LOS ANGELES ? United States District Judge Stephen V. Wilson has granted plaintiffs' request for judgment in the Common Cause v. Jones suit, a ruling that will require California to get rid of its "hanging chad" voting machines by 2004. This is the first post-Bush v. Gore ruling to require that obsolete voting systems be retired in time for the 2004 election.

The ruling is a complete victory for the position taken by the ACLU, on behalf of the AFL-CIO, Common Cause, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, and Chicano Federation of San Diego County. Those groups are represented by the law firms Munger, Tolles & Olson and Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain, along with the ACLU Foundations of Southern California, Northern California, and San Diego.

quot;This landmark decision means that by 2004, 'hanging chad' machines will go the way of black-and-white TV's, 8-track tapes, and the Edsel," said ACLU staff attorney Dan Tokaji. "It does what the Secretary of State should have done years ago: Upgrade the infrastructure of our democracy, by providing a voting system fit for use in the 21st Century. Over 8.4 million California voters can go to the polls in 2004 with confidence that their votes will actually be counted."

"Tens of thousands of voters were disenfranchised in the November 2000 elections, including many people of color, casting a pall over the progress we have made in more than three decades of fighting for voting rights. This California judge's decision is an important first step to making sure that American citizens can have faith in our voting system again," said AFL-CIO President John Sweeney.

In April 2001, the ACLU brought suit to make Secretary of State Bill Jones decertify Votomatic-style punch card machines -- the same kind used in Florida's disastrous 2000 election. These outmoded machines have an error rate more than twice as high as any other system used in California, resulting in the disenfranchisement of thousands of California citizens. For example, Los Angeles County (which still uses a Votomatic punch-card system) had an error rate over four and one-half times that of neighboring Riverside County (which uses modern touch screen machines), in the November 2000 election. People of color are particularly hard hit by the technology gap in voting equipment.

The citizen groups in Common Cause v. Jones argued that it was necessary to retire outdated punch-card machines by 2004, in order to prevent a Florida-style election fiasco from happening here. Secretary of State Jones initially attempted to deny responsibility for fixing California's voting system but, on August 24, 2001, the federal court rejected Jones' attempt to wash his hands of responsibility.

On September 18, 2001, Jones finally conceded that Votomatic-style punch card machines are "obsolete." Nevertheless, Secretary Jones refused to require their replacement in time for the 2004 elections, despite the requests of the ACLU, Common Cause, and other citizen groups. On December 17, 2001, Jones set a replacement date of July 2005 ? over three and one-half years away.

The evidence developed in Common Cause v. Jones shows that the nine affected California counties can easily upgrade their systems in time for the 2004 presidential election. The case was set for trial to begin on February 19, 2002. Judge Wilson's most recent decision, however, means that no trial will be necessary because of the clear evidence that California can replace its "hanging chad" machines by 2004.

"Judge Wilson's decision fulfills the fundamental principle in our constitution that every citizen has the right not just to go the polls on election day, but to have his or her vote actually counted," said Brad Phillips of Munger, Tolles & Olson, one of plaintiffs' attorneys and California Common Cause Board Member. "Because of this decision, voting in California will move out of the dark ages before the 2004 Presidential election, and we will not have to fear the chaos and uncertainty that 'hanging' and 'dimpled' chads caused in Florida in 2000."

"Common Cause is very pleased by this ruling, which will put an end to gross disparities in California's voting system," said Jim Knox, Executive Director of California Common Cause. "In 2004, 'one-person, one-vote' will be more than just a slogan. It will be a reality."

LOS ANGELES ? The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU/SC), representing employees of a Los Angeles child placement agency, Gay and Lesbian Adolescent Social Services (GLASS), today filed a lawsuit against the Southern Counties Placement Committee and several county officials and agencies, for violating the GLASS employees' First Amendment right to express disagreement with the counties' choice of "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger as the keynote speaker at a county-sponsored conference in Palm Springs.

