Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2014, 02:49:03 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  US House Redistricting: Minnesota
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13 Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Minnesota  (Read 16058 times)
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26885
United States


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: November 17, 2010, 11:51:40 am »
Ignore

Someone should see what happens to the PVI's of the Twin City suburban districts if you combine St. Paul and Minneapolis in one CD. It will look pretty ugly for the Pubbies I would guess. Be careful what you wish for.
Logged

jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5523
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: November 17, 2010, 10:48:18 pm »
Ignore

if they follow the logic they used in 2001
But doing so would not be logical. In 2001, they had the prospect of making the minimal change needed to preserve population equality among eight districts, some of which had grown faster than others. In 2011, they are dealing with (potentially) eliminating one district and altering the other districts to accommodate 15% more people in new territory; more than that in districts which are lagging in population. It would be irrational and immoral to consider arguments for a completely different scenario as binding on a new one with new parameters and a potentially different conclusion. In particular, there is the open question of whether 2001 testimony was flawed if someone claimed that there are no roads between Duluth and Grand Forks or Duluth and Fargo, when the evidence shows rural highways link them.
The testimony was that from Duluth to Moorhead you either had to go as far south as Brainerd or use forest roads.  Mapquest says to go south through Brainerd.  Google shows a route further north.  But if you try to force that route into Mapquest it mightily resists going directly east from Park Rapids.  And try going from Noyes to Grand Portage.

In 2001, they made radical changes.  The Democratic congressmen proposed keeping four rural districts in the corners.  But Governor Ventura among others pointed out that the 11-county Metro Area had 58% of the population which was close to 5/8 than 4/8, and that in a 4/8 plan some of the rural districts include substantial rural territory.

In the 1990s, MN-2 was in the SW corner but included Wright, Carver, and Scott counties.  MN-7 then included St.Cloud  (incidentally both Benton and Sherburne were split so as to include all of the city and immediate areas in MN-7).  MN-1 was encroaching into Dakota and was going to need some more population.  MN-6 wrapped around MN-4 on 3 sides and was the most populous district.

MN-8 was slightly overpopulated.  I think what has happened is that all the traditional extraction jobs (timber and mining have largely disappeared or reach low levels), so that now the economy is based on recreation, and people whose work schedule means they can live outside cities (airline pilots, firemen, etc.), folks who are retired, or who can afford two residences (a place up north, and an apartment in the city).  MN-8 has had the most stable population share over the past 2 decades.  If Minnesota retains its 8th seat, then it can remain virtually unchanged.

Over the past couple of decades the inner cities have lost the most population; followed by the farming areas; with MN-8 stable, and growth in the suburbs.

I suspect the reason that there was a push for a 5-3 split was that 2 inner city, and 2 suburban districts was an uncomfortable split, with MN-6 wrapping around southwest of Minneapolis around  the eastern side of St Paul to northwest of Minneapolis.   And the suburban districts would have become worse as there was a continued need for the inner city districts to expand ever outward.

So in 2000, the court examined where the population actually resided, and eliminated MN-2 in the SW corner of the state, and made it a southern metro district.  Because the metro area was short of 5/8 of the population they added St. Cloud and another tier of counties to the south.  MN-7 was extended south to replace St.Cloud which was shifted to the Metro area, MN-1 was extended west to replace the counties it had lost south of the Metro area.

In the metro area, you could then create 3 suburban districts, while preserving the 2 inner city districts which continued to expand outward.

The basic principles applied in 2001 were:

(1) Population equality.
(2) Place districts where the population resided.
(3) To the extent possible avoid combining Greater Minnesota with the Metro area.
(4) Use St.Cloud as a transitional area to achieve (1).

Once they made the decision to go to three rural districts, then they drew one along the Iowa border where there is an interstate highway.  One along the Dakotas border where there is an interstate highway, and one north of the Metro Area where there is an interstate highway.

So let's apply the same principles to 2011.

