Laserfiche WebLink
<br />... <br /> <br />Plaintiffs were represented by Alan W. Weinblatt, Weinblatt , <br />. Davis; plaintiff-intervenors were represented by Bruce D. willis <br />and Mark B. Peterson, popham, Haik, Schnobrich , Kaufman, Ltd.; <br />defendant Joan Growe, Secretary of state, was represented by John <br />R. TunheiJl, Chief Deputy Attorney General, and JocelYn Olson, <br />Assistant Attorney General; defendant Patrick H. O'Connor, Hennepin <br />County Auditor, was represented by' Michael o. Fre..an, Hennepin <br />County Attorney, and Toni A. Beitz, senior Assistant Hennepin <br />county Attorney; and defendant-intervenors were represented by <br />John D. French and Michael L. Cheever, Faegre , Benson, and Peter <br />S. Wattson, Senate Counsel. <br />All parties were directed to file legislative redistricting <br /> <br />plans on october 7, 1991. <br /> <br />The panel convened hearings on <br /> <br />October 16, November 14, and December 3, 1991 for co_ents on the <br />plans. <br />Based on the record received fro. the Minnesota District <br /> <br />Court, Fourth Judicial District; the record co.piled during the <br />course of the hearings; and the submissions of the parties; the <br />panel .akes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. <br />JlIIIDIlfGS 01' I'AC'.f <br />1. In January 1991, Patricia Cotlow, Phillip Krass, Sharon <br />LaComb, James Stein, and Theodore Suss initiated this action in <br />Minnesota District court, Fourth Judicial District. They asked the <br />court to declare the present legislative apportionment, Minn. Stat. <br />55 2.019, 2.042 through 2.702 (1990), and the present congressional <br />apportionment, outlined in LaComb v. Growe, 541 F. Supp. 145 <br />\ <br /> <br />-2- <br />