DLN Issues : Civil Rights

Fifth Meeting LCR 1 & 2

October 9, 2001 State Capitol

2001 Interim Pierre, South Dakota

The fifth meeting of the interim Legislative Redistricting Committee was called to order by Co-Chair Michael Derby at 9:05 a.m., October 9, 2001, in LCR 1 and 2 of the State Capitol, Pierre, South Dakota.

A quorum was determined with the following answering the roll call: Senators Eric Bogue, Don Brosz, Arnold Brown (Co-Chair), Robert Duxbury, Barbara Everist, Jim Hutmacher, and Gil Koetzle; and Representatives Mike Derby (Co-Chair), Jay Duenwald, Kent Juhnke, Matthew Michels, Mel Olson, Gordon Pederson, Bill Peterson, and Paul Valandra.

Staff members present included Jim Fry, Director; Reuben D. Bezpaletz, Chief of Research Analysis and Legal Services; David L. Ortbahn, Principal Research Analyst; Reed Holwegner, Senior Fiscal Analyst; Annie Mertz, Senior Fiscal Analyst; Fred Baatz, Senior Research Analyst; Jacquelyn Storm, Principal Legislative Attorney; and Teri Retrum, Senior Legislative Secretary.

(NOTE: For sake of continuity, the following minutes are not necessarily in chronological order. Also, all referenced documents are on file with the Master Minutes.)

(NOTE: Prior to the first meeting, June 19, 2001, LRC staff distributed three-ring binders containing redistricting information. Additional material presented at this meeting and at subsequent meetings will continue to be placed in the binder. The binder has been labeled as Document #1 and will be referred to as such throughout the duration of the committee's meetings. Materials distributed at each meeting will be sequentially labeled for that meeting, beginning with Document #2).

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELS MOVED, SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE BILL PETERSON, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING (AUGUST 20 & 21) BE APPROVED. The motion prevailed on a voice vote.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELS MOVED, SECONDED BY SENATOR BOGUE, THAT ACTION ON THE MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING (SEPBEMBER 28, 2001) BE DEFERRED TO THE AFTERNOON TO ALLOW TIME TO FORMULATE A POSSIBLE MOTION FOR AN ADDENDUM TO THE MINUTES. The motion prevailed on a voice vote.

Representative Bill Peterson said that he has received several calls from legislators, public officials, and the public regarding the southeastern part of the state. They all say that they like their district and asked that the Legislature try to keep their district the same as much as possible.

Senator Jim Hutmacher reported on an ad hoc meeting held in Huron. He said that there was a good turnout at the meeting, and the residents of Beadle County want to keep Beadle County together.

Senator Eric Bogue said that people in his district want Corson County kept together west river. Also, Senator Bogue said that residents want Meade County kept as whole as possible.

Mr. Jim Fry, LRC Director, distributed copies of a letter received from the Department of Justice in response to the committee's submission for preclearance of redistricting the state maintaining old District 27 (Document #2). Mr. Fry said that the Department of Justice declined to make a decision on the submission until after the entire Legislature has acted on the map.

Representative Paul Valandra asked if the Department of Justice is concerned about "packing." Mr. Fry said that he does not want to speculate on what the Department of Justice officials' thoughts might be on the matter.

Representative Valandra suggested that it would be helpful if the committee asks the South Dakota Secretary of State's Office for demographic information on voters and voting patterns in the district.

Mr. Reuben Bezpaletz, LRC, said that some of that data has already been submitted to the Department of Justice. He said that it should be no trouble compiling whatever data the committee or the Department of Justice requests.

Senator Barbara Everist asked that staff provide Representative Valandra with a copy of the submission to the Department of Justice.

Representative Matthew Michels commented that no inference, either pro or con, should be derived from the decision from the Department of Justice. The declination does not mean that they are likely to reject the map; they are merely taking the path of least resistance.

Senator Hutmacher asked what would happen if the issue results in a lawsuit. Mr. Bezpaletz said that if the Legislature enacts a redistricting map before December 1, 2001, it will have fulfilled its constitutional obligation. Usually, the federal courts will give the Legislature a chance to fix the map themselves if a lawsuit results and is lost. However, sometimes the solution is so obvious that the court simply orders an appropriate change. Mr. Bezpaletz stated that in his opinion the Legislature would almost surely be allowed to draw a second plan, if the lawsuit scenario plays out.

