Important legislation to measure discrimination in traffic stops was vetoed by Governor Wilson. The "California Traffic Stops Statistics Act," also known as the "Driving While Black or Brown" (DWB) bill, would have made it possible to keep tabs on racial bias, by requiring law enforcement to collect and report statistical information for a three-year period on the race of motorists pulled over by police.

The bill was sponsored by Assemblymember Kevin Murray, Chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, and supported by Black and Latino law enforcement organizations. All across the state, African-Americans and Latinos have experienced the humiliation of being inexplicably stopped while driving, detained and searched by police. Governor Wilson's veto shows that he doesn't think this is a problem. Your voice can help convince him that it is.

If this has happened to you -- if you have been stopped for the so-called offense of "Driving While Black or Brown" -- you can help get this bill passed in the next session of the legislature. Call the ACLU toll-free and we will help make your voice heard in the state Capitol. We need your help to get this important legislation enacted next year. Have you been stopped unfairly? Tell your story. You can call the ACLU toll free in California at 1-877-DWB-STOP. It's a FREE CALL. 1-877-DWB-STOP that's 1/877-392-7867.

The ACLU of Southern California, on Sept. 29, sent the City of Banning a letter threatening to enter a lawsuit on behalf of petitioners who exercised their First Amendment rights to petition the city after the Banning City Council sued them for gathering signatures opposing a merger of the Banning Fire Department with the Riverside County California Department of Forestry.

Last July, the Banning City Council decided to merge its fire services with the state-run agency. A former council member, Frank Burgess, launched a petition drive to block the merger, gathering 1,503 signatures. The County Registrar of Voters certified 1,102 of the signatures on August 31.

Banning filed a lawsuit on September 8 [City of Banning vs Burgess RIC 317408] against the petitioners claiming the right of referendum was not available to them because state law lets the city contract for fire services. Banning seeks a declaration voiding the petition, an injunction "restraining and enjoining defendants from taking actions inconsistent with this order" and seeking court costs from defendants. The ACLU says this would chill defendants' free speech rights.

The letter to Banning City Attorney John Wilson from ACLU/SC attorney Peter Eliasberg follows:

"I am writing to express serious concern about the lawsuit filed by the City of Banning against people who have engaged in their constitutionally protected right to petition government. It appears to me that two aspects of the relief requested by the City violate the First Amendment because they have the clear effect of chilling the rights of petitioners protected by the First Amendment and Liberty of Speech Clause of the California constitution.

Asking the Court to award the City costs in this case against the defendants who have done no more than exercise their constitutionally protected right to petition government, is an improper burden on First Amendment rights. It should be obvious that seeking to "tax" people's exercise of their rights, even if the Court were to hold that the subject of the petition is one that is not subject to referendum, would have an improper chilling effect on persons who might exercise their right to petition in the future.

Second, the request for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in paragraph two of the prayer for relief in the complaint appears to be another improper attempt to infringe the defendants' constitutionally protected rights. Although the requested relief is disturbingly vague, I can only assume that its purpose is to prevent the defendants from filing similar petitions in the future. Even if the Court holds that the subject matter of the petition is not one that may be subject to referendum, no government has a right to restrain defendants from filing any petition they choose with the government.

In light of the severe First Amendment problems with the relief you seek in this complaint, you should immediately withdraw it. If you choose to continue to seek declaratory relief, then you should file an amended complaint that does not request either costs or any injunctive relief against the defendants. If you do not, the ACLU will seriously consider entering this suit on behalf of the defendants to protect their rights under the State and Federal constitutions."

Today, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Anderson vs Roe, California's challenge to the January 28 Ninth Circuit Court decision upholding the June 4, 1997 District Court ruling blocking California from reducing the public benefits of eligible new state residents. The January Ninth Circuit ruling was the first Circuit Court decision stopping a state from using the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act to cut the benefits of new residents.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in Anderson vs Roe in January 1999. The ACLU of Southern California, the ACLU of Northern California and the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties represent defendants in this challenge along with the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Western Center on Law and Poverty. This is California's second attempt to reduce welfare benefits to women and children, many of whom are fleeing domestic violence in their states of origin.

Governor Wilson first tried to cut the benefits of new arrivals with a waiver from the Bush Administration in 1992, a scheme the ACLU of Southern California challenged in Green vs Anderson. The District Court declared that proposed policy unconstitutional in 1993 and the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision in 1994. The Supreme Court dismissed California's appeal in February 1997.

ACLU/SC legal director Mark Rosenbaum who will deliver oral arguments before the Court in this case next January said, "This case will decide whether our constitution treats newcomers as bonafide citizens. The Court's decision will affect women and children who come to California seeking to rebuild their lives, but who are met by a governor trying to set up a two-tier system to penalize them for being victims of violence and abuse. That is tragically unsound given California's extraordinarily high cost of living. His cruel scheme failed before the Court before and we expect it to fail now. California cannot detach itself from the union just to keep out poor people seeking a better life."

Judge David Levi issued a preliminary injunction in Doe vs Anderson in June of 1997. The judge said that California may not institute laws that thwart the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by treating new state residents differently from longer-term residents. The Ninth Circuit upheld that decision in January of this year, stopping Governor Wilson from reducing public assistance benefits to qualified families who have lived here for less than one year to the amount they would have received in the state they left.

If California is allowed to reduce benefits to new residents to the amount they would have received in their state of origin, a family of four from Mississippi, for example, would receive $144 a month rather than California's allotment of $673.

Martha Davis, legal director of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund said, "This is a pivotal case for women fleeing domestic abuse, who are forced to move across state lines in order to avoid stalking and violence. Our constitution guarantees that women in this situation must be treated like all other California residents."