Laserfiche WebLink
<br />..moraDc!ua <br />The Minnesota Constitution places the power and responsibility <br />of redistricting with the legislature and the governor. Minn. <br />Const., art. IV, 55 3, 24. In the last 78 years, however, <br />Minnesota's redistricting rule has become its exception. Only once <br />during this time have the legislature and the governor been able to <br />pass a redistricting plan. Consequently, courts have been <br />compelled to assWlle a aore legislative role to adjust for the <br />detrimental lack of a "current expression of the state's political <br />preferences regarding the complicated redistricting process." <br />LaComb v. Growe, 541 F. Supp. 145, 150-51 (D. Minn. 1982). <br />Following the 1990 federal census, the 1991 Minnesota House <br />and Senate were able to Pass Chapter 246, S.F. No. 1571, <br />prescribing the boundaries of Minnesota's legislative districts. <br />This bill was subsequently determined to be validly enacted law. <br />The United States Supreme Court has consistently declared that when <br />a state has enacted a redistricting plan, courts may not pre-empt <br />the legislature's redistricting responsibility or unnecessarily <br />intrude on state policy except as necessary to correct an <br />unconstitutional plan. ~ Unham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37, 102 <br />S. ct. 1518 (1982); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 93 S. ct. 2348 <br />(1973). <br />A court's first responsibility is to determine whether any <br />errors in an enacted plan are so pervasive as to invalidate it <br />entirely, requiring adoption of an alternate plan. ~~, ~ <br />v. Luckett, 735 F.2d 912, 918 (5th Cir. 1984) (citing Unham and <br /> <br />-14- <br />