vol. 67, no. 5

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

ACL

WHAT'S INSIDE

oD

(-]

i-|

|

-

|

=

ae

BECAUSE

BREED OM :

hews

PROT EG 1 | 1 Sb EE

VOLUME LXVII ISSUE 5

pacu ed

Medical Marijuana

Victory

PAGE 5

Youth Explore

the "War on Drugs"

PAGE 6

j More on Prop. 54

race S

Board Elections

VOTE NOW!

PAGE 1 O

Patriot Act Under Fire

NO ON 54: A VICTORY FOR RACIAL JUSTICE

n October 7, Ward Connerly's Proposition 54 was decisively defeated by

a 64% to 36% margin. The measure would have banned the collection of

racial and ethnic data by any California state agency. More people voted

"no" on 54 than voted in favor of the recall or for Governor-elect Schwarzenegger.

What does this historic vote mean for California and the nation - and how

did it come about? ACLU-NC executive director Dorothy Ehrlich explains.

Statewide ballot measures have challenged the ACLU of

Northern California (ACLU-NC) for more than two

decades. We have suffered our share of major losses, from

the three strikes law to juvenile incarceration, from

Proposition 187 to Proposition 209. We have rarely been

able to beat back the most polarizing amendments to our

state Constitution once they appear on the ballot. Thus, our

overwhelming victory against Proposition 54 on October 7

was all the more extraordinary.

How did we snap our losing streak? It began nearly three

years ago when Ward Connerly, University of California

Regent and author of the anti-affirmative action Proposition

209, first proposed a so-called "Racial Privacy Initiative."

Connerly has carved out a career as a national leader of anti-

Non- Profit

Organization

U.S. Postage

PAID

Permit No. 4424

| San Francisco, CA

[Sec SSE

|

|

|

racial justice measures, and this was to be one more feather in

his cap. But a small group of civil rights leaders came togeth-

er with a clear goal: forging a winning strategy to defeat this

measure and putting an end to the cascading cutbacks

on civil rights that have been enacted since the

Reagan era.

Connerly's proposal would have nearly

put an end to our work for racial justice by

eliminating the data that could prove or dis-

How

could you insist that school children be granted

prove racial disparities and injustices.

equal access to educational opportunities, if you

couldn't even learn what disparities existed in funding, test

scores, or school assignments? How could you stop the illegal

practice of racial profiling by law enforcement, if you were

How could health

professionals and social scientists pursue meaningful research

banned from collecting data statewide?

if they were prevented from knowing or asking why more

Filipina teenagers commit suicide or why white people are

more likely to be afflicted with Alzheimer's disease?

ALLIES IN HEALTH AND EDUCATION

We knew that Proposition 54, if it became law, would have

a profound effect on the lives of all Californians. Given the

DENISE MOCK

high stakes, it was clear that we had to expand beyond the

close-knit group of civil rights groups in the Bay Area to

build a truly statewide campaign. We also successfully fought

in court to force Connerly to change the name of the initia-

tive, because it was not about racial privacy at all. Indeed, the

information he hoped to ban is all voluntarily provided.

As we learned more about the measure, officially named

by the Secretary of State the "Classification by Race,

Ethnicity, Color and National Origin Initiative," it became

clear that the implications for health care posed the greatest

danger for the greatest number of people. As we began look-

ing for allies in the public health field, groups like Kaiser

Permanente and Breast Cancer Action quickly joined up,

providing expert advice and support. Over the next two

years, more than 50 of the leading national and

statewide health organizations - from the

American Cancer Society to _ continued on page 6

TIRE CMe ae eV

On December 14, 2003 join the ACLU of Northern California for

FREEDOM DETAINED: YESTERDAY AND TODAY

HONORING: DALE MINAMI and DON TAMAKI, representing

the legal team that overturned the conviction of Fred

Korematsu, who resisted internment and whose case paved

the way for reparations

PERFORMANCE BY: BOB WEIR, founding member of Grateful

Dead and RatDog, and Rop WASSERMAN, Grammy

Award-winning bassist

PRESENTING: PARALLELS IN PREJUDICE -stories of Japanese

Americans interned during World War II and Arab,

Muslim, and South Asian immigrants detained in the so-

called "War on Terrorism"

DATE. SUNDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2003,

2:00 PM - Reception (light refreshments, no host bar)

3:00 PM - Program

LOCATION: The Argent Hotel, 50 Third Street, San Francisco

(wheelchair accessible)

Admission price of $20 includes reception and program.

For more information see www.aclunc.org.

Call 415-621-2493, x382 to order your tickets now!

10 THE ACLU NEWS. READ

ARE YOU A MATCH?

BOARD CHAIR CHALLENGES ACLU DONORS

In September, ACLU of Northern California (ACLU-NC)

board chair Quinn Delaney and her husband, Wayne Jordan,

issued an innovative $100,000 challenge to the ACLU-NC.

Delaney said they offered the generous gift because: "This is

such a critical time for our civil liberties. The ACLU needs the

resources to mount a vigorous campaign to withstand the

assault on our civil rights and fight for justice."

The "Challenge from the Chair""challenges supporters of

civil liberties to think big and increase their support for the

ACLU. Gifts eligible for a match from the challenge fund must be

$500 or more, and matches will be capped at $24,999 per

donor. Here's how it works:

NEW GIFTS: If you are a new donor contributing $500 or

more to the ACLU-NC Foundation, the challenge fund will

match your entire gift.

INCREASED GIFTS: If you gave $500 or more last year and

increase your tax-deductible gift to the ACLU-NC

Foundation, the amount of your increase will be matched.

For example: if you gave $1,000 last year and give $2,000

this year, the $1,000 increase will be matched, making your

gift worth $3,000.

RETURNING DONORS: If you have not given for a year or

longer, and now make a gift of at least $500, the whole gift

will be matched.

`To trigger a match from the challenge fund, you must pledge

your gift in writing between September 11 and December 15,

2003, and pay by March 31, 2004. Pledges can be made by

pledge card or letter, and paid via cash, check, credit card, or

stock transfers - whatever is most convenient for you.

"This challenge is a very special opportunity for donors

to make the most of their gift to the ACLU,' said Cheri

Bryant, ACLU-NC's director of development. "At a time

when our civil liberties are under unprecedented attack, we

encourage every donor to dig deep and help us meet the full

$100,000 challenge."

For more information about the Challenge from the Chair,

contact Cheri Bryant, director of development, at 415-621-

2493 or cbryant@aclunc.org.

LAWYERS COUNCIL 15TH ANNIVERSARY

ACLU-NC's work.

JANE HONG

Lawyers Council co-chair Ruth Borenstein, ACLU-NC executive director Dorothy Ehrlich, guest speaker Tony West,

and co-chair Angel Garganta celebrated the Lawyers Council's 15th anniversary at a June 19 luncheon. West discussed

the civil rights implications of the John Walker Lindh case. The Lawyers Council includes hundreds of lawyers from

the legal, academic, public interest, and business communities, whose leadership and financial commitment support

MEMBERSHIP CONFERENCE ENERGIZES ACTIVISTS

By Allison Reid, Field Intern

ACLU members from throughout northern California

filled a sunny lobby, sipping coffee, meeting members from

other chapters for the first time, greeting familiar faces, and

looking through their brightly colored information packets.

In all, more than 120 people had gathered early on a

ACLU-NC associate director Bob Kearney addresses a packed

audience at the affiliate's annual membership conference.

Saturday morning, ready to focus their considerable energy

on becoming even more effective activists.

The first session, on the fight to defeat Ward Connerly's

Proposition 54, was packed. Some eagerly took notes; others

took a turn at the microphone (wielded by a busy volunteer)

to ask about tactics and share ideas. The lively exchange con-

tinued even as people headed to the next session, pausing

only to pick up a new piece of literature or pin a "Safe and

Free" button to a t-shirt or tote bag.

Attendees' enthusiasm never seemed to flag throughout the

full day of informational and strategic sessions. Topics

ranged from the Internet as an activist tool to discriminatory

law enforcement in the wake of September 11. Everyone had

a chance to learn something new, from their fellow members

as well as the ACLU-NC experts and other presenters.

First-time attendee Martin Zonligt described the conference

The Modesto resident said, "It

brought the civil liberties issues that are under the surface into

as "helpful and exciting."

focus, and helps us know what to look for." continued on page 11

01 and created a

Columbia ae `took a job with Shell

The

couple met through mutual friends in Berkeley,

Development Corporation in Emeryville.

marrying in 1939 when Valerie graduated from

U.C. Berkeley with a degree in psychology. _

As young adults, the Adelsons supported the

Lincoln Brigade, which fought fascists i in Spa

David a the fir un

ee University's nies law school program. By

ne the ce ae two yong daug

life serving che area's low-income pee of color. _

In 1970, the Adelsons' eldest daughter died of

Hodgkin's Disease, spurring an enduring

commitment to find a cure. [he Adelsons also

decided that her share of any inheritance would

go to charity.

"They were both very modest people but had

Jan Adelson Garcia

recalled of her parents. "They felt strongly about

very strong convictions,

supporting causes with the means they had."

The board and staff of the ACLU-NC are

deeply honored by the Adelsons bequest. =

AAW a reas

THE QUARTERLY PUBLICATION OF THE

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA.

Membership ($20 and up) includes a subscription to

the ACLU News. For membership information call

415-621-2493 or visit www.aclunc.org/join.html.

CHAIR

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

GUEST EDITOR*

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

DESIGN

Quinn Delaney,

Dorothy Ehrlich,

Lauren Asher,

Gigi Pandian,

Underground Advertising,

1663 Mission Street #460, San Francisco, CA 94103

415-621-2493

*ACLU-NC director of communications

Rachel Swain is on maternity leave.

2 | ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF

WIN IN MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASE

By Stella Richardson, Acting Communications Director

In a victory for patients and doctors, the U.S. Supreme

Court declined to hear Walters v. Conant, a case concerning

doctors' First Amendment right to discuss the medical use of

marijuana with patients suffering from cancer, HIV/AIDS,

and other life-threatening diseases. This means that the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling, which allows doctors to rec-

ommend medical marijuana to their patients, stands in

California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and

Washington.

"The Supreme Court's action today protects doctors and

patients from government censorship of open and honest

discussions in the exam room," said Graham Boyd, Director

of the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project. "Patients

deserve access to accurate information about marijuana's

medicinal value in treating pain, nausea, wasting syndrome,

and other symptoms of life-threatening diseases."

The case arose after California voters passed Proposition

215 in November 1996, which makes it legal for patients

to grow and possess marijuana for medical use when a doc-

tor recommends it. Currently nine states (Alaska, Arizona,

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon,

and Washington) have legalized some form of medical mar-

ijuana.

The Clinton Administration reacted to Proposition 215

by threatening to revoke the prescription drug licenses of

doctors who recommended medical use of marijuana; the

Bush administration has continued that policy. The ACLU

represents a group of prestigious doctors and patients in

California who have suffered as a result of federal threats to

doctors who discuss marijuana as medicine.

Physicians have a long history of recommending mari-

juana to patients. A 1990 Harvard survey of more than

2,000 oncologists found that 44 percent had recommend-

ed marijuana to cancer patients undergoing chemothera-

py. Even as federal law prohibited physician prescription of

marijuana, the federal government itself has operated a

marijuana farm in Mississippi and has distributed marijua-

na to a small number of patients in its Compassionate Care

program - a measure that recognizes the growing body of

evidence that marijuana has legitimate medical uses for

some patients.

fundamental First Amendment values,"

"The federal government's current efforts to insert itself

between doctors and their patients when it comes to rec-

ommending medical marijuana is contrary to our most

said ACLU-NC

staff attorney Ann Brick. "The central purpose of the First

Amendment is to protect dissent from the government's

version of the facts on any particular issue, including the

issue of medical marijuana."

According to ACLU-NC plaintiff (and former board

chair) Dr. Milton Estes, "Now I can advise my patients on

the medical use of marijuana without fear of being crimi-

nally prosecuted or losing my license." m=

iodide about 2000 ah active AIDS a an

_ University of California Medical Center i in San Francis

author of over 70 publications on treatment of AIDS.

JUDITH CUSHNER is the director of a preschool program in

PCRS

San Francisco and the mother of two. She has fought

breast cancer since 1989. Medical marijuana was the

only relief she could get from the extreme nausea, retching, and mouth sores caused by _

a tigorous schedule of chemotherapy. Cushner believes that the federal governments _

threats to doctors could be the death sentence for patients like her who depend oo

honest and complete medical advice from doctors.

es CUSHNER

prescribes Marinol (a legal prescription ie with ee active

marijuana, THC) and other prescription drugs. When conven

or a patient poorly tolerates oral medication, Dr. Estes believes

can often help.

DR. MILTON ESTES

KEITH VINES is an assistant district attorney, decorated

Air Force officer, and father, whose bout with AIDS

has caused him to lose more than 40 pounds of lean body mass. Vines worked for

two years as a felony prosecutor in a federally funded program where he secured a

conviction in what was San Francisco's second largest marijuana seizure. With great

reluctance given his career in law enforcement and after failing to respond to other

medications that unsuccessfully treated his illness, Keith Vines used small amounts ts of

marijuana, which he credits with saving his life.

By Stella Richardson

EDUCATIONAL DIVERSITY

LEGAL BRIEFS

GS i eas

On September 4, parents and students who objected to

a diversity education program's message of tolerance for

lesbian and gay people dropped their lawsuit against the

Novato school district. They had sued the school district

for presenting a play entitled "Cootie Shots: Theatrical

Inoculations Against Bigotry" in two elementary schools.

The play tackles the issue of stereotypes and discrimina-

tion in an age-appropriate way, through short plays, songs,

and poems. It is performed by Fringe Benefits, a Los

Angeles-based educational theater company.

The ACLU of Northern California (ACLU-NC),

ACLU of Southern California (ACLU-SC), National

ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, and the National

Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) represented a group of

concerned parents and the theater company, which joined

the lawsuit to defend the school district's authority to

require mandatory attendance at diversity awareness and

tolerance-building programs. On July 11, 2003, the U.S.

District Court of Northern California granted a motion

allowing them to intervene as defendants in the case.

Apparently recognizing the strength of the interveners'

legal team and the weakness of their own case, the plain-

tiffs decided to walk away from the lawsuit, taking noth-

ing after nearly two years of litigation. Citizens for a

Rights v. Novato Unified School District.

FREE SPEECH

On September 12, parties to Kasky uv, Nike agreed to a

settlement that will include a greater investment from

Nike in workplace-related programs. The case involved a

claim that some of Nike's public statements about work-

ing conditions in overseas factories constituted false or

misleading advertising. Nike claimed that its statements

were part of a larger public debate and therefore entitled

to full First Amendment protection, not commercial

speech subject to the state's false advertising laws. The

ACLU filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court,

arguing that Nike's statements should not be treated as

commercial speech.

