conversations

in any language besides English amounts

to an assault on the dignity of nursing home

residents. This kind of thinking is offen-

sive to the many health care professionals

in this state for whom English is not a

primary language.

"The new DHS policy gives due

respect to the interests of everyone

Jordania Reed, with ELC attorney

Chris Ho, fought her firing from a

nursing home for speaking Spanish. Her

civil rights complaint led to a statewide

ban on English-only rules from the

Department of Health Services.

involved, residents as well as staff," Ho

added.

The EEOC facilitated the agreement

reached with DHS. Although the EEOC

Union Maid

Field Program

Monthly Meetings

Chapter Meetings

(Chapter meetings are open to all inter-

ested members. Contact the Chapter

activist listed for your area.)

B-A-R-K (Berkeley-Albany-Rich-

mond-Kensington) Chapter Meeting:

(Usually fourth Thursday) Volunteers

needed for the chapter hotline - call

Tom Sarbaugh at 510/526-6376 for

further details. For more information,

time and address of meetings, contact

Julie Houk, 510/848-4752.

Earl Warren (Oakland/Alameda

County) Chapter Meeting: (Usually

second Wednesday) Meet on Wednes-

day, September 14 and October at 7:30

PM in the basement of the Temescal

Branch of the Oakland Library, 5205

Telegraph Avenue; - use the rear

entrance. New volunteers welcome! For

more information, call Tom Trent at

510/283-1107.

Fresno Chapter Meeting: Meet at the

Center for Non-Violence, 985 N. Van

Ness, Fresno. New members welcome!

For information on date and time of

meetings, call Nadya Coleman at

209/229-7178 (days) or the Chapter

Hotline at 209/225-3780.

Lesbian and Gay Rights Chapter

Meeting: (Usually first Thursday)

Meet on Thursday, October 6 at the

ACLU office, 1663 Mission Street, suite

460, San Francisco. Mailings and other

activities start at 6:30 PM. Speakers at

7:00 PM. Business meeting starts at

7:30 PM. Annual meeting: Sunday,

October 9, at the offices of Steel,

Clarence and Buckley. 303 Pennsylvania

Street, San Francisco from 3:00-5:00

PM. For more information, contact Jeff

Hooper.at 510/460-0712.

Marin County Chapter Meeting:

(usually Third Monday) Meet Monday,

October 17 at 7:30 PM WestAmerica

Bank, 1204 Strawberry Town and

Country Village, Mill Valley. For more

information, contact Coleman Persily at

415/479-1731.

Mid-Peninsula (Palo Alto area)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually fourth

Thursday) Meet Thursday, October 27

at 7:30 PM at the California Federal

Bank, El Camino Real, Palo Alto. For

more information, contact Leah Glenn

at 415/329-1327.

Monterey County Chapter Meeting:

(Usually third Tuesday) Meet Tuesday,

October 11 at 7:30 PM at the Monterey

Library. For more information, contact

Richard Criley, 408/624-7562.

Mt. Diablo (Contra Costa County)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually third

Thursday) For more information, call

Hotline at 510/939-ACLU.

North Peninsula (San Mateo area)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually third

Monday) Meet Monday, October 17 at

7:30 PM, at Planned Parenthood, 2205

Palm Avenue, San Mateo.

North Valley (Shasta, Siskiyou,

Tehama and Trinity Counties)

Chapter Meeting: For more informa-

tion write to: Tillie Smith, P.O. Box

2503, Redding, CA 96099.

_day, October 20 at 7:00 PM at the

Redwood (Humboldt County)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually third

Monday) For information on upcoming

meeting dates and times, contact

Christina Huskey at the number below.

The Redwood Chapter needs volunteers

for our ACLU table at the North

Country Fair on September 17 and 18.

If you can help, contact Christina

Huskey at 707/444-6595.

Sacramento Valley Chapter Meeting:

(Usually first Wednesday) Meet at 7:00

PM at Shakey's Pizza, 59th and J Streets,

Sacramento. For more information,

`contact Ruth Ordas, 916/488-9956.

San Francisco Chapter Meeting:

(Usually third Tuesday) Meet on

Tuesday, October 18 at 6:45 PM at

ACLU Office, 1663 Mission, 460, San

Francisco. For more information, call

the Chapter Information Line at

415/979-6699.

