LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed a federal lawsuit today charging that the use of outdated and obsolete 'punch card' voting machines, the same machines at the center of the controversy surrounding the contested 2000 presidential election in Florida, will needlessly and unlawfully disenfranchise African-American, Latino, and Asian-American voters in counties where such machines are still in use.

Following the contested presidential election of 2000, the ACLU/SC filed suit against the state of California on similar grounds and won. The state then entered into a consent decree, whereby they agreed to replace all 'punch card' voting machines in use by the March 2004 primary election.

'The ACLU of Southern California takes no position on the Governor's recall,' said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU/SC. 'Our interest is in seeing to it that every voter will have his or her vote counted accurately. Most of us are now aware of the problems associated with these voting machines - I don't believe any one of us would like to see a repeat of the Florida presidential election debacle here in the Golden State.'

As many as 8 million voters could be at the mercy of the defective 'VotoMatic' or 'Pollstar' machines. At least six counties in the state (Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara, Solano, and Mendocino) are certain to use 'punch card' voting machines if the election takes place on October 7, 2003.

In the November 2000 presidential election, the error rate for the 'punch card' machines was more than double that of any other system used in the state. 'Votomatic' or 'Pollstar' machines accounted for 74.8% of all ballots cast that did not register a vote for president in California.

'If the October election goes forward, we can predict with absolute certainty that every Californian's vote will not count,' said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU/SC. 'Democracy in California should not hang by a chad.'

The ACLU of Northern California and ACLU of San Diego also joined the ACLU of Southern California in filing today's lawsuit.

LOS ANGELES - The ACLU of Southern California applauds the California Supreme Court's decision affirming the validity of second-parent adoption, a process that allows unmarried couples, including lesbian and gay couples, to establish a legal relationship with the couples' children. The ACLU and other civil rights submitted amicus briefs in the case, which was decided in an opinion announced today.

"This decision treats same-sex couples and their families fairly and respectfully, and prevents harm to the thousands of children whose well-being and security, and whose rights to child support, inheritance, health insurance and other benefits, were threatened by the San Diego court's misreading of the adoption laws," said Martha Matthews, Bohnett Attorney at the ACLU of Southern California.

The Supreme Court's decision strongly endorses second-parent adoptions as authorized by California's adoption statutes. Six out of seven California Supreme Court Justices voted to reverse a decision of the California Court of Appeal in San Diego, which had caused confusion and uncertainty among thousands of California families, by holding that California's adoption laws do not permit second-parent adoptions.

The majority opinion by Justice Werdegar clearly recognized that children of same-sex and other unmarried couples have the same needs for security, stability and legal recognition of actual parental relationships as all other children: "Second parent adoption can secure...legally recognized parentage for a child of a nonbiological parent who otherwise must remain a legal stranger," and can provide "the security and advantages of two parents for some of California's neediest children."

The Court also pointed out the availability of second-parent adoptions "has created settled expectations among many different types of adoptive families," including not only same-sex and unmarried couples who have children through artificial insemination, but families who have adopted children from foster care and 'kinship' adoptions in which a grandparent or other relative becomes a child's second legal parent.

In California, thousands of second parent adoptions have been granted over the past fifteen years, but no appeal court had ruled on their validity until this case arose. In recent years, the concept of second-parent adoption has spread throughout the country. California has now joined eight other jurisdictions in which appellate courts have approved second-parent adoptions, including the District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Also, three state legislatures, California, Connecticut, and Vermont, have enacted adoption statutes that explicitly permit same-sex partners to adopt.

SANTA ANA, CA - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed suit today to enjoin the City of Santa Ana from implementing a count of mail-in ballots for a neighborhood traffic plan which residents of the French Court section of the city feel unfairly disenfranchises them on the basis of property ownership. In addition, residents of the Logan section, many of whom are directly affected by the traffic plan, which includes a barrier across Washington Avenue at Poinsettia, are also being disenfranchised.

Concerned with what they described as heavy traffic congestion along a major street, residents of the historic French Park section of Santa Ana proposed setting up barriers to reduce the flow of traffic into their area. After meeting with residents of French Park as well as residents of the predominantly working class French Court area to discuss an upcoming neighborhood ballot to approve a trial version of the "French Park Neighborhood Traffic Plan," the city of Santa Ana mailed ballots to eligible voters in French Park and French Court. The voters approved the traffic plan on a trial basis by a 66 to 60 vote. However, with few exceptions, only property owners were declared eligible to vote on the traffic plan; home owners were allotted one vote while residents of apartments, which are concentrated in the French Court section, were not allowed to vote - only the apartment owners were given a vote on the traffic plan. Additionally, individual condominium owners are not allowed to vote, instead the condominium association as a whole is given one vote. This resulted in a disproportionate number of votes in the more affluent French Park section.

"It is outrageous to think that people are being told that they can't vote unless they own property," said Peter Eliasberg, Managing Attorney with the ACLU/SC. "It turns the whole concept of one person one vote on its head. People have a right to a vote whether they live in old colonial revival homes or apartment buildings, and I think the facts are clearly on our side."

There are approximately 289 households in the French Park area compared to 850 households in the French Court neighborhood. Yet a total of 236 ballots were mailed out to people in French Park while French Court received only 111 ballots, in other words, approximately 82% of the households in French Park received a ballot, while 11% of the households in French Court did.

"As condominium owner, I am not given an individual vote because the current voting rules only allocate one vote per condominium association," said French Court resident, Wade Little. "There is a gross disproportion between the numbers of votes allocated to French Park and French Court."

Josephine Andrade, a resident of the Logan neighborhood, was not allowed to vote on the traffic plan because the city's Public Works Agency did not classify her neighborhood as an "impacted area" even though she lives less than three blocks from one of the temporary barriers that were installed.

"Since the Public Works Agency installed the barrier, I have had difficulty passing through the pedestrian sidewalk at the Washington barrier," said Andrade. "I am a person living with a disability and often transport myself around the neighborhood with my wheelchair. I live less than three blocks from the barrier yet I did not receive a ballot and am not entitled to vote in the French Park Traffic Plan election."

The ACLU of Southern California is seeking to enjoin the counting of mail-in ballots until a more equitable voting scheme is set up and also prevent the city from holding any election related to the traffic plan where the vote is restricted on any basis other than age or residence of the City of Santa Ana.

The current ballots must be postmarked by Friday, July 25th.

"It is amazing to me that someone had the nerve to draw up this voting scheme," said Eliasberg. "We're not going to harken back to the days when only a 'landed class' could participate in a democracy."