Laserfiche WebLink
<br />written response to plaintiff-intervenors' proposed legislative <br />redistricting plan; plaintiff-intervenors submitted a written <br />response to the legislature's redistricting plan; and defendant <br />Hennepin County Auditor submitted a written analysis of the <br />plaintiff-intervenors' plan. On october 17 and 18, 1991, <br />defendant-intervenors submitted additional .responses to the <br />plaintiff-intervenors' redistricting plan. <br />19. On NoveJDber 4, 1991, defendant-intervenors submitted a <br />congressional redistricting plan. The plan is based on S.F. <br />No. 1597/H.F. No. 1728, adopted by the House of Representatives <br />COJlUllittee on Redistricting and the Senate COJlUllittee on <br />Redistricting on october 30 and 31, 1991, and referred to the full <br />House and Senate for consideration in early January, 1992. <br />20. On November 8, 1991, the panel issued Pretrial - Order <br />No. 5 ordering final oral argument on (a) the existence and use of <br />any legislative history of Chapter 246, including maps, and (b) the <br />application of the rules of statutory interpretation to avoid, <br />modify, or correct constitutionai or other defects in Chapter 246. <br />In addition, the panel ordered that all parties have computer <br />access to each proposed plan file and written geographic <br />description of both plans. <br />21. On November 14, 1991, defendant-intervenors submitted a <br />memorandum on Chapter 246' s legislative history, appending <br />affidavits of State Representative Peter Rodosovich, State Senator <br />Lawrence J. pagemiller, and Craig Lindeke from the Revisor of <br /> <br />-9- <br />