Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 30, 2014, 10:14:08 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  US House Redistricting: Minnesota
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13 Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Minnesota  (Read 17224 times)
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5837
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« on: November 12, 2010, 12:49:39 pm »
Ignore

Here is Sean Trende's crystal ball on how he thinks redistricting will play out. I don't think he understands the lacuna of state laws well enough however. For example, he chats about doing away with Peters' district, MI-9, and that will be hard to do, because CD's in Michigan can't cross county lines, if there is a way to avoid that that comports with federal law. At least that is my understanding from the 2001 redistricting, and I assume the Michigan law has not changed. So it will be hard to push Oakland and Macomb County Democrats into the black Wayne County CD's. Plus, the Gross Pointe towns, which are GOP, and in Wayne County, will still have to be "trapped" in a black CD.

And if Minnesota loses a seat (Sean seems to think it is still ahead by a nose over Missouri as to which state loses a seat, although I have read on this Forum the opposite), I strongly suspect that what will happen is that the courts will combine MN-7 and MN-8 into one district, and the new Pubbie in MN-8 will go by-by, losing to Peterson who represents MN-7.
If Minnesota loses a district, then the courts will have to combine Minneapolis and St.Paul, assuming they action rationally.

Neither 5:3 or 4:4 really match the Metropolitan:Outstate population.  5:3 is only slightly better, and that required including St.Cloud and an outer ring of counties to the south.  But 4:3 is a much better fit.  5:2 is absolutely horrible and would require classifying Mankato and Rochester, and points beyond as part of the central core.

All the evidence that was given in 2001 about the lack of roads between Duluth and Fargo  and Grand Forks is still true.  MN-4 and MN-5 are the two least populous adjacent districts, so are the logical districts to merge.  MN-7 has slightly less than MN-5, but more than MN-4,

MN-8 has about the same population as MN-3.  MN-2 and MN-6 have almost enough population to remain whole under a 7-seat plan, but will of course have to give up population to MN-1, MN-7, and MN-8.  Since MN-8 already includes northern exurbs (this is why it has the same population as MN-3), it can include some more, perhaps from Washington.  Move St.Cloud to MN-7 (or perhaps bring MN-7 south to Iowa, and move Le Sueur, Rice, and Goodhue to MN-2

In 2001, the argument was that if St.Paul and Minneapolis were placed in a single district, that Minneapolis would still need to be split.  But this is no longer true.  It will free up western suburbs of Minneapolis to keep MN-3 in Hennepin, the excess from Mn-4 gets added to MN-6 and MN-2 to make up their outward losses.

The resulting districts should be reasonably stable as the rural districts will be close enough to get exurban growth to maintain their population, and the inner city district can gradually pick off inner suburbs from Ramsey County.  Since Minnesota is unlikely to lose another CD for many decades this is a quite stable result.

Only political considerations would dictate another outcome.  And there is no reason that a court would make a political decision.
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12964


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2010, 01:00:41 pm »
Ignore

All the evidence that was given in 2001 about the lack of roads between Duluth and Fargo  and Grand Forks is still true. 

What was this evidence? Looking on Google maps, there are roads between Duluth and Fargo and between Duluth and Grand Forks. It looks like US-2 connects the first two cities and Rt. 210 and US-10 connects the latter two. For a large, sparsely populated rural area, transportation doesn't seem that bad. 

Redistricting is inherently a political process because it concerns communities, and communities are political constructs.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5837
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2010, 03:34:12 pm »
Ignore

All the evidence that was given in 2001 about the lack of roads between Duluth and Fargo  and Grand Forks is still true. 

What was this evidence? Looking on Google maps, there are roads between Duluth and Fargo and between Duluth and Grand Forks. It looks like US-2 connects the first two cities and Rt. 210 and US-10 connects the latter two. For a large, sparsely populated rural area, transportation doesn't seem that bad. 

Redistricting is inherently a political process because it concerns communities, and communities are political constructs.
Courts, particularly federal courts are instructed to not apply political considerations when making remedial redistricting plans.

This has a lot of stuff about the 2000 Minnesota plan.

http://www.senate.mn/departments/scr/redist/redsum2000/zachman/c0-01-160_index.htm

I think that maybe the only way to keep 4 rural districts would have been to have a district across the whole northern border, so that it would have also split the Red River Valley, not merely combined the Iron Range and Duluth with the western part of the state.

It it goes to court, and the court gets the same evidence that they had in 2001, then combining Minneapolis and St.Paul in a single district in a 7-district plan is inescapable.  Alternatively, you are going to have to get a bunch of people to testify that they were making things up in 2001 in order to get the court to rule a particular way.

