THE COURT: I don't think it will be necessary for Mr. Lester to testify, because they have stipulated if called he would so testify. The question before me really is the relevancy of any or all of these documents. And I would like to go through them with you and make rulings. No matter what my rulings are, you have made your record, which of course is vital to your interests....

MR. ENSTROM: Very well. I offer Exhibit 1, the vote on... the Wakefield Initiative, enacted November 7, 1972.... I want to put in the vote, to show the vote in San Diego County. I think it goes to the issue of white flight, along with the other evidence which shows this long, deep, and continuing opposition to mandatory assignments. Of course, we ultimately hope to argue the point made by Professors Berger, Kalodner, and others, that the Court should not be — to order mandatory busing is [a] violation of the separation-of-powers provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions....

THE COURT: The Court will sustain the objection....

MR. ENSTROM: Exhibit 3 is the vote on Proposition 1, the constitution (sic) amendment [to] the California Constitution, enacted November 6, 1979.

THE COURT: Well, the objection again will be sustained on the grounds of irrelevance.... [Exhibit] Six is the declaration from Mr. Lester, which I have read.... And I will sustain the objection there, too, on the ground it is irrelevant....

MR. ENSTROM: But it is offered for a number of different purposes, your Honor.

THE COURT: If you wish to speak further to it, I of course will listen to you.

MR. ENSTROM: For instance, Paragraph 1, I seek to establish is (sic) standing to raise these matters as a registered voter and taxpayer.