Civil rights groups, including the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, the ACLUs of Northern and Southern California, Equal Rights Advocates and the Employment Law Center, have filed a lawsuit (Barlow vs. Wilson) in Alameda County Superior Court in Northern California challenging Governor Wilson's Executive Order W-172-98 which eliminates monitoring of state contracting.

ACLU of Southern California Legal Director Mark Rosenbaum said, "We bring this suit to stop Governor Wilson's cover-up of the true face of Proposition 209."

The Order, released March 10, requires all state agencies to "cease any enforcement of the minority and women business enterprise participation goals and the good faith effort requirements related thereto under Public Contract Code ﾌ_10115 et seq." In addition, that "[a]ll actions, programs and regulations which seek to monitor, promote, or comply with the minority business enterprise and women business enterprise goals or the good faith efforts thereto under PCC ﾌ_10115 et seq. shall no longer be administered and where appropriate, be repealed."

Plaintiffs charge that by ending the monitoring and reporting provisions of the code, the Governor and State are violating Article III, section 3.5 of the California constitution which requires all state agencies to implement state law, unless and until an appellate decision declares such law unconstitutional.

The Executive Order followed the recent Ninth Circuit decision in the case Monterey Mechanical v. Wilson. In that case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down, based on the Equal Protection Clause, Public Contract Code ﾌ_10115's requirement that contractors make good faith efforts to do outreach to women- and minority-owned firms.

Plaintiffs say the Executive Order goes beyond the elimination of affirmative action goals and outreach, and is being used to end tabulation of the number of minorities and women receiving the State's contracting business. Public Contract Code ﾌ_ 10115.5 requires that "each awarding department shall report to the Governor and the Legislature the level of participation of minority, women, and disabled veteran business enterprises in contracts."

Plaintiffs say that although the Ninth Circuit's decision does not require the State to stop monitoring and reporting on contracting with minority- and women-owned businesses, the State's latest contracting manual, updated immediately after the Executive Order, indicates that this information will no longer be collected.

The lawsuit alleges the people of California and throughout the nation have a right to information regarding the number of women and minority contractors awarded state business contracts. This information is vital determine whether women and minorities have equal access to taxpayer-funded state contracts. In the wake of Prop. 209 and the Ninth Circuit decision, civil rights groups anticipate a severe drop in the number of women and minority-owned businesses receiving state contracts. To gauge the effects of Proposition 209's ending of affirmative action, and to determine the extent to which barriers to women and minorities remain, monitoring information is obviously critical.

The ACLU of Southern California has filed a federal lawsuit [Taylor vs City of Los Angeles 98-1979 GHK (RNBx)] against the City of Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Commission for violating the First Amendment rights of a 23-year-old muralist. The Commission prohibited Richard Taylor from installing a public mural at the Venice Graffiti Pit although his work had been approved by the Cultural Affairs Commission and the Social Public Art Resource Center (SPARC) which coordinated the project.

The lawsuit calls the City's action a violation of free speech under the federal and California constitutions. Further, the suit says action violates the Los Angeles Uniform Building Code which prohibits censorship of "an ideological, political or other non-commercial message on a sign," and an unconstitutional interpretation of the Code. Additionally, the suit claims that the Commission requires artists to waive their rights under the California Civil Code. The ACLU seeks an injunction to stop the City from blocking Taylor's work, a declaration that the City's action violates free speech, that the Uniform Building Code covers public and private property, and that requiring artists to waive their rights in unconstitutional.

Stephen Rohde, ACLU Board Member and cooperating attorney who is representing Taylor said, "The Commission violated Richard Taylor's constitutional rights by basing its decision on the political message of the work. Once a city opens a public forum such as the Venice Graffiti Pit, it cannot deny artists the right to exhibit based on an artist's point of view. This lawsuit embodies the principles that the courts have used to strike down content-based restrictions imposed in 1991 by the Congress on those receiving grants from the National Endowment for the Arts."

In November 1997 Taylor submitted his mural concept which shows a family, apparently immigrant, fleeing from a lurking boar while vultures holding television cameras film the scene. Speaking before the Recreation and Parks Commission, Taylor said his work embodies the tradition of Picasso and Thomas Nast in so far as it utilizes animal imagery to express their ideas. "This is my political idea of what I see going on around me every day and it's my First Amendment right to be able to portray this," Taylor said.

The Venice Graffiti Pit was historically a walled area where people painted navbar without approval or involvement by any public or private. Last year, during a scheduled clean up of the area by the City, the navbar were completely covered when the walls were painted.

The City worked with SPARC to coordinate mural projects following public outcry after the graffiti pit was painted over. Founded in Venice 21 years ago by muralist Judith Baca, SPARC produces public art projects throughout Los Angeles which employ thousands of city youth. Taylor's first image was approved by SPARC last summer, but was painted over because the Recreation and Parks Commission felt it depicted Los Angeles police officers negatively. While Taylor and SPARC objected to the Commission's action, Taylor offered to submit a new image which was rejected by Recreation and Parks Commission.

