Tinsley

We consider in this appeal the constitutionality and effect of article I, section 7 of the California Constitution, amended by passage of Proposition 1 by the electorate on November 6, 1979.

Appellants are guardian ad litem parents and their children, the latter of whom either attend or are eligible to attend schools operated by the respondent school districts. They filed a petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) on October 5, 1978, alleging interdistrict segregation of respondents’ schools and seeking an order compelling respondents to submit a reasonably feasible plan to alleviate racial segregation in schools within the named school districts.

After a third amendment to the petition, respondents’ demurrer to the petition was sustained without leave to amend and an appeal from that order taken to this court. On April 13, 1979, we decided, in Tinsley v. Palo Alto Unified School Dist. (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 871 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 591 ], that appellants’ third amended petition did state a cause of action under the equal protection clause of the California Constitution (art. I, § 7) for interdistrict relief from de facto school segregation, and the case was…