San Diego Parents Challenge
Busing of Their Children,
in Carlin v. Board of Education,
as Real Parties In Interest,
Entitled to Intervene

their school board members who, of course, were not so affected by the busing remedy sought? And wasn't the rarity of their separate appearances in the precedential and other actions, directed solely against school authorities, approving such a remedy, indicative of their financial inability to gain separate individual representation?

These concerns led to Enstrom's commentary to The San Diego Union on September 18, 1977, titled “Busing, Not Integration, Opposed.” See Appendix I to Liberate Public Schools.
 

Groundswell Parents Achieve Pro Bono Representation

The Groundswell group learned of Enstrom's 1977 commentary, leading to a request early in 1979 that he represent them pro bono in the Carlin case. It then appeared that the Carlin Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with an all-voluntary integration plan instituted by the Board pursuant to the March 10, 1977 Mandate to alleviate de facto segregation, and would demand court-ordered busing at the annual July review of the plan.

The group having been unable to obtain counsel, Enstrom undertook the representation and on May 29, 1979 filed Groundswell's motion to intervene, which was denied on June 14 as untimely. But amici status was granted and, as such, on July 3, 1979 he briefly argued the point that objecting persons would be racially discriminated against by the proposed busing, citing Chief Justice Earl Warren's Memoirs (pp.287-8):

Again the Court was unanimous in its decision of May 31, 1955, reaffirming its earlier decision of May 17, 1954, by asserting the fundamental principle that any kind of racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional, and that all provisions of federal, state, or local law requiring or permitting such discrimination must yield to this principle.

On October 2, 1979 the Court filed its Order Re: Integration Plan for the forthcoming school year without requiring mandatory pupil assignments. But the threat continued, for the plan would be reviewed yearly, and the Carlin Plaintiffs filed an appeal from the failure to include a busing segment in that order.

In the meantime, the California electorate had debated and then on
 

Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,
San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California
 

— Handbook: Challenge One, pages 23 - 31 —