If there are 8 districts, then you have to shift some population from the metro districts to the farm districts.  So you probably move the tier of counties south of Minneapolis in to MN-1 and then bring MN-7 further south.   MN-8 is right at 1/8 of the state population.  Then you move 4 and 5 further out into the suburbs.

But if Minnesota loses a seat, then a more radical change is required.  The 11-county metro area has a bit more than 4/7 of the population.  St.Cloud is not enough to get anywhere close to 5/7.  So you need to trim a little bit.  So you keep Isanti and Chisago out.  These are the most non-urban metro counties.  The Census Bureau defines metro areas based on commuter patterns.  Because Isanti and Chisago had less of a local-based economy in the first place, some long-distance commuters moving in can tip an area into the metro area.  Rice had similar growth to Isanti and Chisago, but Faribault provides enough jobs to keep it from being included in the metro area so far.  Sooner or later, it will tip.  

The growth in Wright is much more suburban, with towns on the extreme eastern edge,  Otsego and St.Michael, topping 10,000 during the decade.  Wright had more growth in the 2000s, than Isanti had people in 2000.  So principles 1 and 2 say that we use a 4:3 split. Principal 4 says that St.Cloud goes with Greater Minnesota.  We return St.Cloud to MN-7 where it was before 2001.  There is simply no reason to combine NE and NW Minnesota in a single district.  Why would a district stretch from the Dakotas into the metro area?  That is why MN-2 was disassembled in 2001.

If a court ends up doing the redistricting, they are going to want a reason for putting Moorhead and Duluth in the same district.  It is not necessary for population equality.  It is not necessary for purposes of keeping the Metro Area separate from Greater Minnesota to the extent possible.  It is not necessary in order that St. Cloud may be assigned to MN-7.
Logged
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4410
United States


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: November 18, 2010, 12:37:48 am »
Ignore

The testimony was that from Duluth to Moorhead you either had to go as far south as Brainerd or use forest roads.  Mapquest says to go south through Brainerd.  Google shows a route further north.  But if you try to force that route into Mapquest it mightily resists going directly east from Park Rapids.  And try going from Noyes to Grand Portage.

All I had to do to force that route into Mapquest is change the default from "Shortest Time" to "Shortest Distance." The difference is less than 20 minutes on a 4-1/2 to 5 hour trip, according to Mapquest. According to Google, that route is actually 11 minutes faster.

The Grand Portage to Noyes route looks horrible on the map, but it's caused by lack of roads in Superior National Forest, not lack of roads in North-Central Minnesota. Anything travelling west from Grand Portage is funnelled into Duluth. So this route can basically be reduced to a Duluth-Noyes route, which is fairly direct. International Falls to Noyes is also very direct.
Logged

Seriously, it was time to change back to the real avatar.
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5523
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: November 18, 2010, 12:46:37 am »
Ignore

Is it really that big of a deal?  I was under the impression that the Twin cities functioned like the DFW Metroplex in that they're just two urban areas of a larger metro.  Is there some kind of blood feud between the two cities?

Also, such a move might actually help the Democrats out.  It pushes the other Democratic-leaning parts of the 4th and 5th districts into the other suburbs, which could result in 3 Democratic-controlled Twin Cities districts rather than the current 2.  In fact, it would basically guarantee Bachman's defeat as her district would have to take in the non-St. Paul portions of Ramsey county, which should push her district to at least D + 5.
Minneapolis and St.Paul are physically adjacent to each other.  Originally, they were separated by the Mississippi River, which runs along the south side of St.Paul and then turns north, but Minneapolis includes areas east of the river, so that you can drive between the two.  There are no border controls.  Dallas and Fort Worth are about 25 miles apart and there are suburbs between the two (Arlington is larger than either Minneapolis or St.Paul).

St.Paul is the state capital, while Minneapolis developed more as a commercial and industrial center, though it also has the University of Minnesota.  Early on Minneapolis was much more Scandinavian, while St.Paul more Irish and German.  The Archdiocese of St.Paul only added Minneapolis to its name in 1866.  Minneapolis has long been the larger city, and but for the capital St.Paul would probably be regarded like a large suburb (Long Beach, Oakland, Arlington, Newark).

