and (3) taxpayers-voters.

12. On March 3, 1981, I presented to the SDUSD Board a number of petitions bearing approximately 5,983 signatures, including signatures in each of the above categories, with the attached memorandum of transmittal (“respectfully object(ing) to the mandatory assignment of children, because of their race, away from their neighborhood school location in the San Diego Unified School District....”)

Having provided a foundation for the Intervenors as “persons” by the facts established in the declaration, I next sought to have their objections received as evidence the Court could consider in rejecting mandatory student assignments. Excerpts from the Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings on July 16, 1981 follow:

MR. ENSTROM (Counsel for Intervenors): ... The number of students signing those petitions was 1,856. And the original petitions have been filed with the School District.

THE COURT: Will counsel stipulate, if called he (Mr. Lester) would so testify?

MR. STERN (Counsel for SDUSD): Yes, your Honor.

MRS. ROESER (Counsel for Plaintiffs): So Stipulated.

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