Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />to pass the technical corrections bill that constituted its plan <br />proposal to this court. In view of the governor's affidavit filed <br />in Emison v. Growe, stating an intent to veto such a bill, and <br />given the time constraints posed by the upcominq caucuses, we have <br />perceived a clear obligation to complete our review process. OUr <br />intent has been to approve a valid redistricting plan that could <br />take effect in time for precinct caucuses, while leaving ample time <br />for appeal, if any. Although the effective date of our order is <br />subject to the federa~ court's stay, legislative redistrictinq is <br />now complete and ready to be implemented absent an alternative <br />enactment by the state and subject to whatever review is deemed <br />necessary. <br />Establishing boundaries for congressional districts presents <br />different issues because the legislature and the governor have not <br />acted. As we stated in our November 21, 1991 order, we do not <br />intend to proceed until they have had an opportunity to act. One <br />plan has been reported out of the redistricting cODlDlittees, and the <br />legislature is scheduled to meet from January 6 through January 1" <br />1992, to consider congressional redistrictinq. The federal court's <br />statement in its December 5 order (p. 1, footnote 6) that we have <br />indicated we would issue a congressional redistrictinq plan by the <br />end of December is simply wrong, without any basis and contrary to <br />the language of our previous orders. ~ Cotlow v. Growe, No. <br />C8-91-985 (Minn. Sp. Redistricting Panel Sept. 13, 1991) (setting <br />state legislative redistricting schedule); Cotlow v. Growe, No. <br />C8-91-985, at 1 (Minn. Sp. Redistricting Panel Nov. 21, 1991) <br /> <br />-18- <br />