When they first received separate congressional districts, each was 95% or so of their respective counties.  And at one time Minneapolis had enough population for 1.6 representatives.  But the cities have lost population, the suburbs have gained, and the number of persons per district has increased.  If Minnesota loses its 8th representative, then districts need 14% more population plus whatever is needed to keep up with population growth.  The cities together have less than 1/4 of the metro population, so one district centered on the two cities is quite reasonable.

In the governor's race Ramsey County it was Dayton 56, Emmer 32, Horner 12

But in St. Paul, Maplewood, Roseville, Falcon Heights, and Lauderdale it was Dayton 64, Emmer 24, Horner 12.

In the remainder of northern Ramsey County it was Dayton 44, Emmer 43, Horner 13 (actual margin was 0.6%).

Anoka was Emmer 50, Dayton 39, Horner 13, while in Washington it was 48, 39, 13.

Overall it was Emmer 48, Dayton 40, Horner 12.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5523
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: November 18, 2010, 01:03:48 am »
Ignore

Someone should see what happens to the PVI's of the Twin City suburban districts if you combine St. Paul and Minneapolis in one CD. It will look pretty ugly for the Pubbies I would guess. Be careful what you wish for.

In the governor's race Ramsey County it was Dayton 56, Emmer 32, Horner 12

But in St. Paul, Maplewood, Roseville, Falcon Heights, and Lauderdale it was Dayton 64, Emmer 24, Horner 12.

In the remainder of northern Ramsey County it was Dayton 44, Emmer 43, Horner 13 (actual margin was 0.6%).

Anoka was Emmer 50, Dayton 39, Horner 13, while in Washington it was 48, 39, 13.

Overall it was Emmer 48, Dayton 40, Horner 12 (and this doesn't include Sherburne)

It was similar in Hennepin County, excluding Minneapolis, and the same was true in the 2008 senatorial race.

In Metro South it was Emmer 52, Dayton 35, Horner 13
Logged
Snowguy716
snowguy716
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16862
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -8.52

View Profile
« Reply #55 on: November 18, 2010, 02:18:33 am »
Ignore

In a northern district, Bemidji would easily dump Peterson for a more liberal DFLer.  The city of Bemidji and the indian reservations around here are heavily DFL while the surrounding townships are more or less split down the middle.  Some of the MN-8 townships in Bemidji supported Cravaack with a strong margin, while others went for Oberstar.  Cravaack won some townships that went DFL for governor and other state legislative seats.  In the city of Blackduck, northeast of here, Oberstar won with 61% in 2008, but lost to Cravaack in 2010 by a substantial margin.  Turnout was also about 35% lower in 2010 compared to 2008.

The city of Bemidji and the most populous townships are in MN-7, however, which voted for Peterson with large margins (the smallest of which was 54-39).  Bemidji proper was 2-1 for Peterson.

In a high turnout scenario, a northern district would easily break for a liberal over a conservative "tea-party" type.
Logged

"Above and beyond the question of how to grow the economy there is a legitimate concern about how to grow the quality of our lives."
-Paul Wellstone


Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13231


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: December 21, 2010, 02:18:23 pm »
Ignore

So now that Minnesota hasn't lost a seat, what is likely to happen? Presumably everyone gets made safer, with MN-1 becoming more Democratic and MN-8 becoming more Republican?
Logged
ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15238
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: December 21, 2010, 02:39:58 pm »
Ignore

Basically it'll be an incumbent protection map, now, so jimrtex's heretical wet dream will thankfully not be a reality.
Logged

Chief Judicial Officer of the Most Serene Republic of the Midwest, registered in the State of Joy, in Atlasia
Recognized National Treasure of Atlasia
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26885
United States


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: December 21, 2010, 03:07:55 pm »
Ignore

So now that Minnesota hasn't lost a seat, what is likely to happen? Presumably everyone gets made safer, with MN-1 becoming more Democratic and MN-8 becoming more Republican?

