No public student shall, because of his race, creed, or color, be assigned to or be required to attend a particular school.

Then, the following portions of his testimony showed how he had been left out of the process leading to the mandatory busing his children were facing:

...
3. That upon the passage of Prop. 21, he was not aware of any proposals, law or court ruling which would mandate the assignment of his children, because of their race, to some school away from their nearest neighborhood school wherever they might choose to live; and had he known of such he would have exercised every right available to him as an elector and taxpayer in opposition thereto.

4. That his children, one of whom is an intervenor, continuously attended their neighborhood schools.

5. That he first learned in the spring of 1977 of activities arising in their schools from the Carlin case that his children might be subjected to forced busing.

6. That he also learned of the case of Crawford I and did not believe his interests and those of his children and others similarly situated were represented in the course of the proceedings leading to that decision....

Then the Groundswell president established the existence of individual opposition to the proposed busing by (1) taxpayers-parents, (2) students, and (3) taxpayers-voters by the presentation of their petitions (with about 5,983 signatories, of whom 1,856 were children) to the defendant Board, as follows:

11. On October 21, 1980, an elementary exchange program was proposed to the Board of Education of the SDUSD which I am informed and believe and therefore allege calls for forced busing of elementary school students in said district. Thereafter, I and about 40 other members of “Groundswell” circulated petitions among residents of the SDUSD in the following three categories: (1) taxpayers-parents, (2) students,