LOS ANGELES - In votes last night, two Southern California city councils passed resolutions upholding the human rights and civil liberties of all residents and opposing provisions of the USA-PATRIOT Act that infringe on residents' rights and liberties. The cities of Santa Monica and Claremont become the second and third localities in Southern California and thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth localities in the country to oppose portions of the USA-PATRIOT Act.

The American Civil Liberties Union, together with local activists and residents concerned with civil liberties encroachments brought about by the USA-PATRIOT Act, has been leading a nationwide campaign to help citizens voice their dissent and take action at the local level.

"Last night, the city of Santa Monica affirmed the city's strong commitment to civil liberties by insisting that efforts to end terrorism not be waged at the expense of our basic liberties," said Nancy Greenstein, ACLU/SC board member and Santa Monica resident. "Santa Monica joins a growing list of localities throughout the nation demanding that the Administration respect the fundamental freedoms that make this country unique."

Localities from Denver, Colorado, to Oakland, California and Flagstaff, Arizona have passed similar measures.

The city of Claremont resolution calls for a wide public education campaign, the first of its kind in the nation, that will include the creation and distribution of a "white paper" outlining the provisions of the USA-PATRIOT Act that infringe on civil liberties of persons in Claremont. In addition, the city will devote a "Citizen Facilitator" to coordinate information from the Claremont police department, Claremont residents, local libraries or bookstores, and any "third parties" with information regarding civil liberties infringements committed against Claremont residents. The information collected by the Citizen Facilitator would then be formally presented to the City Council, City Clerk and the public.

"The city of Claremont showed a strong commitment and dedication to the rights of their residents last night," said Rose Ash, ACLU/SC board member and Pomona Valley chapter activist. "Dedicating a Citizen Facilitator to oversee and report on civil liberties infringements really puts a bite behind the resolution's bark and sends a message that the city of Claremont places a high value on residents' rights as well as their safety."

"This is wonderful news," said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California. "Our members and activists have worked long and hard with residents in both localities to secure passage of these measures. The message to Attorney General Ashcroft is growing louder and louder as residents throughout the nation step up in defense of the Bill of Rights."

SAN FRANCISCO - In a ruling handed down today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a federal district court's ruling in the first-of-its-kind Internet political speech case. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court erred in dismissing certain claims and in refusing to decide other claims until a state court could determine whether California's election laws apply to these websites. The case, Porter v. Jones, goes back to the district court for further proceedings.

"We are very pleased that the Ninth Circuit has reversed the District Court's ruling and that we will have the opportunity to prove that our clients activities were political speech protected by the First Amendment," said Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney with the ACLU/SC.

In the weeks leading up to the 2000 presidential election, the tight contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore and the high level of interest in the third party presidential candidates prompted the creation of many internet sites that discussed the effect of the electoral college and various voting strategies. The sites included www.votexchange2000.com, www.voteswap2000.com, and www.nadertrader.com The purpose of the websites was to provide information about the political system and to match together people from "safe" and "swing" states with complimentary voting preferences. California Secretary of State Bill Jones sent a cease and desist letter to the operators of www.votexchange2000.com. The Secretary of State threatened to prosecute the site's operator under the California Elections Code sections 18521 and 18522 for brokering the exchange of votes. Similar letters were also sent to internet service providers such as Yahoo! and Register.com.

The site's operator, Alan Porter, together with the Democratic Law Students at UCLA, filed suit against Jones for denying them freedom of speech and association in violation of the First Amendment.

"By reversing the decision below, this ruling recognizes the important role that the Internet can play in a democracy," said Lisa Danetz, staff attorney with the National Voting Rights Institute. "The Internet is a powerful technology that allows all voters a relatively low-cost opportunity to form political associations and discuss voting strategies. We are confident that, with this case now moving toward trial, we will achieve an important victory for the rights of ordinary citizens in the political process."

"We're pleased that the court's ruling permits us to challenge the legality of the Secretary of State's partisan attempt to silence political speech on the Internet during the 2000 election," said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director for the ACLU/SC. "The Secretary of State's censorship represented the only time since the inception of the Internet that purely political websites were shut down by the government. The decision of the Ninth Circuit reopens the litigation contesting this official suppression of dialogue about perhaps the most vital question in our constitutional democracy: how shall each citizen's vote be cast for president?"

RIVERSIDE, CA - Documents unsealed in federal court recently charge the Old Baldy Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Inc. with fraudulently obtaining taxpayer funds to sponsor recruitment activities in the cities of Montclair and Ontario. The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed suit on behalf of an area resident and ACLU/SC board member, Glenn Goodwin, in August of 2002. The lawsuit has remained under seal until just recently, to give the U.S. Department of Justice time to decide whether to intervene.

The suit was filed under the Federal False Claims Act, which allows concerned citizens with knowledge of fraud used to obtain federal funds to file suit on behalf of the United States government. The suit charges that the Boy Scouts of America openly discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and religion, so it cannot truthfully promise to comply with state and federal non-discrimination laws.

'This isn't about the Boy Scout's right to choose its own members,' said Glenn Goodwin, plaintiff in the federal suit. 'This is about an organization that lied to obtain taxpayer funds. Isn't telling the truth a part of the Scout Oath?'

The Old Baldy Council of the Boy Scouts of America applied for and received a federal Community Development Block Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in August of 2001. The grant was for recruitment of boys in public schools to form new Cub Scout and Boy Scout troops. As an express condition of this $15,000 grant, the Council signed a certification of compliance with federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination in employment and provision of services and benefits. The suit charges that the Scouts had no intention of honoring that commitment because their rules prohibit hiring, or accepting as youth or adult members, gays and lesbians and people who refuse to swear an oath to God.

'The Old Baldy Council cannot comply with the Boy Scouts of America's national policy of discrimination and at the same time comply with state and federal anti-discrimination laws,' said Martha Matthews, Bohnett Attorney with the ACLU/SC. 'The Boy Scouts can't have it both ways - they must either stop discriminating in employment and membership, or stop receiving taxpayer money.'