If that is what both parties want, but I doubt the Dems will. They will want MN-08 to remain vulnerable to them. And the Dems will get their way, because the last map was drawn by the courts, none of the CD's need much in the way of population shifts, except that MN-04 needs about 50,000 people I think (the St. Paul district), and so the default option is basically a no change map, and I suspect that that is what will happen.
Logged

jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5523
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: December 21, 2010, 08:03:35 pm »
Ignore

Basically it'll be an incumbent protection map, now, so jimrtex's heretical wet dream will thankfully not be a reality.
It will make even more sense in 2020.

For 2010, the two inner city districts, and the western district are the most underpopulated.  The Hennepin ane the NE district are just about perfect, though the Hennepin district won't be after the Minneapolis district expands outward.  There likely isn't a need to switch St.Cloud to the west, so instead you bring the SE district northward taking in the tier of counties that are outside the metro area, and shifting the west end of the SE district to the western district which will then  extend from almost Winnipeg to just short of Council Bluffs.

The Hennepin district gets extended west into Wright or Carver, and drops Coon Rapids, so that the Anoka district can give up some more population to St.Paul.

By 2020, you'll be able to include all of Ramsey and Minneapolis and some inner suburbs in the twin cities district.  Base the other metro districts in Hennepin, Anoka, and Dakota, and move St.Cloud to the west,  By that time, that district will need to include both Fargo and St. Cloud.
Logged
I am stabbed by grace and slinging blood
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 70965
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: December 21, 2010, 10:37:35 pm »
Ignore

So now that Minnesota hasn't lost a seat, what is likely to happen? Presumably everyone gets made safer, with MN-1 becoming more Democratic and MN-8 becoming more Republican?

If that is what both parties want, but I doubt the Dems will. They will want MN-08 to remain vulnerable to them. And the Dems will get their way, because the last map was drawn by the courts, none of the CD's need much in the way of population shifts, except that MN-04 needs about 50,000 people I think (the St. Paul district), and so the default option is basically a no change map, and I suspect that that is what will happen.

Yeah I bet the DFL in the legislature will be telling Dayton to veto any map that makes any significant changes. Please note that making 7 more DFL and 8 more Republican would be incumbent protection and could be easily done, but Peterson DOESN'T want Duluth in his district.

You can't really change MN-01 much and it probably won't much, though I bet it will become more Dem since it'll need to gain a little population, which can be easily done with DFL precincts in Rice County. Which the GOP would probably be relieved to get out of MN-02 in case Kline retires too.
Logged

Famous True Leftists:

jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5523
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: December 23, 2010, 04:52:28 pm »
Ignore

Yeah I bet the DFL in the legislature will be telling Dayton to veto any map that makes any significant changes. Please note that making 7 more DFL and 8 more Republican would be incumbent protection and could be easily done, but Peterson DOESN'T want Duluth in his district.

You can't really change MN-01 much and it probably won't much, though I bet it will become more Dem since it'll need to gain a little population, which can be easily done with DFL precincts in Rice County. Which the GOP would probably be relieved to get out of MN-02 in case Kline retires too.

Here are the 2009 ACS estimates, plus deviation from average (658,000 vs. 664,000 for census).  The growth in the average is 43/49 of the census to census difference, which suggests that we could simply multiply the deviations by 10/9 and get pretty good 2010 estimates.  But we can simply balance the shifts to see what a minimally modified map would look like.


1   635,331   -22,946
2   731,468    73,191
3   651,676    -6,601
4   614,059   -44,218
5   618,840   -39,437
6   749,383    91,106
7   614,738   -43,539
8   650,720    -7,557


CD 3 and CD 8 are really close to perfect.  So there is no reason to adjust CD 8, other than moving townships.  CD 3 will have be shifted to accommodate make up CD 5.

The most non-metro portion of the current map are the 3 counties to the south of Dakota: Goodhue, Rice, Le Sueur.  So shift CD 1, and move the western end of CD 2 into CD  7,

CD 2 = +73K;  CD 1 + CD 7 = -65K, so we're close there.

Then CD 5 moves further in CD 3, and CD 3 and CD 4 move into CD 6

CD 6 = +91K; CD 3 + CD 5 + CD 4 = -89K

So you've got balance there as well.
Logged
I am stabbed by grace and slinging blood
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 70965
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: January 09, 2011, 04:18:32 pm »
Ignore

Here's a map I drew mostly just keeping the current map. I'm assuming this'll be either court-drawn or based on an agreement between Dayton and the Republicans to mostly keep the status quo, an incumbent protection map would never be agreed to by the Democrats for reasons that'll be covered later.





MN-01: Mostly the same, except I put the town of Faribault into it and shedded some rural territory in Wabasha County to make up for it. Faribault fits better in this area and is usually associated with south central Minnesota, not the south metro, but it's a bit larger than the population MN-01 needs to gain. Marginally more Democratic as a result, but it'll probably remain R+1.
MN-02: Loses Faribault, games some rural counties, and loses Inver Grove Heights and much of Cottage Grove. This should make it more Republican, might go from R+4 to R+5.
MN-03: Takes in the pieces of Hennepin in MN-06 and the rest of Coon Rapids and part of Blaine. Not much of a change in partisan composition.
MN-04: Now includes all of Inver Grove Heights and part of Cottage Grove, two Democratic-leaning cities. I had to shift some territory in Washington County, I felt bad handing over some areas to Michele Bachmann even if they are only marginally Democratic. The seat is currently D+13, the areas it picks up are Dem-leaning but not by that much so it may drop to D+12. Still very safe.
MN-05: Picks up a few Dem precincts in the inner suburbs, no real change. Obviously still super-safe D.
MN-06: Loses all the areas I mentioned above, plus most of Stearns County. Still has St. Cloud though. MN-04 expanded into MN-02, but MN-03 did expand into some of the more moderate parts of here, but this might be cancelled out by the lost of the territory in Stearns, of course it also extends a bit into Chisago County. In the end not much of a change, Bachmann will win but never by much. Sad
MN-07: What I did here is kind of interesting, I put Bemidji and all the Reservations in MN-08, just because the current split around Beltrami is kind of weird, just having all that territory in one seat is more logical. The gains are in Stearns County. On paper this makes the seat more Republican, but Peterson should have no problem, western Stearns County is fine voting for a Democrat as conservative as him (they send one to the State House, even after 2010), and he used to represent this area before 2002. The seat is currently R+5, might shift to R+6, but this won't be any problem for Peterson. Once he retires is a whole other story.
MN-08: This becomes more Dem, not deliberately but because that's the only way to draw it. You can't draw an incumbent protection map for Cravaack without removing St. Louis County and the bits to the east of it, and the only seat you can put that in is MN-07, which Peterson would not want since he has an easier time in the map I drew than he would in the primary in that seat. So Cravaack is obviously in trouble, but he was always going to be barring a GOP gerrymander. There isn't a huge change for the most part though, just the Bemidji area is shifted for part of Chisago County, at most this'll bump the seat to D+4, but unless the race is razor-thin if Cravaack loses he wasn't going to win the current seat anyway.

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 10:18:47 pm by Candy Apple Grey »Logged

Famous True Leftists:

Snowguy716
snowguy716
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16862
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -8.52

View Profile
« Reply #63 on: January 09, 2011, 10:13:42 pm »
Ignore

I don't think your plan is far off from what will end up happening.

It's hard to decide which northern MN district that Bemidji should go into.  We were never a mining area and we were never a farming area... but I suppose we have more in common with the non-mining areas of district 8 than district 7 which is generally more conservative.

Generally, Bemidji would go about 55-45 for a generic DFLer over a generic GOPer for congress if part of district 8.
Logged

"Above and beyond the question of how to grow the economy there is a legitimate concern about how to grow the quality of our lives."
-Paul Wellstone


Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party
I am stabbed by grace and slinging blood
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 70965
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: January 09, 2011, 10:21:22 pm »
Ignore

Yeah I just think the split about Bemidji is weird. It makes more sense to have all of that area in one district.

