Laserfiche WebLink
<br />inf irmi ties also violate the equality of representation requirement <br />. of the fourteenth amendment to the United states constitution. The <br />panel denied plaintiff's motion to enforce Chapter 246, together <br />with its "curative amendments", as the reapportionment plan for the <br /> <br />state of Minnesota. <br /> <br />Because no party submitted specific <br /> <br />allegations of voting Rights Act violations, the panel ordered <br />submission of any Chapter 246 violations of the Federal Voting <br />Rights Act without waiver of juriSdictional objections by <br />October 7, 1991. <br />16. On October 7, 1991, defendant-intervenors, the Minnesota <br />LegiSlature, renewed ita submission of Chapter 246 together with <br />the curative amendments adopted by the Senate and House Committees <br />on Redistricting; plaintiffs proposed adoption of the legislature's <br />plan, with curative amendments, as the court-ordered legis~ative <br />redistricting plan; defendant Secretary of State Growe supported <br />the submission of the legislature; defendant Hennepin County <br />Auditor supported the submission of the legislature; and plaintiff- <br />intervenors submitted a proposed legislative redistricting plan. <br />The panel received additional submissions from citizens groups and <br />individual legislators, only one of which was made part of the <br />record. <br /> <br />17. No violations of the Federal Voting Rights Act were <br /> <br />asserted. <br /> <br />- <br />18. On October 15, 1991, defendant-intervenors submitted a <br />written response to the plaintiff-intervenors' proposed legislative <br />redistricting plan. On October 16, defendant Growe submitted a <br /> <br />-8- <br />