"The case we filed in federal court today is about a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech," said Martha Matthews, David Bohnett Attorney with the ACLU/SC. "When government agencies hold a conference, invite members of the public to attend, and choose a keynote speaker, the government cannot suppress a peaceful, nondisruptive expression of disagreement with the government's choice of speaker."

GLASS, like many other child placement agencies, has participated in the annual Southern Counties Placement Conference for many years. The conference allows county agencies that care for children who cannot live safety at home to learn about providers of placements and services in their area, and for providers to market their services to the county agencies.

GLASS employees were shocked when they learned that the 2001 conference committee, which included Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange County mental health, youth probation, and child welfare agency representatives, chose "Dr. Laura" as the keynote speaker for the September 2001 conference. As has been widely reported, Dr. Laura has publicly referred to gay and lesbian people as "biological errors" and single mothers as "child abusers."

"Someone who the New York Times has called 'The Queen of Hate Radio' should not be presented as a keynote speaker to children's services workers and mental health practitioners," said Teresa DeCrescenzo, Executive Director of GLASS.

Seven GLASS employees decided to attend the 2001 conference, wearing T-shirts with the logo of a website, "StopDrLaura.com," and the question "Are you a biological error?" They also brought copies of an excerpt from a book, "Hate Hurts," about how bigotry harms children.

The GLASS employees registered and paid to attend the conference. Their plan was simply to sit and listen to Dr. Laura's speech, wearing the T-shirts as a silent protest, and use the "Hate Hurts" materials to explain their concerns to other conference attendees. But some of the GLASS employees were never even allowed inside the hotel ballroom. Others, as they waited for "Dr. Laura's" speech to start, were told they'd been "disinvited" from the conference and would have to leave, and were escorted out by police at the conference organizers' request.

"I wanted to educate people about the pain that is caused when youth who are just trying to be accepted for who they are, are told that they are 'biological errors,' and this message is endorsed by county agencies that are supposed to be caring for them," said Michael Ferrera, Director of Public Policy for GLASS.

The lawsuit calls for a permanent injunction requiring defendants and future conference committee members to refrain from suppressing any future non-disruptive protest against the counties' choice of speakers. In addition, the suit also seeks damages for the plaintiffs for the violation of their First Amendment rights.

LOS ANGELES ? The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU/SC), together with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and screeners from the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), announced today that they are filing a lawsuit today challenging the new citizenship requirement for airport screeners enacted as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act last November. Under the new law, thousands of trained, experienced workers will be terminated no later than November 19, 2002.

"Taking qualified, experienced screeners off the job because of their citizenship status won't make anyone safer," said Mark Rosenbaum, Legal Director of the ACLU/SC. "By eliminating thousands of skilled, qualified, and experienced screeners solely on the basis of their citizenship status, and replacing those workers with people who have no on-the-job training or experience, we are opening the door to unnecessary security risks at our airports."

At SFO, where non-citizens comprise 80% of the screener workforce, screeners themselves advocated for higher security standards, improved background checks, and more rigorous employment qualifications for screeners, resulting in one of the nation's best records of airport security.

The citizenship requirement would bar legal immigrants from working as airport screeners even though no such requirement exists for members of the U.S. military, airline pilots, baggage handlers, flight attendants, cargo loaders, mechanics, guards, and plane cleaners.

"I was very upset when I heard that non-U.S. citizens would be fired from the job," said Jeimy Gebin, named plaintiff in the suit and a legal U.S. resident who took a job as a screener at LAX after serving in the U.S. Army for three years. "It doesn't make sense that I can serve my country in the Army but not work in an airport as a screener. If I get fired because of this new law, I could enroll in the National Guard and be back in the airport two weeks later, standing behind the screeners holding a rifle. I believe this law won't make anyone safer, but it will hurt a lot of good, hard-working people."

"Americans want security, not scapegoating," said Eliseo Medina, Executive Vice President of SEIU, the nation's largest union of immigrant workers. "Experienced, qualified, taxpaying immigrant screeners are part of the solution, not part of the problem. They should be allowed to remain on the job."