I just realized I drew Cravaack out of MN-08. Not that that is a big deal in Minnesota (See Mark Kennedy running in MN-06 from Carver County, and Bill Luther running in MN-02 when he lived in MN-06), but it means the GOP will never draw the map. This'll probably be court-drawn like our last four maps. If I were Dayton I'd start talking to the Republicans about setting up an independent commission.
Logged

Famous True Leftists:

ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15238
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: January 09, 2011, 10:38:00 pm »
Ignore

I don't think your plan is far off from what will end up happening.

Yeah.  Your MN-03 is a thing of beauty.
Logged

Chief Judicial Officer of the Most Serene Republic of the Midwest, registered in the State of Joy, in Atlasia
Recognized National Treasure of Atlasia
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5523
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: January 10, 2011, 03:11:19 am »
Ignore

Here's a map I drew mostly just keeping the current map. I'm assuming this'll be either court-drawn or based on an agreement between Dayton and the Republicans to mostly keep the status quo, an incumbent protection map would never be agreed to by the Democrats for reasons that'll be covered later.





MN-01: Mostly the same, except I put the town of Faribault into it and shedded some rural territory in Wabasha County to make up for it. Faribault fits better in this area and is usually associated with south central Minnesota, not the south metro, but it's a bit larger than the population MN-01 needs to gain. Marginally more Democratic as a result, but it'll probably remain R+1.
MN-02: Loses Faribault, games some rural counties, and loses Inver Grove Heights and much of Cottage Grove. This should make it more Republican, might go from R+4 to R+5.
MN-03: Takes in the pieces of Hennepin in MN-06 and the rest of Coon Rapids and part of Blaine. Not much of a change in partisan composition.
MN-04: Now includes all of Inver Grove Heights and part of Cottage Grove, two Democratic-leaning cities. I had to shift some territory in Washington County, I felt bad handing over some areas to Michele Bachmann even if they are only marginally Democratic. The seat is currently D+13, the areas it picks up are Dem-leaning but not by that much so it may drop to D+12. Still very safe.
MN-05: Picks up a few Dem precincts in the inner suburbs, no real change. Obviously still super-safe D.
MN-06: Loses all the areas I mentioned above, plus most of Stearns County. Still has St. Cloud though. MN-04 expanded into MN-02, but MN-03 did expand into some of the more moderate parts of here, but this might be cancelled out by the lost of the territory in Stearns, of course it also extends a bit into Chisago County. In the end not much of a change, Bachmann will win but never by much. Sad
MN-07: What I did here is kind of interesting, I put Bemidji and all the Reservations in MN-08, just because the current split around Beltrami is kind of weird, just having all that territory in one seat is more logical. The gains are in Stearns County. On paper this makes the seat more Republican, but Peterson should have no problem, western Stearns County is fine voting for a Democrat as conservative as him (they send one to the State House, even after 2010), and he used to represent this area before 2002. The seat is currently R+5, might shift to R+6, but this won't be any problem for Peterson. Once he retires is a whole other story.
MN-08: This becomes more Dem, not deliberately but because that's the only way to draw it. You can't draw an incumbent protection map for Cravaack without removing St. Louis County and the bits to the east of it, and the only seat you can put that in is MN-07, which Peterson would not want since he has an easier time in the map I drew than he would in the primary in that seat. So Cravaack is obviously in trouble, but he was always going to be barring a GOP gerrymander. There isn't a huge change for the most part though, just the Bemidji area is shifted for part of Chisago County, at most this'll bump the seat to D+4, but unless the race is razor-thin if Cravaack loses he wasn't going to win the current seat anyway.

Thoughts?
In the 2000s court decision, there was a lot of specific consideration of where the individual reservations ended up.  That Red Lake and White Earth are in the same CD probably is not an accident.

