►
From YouTube: Senate Standing Committee on Judicary (1/6/22)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
It's
patience
as
I
had
to
practice
a
little
law.
Hopefully
that
won't
be
a
recurring
problem
here,
at
least
on
thursdays.
I
want
to
do
it
all
the
rest
of
the
time,
though,
all
right,
I
call
to
order
the
senate
standing
committee
on
judiciary
for
our
first
meeting.
We've
got
one
bill
on
the
agenda
and,
as
president
stevens
makes
his
way
up,
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
have
the
secretary
please
call
the
roll.
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee.
I
want
to
give
a
little
bit
of
history
having
gone
through,
redistricting
and
actually
being
a
product
of
a.
I
think,
a
1994
case
that
redistricted
in
1995,
that
put
me
in
moorhead
kentucky.
C
In
county
I've
been
very
familiar
with
the
process
for
years
in
2014,
I
think
I
was
named
in
my
official
capacity
in
federal
litigation
over
a
redistricting
suit,
because
we
did
not
redistrict
in
the
2014
session.
C
Then
governor
steve
beshear
called
us
back
in,
because
the
federal
court
stayed
the
proceedings
to
allow
us
the
opportunity
to
draft
districts
based
on
the
2010
census,
because
the
we
had
drawn
them
and
then
they
were
thrown
out
and
based
on
what
the
house
under
then
speaker,
stumbo
and
crew,
had
done
so
we
had
to
go
back.
We
did
not
draw
them.
C
They,
the
chief
judge
of
the
sixth
circuit,
which
sits
in
cincinnati,
appoints
a
three-judge
panel
to
review
any
election
contest,
that's
filed
under
federal
law
if
there
is
a
need
for
if
it
is
a
joint
case,
and
I
can
get
into
the
details,
if
there's
a
joint
case
of
where
there
are
state
and
federal
issues,
there
may
be
the
need
for
a
certification
of
an
issue
to
the
state
supreme
court.
But
in
this
case
there
was
not.
C
It
was
all
federal
issue,
so
the
three-judge
panel
was
appointed
by
the
chiefs
judge
of
the
sixth
circuit
court
of
appeals,
but
they
were
trial,
court
judges,
and
so
there
had
always
been
the
issue
of
fairness.
Where
do
you
have
this
and
you
have
multiple
jurisdictions-
and
I
think
I
heard
representative
jason
nemes
talk
about
fisher,
one
fisher,
two
fisher,
three
fisher,
four
jensen,
one.
C
You
know
these
were
filed
all
over
the
commonwealth,
primarily
in
the
southern
part
of
the
state
in
the
northern
part
of
the
state
that
we
should
set
up
a
process
to
where
the
issues
are
consolidated.
And
so
we
tried
to
mirror
the
federal
system.
A
three-judge
panel
appointed
by
the
chief
judge,
trial
court
judges,
the
the
chief
judge
of
the
supreme
court,
which
is
the
supreme
court
justice
mitten
at
this
time
to
hear
any
election
contests.
C
C
C
C
So
more
than
likely,
if
some
people
and
want
to
litigate-
and
I
don't-
I
can't
speak
for
the
house
map-
because
I
really
haven't
looked
at
it.
But
I
think
ours
that
we
have
proposed
meets
all
the
constitutional
parameters,
because
those
have
been
our
guiding
principles
and
I
believe
the
federal
map
for
the
congressional
delegation
meets
all
federal
requirements.
A
C
A
C
Us
and
so
now,
I
think
this
is
the
most
certain
way
to
get
it
to
the
quickest
resolution.
If
there
is
litigation
filed.
Mr
chair,
very
good.
D
Just
just
for
clarification,
I
think
I
know
the
answer
to
this,
but
I'm
assuming
that
any
action
would
follow
the
normal
path.
So
if
they
file
it
in
circuit
and
the
losing
party
wants
to
appeal,
it
goes
court
of
appeals
supreme
court.
It
would
follow
the
same
general.
C
Path,
yes,
as
you
are
well
aware-
and
I
think
virtually
the
majority
of
this
committee
being
practicing,
lawyers
is
going
to
be
where
the
plaintiff
files
and
that's
where
their
residence
generally
is,
and
you
know
some
people
have
always
thought
that
if
they
didn't
get
the
right
redistricting,
they
might
run
down
the
franklin
circuit
court
because
they
got
an
advantage
in
the
filing
here,
then
others
would
think
that
you
might
get
an
advantage
by
filing
it
in
the
laurel
circuit
court.
C
I
was
trying
to
remove
any
concept
of
advantage
by
having
this
done
by
three
judge
panel,
but
when
you
look
at
110-
and
I
understand
the
argument-
don't
necessarily
agree
with
the
argument-
it's
just
this.
This
is
too
big
and
too
prominent
of
an
issue
at
this
late
of
date
to
have
muddy
up
the
water
over
process
versus
substantive
issue.
A
B
E
Yes,
I
vote
I
and
president
cyrus,
I'm
like
you.
I
I
appreciate
how
it
had
been
done
and
I
understand
the
rationale
for
why
it's
been
done.
It
seemed
like
a
pretty
good
process
and
I'm
also
with
the
same
mind,
I
I
understand
the
argument:
don't
necessarily
agree
with
it,
but
if
you
think
this
is
the
best
course
action,
I'm
an
eye
thanks.
A
A
Where
you
and
I
vote
or
did
you
okay,
so
eight
eight
nothing
been
asked
to
announce
these
for
those
watching
via
the
web,
so
they
can
know
what
the
what
the
count
is
so
there
it
is
with
nothing
further
come
before
the
committee
I'll
entertain.
A
motion
adjourn
so
moved.
If
thank
you,
we
are
adjourned.
Let's.