Could you explain the reasoning as to why Rochester is split between 2 Senate Districts where there could easily be one for the entire city?
In the 1993-2003 map Rochester was one State Senate district (which was actually an enclave in a donut district surrounding it). It had grown so fast that it could no longer fully fit in the district, and you'd have to end up with a kind of awkward split where Rochester was one Senate district (and thus two House ones), and then one House seat that's about half Rochester/half rural gets paired with an all rural seat. The court probably decided this wasn't ideal so it made more sense to split it into two part Rochester/part rural districts where all four House seats contain some Rochester precincts. Keep in mind that Rochester's Democratic swing came fairly recently, and in 2001 the Republicans controlled all Rochester-area legislative seats, so it wasn't a partisan issue. Today of course it clearly benefits the Republicans, but it's not really a gerrymander and based on existing precedent, so it remains.
That makes sense, thanks for the heads up! I've always liked Minnesota's system of 67 Senate seats and then 2 House seats per Senate district for a total of 134. It's much better then Wisconsin's 33 Senate seats with 3 Assembly seats per Senate district for a total 99.
