LOS ANGELES ' At a news conference held in front of the LAPD's Central Area location in the heart of skid row, the ACLU of Southern California together with Las Familias Del Pueblo, a longtime Los Angeles based advocacy group, and the Catholic Workers announced the filing of a class action lawsuit challenging the City's enforcement of a Los Angeles' ordinance that bars sleeping, sitting or lying on public sidewalks against homeless people who have no where else to go.

'The city would rather spend money to jail the homeless than give them shelter and services,' said ACLU/SC cooperating attorney, Carol Sobel. 'There is no way to avoid violating this law if you are homeless, including the mentally ill. It doesn't make sense to arrest people for sleeping on the street when they have no other option.'

It is estimated that there are 85,000 homeless in the Los Angeles area and less than 4,000 emergency shelter beds in the entire county.

'Police must stop criminalizing the homeless for engaging in life-sustaining acts, like sleeping and eating, that they must do in public because they have no home to go home to,' said Alice Callaghan with Las Familias Del Pueblo. 'In the city of Los Angeles it seems that the policy is to not provide services for the homeless but rather massive police enforcement.'

The U.S. Conference of Mayors Report of 2002 states that Los Angeles was reportedly spent only $500,000 of locally generated funds to support homeless services, a paltry amount compared to other major cities. Boston, was reported to have spent $4,600,000 in locally generated funds; Chicago spent $6,417,944; Philadelphia spent $14,304,628; Seattle, $7,629,923; and Washington, D.C. spent $13,500,000.

'The City has a crisis on its hands, one that it has failed to address for far too long,' said Dan Tokaji, ACLU/SC staff attorney. 'The City of Los Angeles cannot sweep this problem under the rug by sweeping homeless people off the street as if they were garbage. They are not garbage; they are human beings and they are our fellow citizens '

The legal complain filed today states that the city has: 'initiated a concerted campaign of arrests of the homeless for sleeping or sitting on the sidewalk when there is no other place to go, indiscriminate searches and seizures in the guise of arresting parole and probation violators who the police claim prey on the homeless, and the orchestrated destruction of personal property of people who have little and, once the City finishes with them, have nothing.'

LOS ANGELES - In votes last night, two Southern California city councils passed resolutions upholding the human rights and civil liberties of all residents and opposing provisions of the USA-PATRIOT Act that infringe on residents' rights and liberties. The cities of Santa Monica and Claremont become the second and third localities in Southern California and thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth localities in the country to oppose portions of the USA-PATRIOT Act.

The American Civil Liberties Union, together with local activists and residents concerned with civil liberties encroachments brought about by the USA-PATRIOT Act, has been leading a nationwide campaign to help citizens voice their dissent and take action at the local level.

"Last night, the city of Santa Monica affirmed the city's strong commitment to civil liberties by insisting that efforts to end terrorism not be waged at the expense of our basic liberties," said Nancy Greenstein, ACLU/SC board member and Santa Monica resident. "Santa Monica joins a growing list of localities throughout the nation demanding that the Administration respect the fundamental freedoms that make this country unique."

Localities from Denver, Colorado, to Oakland, California and Flagstaff, Arizona have passed similar measures.

The city of Claremont resolution calls for a wide public education campaign, the first of its kind in the nation, that will include the creation and distribution of a "white paper" outlining the provisions of the USA-PATRIOT Act that infringe on civil liberties of persons in Claremont. In addition, the city will devote a "Citizen Facilitator" to coordinate information from the Claremont police department, Claremont residents, local libraries or bookstores, and any "third parties" with information regarding civil liberties infringements committed against Claremont residents. The information collected by the Citizen Facilitator would then be formally presented to the City Council, City Clerk and the public.

"The city of Claremont showed a strong commitment and dedication to the rights of their residents last night," said Rose Ash, ACLU/SC board member and Pomona Valley chapter activist. "Dedicating a Citizen Facilitator to oversee and report on civil liberties infringements really puts a bite behind the resolution's bark and sends a message that the city of Claremont places a high value on residents' rights as well as their safety."

"This is wonderful news," said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California. "Our members and activists have worked long and hard with residents in both localities to secure passage of these measures. The message to Attorney General Ashcroft is growing louder and louder as residents throughout the nation step up in defense of the Bill of Rights."

SAN FRANCISCO - In a ruling handed down today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a federal district court's ruling in the first-of-its-kind Internet political speech case. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court erred in dismissing certain claims and in refusing to decide other claims until a state court could determine whether California's election laws apply to these websites. The case, Porter v. Jones, goes back to the district court for further proceedings.

"We are very pleased that the Ninth Circuit has reversed the District Court's ruling and that we will have the opportunity to prove that our clients activities were political speech protected by the First Amendment," said Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney with the ACLU/SC.

In the weeks leading up to the 2000 presidential election, the tight contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore and the high level of interest in the third party presidential candidates prompted the creation of many internet sites that discussed the effect of the electoral college and various voting strategies. The sites included www.votexchange2000.com, www.voteswap2000.com, and www.nadertrader.com The purpose of the websites was to provide information about the political system and to match together people from "safe" and "swing" states with complimentary voting preferences. California Secretary of State Bill Jones sent a cease and desist letter to the operators of www.votexchange2000.com. The Secretary of State threatened to prosecute the site's operator under the California Elections Code sections 18521 and 18522 for brokering the exchange of votes. Similar letters were also sent to internet service providers such as Yahoo! and Register.com.

The site's operator, Alan Porter, together with the Democratic Law Students at UCLA, filed suit against Jones for denying them freedom of speech and association in violation of the First Amendment.

"By reversing the decision below, this ruling recognizes the important role that the Internet can play in a democracy," said Lisa Danetz, staff attorney with the National Voting Rights Institute. "The Internet is a powerful technology that allows all voters a relatively low-cost opportunity to form political associations and discuss voting strategies. We are confident that, with this case now moving toward trial, we will achieve an important victory for the rights of ordinary citizens in the political process."

"We're pleased that the court's ruling permits us to challenge the legality of the Secretary of State's partisan attempt to silence political speech on the Internet during the 2000 election," said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director for the ACLU/SC. "The Secretary of State's censorship represented the only time since the inception of the Internet that purely political websites were shut down by the government. The decision of the Ninth Circuit reopens the litigation contesting this official suppression of dialogue about perhaps the most vital question in our constitutional democracy: how shall each citizen's vote be cast for president?"