Taylor attended San Francisco State University and the Art Center College of Design. He has done murals for the AIDS Memorial Quilt and the 50th Anniversary of the United Nations.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the Boy Scouts may exclude members who are either gay or who refuse to affirm the existence of God in the Boy Scout oath. The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California represented both a former Eagle Scout who was rejected as an adult member after his local scout council learned he was gay and twin brothers who refused to say the word "God" when they spoke the Boy Scout oath. The case of the gay scout is Curran v. Mt. Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America and that involving the twin boys is Randall v. Boy Scouts of America Orange County Council.
In these rulings the Court said the Unruh Civil Rights Act does not apply to the Boy Scouts because the Court does not recognize the organization as a business. Because this ruling pertains to state law, it may not be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Taylor Flynn, the ACLU of Southern California staff attorney who argued on behalf of the twins in Randall v. Boy Scouts of America Orange County Council, said, "This is not a victory that the Boy Scouts can be proud of. It tarnishes what that organization is supposed to embody: equal treatment for all boys."
Jon W. Davidson, Supervising Attorney with Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, who argued on behalf of Timothy Curran for the ACLU, clarified that this ruling is limited to California's public accommodations statute. "Lambda and the ACLU are litigating this issue across the country. Most recently, in an ACLU case in Illinois, the City of Chicago agreed to withdraw sponsorship of the Boy Scouts based on the ACLU's claim that this violated separation of church and state. The Chicago Human Relations Commission likewise recently ruled that the Boy Scouts anti-gay policy violates its city anti-discrimination ordinance. Earlier this month in a case brought by Lambda, the New Jersey Court of Appeal ruled that Scouting's expulsion of James Dale because he is gay violated New Jersey's public accommodations law. The days of the Boy Scouts' discriminatory policies are numbered."
While the ruling applies only to California law Davidson said, "it is a shame that this ruling shields blatantly discriminatory conduct on the part of an important American institution from even one state's law. Discrimination by the Boy Scouts is wrong, whether it be today's banishing of gay people and religious nonbelievers or the organization's past racial segregation of troops and exclusion of Japanese-American children after World War II. `A Scout is prejudiced' should not be a thirteenth point of Scout law."
Lynette Sperber, representing Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said at the news conference, "As a native Californian, I can tell you that this decision not only tarnishes the Boy Scouts, it tarnishes this state. It says that we as Californians believe in discrimination and I know that not's true. I ask all Californians to join with us in sending a clear message to the Boy Scouts that until they take discrimination out of Scouting, we'll withdraw our dollars and our support."
In the Randall case in California, the brothers have received exemplary evaluations by troop leaders throughout their years as scouts and were awarded their Eagle Badges on March 15 after a unanimous vote by the Orange County Council Eagle board of review. "While the Boy Scouts may say that Michael and William aren't Eagle Scouts because the Orange County Council vote had not yet been confirmed by the National Council, to our knowledge, the National Council never failed to approve an Eagle award once granted by a board of review," said Flynn. "And, as Scouts' attorney, George Davidson, said in superior court last month, `Once an Eagle Scout, always an Eagle Scout.'"
Flynn said that organizations which donate money to Scouting should refuse to support discrimination. She said some organizations have already chosen to withdraw their support, giving the example of Levi Strauss and the United Way of San Francisco, which stopped funding Scouting because gay Scouts are excluded. In the Randall case, the Orange County Council had signed an agreement with the United Way, from whom the Council received approximately $750,000 per year, stating that it would not require a Scout to participate in any religious activity.
"It's now up to organizations such as the United Way, as well as the police and fire departments and other governmental entities which support Scouting, to make sure that their money is not funding discrimination," said Flynn. Flynn pointed out that this is particularly true for government sponsors of Scouting. "Taxpayer dollars should not support discrimination. Moreover, the Boy Scouts take the position that they are a religious organization. If true, then government sponsorship of Scout troops violates both the constitution's equal protection clause and its requirement of the separation between church and state."
Speaking at the news conference, James Randall, attorney and father of the Randall twins said, "On behalf of my wife Valerie and Michael and William, this is truly a sad day for freedom, for justice and for equality. The Court's decision may kick Michael and William out of Scouting but it cannot kick Scouting out of Michael and William.
"While this may be a legal victory for the Boy Scouts of America, it is not a moral or just victory and we challenge Jere Ratcliffe, the Chief Executive Officer of Scouting and Kent Gibbs the Chief Executive of the Orange County Council and the others who never chose to meet my sons to come out of their hiding places and meet two young men whose honesty, courage and integrity exemplify what Scouting is supposed to be about. While Michael and William will hand up their Scouting uniforms, they will never hang up the courage and honesty that led them to this important fight. In the year's to come, this unfortunate decision will undoubtedly be viewed as a dark day in Scouting. We look forward to the day when all California's young men are welcomed into an organization that says it believes in equality."