we think that we are entitled to latitude in offering this evidence, similar to that which has been granted to the plaintiffs in these various cases in their contentions. It will also go to the fact that there are a large number of similarly situated parents and children, not only the intervenors but a large number of similarly situated persons in whose behalf these contentions should be made. It will also go to lay the foundation for classification (sic) [class certification] in the event that becomes appropriate later on.

Upon my request, the court then took judicial notice of a number of cases, including Jackson and Crawford I. These cases showed on their face that the authority which Carlin plaintiffs saw in those cases as to requiring this lower court to order busing of intervening students came about by a course in which there was no separate representation of the interest now being presented by intervenors. And by basing their request upon those decisions, the Carlin plaintiffs were asking this trial court to assume a legislative role, which entitled those subject to being bused, and their parents, to the type of latitude they would have in opposing such an action by a legislative body.

I proposed to introduce such evidence by the president of "Groundswell", Mr. Lester, who had earlier supplied a declaration of such opposition, dated July 8, 1981, to the Court and counsel, paragraphs 1-9 being summarized as follows (being set out in more detail in Chapter One):

1. That he was an elector-taxpayer residing with his wife and children continuously since Sept., 1972, in the District.

2. That on Nov. 7, 1972, he voted for Prop. 21, which provided: "No public school student shall, because of his race, creed, or color, be assigned to or be required to attend a particular school."

3. That upon the passage of Prop. 21, he was not aware of any proposals, law or court ruling which would