intervening (1) parents and (2) students as “persons” with their complaints before the Court:

1. That the parent intervenors were citizen-taxpayers residing in the District, and were continuously opposed to the “mandatory assignment of” their children “and others similarly situated, because of their race,” to particular schools within the school district, and to the use of tax monies for that purpose; and further that they are and would be substantially affected by such assignment.

2. That the student intervenors, attended their neighborhood District schools, and were continuously opposed “to the mandatory assignment” of them “and others similarly situated and affected, because of their race” to particular public schools within the school district; and further that they are and would be substantially affected by such assignment.
 

Groundswell Dissenters Go to Trial

On July 16, 1981, at the hearing, I offered the stipulation of facts which also established that the public schools, administered by the Board as the governing agency, including those attended, and to be attended, by student intervenors, received federal financial assistance.

Following the receipt in evidence of the stipulated facts, I stressed the legislative nature of the relief being sought in this desegregation case. I argued this presented a need for latitude to respond accordingly to “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: