Preparation of complaint in intervention: San Diego (id., 30-31, 43-49); federal (id., 105-107).

Intervention: San Diego (id., 42-48, 84-85); federal (id., 105- 112).

Preparation for trial: San Diego (id., 47-49, 85-87); federal (hypothetical trial brief: (id., 112-130).

Trial on complaint in intervention: San Diego (id., 85-96); federal (hypothetical) (id., 112-113).

Termination of court jurisdiction in San Diego was by motion as related in this Sequel. That final step followed the assertion of the rights of Groundswell Intervenors, as detailed in Busing — Opposed, and summarized below.
 

Claims by Groundswell in
California Superior Court
— Under California Constitution

The Groundswell parent and student intervenors, in addition to claiming under the California Constitution that mandatory racial assignments discriminated against them and denied them equal protection under the law in violation of Section 7(a), Article I, made the following claim (Busing — Opposed, p. 46):

If ordered by the Court, it infringes upon the rights of Intervenors to the governing participation to which they are entitled in the operation of the District, and invades the province of the legislative and executive branches, in violation of Article I, Sections 1 and 24 and Article III, Section 3.
 

— Under United States Constitution

Groundswell Intervenors further claimed (id., 46-47) under the United States Constitution that such assignments (A) racially discriminated against them, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment; (B) infringed “upon the liberty of parent intervenors to guide