LOS ANGELES - The ACLU affiliates of Southern California and San Diego announced today that they will seek a temporary restraining order against California Secretary of State Bill Jones, who threatened criminal prosecution against a voter discussion and strategizing web site called Voteswap 2000. As a result of a letter Jones sent to Voteswap, that web site and two others, including the plaintiff votexchange2000.com, decided to shut down this week rather than run the risk of being prosecuted. The ACLU is also filing the lawsuit on behalf of a prospective voter. The National Voting Rights Institute joins the ACLU as co-counsel in the case.

"votexchange2000 and other similar web sites have a clear political message," said Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, "and that qualifies them for the highest level of protection under the First Amendment, whether or not Secretary Jones approves of their message or aim. The site expresses an unmistakable political message by their users seeking to associate with one another: 'This election year, perhaps more than any before it, every individual vote is crucial to both the election of a major party candidate and the building of a viable third party. Vote strategically -- in some states, a vote for Nader may be a vote for Bush, and a vote for Buchanan may be a vote for Gore.'"

The vote discussion and matching sites sprang up as early as October 1, and several were launched recently in response to an on-line opinion piece advocating that voters get together on-line and strategize about how to accomplish their shared aims. Scores of thousands of potential voters have visited the sites since they were launched.

Republican Secretary of State Bill Jones cracked down on the innovative discussion of voting strategies, claiming that sites which host and facilitate such discussions violate California's Election Code ﾌ_ 18521, which prohibits offering payment or any other "valuable consideration" to people so that they will or will not vote.

ACLU attorneys say the law is not applicable, or, if construed to be applicable, that it is not, in that case, Constitutionally sound.

"Discussing and agreeing to a co-operative voting strategy is absolutely distinct from offering or receiving payment for a vote," said Eliasberg. "This is not equivalent to handing someone a five-dollar bill. This is an obviously unenforceable and unverifiable personal pledge to vote in a certain way and is therefore completely from offering money. Jones's interpretation of this law could conceivably qualify any kind of speech as an inducement. If I promise to commend a person for voting in a way I approve of, is that offering an inducement?"

"The truth is," said Eliasberg, "Jones's interpretation of this statute is so far-reaching that it could encompass a vast array of voting-related behavior and speech which we all recognize as perfectly legitimate, even if we don't practice them ourselves."

Eliasberg offered the following examples of voting-related behavior and speech that Jones's interpretation of the law would make criminal:

--Two spouses discuss their vote, realize they disagree on every important issue, and agree that, since they're cancelling one another out, neither will vote.

--Two friendly legislators who disagree with one another's positions arrange not to vote on two separate occasions, when one, then the other, is absent, thus cancelling out the effect of their absences on the final decisions made.

--A politician such as Governor George Bush or Vice President Al Gore offers a monetary inducement in the form of a tax cut to a voter.

--A politician, during tough economic times, promises "a chicken in every pot" if voters cast their vote for him.

--A political columnist urges voters to do exactly what the web sites in question urge them to do.

"Bill Jones seems to be afraid of the Internet and the powers of expression and association that it gives to people," said Eliasberg. "That power of combining immediate association and direct speech is the reason people have sought to regulate the Internet more strictly than other media. I don't believe that Jones would have made the same threats if the same content had been expressed in a more traditional medium such as a newspaper column or a call-in radio show."

"Jones and other government officials and agencies need to take notice," said Eliasberg. "The ACLU will not allow the Internet to become the First Amendment punching bag, to become the one medium in which we allow the government to act out its habitual suspicion of public free speech and free association."

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California succeeded this week in persuading the National Park Service to respect religious diversity and the separation of church and state on federal land in San Bernardino County, California and to remove a permanent cross over 8 feet tall from the Mojave National Preserve. The cross was plainly visible from the road that runs through the preserve, and the site was not open as a forum forany other form of religious expression, or other speech. The decision on the part of the National Park Service came after months of negotiation with the ACLU of Southern California, culminating in the threat of a lawsuit.

"Democracy and religion are both strengthened," said Michael Small, Chief Counsel of the ACLU of Southern California, "by the principle that the government should not champion one religious perspective over another, or, indeed, champion a religious perspective in general over none."

The cross was placed at the site by a group of private individuals, perhaps in the 1930's. The site is used as a gathering place for Easter and memorial services.

"The ACLU is fiercely committed to the rights of individuals to practice their religions, whether they do so on federal land, in their own back yard, or in a house of worship," said Small."Federal park land in the Grand Canyon, for instance, is used for services, but any religious symbols brought in for the service are removed when the service is done."

"Leaving a cross standing on federal land when a service is over," said Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, "promotes Christian beliefs over others, which is not the role of the government. Federal park land is for all of us, whether we are Jewish,Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, or none of the above."

The cross was brought to the attention of the ACLU by an ACLU member, a practicing Catholic and former Park Service employee, who wrote a letter to the ACLU of Southern California,which, in turn, wrote the National Park Service requesting the cross's removal. The Park Service initially resisted, but the ACLU refused to accept its justifications.

"The Park Service offered some dubious legal rationales for continuing to display a Christian symbol without opening the space as a general public forum for free speech," said Small. "One was that the federal government allows private cattle ranching on the land ? which would be the first time, to my knowledge, that a grazing lease would trump the U.S. Constitution. Another argument proposed by the service was that the cross had historic value ? as if an unconstitutional practice were less objectionable by virtue of having been practiced for decades."

The exchange of letters and phone calls continued from October 1999 to this month, and included a letter from a San Bernardino County politician who advocated continuing the unconstitutional practice.

According to the National Park Service, the cross will be removed within the next few months.

"The National Park Service's decision," said Small, "represents another ACLU victory for the principle that governments and religions shouldn't mix ? because when they do, they produce intolerance, alienation, and division."

LOS ANGELES - The ACLU of Southern California filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of attorney Tony Capozzola, who represents Marie Elise West, in People v. West. Ms. West is charged with murder and hate crimes after allegedly using her car to run down and kill a Latino man in Van Nuys earlier this year. The gag order prevents Capozzola from discussing the case or related issues with the media.

"The public has an interest in a full discussion of the difficult issues raised by this case," said Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California. "Look at the facts: Ms. West has been involved in the county mental health system. Did the system work? Was there a breakdown in monitoring and treating her? Do mentally ill people receive adequate and timely treatment in this county, and, if not, how does that affect their own and the public's safety? These are compelling current issues - questions which this case urgently raises for the consideration of the public."

"A gag order stifles and undermines the free and full discussion which is so vital to the public good," said Eliasberg. "Imagine if the attorneys or plaintiffs in Rampart-related cases, for example, were laboring under a gag order - our understanding of the need for reform would be greatly diminished."

Eliasberg pointed out that concerns about pre-trial publicity prejudicing the jury pool must be considered in proper perspective.

"Courts have ruled that in a county as large as Los Angeles," said Eliasberg, "with a correspondingly large jury pool from which to select, the likelihood of prejudicing the entire jury pool through pre-trial publicity is generally too small to justify a gag order."

"The City of Los Angeles has not justified this gag order," said Eliasberg, "and a restriction of speech this severe requires the government to make the justification."

The gag order, already in effect, will be challenged in today's hearing before the Superior Court of the State of California.