A (1-3)-3 plan (core-suburbs)-rural is a much better fit to the population than a (2-2)-3 plan.

The Senate is 37:30.  The rural Democrats aren't going to want to move NW Minnesota into MN-8 since that ends up shifting Peterson into MN-8 and opens up the rest of MN-7 to a Republican.  Since the Republicans managed to knock off Oberstar in MN-8, they won't be interested in helping the Democrats.  It makes a lot more sense to move some more exurbs (Washington or northern Anoka) to tilt it more Republican.  Cravaack had an 8000 vote margin in Chisago and Isanti counties, and 5000 districtwide.

There is no reason for a Republican from a middle suburb to want his area to be submerged in Democratic votes from Minneapolis-St.Paul.  While the inner suburbs are slightly Democratic, they can be outvoted by those further out.  Combining MN-4 and MN-5 is a sure Democrat loss of a seat.  You can make MN-1 a little closer.  But why not go from the current 4:4 to a 4:3, while helping out Cravaack, and perhaps opening up a shot in MN-1.  If the rural Democrats vote their district, rather than party, this moderate plan may even be able to override a veto.

At best the Democrats can hope for is a Dayton veto.  And the Democrat hack plan is going to have Peterson and Walz opposed.

So it then goes to a court whose only interest is getting a 7-district plan.  The plan approved by the legislature makes the minimal amount of changes in the existing plan preserving the core of 6 districts.  When losing a district, (1) you can either combine the two smallest adjacent districts, (2) rip apart one district, or (3) radically alter the map.

We hate Michelle Bachmann is not a legal argument, so (2) is out.  The court will have no basis for making a radical remap.  There only option is (1) to make the minimum amount of necessary changes.  Pairing of incumbents is unavoidable.

The Democrats only hope is if Minnesota holds on to 8 districts, in which case only minimal changes will be made, mainly to shore up MN-8 for the Republicans, and give them more of a chance in MN-1.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27426
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2010, 03:53:18 pm »
Ignore

If the courts combined MN4 and MN-5, that would mean a lot of Dems would be pumped into MN-3, or MN-6, or MN-2, or some combination thereof.  It would probably tip MN-3 more clearly to the Dem side. A map with just one northern district looks much cleaner, and there is no reason to separate the two northern halves, in favor of having two northern districts go three quarters of the way to the southern border, with MN-8 picking up exurbs that have zero in common with the Iron Range.
Logged

Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12964


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2010, 04:24:25 pm »
Ignore

jimrtex, I have tremendous respect for your knowledge and work on these issues, and it makes me sad to always see you frame your work as a contrast between what is "reasonable", "rational," "inescapable" logic which always maximizes Republican prospects and concentrates Democratic votes in a few overwhelmingly uncompetitive districts, while the alternative that doesn't have the result is "a hack plan" and "we hate Michelle Bachmann."

Those value judgments are subjective, to put it mildly, and it's hard not to miss that the plan most favorable to Republicans is inevitably described as the fairest, most rational, legitimate plan. We all make our own value judgments based on different criteria and what we believe to be the purpose of representation, and there is a range of views on that which depends, often, on our partisan ends.
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12964


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2010, 04:30:09 pm »
Ignore

All the evidence that was given in 2001 about the lack of roads between Duluth and Fargo  and Grand Forks is still true. 

What was this evidence? Looking on Google maps, there are roads between Duluth and Fargo and between Duluth and Grand Forks. It looks like US-2 connects the first two cities and Rt. 210 and US-10 connects the latter two. For a large, sparsely populated rural area, transportation doesn't seem that bad. 

Redistricting is inherently a political process because it concerns communities, and communities are political constructs.
Courts, particularly federal courts are instructed to not apply political considerations when making remedial redistricting plans.

This has a lot of stuff about the 2000 Minnesota plan.

http://www.senate.mn/departments/scr/redist/redsum2000/zachman/c0-01-160_index.htm

Could you direct me to where in that list of files they say there is a lack of roads between Duluth and the Red River Valley? That's a lot of raw material to go fishing through when Google Maps shows there are good links... People can frame things how they like in their testimony to get a desired result, it doesn't mean it's true.
Logged
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4409
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2010, 05:27:20 pm »
Ignore

If the "Democratic Hack Plan" looks something like this, I see no good reason for either Peterson or Walz to oppose it. What Democrat in his right mind wouldn't trade Bachmann for Cravaack?



