The ACLU of Southern California today filed a federal lawsuit [Valley Vote vs City of Los Angeles] against the City of Los Angeles and the manager of the city-owned Van Nuys airport for discrimination against a San Fernando Valley group seeking signatures for a petition to initiate a study on the creation of an independent city in the San Fernando Valley. Plaintiffs, Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment (VOTE) charge that city employees impeded group efforts to collect signatures at several locations including a well-attended air show.

The ACLU says that these actions violate both United States and California constitutional guarantees of free political speech in public places and also show a pattern of discrimination against Valley VOTE and are not just isolated actions taken by errant city employees.

Attorney Peter Eliasberg said, "The ACLU is committed to the promise of free speech and freedom to petition. And freedom of petition means most of all, freedom from government interference. In this case the issues are clear, in fact the Los Angeles City Council already admitted that the city was wrong when it barred Valley VOTE from the air show. This suit seeks to protect Valley VOTE's right to free expression and to ensure that it is compensated for the efforts and monies it must expend to try to recover from the damage caused by the city's denying it the ideal opportunity to exercise its First Amendment rights."

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to prevent the city from taking further actions to impede signature gathering and damages as determined by the court to allow Valley VOTE to hire signature gatherers to collect the number of signatures it estimates it would have obtained at the annual air show, which, the complaint notes, is the largest annual event held in the San Fernando Valley.

The California Government code requires Valley VOTE to Valley VOTE to gather the needed 25 percent of the registered Valley voters, approximately 135,000 valid signatures, by August 27 to initiate a feasibility study on city-hood which is the first step towards putting the issue before the voters. Plaintiffs charge that city interference impeded their efforts in this regard, forcing them to take legal action. At a number of events held in city-owned facilities, city employees tried to interfere with Valley VOTE efforts to gather signatures and engage in other speech activities, which plaintiffs charge is a direct violation of constitutional rights. The most blatant incidents occurred the weekend of July 18 and 19 at the Van Nuys airport.

Over the July 18-19 weekend, numerous Valley VOTE volunteers tried to enter the air show, but were denied entry by city employees. One volunteer was ejected after entering the event and getting more than 80 signatures in about one hour. Valley VOTE estimates that it would have been able to collect at least between 15,000 and 25,000 signatures at the air show based on the number of petition gatherers available and the 250,000-person-strong audience.

The ACLU emphasizes it takes no position on the issue of San Fernando Valley city-hood. Representation of Valley VOTE is based solely on the ACLU's continuing commitment to defend the free speech provisions of both United States and California constitutions, which ensure the right of individuals to engage in all speech, including political speech, in a public area.

This afternoon, the ACLU of Southern California faxed a second demand letter to El Monte Police Chief Wayne Clayton calling for the El Monte Police Department to ensure the safety of those seeking services at the Family Planning Medical Center located at 11046 Valley Mall Boulevard in El Monte. The ACLU sent its first letter on July 16 after an ACLU member and clinic escort witnessed attacks against women entering the clinic.

Since March, groups including the National Organization of Women and the League of Women Voters have contacted the El Monte Police Department demanding that the department ensure the safety of patients. None of the letters or other communications have been answered.

ACLU/SC attorney Taylor Flynn, who sent today's letter, said that unless the police chief responds and directs his officers to defend those seeking services at the clinic, the ACLU will be forced to take legal action. The text of the letter follows:

"The ACLU Foundation of Southern California ("ACLU") is writing again to express its grave concern about the repeated assaults and batteries against women seeking access to the Family Planning Medical Center ("Center") at 11046 " Valley Mall Boulevard in El Monte. We are particularly concerned about the El Monte Police Department's ("Department") failure to respond to this urgent situation despite repeated written requests from several organizations, including the League of Women Voters, the National Organization of Women, and the ACLU. In our July 16th letter to you, the ACLU detailed the actions of demonstrators at the Center, set forth the federal law which criminalizes and provides civil damages for the very type of actions described, and requested assurance from the Department that it would ensure the safety of all concerned as required by the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. ﾌ_ 248 ("FACE"). We received no response. On Saturday, August 1st, yet another woman was reportedly assaulted by a protester a woman who apparently tried to file a complaint with your Department and was refused.

"While the ACLU is committed to guaranteeing First Amendment rights of free expression, the constitutionally recognized right to choose as well as a woman's safety and thd by the very entity entrusted with assuring their safety, the police. On August 1, 1998, demonstrators reportedly blocked a woman from entering the Center and grabbed her. This is a clear example of a violation of the federal law known as FACE, as well as of the California laws which make battery a crime. After being called, three officers from your Department apparently arrived and refused to take a complaint which the woman requested to file. Moreover, the officers reportedly refused to review three similar written complaints which had taken place in the past two weeks. Particularly disturbing is the report that, during the time the woman was attempting to file her complaint, one officer left to take a phone call and upon his return stated to his fellow officers, "It was Clayton."

"The El Monte Police Department has had more than enough warning, over a period of many months, that both federal and state law explicitly protect the access of women, their escorts, and employees to abortion clinics. The Department has likewise been informed, on numerous occasions and by various sources, that Center protestors have been assaulting women and violating federal and state law. As you know, the Department is charged with the non-discriminatory enforcement of all laws and with the protection of the safety of all persons. The Department is not free to pick and choose which laws to enforce, which complaints to accept, or which persons to protect.

"Given the urgency of the situation, the ACLU expects that the Department will take immediate steps to guarantee safe access to the Center by providing protection for the staff, escorts and women who enter the Clinic and by thoroughly investigating the complaints made by those attempting to enter the Center, including all such complaints brought to the Department's attention in the past several months. If these actions which require nothing more than carrying out federal and state law are not implemented at once, we will have no choice but to take appropriate legal action. Please contact me tomorrow, August 5, 1998 to discuss this matter. Thank you very much for your cooperation."

The ACLU California and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) will seek a Temporary Restraining Order from U.S. District Court Judge Lourdes Baird this afternoon at a 2:00 p.m. hearing to stop the state's largest school district from implementing Prop. 227, passed by voters June 3, that would abolish bilingual education programs in public schools throughout California. Plaintiffs filed the federal class action lawsuit [Diana Doe vs LAUSD - 98-6154 LGB (RZx)] yesterday.

More than half of Los Angeles Unified School Districts's 600,000 students currently participate in some form of bilingual education. Plaintiffs say that implementation of the measure will seriously disrupt their academic progress and jeopardize their access to an equal education.

Plaintiffs are making an as-applied challenge claiming that Prop. 227 violates the Equal Educational Opportunities Act that requires schools to serve the specific needs of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students, and that the measure also violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination based on national origin in any program receiving federal funds.

In papers submitted to the court, plaintiffs say that Los Angeles Unified School District's proposed Implementation Plan for Proposition 227 "cannot provide an adequate program of instruction for those multi-track schools scheduled to commence their term on August 3, 1998, or any time prior to adequate teacher training and curriculum development."

Plaintiffs charge that the district has not taken adequate steps to train teachers, develop effective curriculum, prepare students for English immersion or in an significant way ensure that any new program or policy will not harm the educational progress of LEP students.

ACLU staff attorney Rocio Cordoba said the measure will harm LEP students. "Prop 227 is a sweeping, unprecedented and educationally unsound policy that would force LAUSD and school districts state-wide to abandon local control and oversight over the best ways to serve the needs of their students. We cannot allow political whim or prejudice to destroy the academic progress of our children, particularly those most vulnerable. We are optimistic that the court will recognize the folly of destroying these programs because of political expediency."