Representative Valandra commented that voter turnout in District 27 was extremely low and that the actual numbers may be "shocking." Due to this low voter turnout, Representative Valandra said that the Legislature made the right decision last time and should do the same this time. He said that, because of this, there needed to be a higher proportion of tribal members in his district to give another tribal member a fair chance to be elected. Representative Valandra said that the voting statistics would verify this.

Representative Valandra stated that District 27 people feel the need to come away with a redistricting plan that will get tribal members or Indians elected. He said that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) did not have the same goal. According to Representative Valandra, the ACLU wants to see "on paper" that everyone has a fair shot at getting elected. He stressed that Indians have two governments, whereas non-Indians have one. Representative Valandra stated that he hopes to convince the ACLU to back away from their proposed plans because they will do more harm than what is intended.

Continuing with the staff report, Mr. Bezpaletz distributed the following:

• A map labeled "Lincoln Two" (Document #3)—Mr. Bezpaletz said that Senator Kenneth Albers prefers this configuration of Lincoln County. According to Mr. Bezpaletz, Senator Albers conveyed to him that he also prefers that all of northern Lincoln County be in a single Sioux Falls area district; and

• A map labeled "Fragment/Lodgepole Pine" (Document #4)—Mr. Bezpaletz said that this was a configuration that would provide for a single-member majority-minority house district that would fit in the Foundation/Pine or Prairie Two maps. He noted, however, that Lakota would constitute a minority of the voting area electorate in that district.

The committee recessed at 9:50 a.m. and reconvened at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. Curtis Nupen, Piedmont, SD, Meade County Commission, stated: "Leave Black Hawk with Meade County." He said that Ellsworth Air Force Base would fit better in current District 33.

Mr. Craig Shaver, Sturgis, SD, said that residents in Meade County want the county to remain whole. He said that if it is absolutely necessary to split the county, his preference is that the line be drawn as far away as possible from the town of Union Center. Mr. Shaver said that he does not want Union Center divided away from Sturgis.

Representative Valandra commented that Belle Fourche, Sturgis, and Black Hawk would share a business commonality and asked Mr. Shaver his opinion of the map labeled "Sagebrush/Cocklebur." Mr. Shaver responded that he does not like the configuration in Sagebrush/Cocklebur. He said that in his opinion it would result in a loss of rural representation.

Representative Larry Rhoden, Union Center, SD, testified that Black Hawk is not in a Meade County school district and is basically a suburb of Rapid City. He said that Meade County is agricultural-based and urged that Meade County be kept together minus Black Hawk.

Ms. Mary Hollenbeck, Corson County Commissioner, urged the committee to keep Corson County in a district which was all west of the river. She asked the committee to create a dual-member house district instead of a single-member house district including Corson County. She suggested that if the committee wanted an A and B split that it look elsewhere.

In response to a question from Representative Mel Olson, Ms. Hollenbeck stated that it did matter if Corson County was placed in a district east of the river. She said that Corson County was all on a reservation. East River counties could not understand the special challenges faced by the coexistence of a county and a reservation. Ms. Hollenbeck said that, overall, Sagebrush/Cocklebur would work. She stated that all counties should be treated the same. If one single-member House district was created all districts should be single-member.

Representative Valandra asked about the difference between East River and West River. He suggested that two differences were the brand inspection area and the time differences.

Representative Thomas Van Norman, Eagle Butte, SD, testified in favor of the splitting of District 28 into 28A and 28B. He stated that the split was necessary to give Lakota voters a fair chance to elect one of their own. In response to a question, Representative Van Norman stated that he did not personally favor the Hollow Horn Bear Plan. He stated that there were problems with creating a plan which went four counties to the south. Representative Van Norman also stated that it would be desirable to keep Corson County within a district which was all west of the Missouri River. He had a concern with going over the river.

Ms. Jennifer Ring, ACLU, testified that her purpose was to look at the Foundation Pine and Prairie Two districts. She suggested single-member districts with Indian populations of 73.08 and 75.77%.

Mr. Bezpaletz stated that the plans presented by Ms. Ring were not compatible with either Prairie Two or Foundation/Pine.

Ms. Ring said that Sagebrush/Cocklebur is the ACLU favorite. Ms. Ring stated that she would try to come up with better numbers by the end of the meeting and that she had just gotten the map this morning.

Representative Van Norman testified that the more he saw of redistricting the more he saw how difficult it is. He stated that he hoped the changes would be minimal from the present district configuration for District 28A and that changes would be minor throughout the state. He said that, with regard to the Sagebrush map, it would be possible to take out the Kenel District from Corson County and make District 28A workable. That would give the district the approximate same numbers as today.

In response to a question from Representative Michels, Representative Van Norman stated that he wanted to keep 28A as much as possible the same. He stated that there were a lot of reasons that this area constituted a community of interest. This included ancestry, economics, how close the communities are, the fact that these are two sister tribes with common interests, and a long common border. Representative Van Norman said that the tribal population percentage should be as it is today, although that was up to the committee.

Representative Van Norman said that even though there was a community of interests, getting a good turnout was very difficult because of a lot of historic factors. He said that there is a process of change that is developing and that faith is developing in the system.

Representative Van Norman said that 70% is pretty good but disagreed with the ACLU assessment that a minority voting population of 70% was sufficient in District 28A. He said that, even with the present numbers, he was only able to win a plurality in District 28A in the last election.

Representative Van Norman was asked questions with regard to how the Belle Fourche area should be treated. He responded that Belle Fourche is outside the present district today and that maybe it is wise to preserve that.

Senator Brosz asked a question of Senator Bogue. Senator Bogue stated that District 28A had the same configuration in 1992, 1994, 1996, and 2000. Only in 1998 was it different. Senator Bogue stated that due to growth in the Eagle Butte area, less of Corson County was needed to make the numbers work with regard to District 28A.

Representative Valandra stated that he feels strongly about the continuance of District 28A. He said that there is a lot of community of interest. Representative Valandra said that he thinks everybody can be appeased, including the rural interests and Rapid City.

Representative Valandra said that the committee should leave the law as it stands. He would like to keep this matter out of court. Representative Valandra said that the message from the plaintiffs in the former case is that their rights were violated. He would like to keep the opportunity for tribal members to elect members to the Legislature. Representative Valandra said that the building block should have been Districts 28A and 28B.

The committee recessed at 11:40 a.m. and reconvened at 1:05 p.m.

Co-Chair Brown asked committee members not to make a distinction between urban and rural areas when considering a final state redistricting map. He said that elected legislators represent all residents and factions of their respective districts.

Upon a suggestion from Co-Chair Brown to begin with the eastern part of South Dakota, SENATOR EVERIST MOVED, SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE MICHELS, THAT THE COMMITTEE ADOPT THE PARTIAL MAP LABELED "PRAIRIE TWO/SIOUX FALLS."

Senator Everist said that the map keeps all incumbents running in the same areas, takes advantage of the growth areas, and did not cause a great deal of consternation among those attending the area's ad hoc meetings.

SENATOR KOETZLE MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, SECONDED BY SENATOR HUTMACHER, THAT THE COMMITTEE ADOPT THE PARTIAL MAP TO BE LABELED "SIOUX FALLS MINIMAL (Document #5)."

Senator Gil Koetzle said that the map does not change as much as "Prairie Two/Sioux Falls" and takes into consideration the grown pattern.

Senator Bogue asked about the gross deviation of Sioux Falls Minimal and stated that it appeared to be out of compliance.

Senator Koetzle replied that both maps work regarding the numbers. He said that "Prairie Two/Sioux Falls" drastically changes the configuration of Sioux Falls. Senator Koetzle stated: "I believe that my map is more acceptable to Sioux Falls area people."

Representative Bill Peterson said that "Prairie Two/Sioux Falls" attempted to keep districts the same as much as possible. He said that the map maintains communities of common interest and that it is a superior map.

SENATOR KOETZLE'S SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO ADOPT THE PARTIAL MAP LABELED "SIOUX FALLS MINIMAL" FAILED ON A ROLL CALL VOTE WITH 5 VOTING AYE, 10 VOTING NAY, AND 0 EXCUSED. Those voting AYE: Duxbury, Hutmacher, Koetzle, Olson, and Valandra. Those voting NAY: Bogue, Brosz, Everist, Duenwald, Juhnke, Michels, Gordon Pederson, Bill Peterson, Brown, and Derby. Those EXCUSED: 0.

SENATOR EVERIST'S MOTION TO ADOPT THE PARTIAL MAP LABELED "PRAIRIE TWO/SIOUX FALLS" PREVAILED ON A ROLL CALL VOTE WITH 10 VOTING AYE, 5 VOTING NAY, AND 0 EXCUSED. Those voting AYE: Bogue, Brosz, Everist, Duenwald, Juhnke, Michels, Gordon Pederson, Bill Peterson, Brown, and Derby. Those voting NAY: Duxbury, Hutmacher, Koetzle, Olson, and Valandra. Those EXCUSED: 0.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELS MOVED, SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE BILL PETERSON, THAT THE COMMITTEE DIRECT LRC STAFF TO CONFIGURE DISTRICT 28 AS TWO SINGLE-MEMBER HOUSE DISTRICTS.

Representative Michels said that the individuals testifying before the committee have proven their case for dividing District 28 into two single-member House districts. He said that the community of interest and consistency in the district make it more possible to elect a Native American from that district.

SENATOR BOGUE MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE VALANDRA, TO DIVIDE ALL DISTRICTS IN THE STATE INTO SINGLE-MEMBER HOUSE DISTRICTS.

Senator Bogue said that he does not disagree at all with dividing District 28; however, to be fair, voters in all districts should be treated the same. Senator Bogue said that if one single-member district was created, all house member districts should be single-member districts. He said that when voters are treated differently because of race or locality, it is undesirable. Senator Bogue said that a South Dakota Attorney General opinion stated that both single-member and dual-member house districts at the same time were permissible, but the Attorney General opinion was not correct and not written with Baker v. Carr in mind.

Senator Everist stated that she agreed with Representative Michels and that the system maintained the integrity of one-man one-vote.

Senator Hutmacher said that he agreed with Senator Bogue and that it is an excellent idea to divide all districts in the state into single-member districts.

Representative Kent Juhnke said that every representative is a statewide representative. He also stated that it was better to have three persons representing a person than two. Representative Juhnke said that he opposes Representative Matthews' motion and Senator Bogue's substitute motion.

Senator Robert Duxbury said that it was easier to recruit candidates for a house in a single-member district.

Representative Michels stated that just because a single-member district was set up in one area did not mean that it had to be set up in the rest of the state. Setting up single-member districts throughout the state would add to voter confusion. There is already a single-member house district in District 28A.

Representative Valandra said that he supports dividing District 28 into two single-member districts; however, to be fair, he said that he would support Senator Bogue's motion to redistrict the entire state in the same manner. Representative Valandra stated that, according to the law, the Legislature was not setting up Districts 28A and 28B on a racial basis. Rather, the Legislature was basing its decision on community of interests, economics, and language.

Representative Bill Peterson stated that the tradition of dual-member house districts has served the state well. He interjected the possibility of "slotting."

Senator Duxbury said that there is not a lot of support for "slotting."

SENATOR BOGUE'S SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DIVIDE ALL DISTRICTS IN THE STATE INTO SINGLE-MEMBER HOUSE DISTRICTS FAILED ON A ROLL CALL VOTE WITH 6 VOTING AYE, 9 VOTING NAY, AND 0 EXCUSED. Those voting AYE: Bogue, Duxbury, Hutmacher, Koetzle, Olson, and Valandra. Those voting NAY: Brosz, Everist, Duenwald, Juhnke, Michels, Gordon Pederson, Bill Peterson, Brosz, and Derby. Those EXCUSED: 0.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELS' MOTION TO DIRECT LRC STAFF TO CONFIGURE DISTRICT 28 AS TWO SINGLE-MEMBER HOUSE DISTRICTS PREVAILED ON A ROLL CALL VOTE WITH 13 VOTING AYE, 2 VOTING NAY, AND 0 EXCUSED. Those voting AYE: Brosz, Duxbury, Everist, Hutmacher, Koetzle, Duenwald, Michels, Olson, Gordon Pederson, Bill Peterson, Valandra, Brown, and Derby. Those voting NAY: Bogue and Juhnke. Those EXCUSED: 0.

SENATOR HUTMACHER MOVED, SECONDED BY SENATOR DUXBURY, THAT THE COMMITTEE KEEP ALL COUNTIES WHOLE, EXCEPT THE ONES THAT MUST BE SPLIT DUE TO POPULATION.

REPRESENTATIVE DUENWALD MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE MICHELS, THAT THE COMMITTEE ADOPT THE PARTIAL MAP TO BE LABELED "MODIFIED SAGEBRUSH (Document #5)."

Representative Duenwald said that the map "does not break any counties, except for population."

Senator Duxbury said that there is "no reason to take a portion of McPherson—splitting counties that have common interests, this map does not keep them together."

Representative Mel Olson said that the map does not keep counties together—"Meade County is not together—There are other maps that are more compact."

Senator Hutmacher said that the map splits five counties unnecessarily. He asked for a recess to consider the numbers.

The committee recessed at 2:20 p.m. and reconvened at 3:04 p.m.

Staff distributed demographics concerning "Modified Sagebrush" (Document #6).

Representative Olson said that McPherson County is not split in the "Foundation" map. He said that Brown and Spink Counties are together in the Foundation map and that the committee work reflects that map.

Co-Chair Brown said that the committee did not vote on the Foundation map.

Senator Brosz stated that the Foundation map was "something to work with and build on. It's impossible to give everyone what they want."

REPRESENTATIVE DUENWALD'S SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT THE COMMITTEE ADOPT THE PARTIAL MAP TO BE LABELED "MODIFIED SAGEBRUSH" PREVAILED ON A ROLL CALL VOTE WITH 10 VOTING AYE, 4 VOTING NAY, AND 1 EXCUSED. Those voting AYE: Bogue, Brosz, Everist, Duenwald, Juhnke, Michels, Gordon Pederson, Bill Peterson, Brown, and Derby. Those voting NAY: Duxbury, Hutmacher, Koetzle, and Olson. Those EXCUSED: Valandra.

SENATOR HUTMACHER MOVED, SECONDED BY SENATOR DUXBURY, TO KEEP MC PHERSON COUNTY WHOLE. The motion failed with 4 voting AYE, 10 voting NAY, and 1 EXCUSED. Those voting AYE: Duxbury, Hutmacher, Koetzle, and Olson. Those voting NAY: Bogue, Brosz, Everist, Duenwald, Juhnke, Michels, Gordon Pederson, Bill Peterson, Brown, and Derby. Those EXCUSED: Valandra.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELS MOVED, SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE GORDON PEDERSON, THAT LRC STAFF CONFIGURE A MAP TO DIVIDE DISTRICT 28 INTO TWO SINGLE-MEMBER HOUSE DISTRICTS IN CONCERT WITH CURRENT DISTRICTS 28A AND 28B, IF PERCENTAGES WORK, USING "MODIFIED SAGEBRUSH," SUCH MAP TO BE MAILED TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

At this time, Mr. Bezpaletz demonstrated a map dividing District 28 into two single-member House districts and said that the map is the best majority-minority House district as can be developed considering the circumstances.

Representative Michels withdrew his motion.

Representative Valandra said that this is the best Lakota district they could draw.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELS MOVED, SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE BILL PETERSON, THAT THE COMMITTEE ADOPT THE HOUSE MAJORITY-MINORITY DISTRICT 28 MAP AS CONFIGURED. The motion prevailed on a roll call vote with 12 voting AYE, 3 voting NAY, and 0 EXCUSED. Those voting AYE: Brosz, Duxbury, Everist, Hutmacher, Koetzle, Duenwald, Michels, Olson, Bill Peterson, Valandra, Brown, and Derby. Those voting NAY: Bogue, Duenwald, and Gordon Pederson. Those EXCUSED: 0.

Co-Chair Derby distributed a collection of Rapid City conurbation maps (Document #7).

REPRESENTATIVE DERBY MOVED, SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE BILL PETERSON, THAT THE COMMITTEE ADOPT THE DISTRIBUTED RAPID CITY CONURBATION MAPS. The motion prevailed on a roll call vote with 10 voting AYE, 4 voting NAY, and 1 EXCUSED. Those voting AYE: Bogue, Brosz, Everist, Duenwald, Juhnke, Michels, Gordon Pederson, Bill Peterson, Brown, and Derby. Those voting NAY: Hutmacher, Koetzle, Olson, and Valandra. Those EXCUSED: Duxbury.

Representative Olson said that in his opinion the special session to redistrict the state should be modeled after the way the general bill is handled—the bill is introduced, and amendments can be made to that bill; the redistricting map should be introduced with allowances for amendments; however, a new bill should not be introduced.

Co-Chair Brown said that the Legislative Procedure Committee will meet prior to the special session to determine the procedures.

Representative Olson asked: "Who draws the legislation?"

Mr. Bezpaletz said that, in the past, the map has been reduced to written form and incorporated into a bill to be voted on by the Legislature. He suggested that the committee direct that all amendments to the map be posted on the Internet and perhaps made available on two screens—one in the House chamber and one in the Senate chamber—to facilitate viewing the maps.

Co-Chair Brown agreed and suggested that the public hearing be held in the committee of the whole in one chamber.

Representative Michels said that the map labeled "Modified Sagebrush" incorporating Districts 28A and 28B as divided should be put on the Internet.

Senator Hutmacher asked that the map be broken down along city lines also.

Senator Brosz said that all legislators should be encouraged to have any amendments prepared in advance.

Representative Michels distributed copies of draft legislation—An Act to provide for redistricting principles for the 2001 legislative redistricting (Document #8).

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELS MOVED, SECONDED BY SENATOR BROSZ, THAT THE COMMITTEE ADOPT DRAFT LEGISLATION—AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR REDISTRICTING PRINCIPLES FOR THE 2001 LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING—TO BE INTRODUCED IN THE SPECIAL SESSION AS A SEPARATE BILL NOT ATTACHED TO THE REDISTRICTING BILL.

Senator Hutmacher expressed opposition to the draft legislation and objected to subdivisions (3) Preservation of existing Senate and House district boundaries and (4) Respect for geographical and political boundaries because, in his opinion, those principles were not accomplished in the committee map.

Senator Everist said that the principles are simply those that are of primary significance, not required principles.

Representative Olson said that subdivision (3) should be removed because the principle was not followed. Responding to Representative Michels, Representative Olson said that he could support the draft legislation if subdivision (3) was removed. Representative Michels agreed to remove subdivision (3); Senator Brosz concurred.

REPRESENTATIVE OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE MICHELS, TO AMEND REPRESENTATIVE MICHELS' MOTION BY DELETING SUBDIVISION (3) AND RENUMBERING THE SUBDIVISIONS. The motion prevailed on a voice vote.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELS' MOTION THAT THE COMMITTEE ADOPT DRAFT LEGISLATION—AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR REDISTRICTING PRINCIPLES FOR THE 2001 LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING—AS AMENDED, TO BE INTRODUCED IN THE SPECIAL SESSION AS A SEPARATE BILL NOT ATTACHED TO THE REDISTRICTING BILL PREVAILED ON A ROLL CALL VOTE WITH 12 VOTING AYE, 2 VOTING NAY, AND 1 EXCUSED. Those voting AYE: Bogue, Brosz, Everist, Duenwald, Juhnke, Michels, Olson, Gordon Pederson, Bill Peterson, Valandra, Brown, and Derby. Those voting NAY: Hutmacher and Koetzle. Those EXCUSED: Duxbury.

After speaking with Representative Thomas Van Norman, and with Representative Van Norman's approval, REPRESENTATIVE MICHELS MOVED, SECONDED BY SENATOR EVERIST, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING (SEPTEMBER 28, 2001) BE APPROVED, WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDENDUM (Document #9):

In response to a question, Representative Van Norman stated that he was against the Hollow Horn Bear plan.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELS' MOVION CONCERNING THE ABOVE ADDENDUM PREVAILED ON A VOICE VOTE.

After brief committee discussion, REPRESENTATIVE BILL PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE OLSON, THAT THE LEGISLATION—AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR REDISTRICTING PRINCIPLES FOR THE 2001 LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING, AS AMENDED—BE INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE, AND THAT THE REDISTRICTING BILL BE INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE, AND THAT AN ADDITIONAL SIMILAR REDISTRICTING BILL BE DRAFTED TO BE HELD IN ABEYANCE, IF NEEDED. The motion prevailed on a roll call vote with 14 voting AYE, 0 voting NAY, and 0 EXCUSED. Those voting AYE: Brosz, Duxbury, Everist, Hutmacher, Koetzle, Duenwald, Juhnke, Michels, Olson, Gordon Pederson, Bill Peterson, Valandra, Brown, and Derby. Those voting NAY: 0. Those EXCUSED: Bogue.

With the consensus of the committee, Co-Chair Brown and Co-Chair Derby agreed to work with staff to determine whether a conference call of the committee is required before the special session.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELS MOVED, SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE JUHNKE, THAT THE COMMITTEE BE ADJOURNED. The motion prevailed on a voice vote.

The committee adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

home : mission statement : contact : site map : search : store : links
DLN coalition : DLN issues : DLN nation : related issues

Any reprints are under the Fair Use doctrine of international copyright law : See http://www.dlncoalition.org/fair_use.htm.