ordering of forced busing such as is now being sought in the school districts in the cities of San Bernardino and San Diego and other cities similarly situated. They also have an interest, as electors and taxpayers, in not having their votes nullified, and their taxes used for racially discriminatory purposes, contrary to a constitutional amendment enacted by them and others constituting 69% of the electorate approving Proposition 1.

The right of Applicants to appear herein as Interested Persons is assured by the following portion of aforesaid constitutional amendment:

Except as may be precluded by the Constitution of the United States, every existing judgment, decree, writ, or other order of a court of this state, whenever rendered, which includes provisions regarding pupil school assignment or pupil transportation, or which requires a plan including any such provisions shall, upon application to a court having jurisdiction by any interested person, be modified to conform to the provisions of this subdivision as amended, as applied to the facts which exist at the time of such modification. [emphasis in quotation only]

Counsel for the Carlin Plaintiffs have been granted the opportunity, as Amici Curiae, to extensively urge in this case the unconstitutionality of Proposition 1, which now stands as an impediment to the forced busing being sought by them in San Diego. Applicants and other persons similarly situated and affected, who live in districts such as the SDUSD, whose situation is similar to the Respondent District, have an interest, not separately represented herein, in seeing that Proposition 1 is not nullified in these proceedings. In fairness, they should be allowed an opportunity to argue against the contentions of said Carlin counsel that Proposition 1 is unconstitutional.

Furthermore, this application is supported by