LOS ANGELES - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today issued a decision in the case of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, also known as the 'punch card' voting machines case. In victory for California voters, the court ordered the postponement of the California recall election until all California counties complete the transition away from faulty and decertified 'punch card' voting machines. The plaintiffs, including the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles, the NAACP, California State Conference of Branches, and the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project had filed suit against California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley over the continued use of decertified 'punch card' voting machines in the upcoming recall election.

The ACLU/SC argued that the continued use of obsolete, decertified 'punch card' voting machines, the same ones at the center of the Florida 2000 election controversy, in six California counties would have the effect of disenfranchising voters in those counties, including urban areas with large concentrations of minority voters.

'This is a victory for California voters,' said Alice Huffman, president of the NAACP, California State Conference of Branches. 'California voters deserve to go to the polls with the knowledge that their votes will be counted. We can't afford a repeat of the 2000 Florida election debacle.'

The state of California has already conceded that the machines are obsolete and because of a previous ACLU/SC suit are scheduled to be replaced by March 2004.

'Today's court decision represents a victory for democracy and fairness,' said Antonio Gonzalez, executive director of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project. 'Rather than proceeding with an election that would have made Florida 2000 look like a festival of democracy, the court has prudently decided to wait until the election can be conducted right by replacing the outdated voting machines and helping to insure that proper financing is available to conduct a fair and transparent election.'

Currently, six California counties continue to use outdate, decertified, 'punch card' voting machines. The six counties are: Los Angeles, Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara, and Solano.

'The ACLU/SC does not take a position on the California recall, our interest is in seeing that every single Californian goes to the polls with the confidence that his or her vote will be counted,' said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU/SC. 'This is a victory for democracy and for California voters. The message is clear: we must not sacrifice political equality in favor of political expediency.'

LOS ANGELES - The ACLU of Southern California has filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley. Earlier this month, the ACLU/SC brought suit on behalf of the SVREP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles, and the NAACP California State Conference of Branches, alleging that the use of 'punch card' voting machines in the upcoming election would lead to widespread disenfranchisement of voters residing in counties that are still using those machines.

Last week, a federal judge refused to postpone the recall election and the vote on two critical ballot initiatives until all of California's 'punch card' machines could be replaced. Six California counties currently use the outdated machines, which will be replaced, by court order, no later than March 1, 2004.

'This is not merely about a recall election,' said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU/SC. 'This is about having every vote counted. Voting machines are the infrastructure of our democracy. Right now, the integrity of our state's democracy is riding on the performance of these outdated, obsolete, and decertified voting machines - the same voting machines at the center of the 2000 Florida election debacle.'

The ACLU has not taken a position on the recall itself.

'The claims we make in our appeal are as strong today as they were last week, indeed even more so,' continued Rosenbaum. 'If the election goes forward as scheduled on October 7, 2003, we know with certainty that tens of thousands of votes will not be counted.'

The ACLU/SC's lawsuit follows an earlier legal action that resulted in a consent decree requiring California to replace all 'punch card' machines no later than March 1, 2004.

The six counties still using 'punch card' voting machines are: Los Angeles, Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara, and Solano.

The appeal emphasizes the inclusion of the racially-charged Proposition 54, which would prohibit the state from collecting or retaining racial and ethnic data about health care, hate crimes, racial profiling, public education, and public safety, as particularly troubling, since minority voters will be disproportionately disenfranchised by the defective machinery. People of color (including African Americans, Latinos and Asian Americans) constitute 46 percent of the population of the six counties using 'punch card' voting machines, but only 32 percent of the population of counties using other, more reliable types of equipment.

Harvard law professor and noted constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, and University of Southern California law professor Erwin Chemerinsky have joined the ACLU/SC in filing the appeal.

Download the Complaint

ORANGE COUNTY, CA - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California today filed suit on behalf of the Orange County Dyke March and the Gay and Lesbian Services Center of Orange County (The Center OC) because of unreasonable and unconstitutional permit requirements imposed on the march organizers by the city of Costa Mesa. The suit, filed in federal court, names the city of Costa Mesa as defendant.

'The city's permit scheme is clearly unconstitutional,' said Martha Matthews, Bohnett Attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. 'The Costa Mesa permit scheme invites the very evils the First Amendment forbids: it vests public officials with unbridled discretion to determine who may speak in the public streets and parks and under what conditions, thus allowing the city to favor speech they support and disfavor speech they oppose.'

'We gave the city fair warning,' continued Matthews, referring to a letter sent to the Costa Mesa city council earlier this week. The letter asked the city to revise their existing permit scheme as applied to the march or face a First Amendment lawsuit.

On June 18, 2003, the Orange County Dyke March applied to the City of Costa Mesa for a special events permit to hold a rally and protest march on August 16, 2003. The city approved the permit with 18 conditions, many of which were different from the 8 conditions which were imposed on the 2002 event held in Costa Mesa. Members of the Orange County Dyke March organizing committee met with city officials to negotiate these permit conditions. Organizers received an amended permit with 22 conditions, many of which imposed burdensome requirements that would unfairly interfere with the purpose of the event. When the city and march organizers were unable to reach a compromise, legal action became necessary.

'The conditions were clearly designated to make the process so complicated and so intimidating that we would just give up and go away,' said Lori Hutson, member of the Orange County Dyke March organizing committee. 'Well, we're not going away. We made every effort to follow the permit process the way they wanted, but it was restrictive beyond reason. Some conditions, like requiring our motorcycle riders to provide their personal information prior to the event, constituted invasions of our privacy and showed that the city was anticipating a problem with us. We have given the city no reason to believe the march would be anything but peaceful.'

'We had this event last year with no public safety or security problems,' said Catie Profeta, another member of the Orange County Dyke March committee. 'It was the first event of its kind for lesbian, bisexual, and transgender women on public streets in Orange County since 1989, and it meant a lot to our community. All we want is to have our event again this year, but the city has presented us with a host of permit conditions and roadblocks designed to discourage us. Negotiations with the city have been unsuccessful, and unfortunately we're left with no other option than to go to court to protect our rights.'

'As the fiscal sponsor of Orange County Dyke March, we are in full support of this legal action,' said Terry Stone, Executive Director of The Center OC. 'There are times you have to take a stand for what's right, and this is one of them. We believe the city's conditions are burdensome and oppressive and infringe on Dyke March's right to freedom of speech and assembly.'