pages with a lengthy appendix) in N.A.A.C.P. v. San Bernardino Unified Sch. Dist., Superior Court No. 155286. See Appendix III. (Copy of title page of application.)

The Groundswell group believed they had a point of view which should be urged to Judge Egly in addition to what the San Bernardino board might present in support of Prop. 1. On February 13, 1980, they also applied to Judge Egly to appear and present oral argument in opposition to the challenge to the constitutionality of Prop. 1, and to file a brief as Interested Persons and as Amici Curiae in support of that position. We felt that Prop. 1 gave additional strength to our application to become a friend of the court by language which allowed any interested person to apply to a court having jurisdiction to modify any order issued in violation of the newly enacted provision of the state constitution. See Appendix II.

That proposed amici brief made a number of points, concluding with Point VI, which invoked the Guaranty Clause of the Constitution. It is interesting to note that Justice Harlan I, in concluding his dissent in Plessy, also invoked the Guaranty Clause in these words:

...I am of opinion that the statute of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberty of citizens, white and black, in that state, and hostile to both the spirit and letter of the law of the constitution of the United States. If laws of like character should be enacted in the several states of the Union, the effect would be in the highest degree mischievous. Slavery, as an institution tolerated by law, would it is true, have disappeared from our country; but there would remain a power in the states, by sinister legislation, to interfere with the full enjoyment of the blessings of freedom, to regulate civil rights, common to all citizens, upon the basis of race, and to place in a condition of legal inferiority a large body of American citizens, now constituting a part of the political community called the "People of the United States," for whom, and by whom through representatives, our government is administered. Such a system is inconsistent with the guaranty given by the constitution to each