Download the Complaint

ORANGE COUNTY, CA - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California today filed suit on behalf of the Orange County Dyke March and the Gay and Lesbian Services Center of Orange County (The Center OC) because of unreasonable and unconstitutional permit requirements imposed on the march organizers by the city of Costa Mesa. The suit, filed in federal court, names the city of Costa Mesa as defendant.

'The city's permit scheme is clearly unconstitutional,' said Martha Matthews, Bohnett Attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. 'The Costa Mesa permit scheme invites the very evils the First Amendment forbids: it vests public officials with unbridled discretion to determine who may speak in the public streets and parks and under what conditions, thus allowing the city to favor speech they support and disfavor speech they oppose.'

'We gave the city fair warning,' continued Matthews, referring to a letter sent to the Costa Mesa city council earlier this week. The letter asked the city to revise their existing permit scheme as applied to the march or face a First Amendment lawsuit.

On June 18, 2003, the Orange County Dyke March applied to the City of Costa Mesa for a special events permit to hold a rally and protest march on August 16, 2003. The city approved the permit with 18 conditions, many of which were different from the 8 conditions which were imposed on the 2002 event held in Costa Mesa. Members of the Orange County Dyke March organizing committee met with city officials to negotiate these permit conditions. Organizers received an amended permit with 22 conditions, many of which imposed burdensome requirements that would unfairly interfere with the purpose of the event. When the city and march organizers were unable to reach a compromise, legal action became necessary.

'The conditions were clearly designated to make the process so complicated and so intimidating that we would just give up and go away,' said Lori Hutson, member of the Orange County Dyke March organizing committee. 'Well, we're not going away. We made every effort to follow the permit process the way they wanted, but it was restrictive beyond reason. Some conditions, like requiring our motorcycle riders to provide their personal information prior to the event, constituted invasions of our privacy and showed that the city was anticipating a problem with us. We have given the city no reason to believe the march would be anything but peaceful.'

'We had this event last year with no public safety or security problems,' said Catie Profeta, another member of the Orange County Dyke March committee. 'It was the first event of its kind for lesbian, bisexual, and transgender women on public streets in Orange County since 1989, and it meant a lot to our community. All we want is to have our event again this year, but the city has presented us with a host of permit conditions and roadblocks designed to discourage us. Negotiations with the city have been unsuccessful, and unfortunately we're left with no other option than to go to court to protect our rights.'

'As the fiscal sponsor of Orange County Dyke March, we are in full support of this legal action,' said Terry Stone, Executive Director of The Center OC. 'There are times you have to take a stand for what's right, and this is one of them. We believe the city's conditions are burdensome and oppressive and infringe on Dyke March's right to freedom of speech and assembly.'

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed a federal lawsuit today charging that the use of outdated and obsolete 'punch card' voting machines, the same machines at the center of the controversy surrounding the contested 2000 presidential election in Florida, will needlessly and unlawfully disenfranchise African-American, Latino, and Asian-American voters in counties where such machines are still in use.

Following the contested presidential election of 2000, the ACLU/SC filed suit against the state of California on similar grounds and won. The state then entered into a consent decree, whereby they agreed to replace all 'punch card' voting machines in use by the March 2004 primary election.

'The ACLU of Southern California takes no position on the Governor's recall,' said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU/SC. 'Our interest is in seeing to it that every voter will have his or her vote counted accurately. Most of us are now aware of the problems associated with these voting machines - I don't believe any one of us would like to see a repeat of the Florida presidential election debacle here in the Golden State.'

As many as 8 million voters could be at the mercy of the defective 'VotoMatic' or 'Pollstar' machines. At least six counties in the state (Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara, Solano, and Mendocino) are certain to use 'punch card' voting machines if the election takes place on October 7, 2003.

In the November 2000 presidential election, the error rate for the 'punch card' machines was more than double that of any other system used in the state. 'Votomatic' or 'Pollstar' machines accounted for 74.8% of all ballots cast that did not register a vote for president in California.

'If the October election goes forward, we can predict with absolute certainty that every Californian's vote will not count,' said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU/SC. 'Democracy in California should not hang by a chad.'

The ACLU of Northern California and ACLU of San Diego also joined the ACLU of Southern California in filing today's lawsuit.

LOS ANGELES - The ACLU of Southern California applauds the California Supreme Court's decision affirming the validity of second-parent adoption, a process that allows unmarried couples, including lesbian and gay couples, to establish a legal relationship with the couples' children. The ACLU and other civil rights submitted amicus briefs in the case, which was decided in an opinion announced today.

"This decision treats same-sex couples and their families fairly and respectfully, and prevents harm to the thousands of children whose well-being and security, and whose rights to child support, inheritance, health insurance and other benefits, were threatened by the San Diego court's misreading of the adoption laws," said Martha Matthews, Bohnett Attorney at the ACLU of Southern California.

The Supreme Court's decision strongly endorses second-parent adoptions as authorized by California's adoption statutes. Six out of seven California Supreme Court Justices voted to reverse a decision of the California Court of Appeal in San Diego, which had caused confusion and uncertainty among thousands of California families, by holding that California's adoption laws do not permit second-parent adoptions.

The majority opinion by Justice Werdegar clearly recognized that children of same-sex and other unmarried couples have the same needs for security, stability and legal recognition of actual parental relationships as all other children: "Second parent adoption can secure...legally recognized parentage for a child of a nonbiological parent who otherwise must remain a legal stranger," and can provide "the security and advantages of two parents for some of California's neediest children."

The Court also pointed out the availability of second-parent adoptions "has created settled expectations among many different types of adoptive families," including not only same-sex and unmarried couples who have children through artificial insemination, but families who have adopted children from foster care and 'kinship' adoptions in which a grandparent or other relative becomes a child's second legal parent.

In California, thousands of second parent adoptions have been granted over the past fifteen years, but no appeal court had ruled on their validity until this case arose. In recent years, the concept of second-parent adoption has spread throughout the country. California has now joined eight other jurisdictions in which appellate courts have approved second-parent adoptions, including the District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Also, three state legislatures, California, Connecticut, and Vermont, have enacted adoption statutes that explicitly permit same-sex partners to adopt.