(Note to moderators: I think this discussion on Minnesota warrants its own thread.) Done.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 09:29:46 pm by muon2 »Logged

Seriously, it was time to change back to the real avatar.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27426
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2010, 06:48:05 pm »
Ignore

Cravaack lives way out in the boonies of the Iron Range in St. Louis County  It is not clear to me he would beat Bachmann in a primary if he moves south into the new district. Meanwhile, Peterson might not win the Dem primary in the northern district, and if he is switched for some conventional liberal from St. Louis County, then his part of the district will be mad (the northwest corner of Minnesota is sometimes one of the most volatile parts of the US politically, up there with with northern Maine, so just because it love Peterson, does not mean it will love some liberal labor backed guy from Duluth after taking their local boy down), and Cravaack if he hung around, might actually whip the Iron Range Dem in that event.
Logged

Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4409
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2010, 07:03:59 pm »
Ignore

Cravaack lives way out in the boonies of the Iron Range in St. Louis County  It is not clear to me he would beat Bachmann in a primary if he moves south into the new district. Meanwhile, Peterson might not win the Dem primary in the northern district, and if he is switched for some conventional liberal from St. Louis County, then his part of the district will be mad (the northwest corner of Minnesota is sometimes one of the most volatile parts of the US politically, up there with with northern Maine, so just because it love Peterson, does not mean it will love some liberal labor backed guy from Duluth after taking their local boy down), and Cravaack if he hung around, might actually whip the Iron Range Dem in that event.

That's Oberstar's home. Cravaack lives in Lindstrom, in Chisago County.
Logged

Seriously, it was time to change back to the real avatar.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27426
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2010, 07:48:28 pm »
Ignore

Cravaack lives way out in the boonies of the Iron Range in St. Louis County  It is not clear to me he would beat Bachmann in a primary if he moves south into the new district. Meanwhile, Peterson might not win the Dem primary in the northern district, and if he is switched for some conventional liberal from St. Louis County, then his part of the district will be mad (the northwest corner of Minnesota is sometimes one of the most volatile parts of the US politically, up there with with northern Maine, so just because it love Peterson, does not mean it will love some liberal labor backed guy from Duluth after taking their local boy down), and Cravaack if he hung around, might actually whip the Iron Range Dem in that event.

That's Oberstar's home. Cravaack lives in Lindstrom, in Chisago County.

Oh gosh!  Do you know how this happened? I was googling to find where Cravaack lived, and the screen popped up showing this text:  "Cravaack applied a military theme to his campaign. ... he maintains residences at both his boyhood home in Chisholm and in the D.C. area. ..."  So, I thought, aha, he lives in Chisholm!  It is too bad a lot of text that was skipped over by those ellipses, including text that switched from chatting about Cravaack to chatting about where Oberstar lived.

The moral of the story?  Click the link, and read the article, or risk embarrassing yourself. Tongue

And yes, I should  have known that Cravaack was not some sort of "latte liberal" who likes to maintain multiple residences, including one in the belly of the beast, just so that he can be near the smell or power, or loves Georgetown cocktail parties, or something.  So I really have no excuse for my F up. Smiley
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 07:51:06 pm by Torie »Logged

jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5837
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2010, 08:34:15 pm »
Ignore

If the courts combined MN4 and MN-5, that would mean a lot of Dems would be pumped into MN-3, or MN-6, or MN-2, or some combination thereof.  It would probably tip MN-3 more clearly to the Dem side. A map with just one northern district looks much cleaner, and there is no reason to separate the two northern halves, in favor of having two northern districts go three quarters of the way to the southern border, with MN-8 picking up exurbs that have zero in common with the Iron Range.
Not really.  The inner suburban legislative districts were perhaps 55% Democrat.  It is only in Minneapolis and St.Paul proper where the Republicans don't really contest the legislative seats.  And those Democratic-leaning districts get neatly divided among MN-2, MN-3, and MN-6.  Since Minneapolis and St.Paul don't have 1/7 of the population, the suburbs can be cherry picked, putting the most Democratic towns into MN-4/5.

The Republicans won MN-3 59:37.   You are going to have the sitting Democratic congressman from MN-7 arguing against the dismembering his Red River district for the benefit of Twin City politicians.   MN-8 already included Isanti and Chisago.  It's not ideal.  But given that you have enough population for two agricultural districts, you have to make compromises in the name of one man one vote.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8779


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2010, 09:54:24 pm »

A couple years ago I posted some plans for MN assuming a loss of a seat, but drawn to neutral criteria. This was one of them.

The districts were drawn so that Mpls and StP were kept in separate districts and only one county was split. The plan has a 0.5% population variance, so it would have minor tweaks to reach equality. It also keeps the north and south suburbs in separate districts so it is effectively a 2-2-3 plan. The difference between this version and some of the others is a true St. Cloud-based district that naturally links to the western exurbs. I'm not suggesting any legislative body would create this, but an independent special master with the right set of judicial directives could.

Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5837
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2010, 10:24:03 pm »
Ignore

All the evidence that was given in 2001 about the lack of roads between Duluth and Fargo  and Grand Forks is still true. 

What was this evidence? Looking on Google maps, there are roads between Duluth and Fargo and between Duluth and Grand Forks. It looks like US-2 connects the first two cities and Rt. 210 and US-10 connects the latter two. For a large, sparsely populated rural area, transportation doesn't seem that bad. 

Redistricting is inherently a political process because it concerns communities, and communities are political constructs.
Courts, particularly federal courts are instructed to not apply political considerations when making remedial redistricting plans.

This has a lot of stuff about the 2000 Minnesota plan.

http://www.senate.mn/departments/scr/redist/redsum2000/zachman/c0-01-160_index.htm

Could you direct me to where in that list of files they say there is a lack of roads between Duluth and the Red River Valley? That's a lot of raw material to go fishing through when Google Maps shows there are good links... People can frame things how they like in their testimony to get a desired result, it doesn't mean it's true.

Moe Intervenors' Proposed Redistricting Principles

The Moe intervenors were the incumbent representatives, including Oberstar and Peterson.   See Page 13, last paragraph in Section VI.

Final Order Adopting a Congressional Redistricting Plan

This adopted the current (2-3)-3 plan.  In particular it notes that the 11-county metro area had 58% of the population, which was closer to 5/8 than 4/8.   But of course this is much much closer to 4/7 than 5/2.  The court rejected the Moe plan which attempted to preserve a 4:4 map, and noted the significant suburban population that this would place in some of the rural districts.

In drawing 3 districts around the outer edge of the state, the court recognized that one had to include an entire border.  It chose the southern border because of I-90 which runs just north of the Iowa border.  The court noted that Asanti and Chisago had traditionally been associated with the NE district.

In a 7-district plan, there is no way a court will go for a 5:2 split.  In a 4:3 split you preserve the rural districts to the extent possible.  This means moving 1 north, and shifting St.Cloud to the west, and then move the most peripheral metro counties, which would be Sherburne, Wright, and Washington.

In 2001, the proposal to combine Minneapolis and St.Paul actually required Minneapolis to be split, and would have required a 3-way split of Hennepin County.  But it was part of a (1-3)-4 plan.  That is, it would provide 3 suburban districts, while trying to maintain 4 rural districts (and the 2 northern rural districts ran east-west rather than north-south.

But since the court opted for a (2-3)-3 split, it was relatively easy to draw one of the suburban districts in Hennepin, and then have a northern and southern district.

But in a 7-district plan your choices are (2-2)-3 or (1-3)-3.  In a (2-2) plan the "Minneapolis" and "St.Paul" districts bulge outward.  The two suburban districts will have to large half circles.  If they are North and South, you probably have to split Hennepin.  If they are East and West you may end up splitting Anoka and/or Dakota, and make a fiction that the eastern district is really St. Paul suburbs, even though a large share of the commuters commute into Minneapolis or Hennepin.

A (1-3) plan combines the two smallest adjacent districts, either preserves the rest of Hennepin in a single district, or with modest trimming for equal population reasons.  And it also keeps Anoka and Dakota in separate districts.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5837
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2010, 11:19:33 pm »
Ignore

If the "Democratic Hack Plan" looks something like this, I see no good reason for either Peterson or Walz to oppose it. What Democrat in his right mind wouldn't trade Bachmann for Cravaack?



(Note to moderators: I think this discussion on Minnesota warrants its own thread.) Done.
Republicans have a 37:30 majority in the Senate.    Moreover 8 of the Democratic senators are from your proposed Manitoba South riding.   Do you want to even bother taking your plan to a vote?
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5837
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2010, 11:49:52 pm »
Ignore

A couple years ago I posted some plans for MN assuming a loss of a seat, but drawn to neutral criteria. This was one of them.

The districts were drawn so that Mpls and StP were kept in separate districts and only one county was split. The plan has a 0.5% population variance, so it would have minor tweaks to reach equality. It also keeps the north and south suburbs in separate districts so it is effectively a 2-2-3 plan. The difference between this version and some of the others is a true St. Cloud-based district that naturally links to the western exurbs. I'm not suggesting any legislative body would create this, but an independent special master with the right set of judicial directives could.


The courts have drawn the last two Minnesota congressional plans.  In 2001, the courts switched to a (2:3):3 plan because it best fit the 58:42 population split.

They rejected the 4:4 plan proposed by the Democratic congressmen which attempted to maintain the 4 rural districts in the corners - and would actually give them big chunks of suburban voters.  They also rejected the Republican Hack 4:4 plan, including the Manitoba South riding.  The Democratic congressmen particularly hated that part of the map.

When the special masters hold their hearings in Moorhead and Duluth, they will get run out of town if they propose that district.

The judges also rejected the Republican Hack plan because it would make a 3-way split of Hennepin County.  You not only have a 3-way split, you place far western Hennepin with Washington county, and cross the Ramsey-Hennepin boundary.  Evidence in 2001 was given that the Bloomington and Minneapolis chambers of commerce had merged.  While Minnesota has given great respect to county boundaries, it hasn't been 100%, and they have given in to strict equality, so you will end up with counties being split.

In 2000, Minneapolis and St Paul had too much population for a single district, and Minneaplis would have to split.  It is one thing to argue that Minneapolis and St.Paul have much in common.  It is hard to make that with a straight face if you are claiming that different parts of Minneapolis have less in common.
Logged
black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72576
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2010, 03:14:05 am »
Ignore

If the "Democratic Hack Plan" looks something like this, I see no good reason for either Peterson or Walz to oppose it. What Democrat in his right mind wouldn't trade Bachmann for Cravaack?

Peterson would probably oppose it because he'd might lose the primary. Especially since Bemidji and Moorhead liberals would likely vote against him in favor of a more liberal Duluth or Iron Range Democrat if he had a serious opponent.) And while its true that northwest Minnesota is a fairly territorial place and prone to huge swings, it's not very populated (there's probably more people in St. Louis county than there is in that district's west end north of Moorhead [Clay county]), and it's also not likely that they'd prefer an Iron Range Democrat to either Cravaack (assuming he "moved" there) or some other Republican from west central Minnesota as these people are usually crazies. Republicans have a huge track record of losing elections in that area because of nominating nutjobs. Hell in 2006 they even lost the 10th district in the State Senate which even voted for Mark Kennedy!

If the courts combined MN4 and MN-5, that would mean a lot of Dems would be pumped into MN-3, or MN-6, or MN-2, or some combination thereof.  It would probably tip MN-3 more clearly to the Dem side. A map with just one northern district looks much cleaner, and there is no reason to separate the two northern halves, in favor of having two northern districts go three quarters of the way to the southern border, with MN-8 picking up exurbs that have zero in common with the Iron Range.
Not really.  The inner suburban legislative districts were perhaps 55% Democrat.  It is only in Minneapolis and St.Paul proper where the Republicans don't really contest the legislative seats.  

Even now, the GOP still didn't win a single legislative seat in MN-5. And the only ones they won in MN-4 was a State Senate seat and its two House districts in the far northeast corner of Ramsey county, of which one of the House seats is only about half in the district, the other half being in Anoka county.

Also while Minneapolis and St. Paul don't have 1/7th the population of the state, they aren't that far off. Put Minneapolis and St. Paul in the same seat and the only places that you could fit in it are probably Richfield and those small towns to the northwest of St. Paul that no one considers suburbs and for whom residents usually list their addresses as St. Paul anyway (Lauderdale and Falcon Heights. And St. Anthony on the Minneapolis side.)

Anyway my prediction is we narrowly hang on to our seat and the courts end up drawing the map again which more or less just keeps the current map.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 03:24:07 am by roudy crowd of drunks moshing to straight edge anthems »Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8779


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 13, 2010, 06:43:40 am »

A couple years ago I posted some plans for MN assuming a loss of a seat, but drawn to neutral criteria. This was one of them.

The districts were drawn so that Mpls and StP were kept in separate districts and only one county was split. The plan has a 0.5% population variance, so it would have minor tweaks to reach equality. It also keeps the north and south suburbs in separate districts so it is effectively a 2-2-3 plan. The difference between this version and some of the others is a true St. Cloud-based district that naturally links to the western exurbs. I'm not suggesting any legislative body would create this, but an independent special master with the right set of judicial directives could.


The courts have drawn the last two Minnesota congressional plans.  In 2001, the courts switched to a (2:3):3 plan because it best fit the 58:42 population split.

They rejected the 4:4 plan proposed by the Democratic congressmen which attempted to maintain the 4 rural districts in the corners - and would actually give them big chunks of suburban voters.  They also rejected the Republican Hack 4:4 plan, including the Manitoba South riding.  The Democratic congressmen particularly hated that part of the map.

When the special masters hold their hearings in Moorhead and Duluth, they will get run out of town if they propose that district.

They may not like it, but if MN has 7 districts, Duluth must be combined with either the Red River valley, St. Cloud, or the northern suburbs of Anoka County. If there are three non-Twin Cities districts, it makes far more sense to keep Duluth and St. Cloud separate than to keep the northern corners separate. Moorhead will have to deal with it.

The city of St. Cloud extends into Sherburne county which reaches into the Mpls exurbs. If there is a St. Cloud-based district it makes far more geographic sense to draw it as I have than to link it to the StP suburbs in Washington County as currently exists in MN 6.

Quote
The judges also rejected the Republican Hack plan because it would make a 3-way split of Hennepin County.  You not only have a 3-way split, you place far western Hennepin with Washington county, and cross the Ramsey-Hennepin boundary.  Evidence in 2001 was given that the Bloomington and Minneapolis chambers of commerce had merged.  While Minnesota has given great respect to county boundaries, it hasn't been 100%, and they have given in to strict equality, so you will end up with counties being split.

In 2000, Minneapolis and St Paul had too much population for a single district, and Minneaplis would have to split.  It is one thing to argue that Minneapolis and St.Paul have much in common.  It is hard to make that with a straight face if you are claiming that different parts of Minneapolis have less in common.

The map I posted had no split municipalities. I would contend that the suburbs immediately south of Mpls are culturally like the north suburbs of StP, and that is reflected in my map as well. I do recognize that politically there is a great barrier to mixing Ramsey and Hennepin, except to keep St Anthony intact.

More likely would be to regroup the districts with Hennepin I show above. Then CD 5 is Mpls and the south and near west suburbs, CD 4 is Ramsey and Washington, and CD 3 outer Hennepin, Anoka and Chisago. Using the Apps estimates to get within 100 and splitting no county more than once the area might appear like the following.

« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 06:56:41 am by muon2 »Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27426
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 13, 2010, 12:02:47 pm »
Ignore

Does the PVI in Muon2's map for the green district, MN-1, change much from its current number?  His map looks to me like pretty much what the Court will do, if MN loses a seat. It is a pretty obvious kind of map.

I wonder who would win the primary in CD-3. Would it be Paulson or Bachmann?  Or would Bachmann move to CD-6, and fight it out with Craavack?
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 12:07:11 pm by Torie »Logged

black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72576
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 13, 2010, 12:14:14 pm »
Ignore

Bachmann lives in Stillwater, which in the realistic maps above ends up in MN-4 along with St. Paul. In other words a seat she's never winning. A map that connects Ramsey county to the southern Minneapolis suburbs would never happen, even if court-drawn.
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27426
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 13, 2010, 02:42:45 pm »
Ignore

Bachmann lives in Stillwater, which in the realistic maps above ends up in MN-4 along with St. Paul. In other words a seat she's never winning. A map that connects Ramsey county to the southern Minneapolis suburbs would never happen, even if court-drawn.

Yes, but could Bachmann carpetbag and win a primary in CD-3 or CD-6 in the Twin City area map Muon2 posted above, which is probably how the CD's will in fact be drawn by the Court, if MN loses a seat?  That is the question.  If MN does not lose a seat, I agree with you that the CD's will hardly change at all (CD-4 will need to be expanded some is the main thing).
Logged

Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2045
View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 13, 2010, 03:49:27 pm »
Ignore

Does the PVI in Muon2's map for the green district, MN-1, change much from its current number?  His map looks to me like pretty much what the Court will do, if MN loses a seat. It is a pretty obvious kind of map.

I wonder who would win the primary in CD-3. Would it be Paulson or Bachmann?  Or would Bachmann move to CD-6, and fight it out with Craavack?

Walz would run in the dark green district, right?  Or would he run in the blue?
Logged
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4409
United States


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2010, 05:35:57 pm »
Ignore

Walz would run in the blue. Kline would run in the green.

I would guess that Bachmann and Cravaack would run in the teal district, and I would say that since the population carryover from Bachmann's district is greater than from Cravaack's, that Bachmann could indeed win the primary. If the rest of the district is shaped like it is in the statewide map, then the carryover from Bachmann's district would outnumber that from Cravaack's districk by about two and a half to one.
Logged

Seriously, it was time to change back to the real avatar.
black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72576
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 13, 2010, 10:09:13 pm »
Ignore

Bachmann lives in Stillwater, which in the realistic maps above ends up in MN-4 along with St. Paul. In other words a seat she's never winning. A map that connects Ramsey county to the southern Minneapolis suburbs would never happen, even if court-drawn.

Yes, but could Bachmann carpetbag and win a primary in CD-3 or CD-6 in the Twin City area map Muon2 posted above, which is probably how the CD's will in fact be drawn by the Court, if MN loses a seat?  That is the question.  If MN does not lose a seat, I agree with you that the CD's will hardly change at all (CD-4 will need to be expanded some is the main thing).

