1992 Precinct Boundary Change Information

Home

a legislative function, and courts should not intrude in that function unless upon proper request and until the legislature has had the opportunity to reapportion. The Minnesota Legislature 1lu acted on state legislative redistricting. It retains the power to amend the act at any time. However, the present act has been declared a valid law; it is the constitutionality of that law that has been challenged in this court. All of the parties in this action, except th.e plaintiff- intervenors, have urged this court to proceed as expeditiously as possible to review the legislature's redistricting law and to take steps necessary to ensure that a valid legislative redistricting is in effect for February's precinct caucuses. The plaintiff- intervenors' counterparts in the federal action have repeatedly represented to the federal panel that the legislature's adjournment until 1992 "requires that a court conduct redistricting" and that "neither the federal nor the state court can properly defer to the legislature" because "the clock ticks toward the 1992 election process." ~ Plaintiff's Memorandum in ODDosition to Motions for Federal Court to Abstain or stav, at 2, 12 (August 9, 1991); Plaintiff's ReDlv Memorandum in SUDDOrt of Motion to Stay SeDarate state Court Proceedinas, at 6 (August 16, 1991). The federal court itself acknowledges that this litigation has reached "the eleventh hour." Emison v. Growe, No. 4-91-202, at 14 (D. Minn. Dec. 5, 1991). The leqislature has represented that its work on legislative redistrictinq in January 1992, will likely be limited to an attempt -17- -: