On January 3, 1980, the San Bernardino trial judge permitted the ACLU-affiliated attorneys to appear and argue orally “in support of the unconstitutionality” of Proposition 1 in behalf of the Crawford plaintiffs, as Amici Curiae. Following that, I submitted, but was denied permission to appear and argue, amici briefs, one by the Groundswell group alone first and then one joined by a statewide group, Californians Against Forced Busing. (Details in Busing — Opposed, Chapter 2.)

This exclusionary ruling indicates how hard it has been for persons who would be adversely affected by a judicial decision of a legislative nature to be heard in the proceedings leading to that decision. We felt our arguments were more to the point than those by the Crawford counsel who, as stated, were also co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the Carlin case (id., ch.2). And that we were vindicated by the strong language by the Supreme Court in ultimately rejecting their arguments in their effort to overturn Proposition 1 on appeal from Crawford v. Board of Education, 113 Cal.App. 633 (1981) (Crawford II). See Crawford v. Board of Education, 458 U.S. 527, 535-545 (June 29, 1982) (Crawford III).

On May 19, 1980, the Crawford trial judge formally denied the efforts of the Los Angeles Board to stop the busing in Los Angeles, on the ground that it was justified by a 1970 finding of de jure segregation. Ultimately, on September 12, 1980, before Chief Justice (then-Justice) William Rehnquist, that board failed to gain a stay of a California Supreme Court order which left standing the trial court order “requiring mandatory reassignment of between 80,000 and 100,000 first-through ninth-grade (Los Angeles) students attending approximately 165 elementary and junior high schools….” Board of Ed., Etc. v. Superior Court, 448 U.S. 1343.
 

Grounds Build for Intervention by Groundswell Dissenters

September 12, 1980 may have been the highest point ever of the exercise of judicial power — to forcibly reassign that massive number of voiceless students over the legal objections of their Board, as well as the