Civil Rights

SAN DIEGO – California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today released a report, including newly obtained videotapes, that shows some members of the community organizing group ACORN engaged in “highly inappropriate behavior,” but committed no violation of criminal laws.

Brown’s report also uncovered “likely violations” of state law, including dumping 500 pages of confidential records into a dumpster, failure to file a 2007 tax return, and four instances of possible voter registration fraud by ACORN in San Diego in connection with the 2008 election, as well as other irregularities in the group’s California operations. These irregularities have been referred to the appropriate authorities.

“A few ACORN members exhibited terrible judgment and highly inappropriate behavior in videotapes obtained in the investigation,” Brown said. “But they didn’t commit prosecutable crimes in California.”

Last September, Gov. Schwarzenegger asked Brown to investigate the activities of ACORN in California. His request was triggered by tapes made by undercover videographer James O’Keefe III that purported to show ACORN employees providing advice on how to conduct a prostitution ring and commit other serious crimes.

But new, unedited videotapes discovered through Brown’s investigation, as well as other evidence, shed clearer light on interactions between O’Keefe and the now-defunct ACORN.

Videotapes secretly recorded last summer and severely edited by O’Keefe seemed to show ACORN employees encouraging a “pimp” (O’Keefe) and his “prostitute,” actually a Florida college student named Hannah Giles, in conversations involving prostitution by underage girls, human trafficking and cheating on taxes. Those videos created a media sensation.

Evidence obtained by Brown tells a somewhat different story, however, as reflected in three videotapes made at ACORN locations in California. One ACORN worker in San Diego called the cops. Another ACORN worker in San Bernardino caught on to the scheme and played along with it, claiming among other things that she had murdered her abusive husband. Her two former husbands are alive and well, the Attorney General’s report noted. At the beginning and end of the Internet videos, O’Keefe was dressed as a 1970s Superfly pimp, but in his actual taped sessions with ACORN workers, he was dressed in a shirt and tie, presented himself as a law student, and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.

“The evidence illustrates,” Brown said, “that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.”

The original storm of publicity created by O’Keefe’s videotapes was instrumental in ACORN’s subsequent denunciation in Congress, a sudden tourniquet on its funding, and the organization’s eventual collapse.

In New Orleans, O’Keefe faces a maximum sentence of six months in prison and a fine of $5,000 on reduced federal charges related to misrepresentation in gaining access to the Louisiana office telephones of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu.

Brown’s report found numerous faults with ACORN’s activities in California, including:

• Failure to “recruit, train and monitor its employees to ensure compliance” with state law.

• Likely violation of state civil laws designed to protect personal information when employees of the San Diego office disposed of 20,000 pages of records in a dumpster. These violations could result in private litigation if any of the victims were injured by disclosure.

• Four instances of “possible voter registration fraud in San Diego in connection with the 2008 election.”

• Failure to file a 2007 state tax return, an omission the Franchise Tax Board is pursuing.

• Sloppiness in its handling of charitable assets, although no misuse of those assets was found. The California Attorney General will monitor investigations into ACORN’s overall finances by the IRS and Louisiana Attorney General.

ACORN announced that it is closing its operations nationwide today. While a successor to ACORN in California called ACCE emphasizes that it is no longer part of ACORN, the Attorney General’s report notes that ACCE is “run by the same people, raising concerns about its ability to cure the defects in the organization.” The report notes that the Attorney General will closely scrutinize ACCE’s operations.

The full Attorney General’s report is attached. The unedited O’Keefe videotapes from California are available on the Attorney General’s website at http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/multimedia/index.php. Tapes from other states are available on request.

San Francisco -- Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today renewed his call for the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8, in advance of Thursday's oral arguments.

His comments can be found at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-brown/proposition-8-should-be-s_b_17...

The text of Attorney General Brown's post follows:

Proposition 8 Should Be Struck Down

The California Supreme Court finds itself center stage this Thursday when it will hear oral arguments on whether it should uphold Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage.

The case touches the heart of our democracy and poses a profound question: can a bare majority of voters strip away an inalienable right through the initiative process? If so, what possible meaning does the word inalienable have?

The state faced a dilemma like this before. In 1964, 65 percent of California voters approved Proposition 14, which would have legalized racial discrimination in the selling or renting of housing. Both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts struck down this proposition, concluding that it amounted to an unconstitutional denial of rights.

As California's Attorney General, I believe the Court should strike down Proposition 8 for remarkably similar reasons -- because it unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and deprives them of the fundamental right to marry.

Some vigorously disagree. That's the position of Ken Starr and those who argue that a simple majority can eliminate the right to marry. But such a claim completely ignores California's history and the nature of our constitution.

Fundamental rights in California are recognized and protected by our constitution, which declares in Article I, Section 1 that 'all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights' and 'among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.'