The map muon drew isn't going to happen. He used to some standards I know for drawing it but they aren't in Minnesota law, and even the courts aren't going to connect Ramsey county with the south Minneapolis suburbs, especially stretching out to Lake Minnetonka.

A court-drawn 7-district map probably would resemble the one posted above from the redistricting app. Bachmann could win the primary in the sixth there but would have a very difficult time defeating Paulsen in the third.
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5837
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2010, 02:09:18 am »
Ignore

The courts have drawn the last two Minnesota congressional plans.  In 2001, the courts switched to a (2:3):3 plan because it best fit the 58:42 population split.

They rejected the 4:4 plan proposed by the Democratic congressmen which attempted to maintain the 4 rural districts in the corners - and would actually give them big chunks of suburban voters.  They also rejected the Republican Hack 4:4 plan, including the Manitoba South riding.  The Democratic congressmen particularly hated that part of the map.

When the special masters hold their hearings in Moorhead and Duluth, they will get run out of town if they propose that district.
They may not like it, but if MN has 7 districts, Duluth must be combined with either the Red River valley, St. Cloud, or the northern suburbs of Anoka County. If there are three non-Twin Cities districts, it makes far more sense to keep Duluth and St. Cloud separate than to keep the northern corners separate. Moorhead will have to deal with it.

The city of St. Cloud extends into Sherburne county which reaches into the Mpls exurbs. If there is a St. Cloud-based district it makes far more geographic sense to draw it as I have than to link it to the StP suburbs in Washington County as currently exists in MN 6.
A particular principle that the court appeared to adhere to in 2001, was community of interest.  This was behind their decision to switch to a 5:3 plan.  They didn't want to have big chunks of suburban territory in the 4 rural districts.  And they didn't want to combine NE and NW Minnesota in a single district and they didn't have to.

If they apply the same principles in 2011, as they did in 2001, they will go with a 4:3 plan.  In 2001, the plaintiffs and the 3 intervening parties each presented their redistricting principles, and then presented their plan, then critiqued the other plans.  If I were a plaintiff or intervenor in 2011, I would emphasize the precedents that they had set in 2001.

In 2001, the 11-county metro area had about 58% of the state population, which was closer to 5/8 than 4/8.  But it still needed some more population.  St.Cloud was the logical choice.  It was close by.  It was populous enough so a large extension wasn't needed, and Sherburne is part of the metro-area.

58% is a little bit more than 4/7.  So St.Cloud gets shifted to the rural area, and some metro counties have to be trimmed off.  This logically should come from the outer suburbs, Chisago, Isanti, Sherburne, Wright, Carver, Scott.  Where doesn't really, mainly which of the 3 rural districts need some more population.

St. Cloud gets assigned to CD 7 since it is adjacent, and the district has the least population of the rural districts.  Add Le Sueur, Rice, and Goodhue to CD 1, and then start shifting counties to get the rural districts up to the required population.

In 2001, the court directly addressed the issue of Isanti and Chisago being part of CD 8.  Their rationale still is valid, even if the district now includes part of Sherburne and Anoka, or perhaps Washington.

Not only does Moorhead and Duluth not want to be placed in the same district; it is unnecessary.  Keeping the basic configuration of the three rural districts is eminently doable.  Shouldn't the status quo be maintained to the extent possible - especially if a court is involved?

The hard is not 4:3, but convincing the court that Minneapolis and St.Paul should be combined in a single district.

(1) The evidence will show that doing so will shift the fewest persons between districts;
(2) It is not picking winners.  McCollum and Ellison will have about the same number of their  current constituents just over 60%.
(3) It made sense for Ramsey County to have its own CD, when its population was about equal to a CD.
(4) It made sense for Minneapolis to have its own CD (or its own CD and part of another) when it had enough population.
(5) It made sense for Hennepin County to have two CD's when it had enough population.  Now that it doesn't, it still makes sense to have one whole CD in the county, and the remainder of the county combined with an adjacent area of similar character.

Quote
The judges also rejected the Republican Hack plan because it would make a 3-way split of Hennepin County.  You not only have a 3-way split, you place far western Hennepin with Washington county, and cross the Ramsey-Hennepin boundary.  Evidence in 2001 was given that the Bloomington and Minneapolis chambers of commerce had merged.  While Minnesota has given great respect to county boundaries, it hasn't been 100%, and they have given in to strict equality, so you will end up with counties being split.

In 2000, Minneapolis and St Paul had too much population for a single district, and Minneaplis would have to split.  It is one thing to argue that Minneapolis and St.Paul have much in common.  It is hard to make that with a straight face if you are claiming that different parts of Minneapolis have less in common.