Santa Clara Valley Chapter Meeting:

(Usually first Tuesday) Meet on

Tuesday, October 4 and November 8 at

7:00 PM at the Community Bank Build-

ing, 3rd Floor Conference Room, corner

of Market/St. John Streets, San Jose.

Contact Larry Jensen at 408/995-3250,

for further information.

Santa Cruz County Chapter Meeting:

(Usually third Thursday) Meet on Thurs-

Women's Law and Mediation Center,

104 Walnut Avenue, Suite 203, Santa

Cruz. Contact Eleanor Eisenberg at

408/423-8327 for further information.

Sonoma County Chapter Meeting:

(Usually third Wednesday) Meet on

Wednesday October 19 at 7:30 PM at the

Peace and Justice Center, 540 Pacific

Avenue, Santa Rosa. We hold monthly

death penalty vigils with other Sonoma

County abolitionists on the 21 of every

month from 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM at the

Old Courthouse in Santa Rosa. Call

Steve Thornton at 707/544-8115 for

further information.

Yolo County Chapter Meeting:

(Usually third Thursday) No meeting in

July. Meet on Thursday, October 20 at

7:00 PM. For more information, call

John Crawford at 916/757-6282 or the

Chapter Hotline at 916/756-ACLU.

FiELD ACTION

NMIEETINGS

(All meetings except those noted will be

held at the ACLU-NE Office, 1663

Mission Street, #460, San Francisco.)

Student Outreach Committee: Meet

to plan activities for the fall semester.

For more information, call Marcia

Gallo at 415/621-2493.

Student Advisory Committee: Help

plan for Writing Your Rights, Student

Journalists Conference to be held on

Wednesday, October 12. Planning

meeting on Sunday, October 9 at 12

noon at the ACLU office. For more

information, call Marcia, Katrina or

Jamie at 415/621-2006 ext. 52.

will now close that part of Reed's charge

concerning DHS, her legal claims against

Driftwood's parent corporation, GranCare,

are still active. :

ACLU-NC attorney Chen noted,

"Once this situation was brought to DHS's

attention, the Department worked closely

with us and the EEOC to strike a balance

between resident rights and the civil rights

of employees. DHS is to be highly

commended for its thoughtful and fair

resolution of this issue."

Jack W. Patwell, O.D., Chief of the

Policy and Administrative Support Branch

of the Department of Health Services sent

a letter this week to administrators of all

skilled nursing and intermediate care facil-

ities in the state of California that hence-

forth, "all employees have the right to

communicate with each other in their

primary language when not engaged in

' direct communication with, or providing

care to a resident."

This policy change will be integrated

with existing DHS policy, which affirms

the right of each skilled nursing and/or

intermediate care facility resident and

employee to be free of discrimination.

aclu news

september - october 1994

6

ACLU Activists CONFERENCE

rassroots organizing efforts to defeat the dangerous ballot

initiatives were the focus of the ACLU-NC Activists

Conference held at San Francisco State University on

September 10. The conference drew ACLU leaders from chapters

throughout the state. The meeting was organized by Field Repre-

sentative Lisa Maldonado and Conference Committee members

ee

AC

LU-NC Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich (1.), keynote speaker Eva Jeffer-

son Paterson, chair of the Coalition on Civil Rights, and staff attorney Ed Chen

explained why the civil rights community must work to defeat Propositions 184

and 187.

Union Maid

Phil Mehas, Roberta Spieckerman, Iris Barrie, Marlene De Lancie,

Fran Strauss and Bill Carpmill.

A cocktail reception, co-hosted by the San Francisco Chapter,

welcomed new Legislative Advocate Valerie Small Navarro and

celebrated the promotion of Francisco Lobaco to Legislative

Director. Music was provided by the Christopher Pitts Trio.

Field Committee Chair Michele Welsh and North Peninsula Chapter Board

member Les Earnest helped lead the opening plenary "What Makes Us Tick?," a

session focusing on the challenges and successes of chapter-affiliate relations.

By Jean Field

the ACLU, the federal Department of

Housing and Urban Development

adopted guidelines to safeguard the First

Amendment rights of community groups

and individuals who speak out against

such neighborhood housing. In addition,

the federal agency dropped its controver-

sial investigation of opponents of a Berke-

ley housing project.

"The ACLU is a strong supporter of

the Fair Housing Act and other laws that

prohibit discrimination," said ACLU-NC

staff attorney Ann Brick. "But the rights of

citizens to dissent are also important.

Traditional forms of protest - writing

letters, petitioning lawmakers, leafletting

. - are not subject to government censor-

ship, no matter how much we disagree

with the views expressed."

"These new guidelines demonstrate a

firm commitment both to First Amend-

ment values and to vigorous enforcement

of the Federal Housing Act. They show

that free speech need not be inconsistent

with fair housing. We think HUD

deserves a tremendous amount of credit

for being willing to take the lead on this

issue once the problem was called to its

attention," Brick said.

In July, HUD initiated a formal investi-

gation of Berkeley residents Richard

Graham, Alexandra White and Joseph

] n response to concerns expressed by

aah eh ile |

HUD Agrees to Respect

Free Speech Rights of

Housing Opponents

Deringer, who had been outspoken critics

of a plan to turn the Bel Air Motel into low-

cost housing for homeless people. Because

potential residents may be recovering drug

addicts or persons with mental disabilities,

they are protected against discrimination

by the Fair Housing Act. In response to a

complaint by a local housing rights organi-

zation, HUD initiated a lengthy investiga-

tion and demanded minutes of any public

meetings, correspondence with the city,

letters to the editor, and literature, posters

and newsletters produced by the group. If

found guilty of violating the Fair Housing

Act, the individuals could have been fined

up to $100,000 each.

The Berkeley case was but one of a

series of similar investigations that have

been initiated by HUD. In each case, the

sole source of the violation appeared to be

traditional First Amendment activities

engaged in by the individuals or groups

who were the targets of the probe. -

The ACLU-NC, the New York Civil

Your Rights

A Conference for High School Student eels

Where: suc Building

When.

9 AM to 2:30 PM

Who: you!

Why: Know your rights as student journalists

Workshops ON: Fighting the Censors

Journalistic Ethics

Covering Controversy

Underground and Alternative Media

Breaking through the Barriers of Discrimination

U.C. Berkeley (Bancroft and Telegraph)

Wednesday, October 12

To register, or for more information, call Marcia Gallo

at the ACLU-NC 415/621-2493.

Sponsored by the Student Advisory Council, Howard A. Friedman First Amendment

Education Project, ACLU-NC, and the ACLU Berkeley Student Caucus.

Liberties Union and the national ACLU (c)

responded by sending a letter to HUD

Secretary Henry Cisneros, raising the First

Amendment issue and urging HUD to

adopt guidelines to guard the critical

constitutional line between enforcement of

the Act and censorship of community

debate.

"The government can demand compli-

ance with the law; it cannot demand public

support for it," the letter asserted. "We urge.

that you promptly adopt guidelines to

ensure that the Fair Housing Act is not

employed to chill constitutionally

protected expression."

On August 17, HUD Assistant Secre-

tary Roberta Achtenberg announced that

HUD had concluded its investigation into

the activities of the Berkeley opponents,

and found no violation of the Fair Housing

Act. The ACLU continued to push for firm

guidelines to prevent such future incidents.

"Even the prospect of a Fair Housing Act

investigation can have a significant chill-

ing effect on political protest," said Brick.

HUD issued new guidelines on

September 2 that protect public activities

- such as holding meetings, distributing

flyers, brochures or leaflets, writing letters

to the editor, conducting peaceful demon-

strations, testifying at public hearings, and

communicating with government agencies

- from the threat of fair housing investi-

gations. In addition, the guidelines institute

safeguards so that HUD field staff do not

subpoena documents or records from

groups whose activities may be protected

by the First Amendment.

"When confronted with a complaint

that someone relentlessly harassed and

intimidated a neighbor, HUD will stand up

for the proposition that there is no place for

such behavior in America," said Achten-

berg. "When confronted with a claim that

neighbors engaged in peaceful political

protest, however, HUD will stand up just

as strongly for the proposition that, in

America, citizens have a right to participate

actively in the public affairs of their

communities."

"This is a true victory for the First

Amendment, without being a defeat for fair

housing," concluded Brick.

- Bomse

Honored for

ACLU Work

CLU-NC General Counsel

Asecter V. Bomse was

honored by the law firm of

Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe

with its 1994 Richard E. Guggenhime

Pro Bono Award. The annual award,

which honors the pro bono commit-

ment of one or two particular attor-

neys, is accompanied by a cash grant

of $2500. Bomse donated the entire

award to the ACLU, because, in his -

words, "San Francisco is blessed with

a number of outstanding public

organizations and I have close

relationships with many of them.

However,...it is clear to me that, when

all is said and done, my ultimate inter-

est is the protection of civil liberties

and my greatest affection is for the

ACLU of Northern California."

In addition to serving as volunteer

General Counsel for the ACLU-NC

for more than 12 years, Bomse is

currently representing three Sikh

children who have been excluded from

elementary school because they wear

the kirpan, a religious symbol, under

their clothes (see page 3). and

aclu news

september - october 1994

SIGN ME UP AS AN

ACLU MEMBER

TODAY!

(c) Individual Membership $20

(c) Joint Membership $30

$50 $100 $250 $500 Of

(c) Limited Income Membership $5

Name(s)

PLEASE PRINT

FOR JOINT MEMBERSHIP, COMPLETE BOTH NAMES.

Address

City State ZIP

Telephone

RECRUITED BY:

Name(s)

PLEASE PRINT

Address

City State ZIP

Telephone

When you join the ACLU, you become a member of

the National organization, the ACLU of Northern

California, and your local chapter. Make checks

payable to ACLU. Please note: membership dues are

not tax-deductible as a charitable contribution.

ESSE

1663 Mission Street

San Francisco, CA

94103

7

Thank You to ACLU-NC Volunteers

ACLU on

Union Maid

Vallejo Senior High school student Natalie Adona (I.) and history teacher Dan Anker (r.), volunteers with the Howard A.

Friedman First Amendment Education Project directed by Marcia Gallo (center), were the featured speakers at the annual

ACLU-NC volunteers luncheon on July 26.

ACLU-NC volunteers - who staff the Complaint Desk and work in every department of the affiliate - were thanked by

Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich for their "time, talent and commitment that they so generously donate to the ACLU."

Each volunteer received a certificate of appreciation from the Board of Directors, a great lunch and an afternoon at the

Giants-Dodgers baseball game!

Berkeley, San Francisco Ballot

Measures

Cast Your Vote to

Keep Public |

Sidewalks Public

t its August and September

Ame the ACLU-NC Board of

Directors voted to oppose the latest

efforts in Berkeley and San Francisco to

deny the constitutional rights of the poor

and homeless. The Board recommended

the following actions:

VoTE NO ON BERKELEY

MEASURE N

A coalition of Berkeley activist groups

placed Measure N on the ballot in order to

repeal the anti-loitering ordinance passed

by the City Council in June. The vague and

overbroad provisions of this law, which the

ACLU opposed, make it a crime to "loiter

with unlawful intent" in areas in which

police suspect drug activity occurs. It takes

away the right to stand on a public

sidewalk in certain areas, and gives police

officers latitude to engage in discrimina-

tory, arbitrary enforcement. In addition to

infringing on the due process and First

Amendment rights of individuals, this type

of drug-loitering law is preempted by state

laws that criminalize the sale and posses-

sion of drugs.

VoTE NO oN BERKELEY

MEASURE O

Measure O, if adopted, would advise the

Berkeley City Council to implement a

"street behavior" ordinance. It would

criminalize behavior protected by the First

Amendment, such as peaceful begging and

charitable solicitation after dark, or sitting

or lying on the sidewalks during the day in

business districts. It also outlaws asking

people for money as they exit or enter their

cars, or within ten feet of ATM machines

and six feet of store entrances.

The proposed restrictions on peaceful

solicitation of donations and the prohibi-

tion on sitting on sidewalks represent

serious infringements on the liberty of

Berkeley's most vulnerable residents.

They are impractical, overbroad, and

unconstitutional.

VoTE NO ON SAN FRANCISCO

Prop. M

Proposition M is San Francisco Mayor

Frank Jordan's latest attack on the

California's equal protection policy even

stronger than the Fourteenth Amendment.

THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY

OR FUNDING FOR THESE NEW

INVESTIGATIONS.

