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.

THE COURT: That was stipulated to, wasn't it? Isn't that part of your stipulation? I thought it was. That is my recollection. I don't think anyone questions it....

MR. ENSTROM: [Paragraph] Number 8 shows the gathering of these 22,000 signatures, which goes to the white-flight effort (sic). Evidence of white flight. That a person (sic) would feel so strongly about this that they would gather that many signatures and present them to their congressman for such action as he could take. I think that is evidence bearing on that issue.

MRS. ROESER: If the Court is considering admitting those, I would like to speak to that and cite cases, of which there are many, showing those are not the type of considerations the Court may take into account.

THE COURT: I agree with you, Mrs. Roeser. I have no question in my mind that it is irrelevant. On the other hand, if it will possibly circumvent a technical problem on appeal to admit that many people did vote for it, it would seem to me....

MR. ENSTROM: Signed the petition.

THE COURT: ...it would seem to me to be the more cautious way of approaching it. If you insist, I will sustain the