Parental Handbook for Local Control of Education / Challenge Two |
34 | |||||||||||||||||||
San Diego Parents Challenge |
||||||||||||||||||||
protect us from the request for mandatory assignment which will come in the Courts of Appeal, and the higher courts beyond that. The Court took judicial notice of several cases upon which the Carlin Plaintiffs relied for the judicial authority for busing, which I offered to show they had been decided by a course in which there was no separate representation of the interest now presented by Intervenors. A declaration by the Groundswell president, to which all counsel stipulated he would so testify, emphasized this point, first, by stating he had supported initiative Proposition 21 adopted November 7, 1972 which provided: No public student shall, because of his race, creed, or color, be assigned to or be required to attend a particular school. Then, the following portions of his testimony showed how he had been left out of the process leading to the mandatory busing his children were facing:
Then the Groundswell president established the existence of individual opposition to the proposed busing by (1) taxpayers-parents, (2) students, and (3) taxpayers-voters by the presentation of their petitions (with about 5,983 signatories, of whom 1,856 were children) to the defendant Board, as follows:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Carlin |
Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District, |
|||||||||||||||||||
Crawford I |
Crawford v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.3d 280 (1976) |
|||||||||||||||||||
— Handbook: Challenge Two, pages 33 - 43 — |
||||||||||||||||||||
|