Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Plaintiff-intervenors have urged acceptance of a substantially <br />different plan with a lower average deviation. We recOCJnize that <br />the primary objective of redistricting is to achieve POPUlation <br />equality in all state districts. Courts have, however, uniformly <br />recognized that POPUlation deviations of ten percent or less in <br />legislative plans do not affect the plan'. con.tit~tionality. Btl <br />Connor v. Finch, 431 O.S. 407, 418,' 97 S. ct. 1828, 1835 (1977). <br />The limited POPUlation deviations in the corrected Chapter 246 are <br />in almost all instances well within two percent. To accept an <br />alternative plan with slightly lower population deviations over an <br />enacted legislative plan would require us to disregard an entire <br />body of established redistricting case law. <br />Following the issuance of our Findings of Fact, Conclusions of <br />Law and Preliminary Order for Legislative Redistricting', the <br />federal district court in Emison v. Growe, No. 4-91-202, at 15 <br />(D. Minn. Dec. 5, 1991), ordered a stay of "any future orders that <br />[the Minnesota Special Redistricting Panel] may issue relating to <br />the adoption of any state redistricting plan or congressional <br />redistricting plan...until further order of [the district] court." <br />All parties involved in the federal and state proceedings have been <br />enjoined from enforcing or implementing any order of this court <br />that proposes adoption of a reapportionment plan. The stay was <br />purportedly issued in aid of federal jurisdiction and to avoid <br />inhibiting the legislative process before the legiSlature acts. <br />From the outset of the li tigation in this court, we have <br />proceeded with the understanding that redistricting is essentially <br /> <br />-16- <br />