These fundamental premises of a free people were declared when the constitution was first adopted. The initiative process came much later in 1911, when the immediate concern was to give the people power over the railroads, which were seen as having a stranglehold over the legislature. In creating this initiative process, there was no discussion or any evidence of intent to permit a simple majority of voters to take away the pre-existing rights deemed inalienable by Article I.

In 2008, the California Supreme Court was faced with the question of how the values enshrined in Article I apply to same sex marriages. It concluded that the concept of 'liberty' includes the right to form the enduring relationship called marriage and that no compelling interest justified denying this right to same sex couples. Just like the right to be free from discrimination in housing, citizens have the right to be free from discrimination in state-granted marriage licenses.

With this Supreme Court decision, same sex marriage has the protection of Article 1 and, like other inalienable rights, cannot be taken away by a popular vote -- whether it be 52% (as was the case in Proposition 8) or 65% (as it was for Proposition 14).

I believe, therefore, the Court must conclude as I have that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and should be stricken.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Contact: Christine Gasparac: (916) 324-5500

San Francisco – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today filed a brief in federal court opposing a preliminary injunction that would conceal the identities of contributors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.

“Political democracy demands open debate, including prompt disclosure of the identities of campaign donors,” Attorney General Brown said. “Backers of Proposition 8 should not be allowed to carve out a special privilege of anonymity for themselves alone.”

The opposition brief, filed today with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, contends that Proposition 8 supporters do not meet the criteria for the limited exemption to valid campaign disclosure laws, an exemption developed by the Supreme Court to protect the ability of historically persecuted minority parties to engage in political speech. This limited exemption has applied to groups like the Socialist Workers Party in Ohio and the NAACP in Alabama in 1958, which both demonstrated that disclosure would result in significant harm and threaten the viability of their organizations.

By contrast, the supporters of Proposition 8 are a well-financed association of individuals who raised nearly $30 million in support of a ballot measure that received 52.3 percent of the vote. There is no risk that disclosure of donors will harm their ability to organize or otherwise pursue their political views.

Additionally, there is no justification to shield donors from post-election reporting requirements. Rather, these requirements help to prevent kickbacks, laundering, and other improper uses of campaign funds.

Any instances of violence or harassment against donors are deeply regrettable, but California’s civil and criminal justice systems are the appropriate venues to seek relief from potentially illegal conduct.

The bottom line is that the State’s campaign finance disclosure laws result in more speech, not less, and the public’s interest is better served in this case by requiring disclosure from those supporters of Proposition 8 who donated $100 or more.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 22, 2009
Contact: Christine Gasparac (916) 324-5500

Attorney General Brown Sues Bakersfield Contractor for Violating Rights of Workers

BAKERSFIELD – California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today filed a lawsuit to recover $4.13 million in lost wages, benefits and penalties from a drywall contractor who “cruelly and illegally” violated the rights of its workers by prohibiting them from taking rest breaks, denying overtime pay and forcing them to work without safety equipment.

“This company failed to provide safe working conditions for its workers and then cheated them out of overtime pay and benefits,” Attorney General Brown said. “Employees were cruelly and illegally forced to work long hours without state-required breaks or compensation.”

The lawsuit, filed in Kern County Superior Court against Bakersfield-based Charles Evleth Construction, alleges that because the firm did not pay its workers a fair wage or pay state taxes, Evleth had an unfair advantage over its competitors and could underbid them for jobs.

The lawsuit alleges that Charles Evleth Construction, Inc.:

• Failed to provide its employees with overtime pay, instead paying them a daily flat rate.
• Prevented its employees from taking breaks.
• Withheld wages from employees and used the savings for incentive pay for supervisors.
• Failed to provide its employees with work tools, forcing them to provide their own.
• Failed to properly provide workers’ compensation coverage for their employees.
• Denied its employees a correct, itemized written statement of their wages.
• Paid its employees with cash, avoiding state and federal taxes, state unemployment insurance and the state disability fund payments.
• Failed to provide its employees with required safety equipment.

Attorney General Brown seeks $3.13 million in restitution for workers and $1 million in civil penalties for violations of California law requiring employers to provide overtime pay, breaks, workers’ compensation and other benefits for employees. The lawsuit also seeks a permanent injunction against future violations.

The Underground Economy Unit of the Attorney General’s Office conducted the investigation. The Unit interviewed many of Evleth’s employees and found nearly 1,200 violations of California law.

Today’s action follows lawsuits filed last fall against trucking companies in Los Angeles and is part of the Attorney General’s ongoing crackdown on businesses that evade taxes and fail to provide employees with state-required benefits.

The lawsuit is attached.

Sacramento -- Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today renewed his call for the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because it deprives people of the right to marry—an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution.

“The amendment process cannot be used by a bare majority to strip away the fundamental and inalienable rights of a protected minority without a compelling justification,” Attorney General Brown said. “Since there is no compelling justification, Proposition 8 must be stricken.”

Attorney General Brown today responded to the 63 “Friend of the Court” briefs that were filed last week with the California Supreme Court. Brown contends that the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights enshrined in article I, section 1 of the California Constitution without compelling justification. The court found in the In re Marriage Cases that no such compelling justification exists. Accordingly, Proposition 8 must be stricken.

Brown also takes on the arguments of supporters of Proposition 8 head on.

Brown argues that Proposition 8 supporters are wrong to suggest that the people’s right to amend the Constitution through the initiative process is unlimited and that the Court does not have the authority to invalidate Proposition 8. The Court, in fact, has exercised judicial review previously to invalidate a constitutional amendment that was deemed substantively improper.

He also argues Proposition 8 does not invalidate the same-sex marriages entered into between June 16 and November 4, 2008, as some Proposition 8 supporters contend. To invalidate those marriages, Brown argues, would violate the due process rights of those same-sex couples who entered into marriage based on the Court’s ruling in In re: Marriage Cases.

(Sacramento) -- Attorney General Jerry Brown was today awarded the “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Legacy Award” by the Legislative Black Caucus for his work in making Dr. King’s birthday an official day of remembrance in California.

“Today we recognize the unparalleled legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr, who continues to inspire hope and action in the struggle for equal rights,” Attorney General Brown said. “We must follow his lead and address the problems that we continue to face today.’

Also honored were former Senate President Pro Tempore David Roberti, who served as the leader of the Senate, Chancellor Harris, who as a Member of the Assembly authored the legislation, former Speaker Willie L. Brown, Jr., who was Speaker of the Assembly at the time, the California State Conference NAACP, which marshaled grass roots support for the bill, and Oakland Technical High School, which sponsored the bill.

The day began with a special breakfast reception, where honorees received commemorative plaques, and spoke briefly on the work they did. The state Assembly also held a special ceremony on the Assembly Floor, with honorees receiving resolutions of recognition.

The bill officially honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was Assembly Bill 312, which was signed by then-Governor Jerry Brown on September 3, 1981.

Sacramento – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today called upon the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because it deprives people of the right to marry—an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution.

“Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Attorney General Brown said.

In this case, Attorney General Brown concludes that existing case-law precedents of the Court do not invalidate Proposition 8 either as a revision or as a violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine. But this does not resolve the matter.

In the In re Marriages Cases, the Court held that article I, section 1 of the California Constitution provides a right to marry that cannot be denied to same-sex couples. Attorney General Brown argues that in order to invalidate such a fundamental right, the Court must determine that there is a compelling justification to do so. But in the In re Marriage Cases, the court found that no such compelling justification exists. Accordingly, Proposition 8 must be stricken.

Attorney General Brown believes that same-sex marriages entered into between June 16 and November 4, 2008 are valid and recognized in California regardless of whether Proposition 8 is upheld.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 17, 2008
Contact: Christine Gasparac (916) 324-5500

Attorney General Brown Urges California Supreme Court to Review Constitutionality of Proposition 8

SACRAMENTO—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today urged the California Supreme Court to accept review of the legal challenges to Proposition 8 and for this matter of widespread concern to be “promptly resolved.”

“The profound importance of the issues raised by Proposition 8 warrants that this matter be reviewed and promptly resolved by the California Supreme Court.” Attorney General Brown said.

In a set of briefs filed with the Court today, Attorney General Brown wrote that: “review by this Court is necessary to ensure uniformity of decision, finality and certainty for the citizens of California. The constitutionality of the change created by Proposition 8 impacts whether same-sex marriages may issue in California and whether same-sex marriages from other states will be recognized here. There is significant public interest in prompt resolution of the legality of Proposition 8. The Court can provide certainty and finality in this matter.”

Typically, matters are brought before lower courts before the Supreme Court hears the case. However, petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to accept the review directly to bring an early resolution to the matter.

Attorney General Brown opposes a stay on Proposition 8, arguing that it would increase uncertainty related to marriages performed in California. The Attorney General’s brief states that “the public interest would be best served not by issuing a temporary stay, but by an expedited resolution of the important issues raised by the petitions.”

Attorney General Brown continues to believe that same-sex marriages performed between June 17 and November 4, 2008 remain valid and will be upheld by the Court.

Attached are the briefs that were filed today with the Court.

SACRAMENTO--In response to today’s Sacramento Superior Court decision to deny a lawsuit challenging the title and summary and ballot label for Proposition 8, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued the following statement:

“This lawsuit was more about politics than the law. The court properly dismissed it.”

One of the many responsibilities of the attorney general is to prepare a title and summary for initiative measures. For more information visit: http://ag.ca.gov/initiatives/index.php

The court’s order, issued today, is attached.