Liberate Public Schools
from Government by Lawsuit  /  Phase Seven
Groundswell Motion to End Jurisdiction
Conditionally Granted, Effective July 1, 1998
Previous Next

The Board on July 11 formally opposed an open hearing. I had complained constantly about secret steps taken by the Board concerning the plan, under the Brown Act's litigation exception, without the participation of their constituency. But this matter involved public documents so I let members of the local press know about my request to help bring the hearing into the open.

On July 14, opposing counsel appeared personally before the Court and vigorously opposed an open court hearing, arguing the state of litigation in this case and doubtful status of Proposition 209 did not warrant it. I successfully argued that the Ninth Circuit ruling upholding Prop. 209, among other circumstances, entitled my clients to a public hearing in exercising their right to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Armstrong v. Manzo (1965), 380 U.S. 545,550, 552.

Fourth Motion Succeeds
in Conditional Advancement
of Judicial Termination Date to July 1, 1998

The Court set the hearing on my motions for August 22 which I served and filed on July 16. Senator Kopp filed his brief separately.

Our memorandum had two basic points, after emphasizing the upholding of Proposition 209 by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals since issuance of the current “Final” Order.

First, I repeated the earlier argument that the Court should order the Board to modify its integration plan to bring it into constitutional compliance with current law and facts by ending (a) mandatory racial ratios and (b) racial boundary gerrymandering to racially balance classrooms and schools.

Second, I reiterated that the Court should restore to the people jurisdiction over a constitutionally-operated system as required by federal decisional law, re-citing those decisions.

I concluded that “Avoidance of Proposition 209 is an Improper Basis for Perpetuation of Court Jurisdiction.”

The Board reiterated its earlier opposition, as did Plaintiffs. Both stressed that the constitutionality of Proposition 209 was still at issue, and that even if it was upheld there was a specific exception for preexisting court orders. Next

Carlin Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,
San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California
Armstrong Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965)
Carlin Board of Education v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.App.4th 411 (Feb.1998)
[conclusion of Carlin v. Board of Education]
San Diego, California
  Liberate: Phase 7, pages 91 - 101 — Previous Next

Liberate Public Schools
from Government by Lawsuit

A Long Pro Bono Struggle
Against Racially Balancing Public School Students
in a Thirty-Year Lawsuit
by Elmer Enstrom, Jr.
A chronological presentation of the 30-year Carlin affirmative action lawsuit:
a legal battle to reassert the "separation of powers" concept
of a republican form of government embodied in our Constitution.
© 1998-2006, 2013 Enstrom Foundation Bookmark and Share