San Diego Intervenors
Challenge Court Assignment of Pupils
in Carlin v. Board of Education
Toward Restoring Local Control
of San Diego Public Schools

On July 26, 1996, the Carlin Plaintiffs, the Defendant Board, the Groundswell Intervenors and the proposed Nixon Intervenors, with their respective counsel and supporters, appeared before the Court. All had filed memoranda and numerous declarations in support of their positions; and State Senator Kopp and State Assemblyman Steve Baldwin had filed briefs as Amici Curiae and Interested Persons in support of Groundswell.

The Court approved the proposals of the Carlin Plaintiffs and the Board (district) as follows:

THE COURT: ... So I — I think the order that — the exit order that I will approve would be the plaintiffs' proposed orders, which, except for Paragraphs 1, 2 and 25 mirror the District's; and would provide in Paragraph 25 of that order as the last sentence to say that “these orders shall terminate and be of no force and effect after January 1, 2000.”

On August 16, 1996, the “Final” Order Terminating Court Jurisdiction was filed. The first 20 paragraphs ordered the District to take certain educational steps, focusing upon “racial / ethnic” groups, and continued approval of racial assignments.

The Groundswell Intervenors unsuccessfully sought appellate writ of mandate to speed the end of the Carlin case, but a petition to the Fourth District Court of Appeal was denied on November 18, 1996; the California Supreme Court denied review on January 17, 1997.

At that time any unfunded effort to terminate court jurisdiction before January 1, 2000 appeared futile in the face of powerful dual opposition. But Groundswell's attorney saw an earlier possibility if the California Civil Rights Initiative (Proposition 209) was upheld, as constitutional, on a pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from a U.S. District Court ruling. All counsel in the Carlin case had been watching Proposition 209, which was on the ballot November 5, 1996 at the time of the hearing July 26, 1996 on the adoption of a Final Order.

The Board saw the possibility of Prop. 209 going into effect as a reason for indefinite court jurisdiction, by making this extraordinary admission in Footnote 7 of its July 19, 1996 brief:
 

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

Crawford I 

Crawford v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.3d 280 (1976)
Los Angeles, California
 

— Handbook: Challenge Four, pages 55 - 63 —