San Diego Parents Challenge
Busing of Their Children,
in Carlin v. Board of Education,
as Real Parties In Interest,
Entitled to Intervene

separately and directly in this class action, as the real parties in interest, and set the tone for them to do so for the following seventeen years. For those interested in the contentions on behalf of non-class parents, who remain outside the loop of litigation in these class actions, it is set forth as the Appendix to this Handbook.

On October 21, 1980, the staff of the San Diego Board proposed a mandatory busing plan for the next largest school district in California. This action followed a September 8 memorandum by the Carlin judge questioning whether the voluntary plan was meeting the Crawford I requirements. The Groundswell persons, of course, were also facing the “busing” success of the Carlin Plaintiffs' ACLU-affiliated counsel in Los Angeles, and their continuing determination to press for busing in San Diego by overturning any limitation to it posed by Proposition 1. Accordingly, every legal effort, necessarily by intervention, must be made to prevent it.
 

Groundswell Parents Prepare for Intervenor Status

The first step, of course, was to prepare intervention pleadings in behalf of the association, Groundswell, and individual parents and their student children, and others similarly situated, versus the Board and Carlin Plaintiffs as defendants-in-intervention. Basically, Groundswell parents claimed that:

The mandatory assignment of student intervenors, and others similarly situated, because of their race, to particular public schools within said District violates, and would violate, the rights of Intervenors and others similarly situated ....

— under the California Constitution, including the Due Process and Equal Protection Article, for racial discrimination against both parent and student intervenors;

— under the United States Constitution, including the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, for state action racially discriminating against both parent and student intervenors; and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

1. for infringing upon the liberty of parent intervenors to guide the destiny of their children, and
2. for infringing upon the liberty and privacy of
    

Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,

San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California
 

Crawford I 

Crawford v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.3d 280 (1976)
[related to Bustop — Board of Ed., etc.]
Los Angeles, California
 

— Handbook: Challenge One, pages 23 - 31 —