The map I posted had no split municipalities. I would contend that the suburbs immediately south of Mpls are culturally like the north suburbs of StP, and that is reflected in my map as well. I do recognize that politically there is a great barrier to mixing Ramsey and Hennepin, except to keep St Anthony intact.
But it did split Hennepin County in 3 parts, which the court gave as one of its reasons for not accepting the combining of Minneapolis and St.Paul


Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8779


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2010, 09:39:41 am »


They may not like it, but if MN has 7 districts, Duluth must be combined with either the Red River valley, St. Cloud, or the northern suburbs of Anoka County. If there are three non-Twin Cities districts, it makes far more sense to keep Duluth and St. Cloud separate than to keep the northern corners separate. Moorhead will have to deal with it.

The city of St. Cloud extends into Sherburne county which reaches into the Mpls exurbs. If there is a St. Cloud-based district it makes far more geographic sense to draw it as I have than to link it to the StP suburbs in Washington County as currently exists in MN 6.
A particular principle that the court appeared to adhere to in 2001, was community of interest.  This was behind their decision to switch to a 5:3 plan.  They didn't want to have big chunks of suburban territory in the 4 rural districts.  And they didn't want to combine NE and NW Minnesota in a single district and they didn't have to.

If they apply the same principles in 2011, as they did in 2001, they will go with a 4:3 plan.  In 2001, the plaintiffs and the 3 intervening parties each presented their redistricting principles, and then presented their plan, then critiqued the other plans.  If I were a plaintiff or intervenor in 2011, I would emphasize the precedents that they had set in 2001.

In 2001, the 11-county metro area had about 58% of the state population, which was closer to 5/8 than 4/8.  But it still needed some more population.  St.Cloud was the logical choice.  It was close by.  It was populous enough so a large extension wasn't needed, and Sherburne is part of the metro-area.

58% is a little bit more than 4/7.  So St.Cloud gets shifted to the rural area, and some metro counties have to be trimmed off.  This logically should come from the outer suburbs, Chisago, Isanti, Sherburne, Wright, Carver, Scott.  Where doesn't really, mainly which of the 3 rural districts need some more population.

St. Cloud gets assigned to CD 7 since it is adjacent, and the district has the least population of the rural districts.  Add Le Sueur, Rice, and Goodhue to CD 1, and then start shifting counties to get the rural districts up to the required population.

In 2001, the court directly addressed the issue of Isanti and Chisago being part of CD 8.  Their rationale still is valid, even if the district now includes part of Sherburne and Anoka, or perhaps Washington.

Not only does Moorhead and Duluth not want to be placed in the same district; it is unnecessary.  Keeping the basic configuration of the three rural districts is eminently doable.  Shouldn't the status quo be maintained to the extent possible - especially if a court is involved?


I'm with you up to the last step. Here's why.

I think that both a community of interest argument and core of existing district argument make a case for keeping Stearns, Benton, Sherburne and Wright together. That represents the historical greater St. Cloud area, and will have a population of just over half of a CD. The exurbs are slowly growing up the Mississippi towards St. Cloud, and this four-county area encapsulates that. Trimming Sherburne and Wright from the Metro area is consistent with your observation.

Now if I follow your suggestion that this gets added to the Red River valley, I'll have to jettison all the other counties not in the valley in current CD 7 to bring the population down to a proper size. I now have a district that runs along I 94 from the outer Metro area to Moorhead then north to Canada. I don't think it makes a lot of sense, and Moorhead probably won't like this any better than linking to Duluth. But, let's see what this does to the rest of the map.

As you noted the Duluth district now pushes into northern Anoka and/or Washington, and becomes even more a mixed suburban/rural district than it is now. CD 3 swings south into Carver and Scott so that's OK. However, the southern part of current CD 7 clearly goes into CD 1, but CD 1 ends up with 100 K too many people. The result is that CD 2 comes down the Mississippi and adds Rochester as well. When all is said and done it's the old four corners plan with three mixed suburban-rural districts. I don't think the court would end up there.

I agree that the court plan would be 4-3 with a battle between 2-2-3 and 1-3-3. My examples are designed to highlight the likely form of the rural 3 districts.

St. Cloud is in the borderland between the growing Metro and the rest of the state and is the largest such city. Even the Census now puts it in the combined statistical area with the Twin Cities. As the border area with a large central city it makes the most sense to have it anchor the area that has to come off the Metro area to make the three non-Metro districts. Once that decision is made, there is no need to peel off any other exurban counties for those three districts. The result is a map with essentially three east-west bands across the state for the rural districts.
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines