Just before the Los Angeles final order, on September 8, 1981, the San Diego Court decided against ordering busing and in its conclusions of law concluded:

The 1980-81 City School Programs have made meaningful progress toward the alleviation of minority student isolation and any harms inflicted by such isolation....

On September 15, 1981, the San Diego board, citing the similarity of the proceedings in San Diego to those in Los Angeles, relying heavily on Judge Lopez' precedent, moved to similarly terminate the San Diego proceedings.

On September 16, 1981, the Groundswell intervenors joined the Board's motion to terminate the proceedings, on the additional ground that it would restrain plaintiffs (1) from seeking court-ordered busing in violation of Prop. 1, and (2) from seeking to racially discriminate against Groundswell students by state imposed busing in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Groundswell's motion and the San Diego Board's motion were denied on December 12, 1981. These and all other contentions of the Groundswell intervenors concerning busing were not tested on appeal as all pending appeals were abandoned or dismissed pursuant to a stipulation in which we joined the other two parties on March 2, 1983.

We were agreeable to dismissing our cross-appeal, which was filed to preserve our contention of the unconstitutionality of busing in this case, because among the appeals abandoned by the plaintiffs were claims of error by reason of not including a busing component in the integration plan.

The extent to which the Groundswell legal opposition to court-ordered busing should be credited with preventing it in San Diego is answered by the fact that San Diego has so far escaped busing in the form imposed in the above cities. And there has been no other major school district that I know of that has escaped it at one time or another where it has been sought in a suit by busing proponents as persuasive as those in the San Diego case.