finally approving BOARD’s Voluntary Integration Plan, as modified, and thereupon terminating its jurisdiction by discharge of the writ of mandate....

On November 18, 1996, after a period during which I was increasingly hopeful, the court clerk courteously read to me a brief order that the petition had been read and considered by three Court of Appeal Justices and denied, as there was an “adequate remedy by appeal.”
 

Groundswell Unsuccessfully Petitions
California Supreme Court for Review

I knew that my chance of obtaining a review of the appellate order by the high court was practically nil. But it was better than taking the chance that I could effectively challenge the program on January 1, 2000. So I immediately started work on a petition for review and got it filed within ten days.

The Issue to be Presented for Review focused upon the speedy resolution of mandatory integration orders called for in the state Constitution, the issue being posed as follows:

Whether Section 7(a), Article I, California Constitution, entitles petitioners to extraordinary relief from refusal of Superior Court to compel School Board to modify its integration plan to bring it into constitutional compliance, under existing facts.

As to Appropriateness for Review, I first argued it presented for the first time the assertion of the rights in behalf of petitioners by two legislators as Interested Persons under Section 7(a):

Section 7(a) was invoked by petitioners Quentin L. Kopp, a California State Senator (SENATOR) and Steve Baldwin, a California State Assemblyman (ASSEMBLYMAN) as Interested Persons. They appeared in support of motions by petitioners Groundswell, an unincorporated association, (GROUNDSWELL) and Michael W. Levorchick, a citizen-parent (PARENT), among other INTERVENORS, seeking termination of court jurisdiction