My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1992 Precinct Boundary Change Information
Roseville
>
Elections
>
Precinct Information
>
1992 Precinct Boundary Change Information
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 10:14:39 AM
Creation date
5/23/2007 4:25:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Elections
Elections - Document Type
Precinct Map ELE 00900
Date of Election
1/1/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />remaining report was distributed to the members of the Senate <br />Redistricting Committee on May 3, 1991. <br />COlfCLUSIOlfS 01' LAW <br />1. Minnesota Laws 1991, Chapter 246, violates Article IV, <br />sections 2 and 3 of the Minnesota Constitution because, among other <br />defects, it creates noncontiguous districts. <br />2. Minnesota Laws 1991, Chapter 246, violates the equality <br />of representation requirement of the fourteenth amendment of the <br />United states Constitution. <br />3. Unless a legislative plan is incorrectably invalid, a <br />court may not simply .ubstitute its own reapportionment preferences <br />for those of the state legislature. bA UDham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. <br />37, 40-42, 102 S.. ct. 1518, 1520-21 (1982). Courts are not <br />permitted to disregard state apportionment policy or plans without <br />solid constitutional grounds for doing so. White v. Weiser, 412 <br />U.S. 783, 795, 93 S. ct. 2348, 2355 (1973) (citing Whitcomb v. <br />Chavis, 403 U.S. 124, 160, 91 S. ct. 1858, 1878 (1971)). The court <br />must reconcile constitutional requirements with the goals of state <br />political policy by limiting its modifications "to those necessary <br />to cure any constitutional or statutory defect." Upham 456 at 43, <br />102 S. ct. at 1522; ~Ala2 Rybicki v. State &d. of Elections, 574 <br />F. Supp. 1082 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (making only those corrections <br />necessary to remove unconstitutional defects). Such deference does <br />not extend to the curative amendments, as they have not been <br />adopted into law. <br /> <br />-11- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.