While benefiting factory workers and consumers world-

wide, the settlement means that the issue of what consti-

tutes commercial speech will not be resolved until the

question arises in another case. Earlier this year, after

hearing oral arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court conclud-

ed that its decision to review the Nike case was premature,

because it had not yet gone to trial. The U.S. Supreme

Court originally took the case after the California

Supreme Court issued a disappointing 4-3 decision giving

an extremely broad definition to the term commercial

speech. Kasky v, Nike.

CYBER-LIBERTIES

The California Supreme Court has asked a state court of

appeal to review the factual record in a case concerning

whether trade secret laws were violated when Bay Area

programmer Andrew Bunner and others found a program

on the Internet that enabled them to copy DVDs, and

then posted the program on their own websites.

The case began when a 15-year-old Norwegian boy dis-

covered the key to decrypting the copy protection system

on DVD movie disks and published his decryption pro-

gram ("DeCSS") on the Internet. The program spread like

wildfire, and the DVD Copy Control Association (DVD

CCA") filed suit to stop its ee, claiming the pro-

gram contained trade secrets.

The high court recognized that important First

Amendment principles are at stake in this case, but con-

cluded that publication of the program did not involve a

"matter of public concern." The Court said that the lower

court's temporary injunction, barring continued publica-

tion of the encryption program, could remain in place

while the court of appeal determines whether there was

any secret left to be kept.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief, arguing that while

the dissemination of real trade secrets can be stopped,

once trade secret information has already been wide-

ly disseminated, an injunction prohibiting further

republication is forbidden, even if those republishing

it suspect that the original posting of the program _

may have been apo DVD Copy Control

Association v. Bunner. w

ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF | 3

CALIFORNIA VICTORY

FOR FINANCIAL PRIVACY

By Amanda Canevaro, Communications Intern

Identity theft. Spam. Telemarketing. These and other side

effects of the technological age have made consumers acutely

aware of just how vulnerable their personal information can

be. But what should consumers do when the financial institu-

tions they trust are the ones putting their privacy at risk?

State Senator Jackie Speier responded to rising consumer

concern with her landmark legislation, the Financial

Information Privacy Act (SB 1). Signed into law by Governor

Gray Davis on August 27, SB 1 was four years in the

making. It promises to empower consumers with

direct control over their financial information

and decrease annoying telemarketing and

potentially damaging financial profiling.

Speier argued that a system where

financial institutions may sell and share

their customers' financial information

- including account balances, lending

history, and credit rating - leaves con-

sumers vulnerable to aggressive mar-

keting, financial profiling (targeting

low-income people and _limited-

English speakers for worse quality

products at higher prices), and fraud.

Speier and her pro-consumer and

pto-privacy allies, including the ACLU,

fought a hard battle with corporate inter-

ests and lobbyists that poured seemingly

unlimited money and power into defeating

the measure. After losing several key votes in

2001, Speier went back to the drawing board and

added several amendments to make the bill more attractive

to the banking industry.

But that wasn't enough. Determined opponents used over

$20 million and political influence to convince Assembly

members to vote no or abstain. On June 17, the bill only

managed to muster three "yes" votes from the 12-member

Assembly Banking and Finance Committee. With an almost

90% public approval rating, supporters of the bill had to find

a new path to fulfill the public mandate.

CONSUMERS CALL CORPORATIONS' BLUFF

Fed up with the stalemate, Californians for Privacy Now, a

group of consumer and privacy advocates backed by

E-Loan CEO Chris Larsen, launched a campaign

to place a more stringent financial privacy ini-

tiative on the ballot in March 2004. After

they easily collected more than the

required 600,000 signatures and threat-

ened to submit them on August 19,

banking and corporate lobbyists saw

the writing on the wall. They with-

drew their resistance and grudgingly

supported SB 1 with further

changes to address more of their

concerns. On August 18, the bill

passed the full Assembly by a

76-1 vote.

SB 1 works by blocking the sale of

financial information to third parties

without consumers' affirmative permis-

sion. Under SB 1, consumers must "opt

in" to let a financial institution sell their per-

sonal data and may "opt out" to prevent shar-

ing among affiliates, subsidiaries, or companies in

"joint-marketing agreements."

"Most people are very particular about disclosing personal

financial information to others, yet current federal law allows

banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions

By Bob Kearney, Associate Director

Now that the 2003 legislative session is over, ACLU-

NC's Sacramento lobbying team has many victories to cel-

ebrate as they begin laying the groundwork for 2004.

Several of the most significant civil rights bills signed into

law over the last several months were initiated and spon-

sored by the ACLU. To get the latest on our legislative

work and take action on key civil liberties issues, go to

http://www.aclunc.org/takeaction.html.

VICTORIES

SEX EDUCATION - In October Governor Davis signed SB

71 (Kuehl-D) into law, streamlining and updating

Californias confusing and contradictory sex education

laws. Sponsored by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood

Affiliates of California, SB 71 establishes a new definition

of comprehensive sexual health education, sets age-appro-

priate grade floors for required topics, creates a new uni-

form parental consent policy, and ensures that instruction

is age-appropriate, scientifically current, and_bias-free.

The bill continues to mandate HIV/AIDS prevention

education and to give schools discretion as to whether to

teach sex education.

DEATH PENALTY - Sponsored by the ACLU and backed by

strong public support, SB 3 (Burton-D) implements the

recent Supreme Court decision prohibiting the execution

of the mentally retarded. By implementing a pretrial hear-

ing solely to determine mental retardation, this new law

ensures that the issue of mental retardation is not biased

by the proceedings of the trial.

to trade and sell their customers' information with very little

restriction," said Valerie Small Navarro, a legislative advocate

in California's ACLU Legislative Office and a leading propo-

nent of SB 1.

The legislation also requires banks, brokerages, and insur-

ance companies to clearly disclose their information-sharing

policy in a plain English written statement to all of its cus-

tomers. Such notice was not required under previous law.

FEDERAL ROLLBACK THREATENED

While a tremendous victory for California's consumers, SB

l's success is not yet assured. Almost as soon as SB 1 became

law, the U.S. Senate undertook a review of the Federal Credit

Reporting Act (FCRA). Banking lobbyists argue that a sec-

tion of the FCRA bans states from enacting financial privacy

rules more stringent than the federal government's. That sec-

tion is set to expire at the end of this year, but corporate

interests want it made permanent. If they succeed,

Californians will be denied

the full range of important

protections that SB 1 pro-

5B1 WORKS BY BLOCKING

vides.

A decision on the FCRA

THE SALE OF FINANCIAL is due by then end of 2003,

INFORMATION TO THIRD when several of its provi-

slOlls) -seXpite, | Schators

PARTIES WITHOUT CON- Barbara Boxer (D) and

Dianne Feinstein (D) have

SUMERS' AFFIRMATIVE pledged to fight for SB 1,

faci own financial lob-

PERMISSION. soe :

bies that may hold even

more sway in Washington

than they do in Sacramento.

In late September, the

two lawmakers proposed the Feinstein-Boxer Amend-ment,

which would enforce at the federal level SB 1's "opt-out" pol-

icy for sharing information with subsidiaries and affiliates.

The status of other provisions, as well as the renewal of the

FCRA, remains undecided as of this writing.

