LOS ANGELES - On behalf of its 28,000 members, the ACLU of Southern California called on Senator Dianne Feinstein to oppose the nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States, citing the nominee's appalling record on civil liberties and civil rights during his tenure in elected office in Missouri and in the United States Senate.

Noting that the Attorney General is responsible for setting Justice Department policy on such vital issues as voting rights, civil rights, affirmative action, school prayer, vouchers, reproductive rights, habeas corpus reform and the execution of federal prisoners, the ACLU/SC decried President George W. Bush's attempt to fill the position with a nominee who has actively sought to roll back protections in these critical areas.

"As Senator, John Ashcroft carried out a radical anti-civil rights and civil liberties agenda," said Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU/SC. "He attacked privacy rights, reproductive rights, lesbian and gay rights, immigrant rights and the expansion of habeas corpus rights. He systematically opposed affirmative action programs and anti-discrimination protections. In short, Senator Ashcroft has dedicated his long political career to reversing the very laws he would be expected to prosecute as Attorney General. There is a fundamental conflict of interest here that cannot be resolved through a confirmation hearing conversion."

The ACLU-SC also observed that, if confirmed, the nominee would have ample opportunity to shape a judiciary hostile to civil rights and civil liberties, since the Attorney General wields great influence on nominations to the Supreme Court and lower federal courts.

"Bear in mind that John Ashcroft led the fight against the nomination of Justice Ronnie White, the first African-American to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court, as federal district court judge," noted Ripston. "In the process, he willfully misrepresented Justice White's record. What you have here is a right-wing ideologue who will stop at nothing to achieve a judiciary that shares his agenda."

"The Attorney General is the nation's principal enforcer of federal civil rights laws," Ripston added. "The power of this office is enormous, and should not rest in the hands of a man who has shown himself in every other context to be hostile to civil rights and civil liberties."

Because the American Civil Liberties Union policy prohibits it from either supporting or opposing candidates for public office, with the possible exception of the U.S. Supreme Court, the National ACLU has refrained from taking a position on this cabinet appointment. However, the Southern California affiliate views the nomination of Senator Ashcroft to the position of Attorney General to be such an extreme threat to the cause of civil rights and civil liberties as to warrant calling on Senator Feinstein to oppose it. In taking this position, the ACLU of Southern California represents only itself and not the National ACLU or any other ACLU affiliate.

LOS ANGELES - The ACLU of Southern California strongly opposes efforts to give Anaheim police officers the authority to arrest people suspected of violating federal immigration laws.

The proponents of this measure have deviously twisted the meaning of the 1996 federal welfare and immigration laws. Under those laws, state and local governments cannot enforce a law that prohibits the local police from reporting information on a person's immigration status to the INS. The federal law does not - and under our Constitutional system of government cannot - give local police the authority to act as INS agents enforcing INS laws.

Moreover, this mean-spirited, anti-immigrant measure would wreak immeasurable harm on Anaheim residents and visitors alike. Bluntly put, it will lead to racial profiling in a city that has a nearly 40% Latino population - as well as a large number of Latinos who come to the city to work, cheer for their teams at sports events, and enjoy the rides at Disneyland. And make no mistake: improper arrests can lead to expensive legal liability. Wrongful detention and arrests by local police in cooperation with the INS have recently resulted in several successful damages suits against municipalities.

In addition, there is clear evidence that when local law enforcement attempts to enforce federal immigration laws, the police have an even tougher time investigating and curbing crime. We know that immigrants are disproportionately the target of crime. Victims and witnesses concerned that they will be questioned about their immigration status - or arrested and turned over to INS officials by the police - will refuse to come forward. Immigrants will become easy prey for criminals who know the victims will not report offenses to the police for fear of being deported.

The result is inevitable: crime will go unreported and unsolved. And criminals will be free to strike again and again in vulnerable communities. We urge the Council to leave enforcement of the federal immigration laws where it properly, and legally, belongs - with federal immigration authorities.

LOS ANGELES - In response to two Councilmembers' proposal to undo the LAPD consent decree, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California will appeal to the City Council to swiftly reject the proposal and, in addition, will appeal to all mayoral candidates to affirm their commitment to the decree, which has already been signed by the City of Los Angeles and the Department of Justice. The consent decree grew out of a pattern of police abuse and civil liberties and civil rights violations that came to light in connection with the Rampart scandal. The ACLU/SC was the first to call for federal intervention and recently insisted, along with noted legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky and groups such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, that local residents and groups needed a more direct role in monitoring enforcement of the decree. The ACLU filed suit last month to intervene on behalf of residents and community groups, alleging that full and vigorous enforcement of the decree would be endangered by President-elect Bush's open resistance to the U.S. Department of Justice's intervention in police-related civil rights cases, as well as the City's own history of backsliding from commitments it has made to reform the LAPD.

"Councilmembers Svorinich and Bernson propose to abort our first step toward real reform," said Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. "Residents of Los Angeles need to hear unequivocally that our City Council and our would-be mayors oppose this measure and fully support the reform of a police department that has resisted meaningful change and held itself above the law for decades. To waste this opportunity for meaningful change is an affront to all those whose lives have been unjustly taken away or whose rights have been deprived by the Los Angeles Police Department."

Ripston also objected to the discussion of the matter in closed session.

"It is deeply troubling," said Ripston, "that police reform, which is fundamental to the safety and freedom of every Los Angeles resident, will be addressed without public input. The residents of Los Angeles need to be involved in this process if it's going to work. But this consent decree was hammered out behind closed doors and will now be revisited behind closed doors, shutting the vital voice of the public out."

Ripston noted that the Council Members' proposal to abandon the consent decree strengthens the ACLU's doubts about its full enforcement - doubts laid out in its suit last month to intervene in the consent decree on behalf of Los Angeles community groups and residents.

"It's clear that Svorinich and Bernson are emboldened by the prospect of Bush's indifference, if not hostility, to meaningful enforcement of federal civil rights laws," said Ripston. "This is a perfect example of why community members and groups should be part of the consent decree."