Proposition 187 would turn health, educa-

tion and law enforcement professionals

into INS agents. It would create an unspec-

ified, unaccountable, and unfunded

bureaucracy for reporting those

"suspected," and open the door wide to

abuse of these new, undefined discre-

tionary powers.

There are no provisions in Proposition

187 for funding this massive new reporting

system. And there are no accountability

provisions for monitoring how public

employees might target some people - but

not others - to be turned over to the INS.

By illegally requiring California public

employees to act as INS officers, Proposi-

tion 187 would violate laws prohibiting

states from preempting federal authority.

PROPOSITION 187 THREATENS

THE PUBLIC HEALTH OF ALL

CALIFORNIANS.

Proposition 187 would violate laws

governing Medi-Cal; outlaw routine

preventive health care to undocumented

people, endangering public health and

placing everyone at greater risk; and

require the state, cities and counties to

provide far costlier emergency care in the

future.

Federal laws governing the Medi-Cal

program provide for treatment of undocu-

mented residents - precisely because

preventative health care is much cheaper

than emergency health care. It is also more

economical to provide basic health care to

all than to deny services to some. But this

measure would force state health workers

to violate such laws. This would place an

estimated $7 billion a year of federal

funding in jeopardy.

As Dr. Thomas Peters, Chair of the

Association of Bay Area Health Officials,

stated, "You simply cannot do disease

control selectively. I've been a public

health official in California for 20 years

and I have never seen a more direct assault,

a more direct threat, on the public health of

all Californians."

Prop. 187 could open the door to

epidemics of such diseases as measles,

hepatitis, typhoid fever, whooping cough

and diphtheria since even taking infants to

the doctor for childhood immunizations

could result in deportation.

Prop. 187 would outlaw

preventive health services by

any health worker for anyone

"suspected" of being undocu-

mented. The initiative permits

health services only in

emergencies - but would

require health workers to turn

in to the INS even patients

who arrive critically injured

or ill at the emergency room.

PROPOSITION 187

WOULD REQUIRE

CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

TO DENY EDUCATION

TO AT LEAST 300,000

CHILDREN.

In Plyler y. Doe, the Supreme

Court struck down a Texas

state law similar to Proposi-

tion 187 that made it illegal to

educate undocumented

children. The Court warned

that outlawing the education

of such children would create

a vast underclass, posing

insurmountable problems for

a society like ours.

Because Proposition 187

would turn school personnel

into INS investigators, many

parents would keep their

children out of school

entirely. Credible estimates

show at least 300,000 kids

would be put out of school if

Proposition 187 passes -

children of documented and

undocumented parents, and

children who are native born

USS. citizens.

However, because the magnet that

draws immig-rants to California is the

prospect of jobs and a better economic way

of life, it is unlikely such children and their

families will leave the state. These

hundreds of thousands of youngsters

would simply be thrown out of school and

onto the street.

PROPOSITION 187 WOULD BAN

FOSTER CARE AND CHILD

WELFARE SERVICES FOR NEEDY

CHILDREN.

Counties currently pay for these services

when a child is determined to need foster

care or a similar placement - as a result,

aclu news 5

september - october 1994

homeless, joining the anti-panhandling

laws and the Matrix program of the last

few years. It bans sitting or lying on public

sidewalks in commercial districts, with

limited exceptions for people suffering

from medical emergencies. Like Mayor

Jordan's other proposals, it would be

enforced primarily against those with no

other place to go. As ACLU-NC Police

Practices Director John Crew explained, "I

doubt that the police will arrest people on

24th Street for sitting on the curb with their

capuccino."

M. Rein/News for a People's Wo id '

No on 187 volunteer Norma Del Rio at the August

kick-off rally in San Francisco.

for instance, of child abuse. State and

federal sources pick up each case if INS

certifies it does not intend to deport the

child.

Thus, Proposition 187 would place

major new obstacles in the path of child

welfare workers seeking to remove a

youngster from an abusive home or place a

child in foster care for any other reason.

The initiative could place at risk even a

native-born child's access to such impor-

tant safety net services as Headstart and

school lunches. It would create a climate of

fear among parents that would endanger

the proven success of Headstart, in particu-

lar, in guiding poor children to develop-

ment as productive adults. Hi