In Case No. 2002-0210, Petition of Representative Peter Burling & a., the court on August 14, 2002, issued the following order:

The petitioners’ motion for clarification and further hearing is denied without prejudice to any party initiating an action in superior court or other appropriate jurisdiction. In light of this ruling, the State’s motion to intervene is denied as moot.

With respect to the motion filed by the Secretary of State to accept additional facts, the court notes that it was compelled to enjoin the filing period for house candidates so that it could create a constitutional reapportionment plan. See RSA 655:14. The court dissolved this injunction on July 26, 2002, when it issued the slip opinion in this case. As the court noted in its July 26, 2002, order, "it [was] not the intent of th[e] order or of the court’s opinion to otherwise alter the provisions of RSA chapter 655. The legislative and executive branches are free to take whatever steps may be necessary to assure that a 2002 election for the House of Representatives is held."

In addition, it has come to the court’s attention that there is a typographical error in Appendix D to the court’s slip opinion in this case, issued on July 26, 2002. In Appendix D to the court’s slip opinion, wards 1 and 2 in the city of Dover were listed as comprising District 69. Appendix D to the court’s slip opinion is hereby amended to show that wards 1 and 2 in the city of Dover comprise District 70.

Brock, C.J., and Nadeau, Dalianis and Duggan, JJ., concurred.


Eileen Fox,