the support of two petitioning interested legislators:

Petitioners SENATOR and ASSEMBLYMAN appeared before SUPERIOR COURT on April 11, 1995 and November 8, 1995, respectively, as Interested Persons under Section 7(a).... These legislators have an interest in seeing that the expenditure of state integration funds for matters, such as transportation, arising out of unconstitutional student assignment, ceases forthwith. They also have an interest in seeing that non-class citizens are not deprived of their right to participation in the governing of the District under the above and other sections of the California Constitution, and statutes pursuant thereto, by virtue of retention of SUPERIOR COURT jurisdiction....

The current Facts before the Court of Appeal were restated.

My Argument for review of the appellate denial of granting petitioners extraordinary relief from refusal of Superior Court to compel the Board to modify its integration plan to bring it into compliance with current law under existing facts, cited support from Section 7(a):

Except as may be precluded by the Constitution of the United States, every existing judgment, decree, writ, or other order of a court of this state, whenever rendered, which includes provisions regarding pupil assignment or pupil transportation, or which requires a plan including such provisions shall, upon application to a court having jurisdiction by any interested person, be modified to conform to the provisions of this subdivision as amended, as applied to the facts which exist at the time of such modification.

Then I cited “Crawford III (1982), Dowell (1991), Freeman (1992), and Jenkins (1995)” as requiring a mandate to compel SUPERIOR COURT to apply federal decisional law in this case under the foregoing Section 7(a) which commences:

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;