respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation. In enforcing this subdivision or any other provision of this Constitution, no court of this state may impose upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligation or responsibility with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation, (1) except to remedy a specific violation by such party that would also constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (2) unless a federal court would be permitted under federal decisional law to impose that obligation or responsibility upon such party to remedy the specific violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution....

The voters approved the foregoing constitutional amendment by a vote of approximately two to one. Shortly thereafter a reformed Los Angeles board, joined by Bustop, unsuccessfully asked Judge Egly to modify existing orders to eliminate portions requiring busing in Los Angeles through the remainder of the 1979-80 school year. The minute order, dated May 19, 1980, denying the requests reflects Judge Egly's reliance upon a 1970 trial court finding of de jure segregation in Los Angeles, which was later found to be erroneous. Crawford v. Board of Education, Superior Court No. C-822,854, 6/6/80 Daily Journal Report, p.3.

Notwithstanding the passage of Prop. 1, busing was also being proposed to Judge Egly in a case in San Bernardino, in which, as in the San Diego case, there was no finding of de jure segregation. The San Bernardino school board also had made an application before Judge Egly that pursuant to the Prop. 1 amendment there not be imposed any obligation upon it with respect to pupil assignments or pupil transportation. A forthcoming challenge to Prop. 1 in the San Bernardino case was reported in the San Bernardino Sun on Dec. 31, 1979.

On January 3, 1980, Judge Egly permitted the attorneys for the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, among other attorneys, to appear and argue orally in behalf of the Crawford plaintiffs "in support of the unconstitutionality" of Proposition 1, and to file a brief (of 118