The Court went on to say, 458 U.S. at 543 (footnotes omitted):

The California Court of Appeal also rejected petitioners' claim that Proposition I, if facially valid, was nonetheless unconstitutional because enacted with a discriminatory purpose. The court reasoned that the purposes of the Proposition were well stated in the Proposition itself. Voters may have been motivated by any of these purposes, chief among them the educational benefits of neighborhood schooling.... [emphasis added]

The Court concluded, 458 U.S. at 545 (Footnotes omitted):

Even if we could assume Proposition I had a disproportionate adverse effect upon racial minorities, we see no reason to challenge the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the voters of the State were not motivated by a discriminatory purpose. See 113 Cal.App. 3rd, at 654-655.... In this case the Proposition was approved by an overwhelming majority of the electorate. It received support from members of all races. The purposes of the Proposition are stated in its text and are legitimate, nondiscriminatory objectives. In these circumstances, we will not dispute the judgment of the Court of Appeal or impugn the motives of the State's electorate....

Shortly after Judge Egly rejected our applications under Prop. 1 to appear and defend its constitutionality, he made his May 19, 1980, ruling, referred to in the above Supreme Court decision, continuing busing in Los Angeles. I of course could not have anticipated at that time that the Crawford proponents' attack on Prop. 1 would ultimately be rejected by the Supreme Court as, among other reasons, destructive of a state's democratic processes. I only knew that my clients were not then permitted to add their voices in defense to an extremely vigorous attack upon Prop. 1.

But I diligently continued to seek an opportunity for the dissenters to be heard in court on the same level as the busing proponents.