Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers adopt Joint Resolution 1 approving revised district map tied to NAACP lawsuit
Summary
A legislative body adopted Joint Resolution 1 (JR1) approving a revised district map tied to litigation brought by the NAACP, committee discussion shows; attorneys and map experts reviewed the plan, and the motion passed by voice vote.
Get email alerts on the Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers adopted Joint Resolution 1 (JR1) to approve a revised district map connected to an NAACP lawsuit, a meeting transcript shows.
Senator Barr, who moved adoption, said attorneys and map experts had reviewed the plan and approved it. "They do have, I will say, that this map does perform. They, attorneys have approved it as well as the map experts," Senator Barr said during the discussion.
The transcript indicates JR1 was described as a reapportionment item drawn in response to the NAACP litigation and a three-judge panel; the speaker said the plaintiff's map initially contained eight districts and "they ended up with 5 districts." The speaker also said a bill that describes precincts exists but that a graphical map file was not provided to the speaker: "If you they have a bill that describes the precincts, they did not have a map for me. I asked for it. They didn't have it." The resolution was adopted by voice vote; the record shows "The ayes have it," but no roll-call tally is provided in the transcript.
Earlier in the meeting Senator Barr moved adoption of the minutes; that motion also passed by voice vote. At the end of the session the chair noted a rules committee meeting scheduled at 09:30 in the pro tem's office and moved to "rise and report," which passed by voice vote as well.
Discussion recorded in the transcript focused on the source of the redistricting (the NAACP lawsuit and a three-judge panel), review by attorneys and map experts, and the absence of a map file for the speaker. No other substantive debate or formal roll-call votes appear in the provided transcript.
A rules committee meeting was announced for 09:30 in the pro tem's office; no materials or agendas for that meeting were described in the transcript.

