Advertising

 

 


 

 

« The Reading Room--"And So It Goes" Gives Us Vonnegut Warts And All | Main | REDISTRICTING--O'Brien Leadership Prefers Slurring To Problem Solving »
Tuesday
Feb212012

REDISTRICTING--Zibel Testimony Minutes

On more than one occasion, I've alluded here to testimony from Howard Zibel, of the Supreme Court, regarding the court's reluctance to get involved in redistrciting.  Here are the minutes from the tesimony Zibel presented in regard to House Bill 1718 which would have forced the court to rule on any redistricting law suit within ten days and limisted an appeal to five days.

Howard Zibel – General Counsel, NH Supreme Court:  Ask you to  ITL this bill.

I am not going to plead separation of powers.  Can never say whether something is constitutional –a higher pay grade than me decides that.

Problem – “Time frames are way to short … It’s just not possible.”

Appeal to Committee – respect branches of government have for each other.  Courts are well aware of time constraints.

No plan emerged ten years ago.  Court issued a number of orders basically begging the Legislature to get this done.  Court was a very reluctant participant.  Redistricting every ten years is a political process, but if the court gets involved, politics plays no role.

Ten years ago, the court hired an expert from South Carolina.  It was done by numbers.  The court was in contact with Secretary of State.

Court doesn’t live in a vacuum.  Promise courts will work as quickly as possible.  How much time needed depends on what the plan is.  House plan would take more time to do than a Senate plan.

Challenges could also be brought in federal court.  They would pay no attention to this law proposed.   I don’t think you need this bill- - expeditious statement “It’s a truism.”  A legal challenge would be quicker to decide than a factual challenge.  Court very happy not to see a case.

2002 Timetable  (Zibel)

April 24 – Senate Plan case brought

June 11 – Arguments

June 24 – opinion issue

 

April 9 – House case brought

May 2 – Arguments

July 26 – Plan issued

August 14 – Clarifying language

Supreme Court would not rule for factual findings; that would be superior court.

Section two of the bill is also unnecessary.  House counsel already is used.  Ten years ago nobody dragged their feet at all.

Atty Zibel:  I come back to the Nike principle “Just do it.”

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.