 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
home > resources > archive ACLU of Utah Reporter: Fall 2006 PDF version >> Inside this issue: ACLU of Utah Announces New Executive Director From Karen McCreary ACLU Forum: Students’ Rights to Form Gay/Straight Alliances Note from Dani Eyer Polygamy and the Constitution Sandy City Ordinance Revised to Protect First Amendment Rights The State Agrees Not to Enforce Key Provisions of Internet Censorship Law Veteran Allowed to Walk Length of State to Protest Iraq War ACLU Marriage Equality Cases ACLU of Utah 2006 Ballot About the ACLU of Utah _________________________ ACLU of Utah Announces New Executive Director The board of directors of the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah is pleased to announce that it has selected Karen McCreary, an attorney and dedicated community volunteer, to be the new executive director of the organization. ACLU of Utah President Sue Marquardt, who served as chair of the search committee, noted that McCreary’s extensive legal and community service experience make her an ideal fit for the ACLU of Utah. “Karen’s intellect, accomplishments, enthusiasm, wide range of experience, and sense of humor are just several of the reasons for the board’s unanimous decision to choose her to direct the Utah ACLU affiliate,” said Marquardt. McCreary’s professional legal experience includes over a dozen years as associate and senior associate general counsel for the University of Utah. She has also worked as general counsel for the Western Governors University, has been an associate attorney at a private law firm, and a judicial law clerk for Federal Court Judge David Winder. In addition to her legal career, McCreary has been involved in a variety of service activities, including international relief work in Africa and India, migrant worker education and advocacy in Alabama, and instruction and counseling for at-risk youth. Among other volunteer positions she has held, she is a past-president and current board member of the Salt Lake City chapter of Amigos de las Americas, an elder and deacon at the Wasatch Presbyterian Church, and a trustee of Prescott College in Arizona. McCreary, who grew up in Colorado, received an undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado, a master of arts from the University of Denver Graduate School of International Studies, and a law degree from the University of Utah. She has called Utah home for over twenty-five years. The ACLU of Utah search committee, which, in addition to Marquardt, included Karen Denton, Laurie Wood, Lincoln Hobbs, Robert Wood, Jill Sheinberg, and Trystan Smith, received over fifty applications, interviewed a dozen nominees, and met again with four finalists before unanimously choosing McCreary to lead the organization. “For almost fifty years, the ACLU of Utah has protected fundamental freedoms and individual liberties for all Utahns,” said Sheinberg, Utah board representative to the national ACLU. “The board of directors looks forward to the next phase for our affiliate, led by Karen, with her depth of professional and community experience.” Return to top of page _________________________ From Karen McCreary Dear members and friends, I am very excited to be the incoming executive director of the ACLU of Utah. I look forward to working with you, the staff, board, members, and friends of the ACLU, as together we create a world of equality and justice. It is an honor to follow in the footsteps of Dani Eyer who has worked so effectively and energetically to protect our fundamental freedoms and liberties as executive director since 2002. Social justice and civil liberties have been my passion since I was young. My parents’ lifelong commitment to international peace and justice work has influenced me deeply. We lived for several years in India, where my interest in other cultures and religions was initially nurtured. I have also lived and worked in Malawi, New Zealand, and Mexico. I come to the ACLU from a career in law and in higher education in Utah, practicing law in a law firm, as in-house corporate counsel, and as counsel to the University of Utah and Western Governors University. I’ve taught as an adjunct faculty member, worked in faculty administration, and serve as a college trustee. The opportunity to keep educational opportunities available and open to all in our democratic society invigorates me. I’ve been active in community affairs and volunteer work, including service on the boards of several nonprofit organizations. Prior to law school, I worked with adjudicated adolescents and taught. My husband, Kent Alderman, and I have four sons in our blended family. I am passionately committed to the values and principles of the American Civil Liberties Union. These are very difficult times for our country and for our democratic institutions. The erosion of our country’s commitment to civil liberties and to the principles of the Constitution has serious consequences both within our borders and throughout the world. And yet these are hopeful times in which the efforts of dedicated individuals working together can have a profound influence on the creation of a better world. I am honored by this opportunity to work with the ACLU of Utah. Warm regards, Karen Williams McCreary Return to top of page _________________________ ACLU Forum: Students’ Right to Form Gay/Straight Alliances Every year, the ACLU of Utah receives calls from Utah high school students who wish to form student clubs where they can express gay-positive viewpoints and work to create a safer school environment for lesbian and gay youth. Often called Gay/Straight Alliances, or GSAs, these clubs are becoming more common throughout the country, and are important resources for gay and straight students alike. Unfortunately, some school administrators and lawmakers have discouraged