The long road to SB1 tested proponents' patience and

ingenuity, but ultimately proved that consumers can beat

corporate interests in the battle for financial privacy. Privacy

advocates hope the law remains intact and serves as a model

for other states. @

SACRAMENTO REPORT

Front Yard Free Speech - AB 1525 (Longville-D and

Steinberg-D) extends free speech protections most of us

take for granted to private homeowners who happen to

live in common interest developments, such as condo-

miniums. Initiated by the ACLU, AB 1525 upholds the

First Amendment by codifying that common interest

housing developments may not prohibit homeowners

from placing signs on their lawns or windows.

LGBTI RIGHTS - We are happy to report three big wins for

LGBTI rights. AB 205 (Goldberg-D) extends to domes-

tic partners many of the same rights and responsibilities

currently given to married couples under state law. This

includes protections such as community property, finan-

cial support obligations, assumption of parenting respon-

sibilities, and mutual responsibility for debts. AB 196

(Leno-D) makes gender identity a category protected

from illegal discrimination, became law in August. And

AB 17 (Kehoe-D) prohibits the state from contracting

with vendors that do not offer benefits to the domestic

partners of employees that are equal to the benefits given

to married spouses of employees.

FINANCIAL PRIVACY - Brought back from the dead, SB 1

(Speier-D and Burton-D) makes it easier for Californians

to protect their personal financial information. When the

_ bill was voted down in committee, the threat of a ballot

initiative brought opponents back to negotiate, and the

bill was revived. SB 1 then sped through the legislature,

and Governor Davis signed it in August. Sadly, the U.S.

Congress is advancing legislation that undercuts the new

California law and provides much weaker consumer pro-

tections. (See article on this page for more information on

5B 1)

UPCOMING BATTLES IN 2004

POLICE REFORM - All three police reform bills supported

by ACLU-NC's Police Practices department have passed

the Assembly, but will not be taken up by the full Senate

until next year. AB 1119 (Wesson-D) would require law

enforcement agencies to implement "early warning sys-

tems' to identify problematic patterns of police officers.

AB 1077 (Wesson-D) would improve current complaint

procedures and allow complaints to be filed at locations

less intimidating than the police department. AB 1331

(Wesson-D and Horton-D) would require the Attorney

General to establish whistleblower protections in law

enforcement agencies.

STUDENT INTERROGATION - Also up for consideration in

2004 is AB 1012 (Steinberg-D), sponsored by the ACLU.

This legislation would increase parent participation when

AB 1012

would require school principals to seek the consent of par-

police seek to question children at school.

ents or guardians of elementary school pupils before

allowing students to be questioned. For high school stu-

dents, school principals would have to offer the opportu-

nity to have a parent or trusted member of the school staff

present during questioning. AB 1012 has been working its

way through the Assembly and has yet to be considered by

the Senate. w

4 | ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF

THROUGH OUR EYES:

"THE WAR ON DRUGS"

his summer, 17 high school students spent seven days traveling around

northern California to get an in-depth look at the "War on Drugs." The

trip, organized by the ACLU-NC's Howard A. Friedman First Amendment

Education Project, exposed students to a wide range of viewpoints on this com-

plex topic. Here, a student participant gives his personal perspective.

By Jackson Yan, Lowell High School senior

The fanfare of a boisterous group on a tour bus. Don't mis-

take us for a minor league baseball team. We are a lineup of

17 strong-willed, opinionated youth, five fabulous chaper-

ones, and one cool bus driver named Antonio. This past

August, we ventured around California to investigate the so-

called "War on Drugs." Over seven days, we tried to meet

people with as many points of view as possible.

One important concept we came across repeatedly was

"harm reduction." It's a nonjudgmental approach to helping

users by minimizing the consequences of drug use. Harm

reduction realizes that each drug user is different and needs

individually tailored care. It "meets individuals where they're

at," coming to terms with the fact that rehabilitation cannot

be forced. Harm reduction can range from fact-based drug

education to demonstrating safer ways to use drugs.

TRIP PARTICIPANTS AND CHAPERONES IN SANTA CRUZ. TOP ROW: Matt Atkin, senior, Maria Carrillo

High; Aaron Leonard, Friedman Project Staff; Cassandra Mitchell, Lick-Wilmerding High; Tynan

Kelly, junior, Carlmont High; Lani Riccobuono, Friedman Project Staff; Danielle Silk, Rohnert Park

High; SECOND ROW: Shayna Gelender, Friedman Project Staff; Amanda Gelender, Castro Valley High;

David Cruz, senior, Menlo Atherton High; Danni Biondini, senior, Mercy High; Laura Rosbrow, `03

grad, University High; Darline Ng, Lincoln High; Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt and Mayor Emily

Reilly (Santa Cruz); Lindsay Waggerman, Friedman Project Staff; THIRD ROW: Andrew Mok, sopho-

more, Monta Vista High; Nick Stromberg, junior, Urban High; Jackson Yan, senior, Lowell High;

Amelia Rosenman, senior, Lick-Wilmerding High; Hannah Dreier, Urban High; Erin Baldassari,

Maria Carrillo High; Maraya Massin-Levey, junior, School of the Arts; Jennifer Lerche, junior,

Carlmont High.

During our field investigation, we worked with the San

Francisco AIDS Foundation's needle exchange project, and

saw harm reduction in action. We gave packets containing

clean syringes and water, cotton, straps, and cookers in

exchange for users' dirty needles. Clean needles slow the

spread of diseases, and purified water helps prevent other con-

tamination. Clean cookers and straps are distributed as safer

substitutes for the bottom of a soda can and belts. People who

dropped by were so friendly and grateful for the packages.

They had absolute trust in the staff because the staff would

not judge them.

The current state of drug education is misguided, with

DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) teaching the cur-

riculum in many of our schools. They bring police officers into

classrooms and try to scare kids into blind abstinence from

drug use. They don't explain why people take drugs. It's cool

to explain the values of abstinence, but do not shortchange

young people. I had to rely on TV to get drug information.

The first time I heard about medicinal marijuana was on

"The Simpsons." We understand more than you think. Give

us honest and credible facts. We can make the safe decisions.

The victims of drugs are endless. The federal government

purports to only go after large-scale dealers. However, by

requiring judges to enforce mandatory minimum sentenc-

ing, nonviolent drug users are incarcerated with severe sen-

tences. This attacks the family structure and often destroys

life at home.

During our visit to Central Valley Women's Facility in

Chowchilla, Amelia Rosenman, a senior at Lick Wilmerding

High School in San Francisco, was espe-

cially moved.

"I was stunned by the women's intelli-

gence, sophistication, concern, `normalcy,'

kindness and humanity," she told me, "and

their fierce need to speak and be heard."

The prison is so overcrowded, due large-

ly to the increase in nonviolent drug

offenders, that there are plans to expand it.

We learned some reasons why people

do drugs. When we met Dorsey Nunn

and his friend from Free at Last, a com-

munity center in East Palo Alto, they told

us poignantly, "I didn't like the way I felt

about my myself, so I took drugs." They

also touched on the subject of race rela-

tions and drug use, pointing out that

rich, white people who otherwise would

not associate with them (as poorer black

men) had no problem getting high with

them. Drugs seem to be the only things

that don't discriminate.

We also met with the Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA). They enforce the drug policies of the

federal government. Each officer told us they believed they

were doing what was just by upholding laws. Credit needs to

be given to these brave folks who just want to help people. But

the DEA is allowed to sidestep the civil liberties of others.

We learned more about that when we met with Wo/Men's

Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) in Santa Cruz.

They distribute free medicinal marijuana to people with seri-

ous illnesses. They do this legally under Proposition 215,

approved by California's citizens in 1993. Things were going

pretty smoothly at WAMM

until early 2003.

Wider the orders on

U.S. Attorney General

John Ashcroft and Drug Czar John Walters, the DEA raided

WAMM. They handcuffed sick and wheelchair-bound

patients and stuck guns to their heads. WAMM was doing

everything legally under California law. These people have the

right to medicate themselves and relieve pain. That should

not be taken away.

It is ironic that the government puts so many resources into

enforcing dubious drug laws in the guise of "fighting the drug

war," yet drug rehabilitation is grossly under-funded. Drugs

don't discriminate, but rehab does. If you have money, Betty

Ford welcomes you. If you are poor, you have to rely on over-

crowded, poorly run, government-sponsored rehabilitation.

The best option would be to find a nonprofit agency that

cares, but those fill up quickly. If you are willing to get help,

help should be there for you, but it isn't.

The drug war is so complicated. Instead of prevention, the

government advocates for full punishment. They'll have the DEA

and other agencies camp out in poor neighborhoods where peo-

ple of color live even though many users are white. They go after

small-time, nonviolent offenders and incarcerate to the max.

A meeting with Chris Conrad from Human Rights and the

Drug War had me wondering even more about the liberties we

believe we have. He told us that relatives of drug users are

forced either to squeal or go to jail for crimes they did not com-

mit. The federal government can get away with using tactics of

blackmail, threats and murders. By labeling it the War on

Drugs, the civil liberties we all

come to love are denied.

THE FIRST TIME |

HEARD ABOUT MEDICI-

NAL MARIJUANA WAS

ON `THE SIMPSONS.'

WE UNDERSTAND MORE

THAN YOU THINK. GIVE

US HONEST CREDIBLE

FACTS. WE CAN MAKE

SAFE DECISIOINS.

After the full seven days, we

were happy to see that there

were organizations in

California to help those who

want it. We were upset,

though, at the policies and

measures that limit people's

rights and freedoms. The

revolving door between prison

and the streets is particular-

ly appalling. I must admit

with so much information, I

am even more confused,

though all the personal stories

lead me toward one direction.

More than ever, the status quo

of forced or inadequate rehabilitation, theft of rights, and incar-

ceration to the max doesn't work. It's imperative that we initi-

ate alternative approaches to tackling this epidemic, and tell

people about the struggles this drug war creates.

Fellow trip-goer Amelia Rosenman said it best about the

people who are victims of this "war:" "They gave me a chal-

lenge I plan to strive toward all my life: to walk through doors

they cannot approach and speak their truths to those who

wish to ignore them." m

ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF | 5

HOW THE ACLU-NC

HELPED BEAT PROP 54

rom trade union rallies in San Francisco to phone banks in Modesto,

the ACLU of Northern California played a key role in the defeat of

Proposition 54. Here are some of the highlights of the ACLU-NC effort:

The fight began almost three years ago, when Ward

Connerly first floated his idea for a ballot measure that would

ban the collection of racial and ethnic data in California.

Though it was hard to get people to focus attention on his

vague idea at that time, ACLU-NC executive director

Dorothy Ehrlich played a crucial role in developing an initial

team to prepare to fight the initiative.

Ehrlich stayed at the center of the opposition during the on-

again, off-again campaign, partnering with Eva Paterson of the

Equal Justice Society, Abdi Soltani of

Californians for Justice, leaders from

the California

Association, and others to cre-

Teachers

ate a strong core coalition.

Connerly's first attempt

failed, as he did not

get enough signa-

tures to qualify the

initiative for the

November 2002

ballot. The core

opposition group

stayed together,

however, knowing

that an infusion of

cash from conserva-

tive, out-of-state fun-

ders could easily pro-

vide the money Connerly

needed to get on the next

ballot.

Connerly's donors came through,

and Proposition 54 qualified for the next

statewide election, then set for March 2003. Ehrlich played

a leadership role in establishing the official "No on 54" cam-

paign: the Coalition for an Informed California. This broad

coalition eventually included

more than 300 organizations

ACLU MEMBERS DIS-

TRIBUTED MORE THAN

90,000 PIECES OF LIT-

and more. Ehrlich served on

ERATURE AT PUBLIC the

TRANSPORTATION STA- along with representatives of

representing health profes-

sionals, educators, trade

unionists, environmentalists,

law enforcement, students,

executive committee,

the California Teachers

TIONS DURING RUSH Association, Service

Employees International

HOUR, AT COFFEE Union, NAACP, Kaiser

Permanente, and the Mexican

American Legal Defense and

Educational Fund.

SHOPS, BOOKSTORES,

AND COLLEGE CAMPUS-

ES, AND AT HUNDREDS

OF LOCAL EVENTS.

PLANTING THE SEEDS

ACLU-NC board mem-

bers, staff, chapter activists,

and members throughout the

region mobilized to strengthen the campaign. ACLU-NC

Chairperson Quinn Delaney was one of the first major

donors: her $100,000 gift in the fall of 2002 provided the

seed money that helped pay for the polling, focus groups,

and professional staff necessary for a winning effort.

Delaney and her husband, Wayne Jordan, later organized

P:

"0 for by the Coalition'

the first fundraising event in California, which raised an

additional $80,000. ACLU-NC communications director

Rachel Swain participated in the statewide media team,

shaping messages and pitching stories.

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS

In August, the campaign faced a new obstacle: an October

7 ballot for the gubernatorial recall. With a full five months

cut from the campaign timeline, the ACLU-NC board

decided to commit maximum resources to build the

most effective campaign.

As part of this commitment, the

ACLU-NC assigned Maya Harris,

the new director of its Racial

Justice Project, to be the full-

time northern California

political director for the

"No on 54" campaign.

ACLU-NC also allocated

space, staff, and resources

to set up the northern

California headquarters.

Harris quickly trans-

formed a __ sixth-floor

ACLU-NC office into a

war room, stuffed with

signs, bumper stickers, and

literature and buzzing with

volunteers and phone bankers.

With

Luqman, Harris spread the word about

the assistance of Amina

are

tof gn it

the campaign throughout the region. A

quickly organized speakers bureau sent "No on

54" activists to more than 50 venues throughout the state.

Harris was invited to speak at events with national civil

rights leaders Julian Bond, Jesse Jackson, Dolores Huerta,

and Kwesi Mfume, as well as at many community and edu-

cational events. At a moving anniversary celebration of

Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, Harris

warned the assembled trade union and civil rights activists of

the new threat to racial justice posed by Proposition 54. She

was met with thunderous applause - and scores of people

signed up to work on the campaign.

A media campaign, coordinated by Swain and former

ACLU-NC public information director Elaine Elinson, suc-

cessfully targeted the ethnic media and rural outlets in addi-

tion to the mainstream press. Harris's visit to the San Jose

Mercury News editorial board led to a scathing editorial

against the initiative. Harris and Ehrlich were interviewed

on numerous radio programs throughout the state.

GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN

ACLU-NC associate director Bob Kearney ensured that

ACLU members were on the frontlines of the grassroots

campaign. Working with Harris, Kearney conducted three

speakers' trainings, drawing more than 100 people who came

to learn about the most effective ways to warn their commu-

nities about Proposition 54. This incredibly diverse group of

volunteers came from trade unions, black sororities, syna-

gogues, churches and youth groups; they were students,

retirees, doctors, nurses, teachers, housing rights activists,

and people who identified themselves as "just plain con-

ous "

cerned citizens.

The annual ACLU-NC Membership Conference, held in

mid-September, helped prepare members for the tough fight

during the final month of the campaign. Chapters from Yolo

County to Monterey and Modesto to Mendocino imple-

mented a field plan that included phone banking, literature

distribution, and

informational

tabling.

efforts, the

Among

their

North Peninsula

Chapter hosted 45

phone bankers, and

nae ag `

TEE

the Sacramento

Chapter distributed

leaflets to mosques

in the area.

The ACLU-NC

communications

department created

a postcard, palm

cards, flyers, and a

special edition of the

ACLU News. ACLU

members distributed

more than 90,000 pieces of literature at public transporta-

tion stations during rush hour, at coffee shops, bookstores,

and college campuses, and at hundreds of local events. The

field operation also took to cyber-space, using "viral market-

ing" to reach voters who looked for election information on

the Internet.

FUNDRAISING

The ACLU-NC continued raising money to put the "No

on 54" message on the air via paid advertisements featuring

former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. ACLU-NC

board members contributed generously, led by Delaney and

two former board chairs, Milton Estes and Dick Grosboll,

whose fundraising party netted $50,000. In addition,

ACLU-NC Vice Chair Jon Street reached out to the legal

community and raised more than $30,000.

The ACLU-NC's coordinated, multi-faceted approach

helped create a winning strategy to defeat one of the most

dangerous initiatives on the California ballot in years. The

organization's ability to provide leadership to a broad coali-

tion, and to harness resources from fundraising, to media

savvy, to committed chapter and community grassroots work

will provide valuable lessons for future campaigns.

VIGOR teem.

the California Medical Association to the American Public

Health Association - signed on to oppose the initiative.

Proposition 54 would also have had a devastating effect on

efforts to provide equal educational opportunities for all

children in the state, so we turned to our allies in education.

The California Teachers Association and the National

Education Association offered extraordinary support. Given

their core commitment to diversity, the teachers' unions

played an important leadership role throughout the cam-

paign, insuring that we had the funds to deliver our power-

ful health and education messages to voters through a

sophisticated, statewide paid advertising campaign.

ROCKY ROAD TO RECALL

In January 2003, a team of top-flight campaign consult-

ants was hired to provide research and a winning electoral

strategy. They drove home the importance of communicat-

ing directly with as many of the state's 10 million voters as

possible, an expensive but essential goal. With that in mind,

we set our fundraising targets and campaign plan for an elec-

tion in March 2004.

This was a daunting enough timeline, but as the months

went by, a small grassroots effort to "recall" Governor Davis

grew from a trickle to a tidal wave, and suddenly we were

along for the rocky ride. First there was the possibility of

Proposition 54 being on a November ballot, which would

have shaved four valuable months from our campaign. But

6 | ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF

on July 23, we learned that the recall election - and the vote

on Proposition 54 - would take place on October 7. That

was a frightening moment: the election was now a mere 10

weeks away, yet we had raised less than one million dollars

and had not even completed the research necessary for a suc-

cessful campaign strategy.

Nevertheless, the Campaign for an Informed California,

which led the "No on 54" effort, numbered several hundred

organizations by August and kept gaining momentum. By

September, the Field Poll showed that a full 40% of likely vot-

ers were against Proposition 54, with the same number sup-

porting it. This dead heat was a tremendous advance over

polls in April and July, which showed the initiative leading by

more than 10 points.

But there were still more unprecedented twists and turns.

The Federal Court of Appeals' decision to delay the election

in an ACLU voting rights case (see article on this page) creat-

ied even greater uncertainty for several weeks until it was

resolved. Throughout this intense time, the campaign against

Proposition 54 was often drowned out by the din of the recall.

TV AND RADIO ADS

Despite these difficulties, our campaign was in full swing.

Through generous donors we were able to raise enough

money to advertise on radio and TV.

The campaign chose nationally respected spokespersons to

bring our effective messages to the airwaves: former U.S.

Surgeon General C. Everett Koop focused on the health dan-

gers; Spanish language ads played on Univision. In our radio

ads, Danny Glover and Jesse Jackson explained that core civil

rights issues were at stake.

Editorials in newspapers throughout the state echoed the

"No on 54" campaign's messages, urging a vote against the

initiative because it was bad for health, bad for education, and

bad for public safety. Six of the seven "top-tier" candidates

running for governor all came out in opposition to

Proposition 54 - only Tom McClintock supported it. Lt.

Governor Cruz Bustamante ran his own, separately financed

Meanwhile,

grassroots activities proliferated throughout the state, from

television ads in opposition to the measure.

web-based educational efforts, to local events and precinct

walking in communities of color, to statewide campaigning

by labor unions and environmentalists.

TURNING THE TIDE

In the last few weeks of the campaign, victory began to seem

not only possible, but increasingly likely. But what happens in

the last few weeks of the campaign is almost never the whole

story. When did Proposition 54 really begin to turn around?

Was it the University of California Regents' vote last spring

repudiating their own colleague Ward Connerly's proposal by

an overwhelming margin of 15-3 that started people think-

ing? Was it the rally and press conference in Sacramento last

spring where hundreds came from around the state, and every

state constitutional office holder publicly rejected the meas-

ure? Was it the opinion pieces and letters in newspapers up

and down the state that asked people to think about the seri-

ous consequences of this critical issue?

We may never know exactly how much each of these and

other critical steps along the way contributed to our ultimate

victory. But we do know that on Election Day, all the hard

work paid off.

According to the Associated Press: "Those who said

Proposition 54 would help unify California's racial groups

and create a colorblind society turned out to be right in one

respect: Voters of every race united to defeat it."

This decisive vote has both local and national reverbera-

tions. The cycle of anti-civil rights ballot measures has been

broken, and we have learned how to win. As we celebrate

our victory, however, we must also prepare to face the obsta-

cles that lie ahead.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the

University of Michigan affirmative action case, Ward

Connerly stated that he would target four states with meas-

ures to outlaw affirmative action. He has also threatened to

introduce another race information ban in California.

But California's voters have seen through Connerly's lies

and deceptions and have repudiated his vision of a society

where we are blinded to the race and ethnic discrimination

VOTING RIGHTS CASE HIGHLIGHTS

PUNCH-CARD PROBLEMS

By Elaine Elinson*

In a September 22 hearing watched around the nation,

ACLU attorneys made a principled stand for California

voters rights before an 1l-judge panel of the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. The ACLU argued that the use

of obsolete punch-card ballots in at least six California

counties could potentially disenfranchise tens of thou-

sands of voters during the October 7 recall election.

According to lead attorney Mark Rosenbaum, of the

ACLU of Southern California (ACLU-SC), "The case

builr on our voting rights victory in 2001, when the

Secretary of State agreed that California counties had to

stop using the same obsolete, decertified punch-card

machines that caused the Florida 2000 debacle. [hose

machines - which are expected to invalidate an estimated

40,000 votes due to mechanical Haws - were supposed to

be phased out by spring 2004. Neither we nor anyone else

could ever have predicted that there would be an election

this year."

Less than 24 hours after hearing arguments, the Court

issued a unanimous, unsigned, |2-page decision that the

election would proceed as scheduled, but acknowledged

that `the argument is one

over which reasonable

jurists may differ."

"ITHE PLAINTIFFS ARE]

LEGITIMATELY CON-

CERNED THAT THE USE

OF THE PUNCH-CARD

SYSTEM WILL DENY THE

RIGHT 10 VOTE TO SOME

VOTERS WHO MUST USE

THE SYSTEM."

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

In a Statement on

behalf of the plaintiffs and

the three California

ACLU affiliates, ACLU of

Northern California

(ACLU-NO) executive

director Dorothy Ehrlich

announced that the group

"had reluctantly decided

the Ninth

verdict and

to accept

Circuits

would not ask the

Supreme Court to review

the decision."

