LOS ANGELES - The ACLU affiliates of Southern California, Northern California, and San Diego joined forces today on behalf of the AFL-CIO, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project, Common Cause, and the Chicano Federation of San Diego County to challenge California's flawed and discriminatory voting system. The suit was filed in federal court and alleges that California's hodgepodge of voting systems creates unacceptably discriminatory results in violation of the U.S. Constitution and that its lack of legally binding standards for recounts aggravates these unconstitutional disparities. The suit focuses on the disparities between counties using the now-notorious pre-scored punch card voting systems and those using other, more reliable systems.

The law firms Munger, Tolles & Olson and Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain, along with University of Michigan Law Professor Evan Caminker, join the ACLU as co-counsel in the case.

"Our democracy has been left hanging by a chad," said Dan Tokaji, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California. "Under our Constitution, every vote should be counted, regardless of where a person lives or the color of his or her skin. Unfortunately, that is not true in California today, thanks to outdated equipment which is the voting equivalent of a horse and buggy. Unless the State takes action, California could become the next Florida."

"In California, every vote doesn't count, especially the votes of African American, Latino, and Asian American voters," said Mark Rosenbaum, Legal Director of the ACLU of Southern California. "The punch-card voting machines used in counties like Los Angeles, San Diego, and Alameda belong in junkyards, not voting booths. Votes are cast - then cast away. For nearly 8 "million California voters in counties using punch-card machines, there is a 2 &Mac189; times better chance of having their preferences recorded on a Lotto card than on an election ballot. This case is Bush v. Gore gone west. California has more in common with Florida than citrus trusts and theme parks - it has voting machines that mock our democracy."

At the time of the November 2000 election, 8.4 million people were registered to vote in counties that used pre-scored punch card technology; over 5.9 million people - 53.4% of voters statewide - actually voted in the November election using a pre-scored punch card system, and over 132,000 of those votes were not counted or were counted inaccurately. Pre-scored punch card machines produce disproportionately high rates of two types of errors: undervoting and overvoting. In overvoting , the machine reads more than one vote, thus disqualifying the vote; in undervoting, the machine fails to read any vote. The combined undervote and overvote, or error rate, averaged 2.23% for counties using pre-scored punch card machines - more than twice the error rate for any other type of machine or system used in other California counties, and nearly four times the error rate of Riverside County's touch-screen voting machines. The error rate in Los Angeles County was 2.7%, or four and a half times the rate for Riverside, at .59%. The number of overvotes and undervotes in Los Angeles county alone - 72,000 - is greater than the entire number of registered voters in 26 California counties.

Nine California counties use one of two punch card systems, the Votomatic, widely used in Florida, and the Pollstar. African American and Latino voters are much more likely to reside in one of the pre-scored-punch-card-using counties. According to one recent study, only 58.3% of white voters resided in counties using the substandard punch card systems, whereas 80.8% of African American voters and 66.6% of Latino voters reside in those counties.

"From the time it was founded in 1957 through today, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference has fought for full equality for African Americans and others," said Rev. Norman Johnson, Interim Executive Director of SCLC of Los Angeles. "Equality at the ballot box is the foundation of freedom, the precondition for participating fully in the political life of this nation. Today in California the vote of a person of color is more likely to be overlooked, misread, or discarded than a white person's, and that is simply unacceptable."

"The Southwest Voter Registration Education Project rests its work on the premise that voting is the key to participating fully in our nation's civic life," said Antonio Gonzalez, President of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, "and that premise, in turn, rests on the fundamental principle of democracy: that each vote is equal and that no vote is valued less than any other. We tell our community, 'Su voto es su voz,' or 'Your vote is your voice.' But California, by relying on an inadequate system, blocks out the legitimate voices of thousands of voters, voters who have taken the trouble to fulfill their civic duties."

"In any election, but particularly one with a presidential election that saw a razor-thin margin of victory, it is unacceptable for even one citizen's vote to be disregarded by accidents of residence and the machinery used in one's voting jurisdiction," said Scott Harshbarger, President and CEO of Common Cause. "The injury in this case is compounded by the fact that it disproportionately harmed the same Americans - people of color - who have fought so hard throughout history to knock down the many barriers to the ballot box that they have faced."

Today's lawsuit in California is the fourth such suit that the ACLU or its affiliates have filed since the November 2000 election; the organization filed suits in Florida, Georgia, and Illinois earlier this year. In all four cases, the ACLU targets the discrepancies created by the use of the pre-scored punch card system in some areas and better systems in other areas.

The ACLU's Dan Tokaji noted that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in Bush v. Gore paved the way for these challenges.

"We should take the Supreme Court at its word," said Tokaji. "In Bush v. Gore, it ruled that without uniformity in recounts, some voters are disenfranchised and denied equal protection under the law. Our case relies on the same principle."

LOS ANGELES - Community leaders and groups today unveiled an unprecedented level of support for a new racial profiling data collection bill, AB 788, introduced by Assemblymember Marco Firebaugh. The bill requires data collection on traffic stops and establishes a strong statutory definition of racial profiling to enable law enforcement agencies and communities to combat the problem effectively. Today was the deadline for groups to list their support or opposition to the bill for its first hearing. More than seventy community organizations and civil rights groups across the state have submitted their endorsements to the Public Safety Committee - far more endorsements than a typical bill -- an indication that last year's efforts built momentum on this issue and that communities have quickly lined up to make this a top civil rights priority again this year.

"The time has come to end practices that criminalize our communities," said Angela Sanbrano Executive Director of the Central American Resource Center (CARECEN). "Passage of AB 788 is a step in that direction."

Communities targeted with racial profiling know that the problem pervades law enforcement in this state. According to recent surveys by the Public Policy Institute of California, 82% of African American Californians believe that the problem not only exists, but that it's widespread. 65% of Latino Californians share that view, as does a majority of Asian Americans. 72% of young African American men in a Gallup poll reported experiencing this pernicious practice.

Civil rights organizations including MALDEF, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., LULAC, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the Central American Resource Center, the ACLU affiliates of Southern California, Northern California, and San Diego, and over sixty other groups have joined in the effort to support AB 788.

"For decades people of color have complained that racial profiling is a serious problem in the State, but little has been done to address it," said Assemblymember Firebaugh. "AB 788 prohibits racial profiling and defines it as the practice of the use of race; 'in any fashion' and 'to any degree' by law enforcement, except when officers are on the look out for a specific suspect identified in part by race. We hope that our continuous demand for change will not go unheard."

Eight other states have passed bills requiring data collection on racial profiling in traffic stops, five of them states with Republican Governors, and the conservative Texas legislature has just passed such a measure. California has had several opportunities to enact such a law, but has failed to do so. The groups promised that this year would be different.

"This is a moderate measure that's all about basic fairness," said Isabelle Gunning, ACLU of Southern California Board Member. "California is behind the curve and hasn't yet taken the problem seriously."

"Data collection and a strong statutory definition are the keys to this problem," said Gunning. "Without information or a strong definition, California communities and their law enforcement officers cannot tackle this pernicious practice, cannot establish new and better standards of policing, and cannot design or measure effective training programs that will remove bias from policing."

Victor Narro, Workers' Rights Project Director at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), pointed out that the definition of racial profiling proposed in the bill, which defines racial profiling as using race "in any fashion" or "to any degree" in determining whom to stop, will make a significant difference to law enforcement agencies as they train their officers not to practice racial profiling.

"Many law enforcement agencies rely on a definition of racial profiling which is deficient," said Narro. "That definition says that race may not be the "sole" reason for a stop, but we all know how thick the California Vehicle Code is and how easy it is for an officer to find a reason in addition to race to pull a person over. A cracked taillight, for instance, could be cited as a reason. We want to root out that kind of selective use of the law, and that's why a strong, clear definition is necessary."

In addition to requiring data collection on the race or ethnicity of the motorist, the bill requires police officers to list the reason for the stop, whether a search was conducted, and whether a citation was issued - all of which are areas in which motorists of color have reported differential treatment.

The bill also requires any local agencies that receive state money for their data collection efforts to conform to the same standard of data collection, collecting information on all five key categories listed above.

AB 788 will be heard before the Assembly's Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, April 17.

SAN FRANCISCO - A California State Superior Court today handed a substantial victory to the coalition of civil rights groups that are fighting to reform California's failed and inequitable school system in the landmark, statewide education lawsuit, Williams v. State of California, filed last May. The State earlier filed a smokescreen cross-complaint, in which the State attempted to blame individual school districts rather than acknowledge any responsibility for its own system, and today the Court severed that suit from Williams v State of California and put off any proceedings on it until Williams is decided.

"This is a tremendous victory for plaintiffs," said John Affeldt of Public Advocates, Inc., who argued the motion. "Today the Judge removed the State's case against the districts from our case and prevented that case from proceeding. Now we will be focusing exclusively on the State's failure to establish an effective system of oversight which delivers fundamental educational tools to students in the state."

"The Judge's order," said Michael Jacobs, a partner at Morrison & Foerster, pro bono co-counsel in the case, "will allow school children to get the real relief they need as quickly as possible without a needless finger-pointing exercise against school districts that cannot themselves do what the state should have done in the first instance."

"The State tried to pass the buck to school districts," said Catherine Lhamon, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, "but the Judge put the buck right back where it belongs - in the lap of the state."

The Court also denied the State's motion for summary judgment on a group of plaintiffs from Cloverdale, whose classrooms routinely reach unbearably high temperatures.