students from forming GSAs, either by attempting to prohibit the clubs outright, or by denying them the same access to school resources as other student clubs. ACLU of Utah Legal Director Margaret Plane explains why both of these tactics are illegal and why students have the right to form GSAs in their public high schools. Why do schools have to allow GSAs? GSAs must be understood in the context of the 1984 federal Equal Access Act. Under the Act, if a public high school allows any student group whose purpose is not directly related to the curriculum to meet on school grounds, then it must provide all other non-curricular student groups equal access to the school’s resources. In other words, schools may not pick and choose among non-curricular student clubs based on their preferences for what students discuss. If the school does so and it treats some non-curricular clubs differently than others, then it risks losing its federal funding. The Equal Access Act upholds students’ rights to free speech and association, which are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. What is the difference between curricular and non-curricular clubs? The Equal Access Act applies to non-curricular clubs, which the U.S. Supreme Court has found to be student clubs that are not “directly related” to the curriculum. Generally, groups like a chess club or a community service club, such as Key Club, are considered to be non-curricular because the club’s subject is not taught in any class. While GSAs are often classified as non-curricular, there have been some that have been found to be curricular. (In Utah, the East High School PRISM Club, a plaintiff in an ACLU of Utah lawsuit, was a curricular student club). The First Amendment prohibits schools from discriminating between curricular clubs because school officials do not like a particular student group’s message. What is the current Utah law regarding student clubs? Utah law prohibits clubs whose activities would “materially and substantially: encourage criminal or delinquent conduct; promote bigotry; or involve human sexuality.” That law was passed in 1996 when the Salt Lake City School District became the first district in the nation to ban all non-curricular student clubs so that it could prohibit a GSA without running afoul of the Equal Access Act. Some lawmakers hoped that the “involve human sexuality” clause would allow districts to prohibit GSAs while keeping other non-curricular clubs in their schools. This thinking ignores the fact that the focus of most GSAs is not sex but issues related to sexual orientation and how to combat unfair treatment and prejudice. Also, if school officials assume that a GSA will discuss sex but other clubs will not, they unfairly (and unconstitutionally) single out the club based on a stereotype. During their 2006 general legislative session, Utah lawmakers again tried to ban GSAs while allowing other non-curricular clubs; however, no matter how creative their attempts, legislators cannot get around the requirements of the Equal Access Act and the First Amendment. Are there clubs that schools can prohibit? Public schools can prohibit clubs that are materially disruptive to the school’s educational activities. However, schools cannot claim that a GSA is disruptive if that disruption is actually coming from other students, parents, or community members who do not like the fact that the group is meeting, rather than from the club members themselves. School officials can also prohibit speech that is indecent, lewd, or sexually explicit, but they can take action only once that speech has occurred and cannot ban a club simply because they think its members will engage in this type of speech. Additionally, schools cannot require that any reference to sexual orientation be removed from the club’s name, since doing so changes the focus and goals of the club. Are there other policies students should be aware of? Student clubs are also regulated by the Utah State School Board and the local school district. These policies cannot be more restrictive than the Equal Access Act or the First Amendment. Are GSAs permitted in private schools? Private schools do not have to abide by the requirements of the Equal Access Act or the First Amendment, and they can legally prohibit GSAs. How does a student form a GSA? Starting a GSA is like starting any other club, and students should find out what their school rules are for forming an official student organization and then follow those rules carefully. Just in case they run into any problems, students should document the application process by keeping a record of the dates when they submitted something to the school, how and when the school responded, as well as copies of any material they submitted. What can students do if they are having a difficult time forming a GSA? Students should contact the ACLU of Utah if they feel that their school is trying to block a GSA or is treating it differently than any other non-curricular club. They can do so either by filling out our online intake form at www.acluutah.org/intake.htm or by calling us at (801) 521-9862 ext 104. Additional Information Resources:
_________________________ Note from Dani Eyer When I first walked through the doors of the ACLU, during the week of 9/11, I had two expectations: one, that the Bush administration might not carefully handle the crucial balance needed to deal with terrorism while also honoring Americans’ long-standing dedication to civil liberties and human rights; and, two, that associating with the ACLU of Utah might create an opportunity for challenging and important work and place me in proximity to interesting and honorable people. My expectations were overwhelmingly exceeded on both counts. The Bush administration has abused executive branch power to an unimaginable degree and has given only lip service to the 230-year American tradition of devotion to the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights; and working as the ACLU of Utah executive director turned out to be more than challenging, yet extremely satisfying. I have been honored to work with routinely thoughtful, intelligent, honest, and dedicated local ACLU employees and board of directors, volunteers, staff from other state affiliates and the national ACLU office, coalition leaders, and attorneys who assist us on our cases. I inherited a very functional ACLU state organization from Carol Gnade and continued to rely upon her connections and capabilities for fundraising, finances, and events. Carol is also leaving the ACLU now, after fifteen years. I have been fortunate to have relied upon our legal director, Margaret Plane, communications director, Cori Sutherland, and project coordinator, Stephanie Peterson, who collectively manage the legal program, advocacy, our Web site, publications, our relations with coalitions, grassroots organizing, and also wrangle the increasingly frustrating state legislative session. Also working steadily in the background has been our office manager, Reinard Knutsen, who handles thousands of details, including receiving civil liberties complaints and gently dealing with folks who show up at the door with problems. It has been my pleasure to remind over 120 audiences, small and large, young and old, enlightened and unenlightened, that the Constitution granted the government its power but the Bill of Rights limits that power and protects fundamental individual freedoms, even when it might not be wildly popular at the time. Thank you for the opportunity. Return to top of page _________________________ Polygamy and the Constitution One Saturday last August, about 250 people gathered at the Salt Lake City and County Building to participate in an unprecedented show of public support for the practice of polygamy. At the first “Polygamists’ Youth and Family Rally,” more than a dozen youth speakers, ranging in age from ten to twenty and representing various religious groups, spoke positively about growing up in polygamous families, and called for a change in state laws that criminalize their parents’ relationships. Many of the speakers invoked their First Amendment rights to association and religious freedom, which they felt should allow consenting adults (i.e. their parents, and, in the future, themselves if they so choose) to practice plural marriage as part of their religious expression. They also talked about the right to privacy, which they argued should clearly apply to their families as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Lawrence v. Texas three years ago. In Lawrence, the Court considered and struck down a Texas sodomy law that criminalized consensual sexual relationships between gay couples. The Court ruled that Texas’s law—and, by extension, the sodomy laws in other states, including Utah—violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and, absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution that the law protects, consenting adults enjoy the freedom to define their private intimate relationships within “the confines of their homes and their own private lives.” Legally, it’s difficult to see much of a difference between sodomy laws, which criminalized sexual relationships between consenting gay couples, and Utah’s bigamy statute, which criminalizes the practice of spiritual plural marriage between consenting adults. According to our bigamy statute, “A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” The law, therefore, applies not just to individuals who have obtained multiple marriage licenses, but also to those who are legally married to only one person, while engaging in other marriage-like relationships that are not recognized by the state. Since 2004, the Utah Supreme Court has issued three opinions regarding the application of the bigamy statute, and in all three, the court has upheld the law’s constitutionality. The August rally was in large part motivated by the most recent of these decisions, which upheld the bigamy conviction of Hildale police officer Rodney Holm for his participation in a 1998 “spiritual marriage” to Ruth Stubbs. At the time, Holm was legally married to Stubbs’s sister. Holm challenged the constitutionality of the “purports to marry” prong of the bigamy statute, and argued that engaging in private unions with multiple “spiritual wives” is a constitutionally protected expression of his religious beliefs as a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Holm also cited Lawrence to support his position that the state could not constitutionally interfere with his choice to consummate his intimate relationship with Stubbs. Four of the Utah Supreme Court’s five justices rejected Holm’s constitutional defenses. However, in an articulate and substantial dissent, Chief Justice Christine Durham contended that the majority’s expansive definition of marriage includes even private relationships not sanctioned by the state. “As interpreted by the majority,” Durham wrote, the bigamy statute “defines ‘marriage’ as acts undertaken for religious purposes that do not meet any other legal standard for marriage—acts that are unlicensed, unsolemnized by any civil authority, acts that are indeed entirely outside the civil law, and unrecognized as marriage for any other purpose by the state—and criminalizes those acts as ‘bigamy.’” According to Durham, the bigamy statute therefore “oversteps lines protecting the free exercise of religion and the privacy of intimate, personal relationships between consenting adults.” Durham further argued that, “Any two people can make private pledges to each other, with or without the assistance of a religious official, but these private commitments are not equivalent to marriage absent a license or an adjudication of marriage.” Proponents of laws prohibiting plural marriage often maintain they are needed because the practice necessarily involves criminal behavior, such as statutory rape, incest, and welfare fraud. These are crimes that can and should be prosecuted under other statutes. However, as noted by the speakers at the August rally, criminalizing private, consensual, adult relationships that are motivated by sincerely held religious beliefs fails to meet our constitutional standards, which demand that consenting adults be free to maintain and define their personal relationships without fear of government interference. Additional Information ACLU of Utah Resource: “Utah’s Bigamy Statute and the Right to Privacy and Religious Freedom” Utah’s bigamy statute Recent Utah Supreme Court decisions upholding Utah’s bigamy statute: United States Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas Return to top of page _________________________ Update from the Legal Department Sandy City Ordinance Revised to Protect First Amendment Rights Under a September settlement agreement, Sandy business owner Kody Sorenson will be able to continue flying ten American flags that are displayed around the rooftop of his store, Big Bob’s Floor Covering. The settlement agreement ended a dispute that began over a year ago, when Sandy City cited Sorenson with criminal charges for the flag display. Specifically, Sorenson was charged with violating a city ordinance that limited the number of “official flags” that business owners can fly. The ordinance did not impose similar restrictions on other displays. Concerned that the ordinance violated his rights to expressive speech, Sorenson contacted the ACLU of Utah for help, writing that the flags are “a way I can show my support to those who have died in the war, who have fought, and to those who are putting lives on the line to protect freedom and our country.”Attorneys from the firm Skordas, Caston & Hyde worked with the ACLU of Utah to represent Sorenson and his right to display the flags under the First Amendment.As a result of negotiations with Sandy City, all criminal charges were dropped and the unconstitutional sign ordinance was amended. Additionally, Sorenson is allowed to keep his flag display at Big Bob’s Floor Covering. The State Agrees Not to Enforce Key Provisions of Internet Censorship Law In August, the federal district court entered a stipulated preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of several crucial provisions of a Utah Internet censorship law until final judgment in the case. The injunction is the result of an ACLU of Utah challenge to a 2005 law meant to restrict children’s access to harmful material on the Internet. The lawsuit is on behalf of a broadly-based group of Utah bookstore owners, artists, Internet service providers, and national trade associations, all of whom are worried that the law will unconstitutionally restrict their free speech rights. The injunction means that for now, the state is barred from investigating and enforcing alleged violations of the challenged portions of the law, and plaintiffs and other content providers do not have to unnecessarily censor their speech in order to avoid prosecution under a vague and unconstitutional statute. Attorneys from Howrey LLP, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Media Coalition are also involved in the case. For more information about The King’s English v. Shurtleff, see www.acluutah.org/docket.htm#tke. Veteran Allowed to Walk Length of State to Protest Iraq War In September, we were contacted by Herm Olsen, an attorney in Logan representing U.S. Army sergeant and Iraq war veteran Marshall Thompson. Thompson had contacted the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) when he was in the midst of planning a twenty-six-day walk (one day for every one hundred Americans killed in the Iraq war) from the Idaho to Arizona border to solicit support for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. He received conflicting advice from UDOT representatives about whether he needed to obtain permits for his walk, which was to take place primarily along the U.S. 89-91 corridor. Concerned that UDOT was treating Thompson differently because of the content of his speech (at one point, Thompson was told that he must obtain a permit because of the “purpose” of his march), we worked with Olsen to advocate for Thompson’s First Amendment rights. One week before his scheduled start date, we received written assurances from UDOT that Thompson could proceed with his plans without obtaining permits. Our letter to UDOT and UDOT’s response are posted on our Web site at www.acluutah.org. Thompson’s daily journal and other information about his walk are posted at www.asoldierspeace.org. Return to top of page _________________________ ACLU Marriage Equality Cases The fight for the legal recognition of marriage between same-sex couples is a nationwide effort, and the ACLU has been involved in cases supporting marriage equality in a number of states. The cases have ranged from outright challenges to state laws or constitutional amendments that seek to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples (California, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Washington); to procedural challenges to the way these types of laws were passed (Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee); to cases that have sought to define the scope of these laws (Utah). Following is a brief summary of the significant legal developments in the ACLU’s fight for marriage equality in 2006. CALIFORNIA Woo v. Lockyer (Loss) In October, a California appeals court upheld the state’s ban on marriage between same-sex couples. The decision was in response to Woo v. Lockyer, a 2004 lawsuit brought on behalf of sixteen same-sex couples, Equality California, and Our Family Coalition after the California Supreme Court ordered a temporary pause on same-sex couples marrying in San Francisco. (A similar case filed by the City and County of San Francisco was consolidated with Woo v. Lockyer.) In March 2005, a lower court had ruled that California cannot deny marriage to same-sex couples. The case will likely be appealed to the California Supreme Court. (With La mba Legal Defense and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.) FLORIDA Challenge to Florida’s Anti-Gay Initiative (Pending) In February, the ACLU argued before the Florida Supreme Court that a proposed constitutional amendment that failed to gather enough signatures to be placed on the 2006 ballot should be thrown out altogether because it deceives voters. The amendment would block the recognition of same-sex marriages and civil unions, and would threaten existing domestic partnership protections across the state. The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and six same-sex couples, argues that the amendment violates Florida’s single-subject rule because it forces voters to decide both whether they want to ban same-sex couples from marriage and whether they want to ban same-sex couples from other types of legal recognition for their relationships. (With Equality Florida and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.) GEORGIA O’Kelley v. Perdue (Loss) In July, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a 2004 state constitutional amendment banning same-sex couples from marrying and prohibiting the recognition of other types of unions between same-sex couples. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a group of Georgia voters, and it asserted that the amendment violated Georgia’s single-subject rule because it forced voters to decide on four different issues. The Georgia Supreme Court, however, found that the section on civil unions did not “address a different objective than that of the amendment as a whole,” and thus did not violate state law. The decision overturned a favorable May ruling from the state trial court, which had found that the amendment violated the state constitution’s procedural requirements. (With Lambda Legal Defense.) MARYLAND Deane and Polyak v. Conaway (Pending) In January, a Maryland state court ruled that it is a violation of the state constitution’s Equal Rights Amendment to deny same-sex couples the numerous protections provided to married couples. The lawsuit was filed in July 2004 on behalf of nine same-sex couples and a surviving gay partner. The state of Maryland has appealed the case, which will be heard by the state’s highest court later this year. (With Equality Maryland.) NEBRASKA Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning (Loss) In July, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit overturned a May 2005 federal court decision that struck down Nebraska’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and all other types of relationship recognition for same-sex couples. The federal court had ruled that the amendment, which many view as the most extreme of the gay relationship bans, barred lesbian and gay people from participating in the democratic process in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s equal projection guarantee. The federal court decision did not mean that the state had to allow same-sex couples to marry or to form civil unions or domestic partnerships, but instead would have allowed same-sex couples to lobby their legislators for protections for their relationships. (With Lambda Legal Defense.) NEW JERSEY Lewis v. Harris (Win) In October, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it is unconstitutional for the state to bar same-sex couples from the hundreds of family protections the state provides through marriage. The court referred the matter to the state legislature, which has 180 days to either amend existing marriage laws or to create some other system to give same-sex couples the same marriage protections under the law. In May 2003, the ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the right to marriage for the seven same-sex couples who brought the case. NEW YORK Samuels and Gallagher v. New York Department of Health (Loss) In July, the New York Court of Appeals (New York’s highest court) upheld a state law barring same-sex couples from marriage, holding that there is a legal basis to limit marriage to heterosexual unions and thereby exclude same-sex couples. The court accepted the absurd argument that since stable relationships between parents are important for children, and because straight couples can conceive children accidentally and gay couples can only have children with advance planning, straight couples need the stability of marriage but gay couples do not. TENNESSEE ACLU of Tennessee v. Darnell (Loss) In July, the Tennessee Supreme Court allowed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to be posted on the 2006 ballot. The decision was in response to a 2005 ACLU lawsuit, which charged that the state failed to meet notification requirements as outlined in the state constitution by failing to publish the text of the amendment six months prior to the General Assembly election. The Tennessee Supreme Court found that none of the plaintiffs had demonstrated a distinct, concrete injury resulting from the untimely publication of the amendment, and dismissed the case for lack of standing. UTAH Norman v. Anderson (Win) In May, a Utah district court ruled that Salt Lake City’s plan to offer health insurance and other employment benefits to the domestic partners of city employees was not in violation of Utah’s constitutional amendment prohibiting the government from giving same-sex relationships the “same or substantially equivalent legal effect” as marriage. The court also held that the plan did not violate the state’s Marriage Recognition Policy, which states that Utah will not recognize any law that creates benefits for unmarried couples that are “substantially equivalent” to marriage. Importantly, the court acknowledged the policy arguments in favor of providing more expansive benefit plans. The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of a lesbian employee of the Salt Lake City Police Department and the local branch of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. WASHINGTON Andersen v. King County and Castle v. State of Washington (Loss) In July, the Washington Supreme Court reversed two state court rulings in favor of marriage equality and found that the state’s ban on marriage by same-sex couples does not violate the state constitution. Two cases were decided jointly—Andersen v. King County, in which the eight couples were represented by Lambda Legal and the Northwest Women’s Law Center, and Castle v. State of Washington, whose eleven couples were represented by the ACLU. Return to top of page _________________________ ACLU of Utah 2006 Ballot The ACLU of Utah nominating committee has selected the following individuals to serve on the ACLU of Utah board of directors. Board terms are three years. Please mark and return this ballot in the envelope provided by Thursday, November 30, 2006. Joint members can vote individually. Any questions, please contact us at (801) 521-9862 ext 101 or aclu@acluutah.org. Please vote for five candidates: Tim Chambless (incumbent) teaches in the Department of Political Science at the University of Utah. He has taught Controversial Legal Issues/Post-9/11 Terrorism, Law, and Politics, Constitutional Law and The Constitution Telecourse, Political Parties, American National Government, Mass Communication Law, and, since 1994 has led intensive seminars in Washington, D.C. Tim has been a member of the ACLU of Utah board of directors since 2001. Christine Contestable (incumbent) is a doctoral student and teaching fellow in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah. Her commitment to the work of the ACLU emerges out of her experience with and relationship to members of marginalized, disenfranchised, or under-represented communities in Utah and elsewhere. Members of these communities depend upon the work of the ACLU for access to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Christine has been a member of the ACLU of Utah board of directors since 2004. Iqbal Hossain is a management consultant for the Utah Department of Corrections and an adjunct professor of criminology at the University of Utah. A long-time community activist, Iqbal has served on various boards in Utah. He is the past-president of the Islamic Society of Greater Salt Lake and is currently a board member with that organization. Originally from Bangladesh, Iqbal has lived in Utah since 1981. He lives in Draper with his wife of twenty-five years and their two children. Jill Sheinberg (incumbent) has served on the ACLU of Utah board of directors for nine years, and is currently a member of the executive committee and the Utah affiliate representative to the ACLU national board. Jill is a lawyer who practices mediation with the Alternative Dispute Program of the Administrative Office of the Courts in Salt Lake City. She lives in Park City. Prior to coming to Utah twelve years ago, she served on the NYCLU board of directors. Doug Wortham has taught at Rowland Hall-St. Mark’s School for twenty-nine years. He has also been the executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center, board president for Equality Utah, co-chair of the Utah Chapter of the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, and has served for three years on Salt Lake City’s Police Civilian Review Board. He is active in a wide range of political issues. Return to top of page _________________________ About the ACLU of Utah Founded in 1920, the American Civil Liberties Union is a nationwide, nonpartisan organization dedicated to working in the courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by both the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The ACLU of Utah was chartered in 1953 to work on constitutional issues that are pertinent to those living in this state. Our priorities include freedom of speech, expression, and association; freedom of religion, including the separation of church and state; the right to privacy; safe prison and jail conditions; and equal protection and due process of the laws. Staff Karen McCreary, Incoming Executive Director Dani Eyer, Outgoing Executive Director Margaret Plane, Legal Director Carol Gnade, Development Coordinator Reinard Knutsen, Office Manager Stephanie Peterson, Project Coordinator Cori Sutherland, Communications Director Board of Directors Sue Marquardt, President Karen Denton, Vice President Robert Wood, Treasurer Laurie Wood, Secretary Lincoln Hobbs, Legal Panel Director Jill Sheinberg, National Board Representative Tim Chambless, At-Large Executive Committee Member Jennifer Allred Peggy Battin Christine Contestable Roberto Culas Beverly Dalley Emma Gross Marc Hoenig Jason Lewis Lee Martinez Andy McCullough Tarek Nosseir Jennifer Schwartz David Tundermann Legal Panel Erika Birch Dianna Cannon Stephen Clark Linda Jones Laura Kessler Derek Langton Cathy Roberts Trystan Smith Karen Stam Mary Woodhead Contact Information 355 North 300 West Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Phone: (801) 521-9862 Fax: (801) 532-2850 aclu@acluutah.org www.acluutah.org Special thanks to XMission for their generous donation of Internet services Return to top of page |
|
ACLU OF UTAH UNION OR FOUNDATION? | USER AGREEMENT | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US © 2008 ACLU OF UTAH · 355 NORTH 300 WEST · SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 · T (801) 521-9862 · F (801) 532-2850 |