The joint statement

also said, We remain

firmly convinced that using voting equipment officially

declared by the state to be obsolete, in a number of coun-

ties with a high concentration of minority voters, violates _

the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. We remain

deeply concerned over the fairness of the October 7 elec-

tion, but with the election just two weeks away, we do not

believe we should prolong the uncertainty any longer."

The counties thar still use punch cards are Los Angeles,

Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara and

Solano. They represent 44% of California's total population.

The case, Southwest Voter Education Project v. Shelley,

that tragically persists.

The ACLU-NC is well equipped to build upon this success.

Our Racial Justice Project, established five years ago, is a

tremendous resource in the continuing fight for equality.

Having already created a national model for fighting racial

profiling, and with this fresh victory on a statewide ballot

measure, we have the experience and momentum to take on

new challenges, like glaring inequities in our educational and

criminal justice systems.

It will be a long road, but we been energized by this

extraordinary success and strengthened by the new and

enduring partnerships that made it possible. The many les-

sons we have learned will serve us well as we chart our future

course towards racial justice. m=

ACLU of Southern California legal director Mark Rosenbaum

speaks at an ACLU-NC news conference directly following the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc decision to reinstate

the October 7 election. L-R: ACLU-SC staff attorney Catherine

Lhamon, ACLU-NC executive director Dorothy Ehrlich, Mark

Rosenbaum, ACLU-NC legal director Alan Schlosser, and ACLU-

NC staff attorney Margaret Crosby,

was filed in U.S. District Court after the recall election was __

set for October. Co-counsels included ACLU-SC attorney

Ben Wizner and ACLU-NC attorneys Alan Schlosser and _

Margaret Crosby. The plaintiffs included the Southw

Voter Education Project, NAACP California an

Southern Christian Pe Conference of Great

Angeles.

After District Court ide Sephee Vv. wil

against the ACLU in August, a three-judge Pp:

Ninth Circuit ruled on September 15 that the el _

should be delayed. Secretary of State Kevin Sh lley then _

appealed to the full Ninth Grenit, ee to. S

September 22 hearing. _

"(The plaintiffs are] leoiimaecly cence that he use

of the punch-card system will deny the right to vote to

some voters who must use the system," the Court stated,

but decided that the election should proceed because of

the 700,000 absentee ballots already cast and the enor-

mous resources already invested in the election. _

"We are disappointed by the Ninth Circuirs en banc deci-

sion, said ACLU-SC executive director Ramona Ripston,

"but we will press forward vigorously with our national cam-

paign for election reform and will fight to ensure the fairness

and accuracy of all voting procedures in oy future election,

including the 2004 Presidential contest."

_ The day after the election, research ete that

punch-card systems resulted in at least 176,000 disquali-

fied votes - four times more than expected, although not

enough to change the elections outcome, Said

Rosenbaum, "I hope this puts to rest claims thar these

[punch card] machines have any placeinademoctacy. s

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_1987.batch ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1988.batch ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1989.batch ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1990.batch ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1991.batch ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1992.batch ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1993.batch ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1994.batch ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1995.batch ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1996.batch ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1997.batch ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1998.batch ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_1999.batch ACLUN_2000 ACLUN_2000.MODS ACLUN_2000.batch ACLUN_2001 ACLUN_2001.MODS ACLUN_2001.batch ACLUN_2002 ACLUN_2002.MODS ACLUN_2002.batch ACLUN_2003 ACLUN_2003.MODS ACLUN_2003.batch ACLUN_2004 ACLUN_2004.MODS ACLUN_2005 ACLUN_2005.MODS ACLUN_2006 ACLUN_2006.MODS ACLUN_2007 ACLUN_2007.MODS ACLUN_2008 ACLUN_2008.MODS ACLUN_2009 ACLUN_2009.MODS ACLUN_2010 ACLUN_2010.MODS ACLUN_2011 ACLUN_2011.MODS ACLUN_2012 ACLUN_2012.MODS ACLUN_2013 ACLUN_2013.MODS ACLUN_2014 ACLUN_2014.MODS ACLUN_2015 ACLUN_2015.MODS ACLUN_2016 ACLUN_2016.MODS ACLUN_2017 ACLUN_2017.MODS ACLUN_2018 ACLUN_2018.MODS ACLUN_2019 ACLUN_2019.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log [he author is a communications consultant and owe .

public information director

ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF | 7

a

- BOARD OF DIRECTORS

ELECTION

VOTING INFORMATION

WHO CAN VOTE:

The by-laws of the ACLU of Northern California (ACLU-NC) call for the "at large"

Directors to be elected by our general membership. The label affixed to this issue of the

ACLU News indicates on the top line if you are a current member and thus eligible to vote.

Your label states "VOTE?" if you are eligible to vote, or "INELIGIBLE? if you are not eligible

to vote.

If your label states that you are ineligible to vote, but you have recently renewed your

membership, please send in your ballot with an attached note including your name and

phone number, so we can verify your renewal that was not yet processed as of the time the

labels were generated. If you are ineligible because you have not renewed your member-

ship but would like to do so at this time, please enclose your membership renewal check

in the same envelope along with your ballot. (Only non tax-deductible membership dues

payable to the ACLU, not donations to the ACLU Foundation, make you eligible to vote.)

HOW THE CANDIDATES WERE NOMINATED:

As explained in our special summer 2003 issue of the ACLU News, our by-laws specify

two methods for nominating candidates for directorships. Candidates may be nominated by

the current Board of Directors after the Board considers recommendations from its

Nominating Committee. Candidates may also be nominated by petition bearing the signa-

tures of at least 15 of our members in good standing. (One of this year's candidates was nom-

inated that way.)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOTING:

This year's candidates are listed on these pages in alphabetical order. We have 11 can-

didates running to fill 10 vacancies on our Board of Directors. You may vote for up to 10

candidates. You cannot cast more than one vote for any candidate. That is so even if you

vote for fewer than 10 candidates. If you share a joint membership with another member,

each of you can vote for 10 candidates. Do that by using both of the columns provided

for that purpose.

After marking your ballot, clip it and enclose the ballot and your address label from this

issue of the ACLU News in an envelope. Your address label must be included to ensure voter

eligibility. Address the envelope to:

Elections Committee

ACLU of Northern California

1663 Mission Street, Suite 460

San Francisco, California 94103

If you prefer that your ballot be confidential, insert your ballot in one envelope, then

insert that envelope plus your address label in a second envelope and mail that second

envelope to our Elections Committee at the address indicated above. In that case, we will

separate your envelopes before we count your ballot.

In order for your ballot to be counted, we must receive it at the address shown above by noon,

California time, on Thursday, December I 1, 2003.

As required by our by-laws, in order to have quorum for our election, we need at least

100 timely returned ballots from our members.

To help you assess this year's candidates, here are brief statements submitted by the can-

didates. We've also indicated, below, how they were nominated.

CANDIDATES STATEMENTS

JIM BLUME

During these perilous times when many of our hard-won and cherished civil liberties are

under assault, it would be a great honor to serve on the Board of the ACLU-NC.

From 1988 - 1994, when I previously sat on the Board, I was actively engaged on a variety

of committees including the Finance Committee and its sub-committee, the Endowment

committee, where I continue to serve. I also assisted ACLU National when it established its

Endowment Fund. I currently serve as a Board member of The Ploughshares Fund.

I am an investment advisor in the East Bay.

I hope you will support my candidacy for Board membership. I can assure you that I will,

if elected, serve will dedication and vigor.

NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: No

DONNA BRORBY

Eligible for one more term on the Board, I seek re-election

to make full use of the experience that I've gained on the

Board during the last five years. I am Board Chair of the

Development Committee and a member of the Executive

and Legal committees. I serve on the Board to be part of

fighting for individuals' civil rights and liberties against

encroachment by the government and the masses.

I grew up and attended public schools in Richmond,

California in the 1950s-60s where I learned much about

poverty, racial justice and civil rights issues. I graduated from Harvard University and Boalt

Hall Law School. I'm a civil rights litigator, primarily in the areas of prisoners' constitution-

al rights and employment discrimination.

NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: Yes

MARIANO-FLORENTINO CUELLAR

As a professor at Stanford Law School, I try to teach our

students about the extent and fragility of our country's lega-

cy of freedom. Because that legacy is under pressure in our

times, I focus my research and pro bono projects on promot-

ing government accountability through law. I hope you'll

give me the chance to join with you, the chapters, and the

staff to help the ACLU of Northern California protect our

country's legacy. I have three main priorities: helping to artic-

ulate our concerns about legal developments and constitu-

tional government to the general public; working with staff to respond to legal developments

in court decisions, legislation, and regulatory policy; and supporting our outreach to immi-

grants and communities of color.

NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: No

QUINN DELANEY

These challenging times present the ACLU with an oppor-

tunity to become an ever stronger voice for justice. Our mem-

bership has increased dramatically because people understand

the importance of an effective ACLU. As the current Chair of

the Board, I have the honor of working with an outstanding

group of committed individuals who work to safeguard civil

liberties and civil rights for everyone.

I have been associated with the ACLU for many years, first as a

volunteer attorney, then as a Board member and chair of the devel-

opment committee. In my professional life I am the director of a foundation focusing on racial justice.

8 | ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF

My commitment to the ACLU-NC and the issues it works on is unwavering. I hope you will

support my re-election to the Board.

NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: Yes

LAURA DONOHUE

I was honored to serve this past year as a member of the

ACLU-NC Board of Directors. The experience underscored

my belief that the most effective way to address increasing

limits placed on individual rights combines public advocacy,

judicial remedy, and dissemination of information. Outside

the ACLU, I focus on the intersection between individual

rights and counter-terrorist law. Acting Assistant Professor of

Political Science at Stanford University, for the past two years

I taught Security, Civil Liberties, and Terrorism. I am a

Fellow at Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation, where I am complet-

ing the project "Security and Freedom in the Face of Terrorism." I would welcome the oppor-

tunity to continue to apply my academic work to the goals and concerns of the ACLU.

NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: Yes

JAN GARRETT

As someone who was born with a disability and has worked in the disability civil rights field

for seven years, I know how important civil rights protections are. As an ACLU-NC Board

member, I hope to encourage the pursuit of more disability rights cases. As an attorney with

the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, I have had direct experience with many civil

rights issues. I also have experience as a past Board president of the AXIS Dance Company. The

ACLU-NC is uniquely positioned to take cases that the mainstream legal community cannot or

will not take. I would be proud to help ensure that those with the least power can turn to the

ACLU for protection. Thank you for your consideration of my nomination.

NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: Yes

BARBARA ZERBE MACNAB

Currently our nation faces major assaults on civil liberties

at all levels. Liberties lost are difficult to regain. The ACLU

becomes even more crucial as fear cripples the public will. A

longtime member of the ACLU, I am presently the chair of

the vibrant BARK Chapter whose dedicated Board fights to

preserve our rights. Chapters are essential in this fight. Some

of my past experiences are: two terms as Vice Chair of the

Earl Warren ACLU Chapter; founder and past chair of

NWPC of California; Chair, CDC Women's Caucus; Chair,

Berkeley Energy Commission and Commission on the Status of Women; past president, Local

1902, AFT; Lead Site representative, seven years, NEA Local; six times representative to the

NEA convention. I will serve you well if elected.

NOMINATED BY: Petition INCUMBENT: No

PHILIP euro. MONRAD

I am a partner in the law firm of Leonard Carder, LLP,

where we represent labor unions and individual employees in

employment litigation. I have served as an interim at-large

member of the ACLU-NC Board since last September. |

have been active in civil rights and social justice issues since

1970. At the present perilous moment, the ACLU is perhaps

the most courageous and effective counterbalance to the

forces fronted by Ashcroft, Cheney and Connerly. It is thus

more important than ever to maintain and expand the vitali-

ty of the ACLU. I urge everyone to give generously of their time and resources to that end,

and ask for your support in allowing me to do so as a member of the Board.

NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: Yes

RONALD TYLER

For thirteen years I have served as an Assistant Federal

Public Defender in Northern California. The people that I

represent come from many cultures and backgrounds, but

the unifying experience for all of them is a confrontation

with an inordinately powerful adversary within a legal system

unfairly designed to incapacitate rather than to mete out jus-

tice. As a criminal defense attorney, I stand as a bulwark

against the many excesses of that system.

I am honored to be nominated as a board member of the

ACLU. Working to protect and expand the constitutional freedoms of Northern Californians

is a natural outgrowth of my professional career. If I am elected as a board member, I pledge

to work diligently to further the aims of the ACLU.

NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: No

JEFF VESSELS

I am excited by the opportunity to remain engaged in the

ACLU's vital work. Prior to relocating to San Francisco this

spring to unite with my partner Gilberto, I was Executive

Director of ACLU of Kentucky for three years. I created

programs for young civil libertarians, established cadres of

volunteers in remote areas, and initiated a Major Gifts

Campaign and an Endowment Campaign. I also taught pol-

icy courses in the masters of social work program at the

University of Louisville. Prior to working at the ACLU, I

was affiliate Vice Chair and, in my 20s, organized activities in my small hometown. A mas-

ters degreed social worker, I am Director of Lavender Seniors of the East Bay. I am particu-

larly interested in fundraising and community organizing.

NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: No

CECILLIA WANG

When I recently thanked a Lawyers' Council donor for his

pledge, he replied: "If ever there was a time this was needed, it's

now." How true. Right now, our ACLU is battling for civil

rights and liberties, just as it has through history. I would be

honored to join in that fight as a board member. I am current-

ly an attorney at the law firm of Keker and Van Nest. From my

past work as an ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project lawyer and

public defender, and as a current member of the indigent crim-

inal defense panel for the San Francisco federal district court

and the ACLU Lawyers' Council, I know how vital the ACLU is to our community. Here's to

fighting the good fight together.

NOMINATED BY: Board of Directors INCUMBENT: No

ACLU-NC BOARD OF -

TSM ons) VAR)

Please vote by marking one square next to each candidate you support.

You may vote for up to 10 candidates out of the 11 on this ballot.

(Joint members: use both squares.)

-) -) JIM BLUME

_ |) DONNA BRORBY

~ _] MARIANO-FLORENTINO CUELLAR

~- -) QUINN DELANEY

~] LAURA DONOHUE

|) JAN GARRETT

~~ _] BARBARA ZERBE MACNAB

- -) PHILIP C. MONRAD

|] RONALD TYLER

-] C1 JEFF VESSELS

| -) CECILIA WANG

eS

lease clip and send along with your address label to

Elections Committee

ACLU of Northern California

1663 Mission Street, Suite 460

San Francisco, California 94103

Ballots must be received by noon on December 11, 2003.

ee ee ee ee ee ee en nee een een n eine ene ence nner ene ee eee eee ee eee ee ee en ee

e clip along titel eee

ACLU BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T PROTECT ITSELF | 9