integration plan. Thus, the constitutional rights of my clients were jeopardized, not only by current actions by the plaintiffs' counsel in San Diego, and their co-counsel in San Bernardino and Los Angeles, but also by busing proponents within the San Diego school system. By those actions toward them, my student-clients and their parents, more clearly than ever, were the real parties in interest and had to be so recognized to effectively assert their constitutional rights. And their intervention had to be proposed to the court promptly to meet objections it was untimely.

What should be contained in the intervention papers? They must offer issues which these intervenors could best offer to meet objections that the school board was representing them. They must also offer issues beyond those offered by the school board in the 1976 Crawford case, as a basis of appeal ultimately to the Bird Court. And they must offer federal constitutional issues deserving of consideration by the United States Supreme Court. For experience had taught that busing proponents have invariably taken these cases the full legal route regardless of adverse lower court rulings, and even constitutional amendments like Prop. 1.

Experience had also taught that school boards have changed their positions from time to time and that they do not welcome intervention by non-class parents and students. To repeat, the Los Angeles board originally had unsuccessfully opposed the concept of busing to remedy de facto segregation introduced in the 1976 Crawford decision. But it failed to ask the Supreme Court to overturn that decision, and then proposed a busing plan which many persons opposed through the entity Bustop, Inc. And the board then joined the plaintiffs in objecting to the intervention of Bustop, which had to successfully appeal on April 14, 1977 to the Court of Appeal in order to be allowed to intervene and present their objections. Bustop v. Superior Court, 69 C.A.3d at 69.

However, after the recall of the board president in May, 1979, the L.A. board again began to actively oppose busing. This led to its unsuccessful request on September 12, 1980, to then- Justice Rehnquist for a stay of Judge Egly's order for busing scheduled to start in Los Angeles on September 16, 1980, described above. The lack of success of the board's argument, referred to by the justice in his order denying the request for a stay, is significant (Board of Ed., etc., supra, 448 U.S., at 1347):