St. Cloud is large enough that it now has suburbs.  There really isn't a reason to to cut the district boundary so close to the city.  You can pick up the extra population for CD 7 going south to Iowa, and come north another tier of counties with CD 1.

Does Bradlee's application use county estimates or the town estimates - which are available for Minnesota.  This will make a big difference in the metro area.  The inner Minneapolis suburbs are losing population faster than Minneapolis.  The growth in Anoka is along the northern boundary, and away from the Mississippi.
Logged
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: January 10, 2011, 04:48:18 am »
Ignore

So now that Minnesota hasn't lost a seat, what is likely to happen? Presumably everyone gets made safer, with MN-1 becoming more Democratic and MN-8 becoming more Republican?

If that is what both parties want, but I doubt the Dems will. They will want MN-08 to remain vulnerable to them. And the Dems will get their way, because the last map was drawn by the courts, none of the CD's need much in the way of population shifts, except that MN-04 needs about 50,000 people I think (the St. Paul district), and so the default option is basically a no change map, and I suspect that that is what will happen.
Quite. Democrats will still think MN-8 as part of their country, just currently under R occupation. They can't force a redrawing in their favor, though, and would probably get it only in exchange for abandoning Peterson, so expect no major partisan changes.

Jim's right about having an eye on reservations.
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
I am stabbed by grace and slinging blood
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 70965
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: January 10, 2011, 01:01:11 pm »
Ignore

Western Stearns is NOT St. Cloud suburbia. As noted before, they currently elect a conservative Democrat to the State House despite voting for Emmer with over 50%. That is not how Republican suburbia works. All the St. Cloud suburbs are on the north or south side of the city or immediately adjacent, and most are in the same district. If you've ever driven here you can see why, St. Cloud sits on the interstate but not in a way that's easily accessible from the west, and no one wants to do a daily commute since even only 12 miles will take at least a half hour. The only place in western Stearns that'd be an easy commute is St. Joseph, which is not a suburb but a college town (and surprisingly Democratic considering the college is an all-female Catholic one, I'd suspect any college conservative enough to be one gender would be Republican.)

I'm not sure about the Reservation situation but I'll admit that could've been a factor. Still the split around Bemidji is weird, though I'll admit that a compromise plan or a court may not care about it.

Lewis is right about how Democrats see MN-08. But the main issue is that you can't draw a safe seat that includes Duluth and those northern mining towns anyway. The GOP's best chance is just to not change the map much and hope Cravaack can develop a special appeal to union folk. Considering that previous Reps elected under similar circumstances to him don't have much of a track record in surviving, see Rob Simmons or Melissa Bean, granted Simmons managed to hang on longer than one would expect but that was with a far more moderate record than Cravaack campaigned on, Bean benefited from two wave years right after she was elected. Watch Cravaack act as a solid vote for Boehner and then run on a ticket headed by Sarah Palin and see how strong he does.

Also making MN-01 more Democratic can't really be done, since it already contains all the Democratic parts of southern Minnesota. The only way to boost it is by adding Rice county which contains Faribault as I put in it and hyper-Dem college town Northfield. You could shed some of the very Republican counties in the west, but they aren't very populated anyway and to make up you may have to draw up to the southern edge of the suburbs, not exactly a Democratic area either. Walz is just fine with his current map anyway, he'd doubtlessly be against any major changes.
Logged

Famous True Leftists:

Nhoj
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5832
United States


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: January 10, 2011, 01:22:53 pm »
Ignore

Avon and Albany could probably be considered exurbs of St cloud, at least that's how they look to me when im on 94. But any further out than that the percentage commuting is probably fairly low.
Logged

آزادی برای ایران


ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15238
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: January 10, 2011, 06:23:13 pm »
Ignore

The only place in western Stearns that'd be an easy commute is St. Joseph, which is not a suburb but a college town (and surprisingly Democratic considering the college is an all-female Catholic one, I'd suspect any college conservative enough to be one gender would be Republican.)

There's also St. John's, which is very close.  They're essentially a coed college spread out over two campuses.
Logged

Chief Judicial Officer of the Most Serene Republic of the Midwest, registered in the State of Joy, in Atlasia
Recognized National Treasure of Atlasia
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26885
United States


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: January 11, 2011, 01:42:49 am »
Ignore

Well to me, what a judge would draw in MN was sort of almost autopilot, but maybe I am missing something. It seems obvious to me. Finish up joining municipalities and counties, and make less erose. MN-06 gets somewhat more Dem, and MN-08 gets somewhat more GOP has it takes in from MN-06 more heavily GOP exurbs, but this time to the NW of the metro Twin Cities, rather than the NE. I wonder if that makes BRTD happy or unhappy?  Tongue

Am I missing something?


« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 01:57:57 am by Torie »Logged

I am stabbed by grace and slinging blood
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 70965
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: January 11, 2011, 03:15:45 am »
Ignore

Extending MN-08 into the exurbs isn't likely to happen, those areas have never been associated with each other. The reason MN-08 has the current exurban counties is because before the exurbanization they were associated with the northeastern Minnesota area and still have some traces of it (how else could that area have a Dem State Senator from 2007-2011 or have a place like Rush City vote for Obama?) Also you appear to have put some actual suburban areas of St. Cloud into MN-08, which really makes no sense at all.

And while putting those eastern townships in Sibley County in MN-02 would make the map look slightly nicer, I doubt any court would care enough to split Sibley County for what are basically pure aesthetic reasons. Besides I like the fact that currently the drive from Mankato to Duluth passes through every district in the state. Smiley
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 03:22:48 am by Candy Apple Grey »Logged

Famous True Leftists:

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26885
United States


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: January 11, 2011, 10:44:28 am »
Ignore

No, I did not touch St. Cloud, and even gave kept in MN-06 the two townships to the east of it across the river in Benton County, so that it had some elbow room, even though it created an extra county split down into Sherburne. The court might try to give more of Benton to MN-08, getting rid of St. Cloud's elbow room, or all of it, but MN-08 will still have to impinge on Sherburne. (these alternatives are depicted below). I don't know a  more logical place for MN-08 to go, then where I made it went. St Cloud won't shift, unless the population changes were enough to shift it all, and they are not. MN-02 needs a few people on its west side, and filling in that gap in Shelby seems like what the court would do. The court does fill in gaps like that even if it creates a county split, just like they did for the southern spike of Anoka County last time.

By the way, when the intra county splits come in, MN-05 is probably going to have to start chewing at Brooklyn Center. That is its next stop. If MN-04 needs to expand (if it does, it will be by but a precinct or two or three), it will start chewing into Cottage Grove. If MN-02 needs to shrink a tad (the intra Dakota County splits), it may or may not end up entirely withdrawing from Washington County, but that is where it will be withdrawing from.



« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 11:41:37 am by Torie »Logged

jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5523
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: January 11, 2011, 09:52:58 pm »
Ignore

Western Stearns is NOT St. Cloud suburbia.
Western Stearns is already in CD-8.

Eastern Stearns is clearly in the economic orbit of St.Cloud.  If you are going to put St.Cloud in the metro area, then leave the boundary where it is.

Albany (city and township) +32% (2000-2009)
St Augusta (township) +28%
St Joseph (city and township) 19%
Farming (township) +25%, south of Albany.

There is a new very suburban looking subdivision on the SE edge of Albany.  There is a new section which is just being developed, with the streets in, and a few houses.

There is a subdivision just west of the Spunk Lakes at Avon (with a street named 180th street).  There are bunches of house lining the Spunk Lank.  There might even be a Sandia Lab in Avon.

There are curvy streets a couple of miles north of St.Joseph.  And some development to the west of I-94 south of St. Joseph.  St. Joseph itself is clearly developing toward St.Cloud.  There is an industrial park on the west edge of St.Cloud, a couple of miles off of I-94.

St.Johns University is 3-1/2 miles from St.Joseph, and College of St.Benedict only has 2000 students.  St.Joseph had a 50% increase in households between 2000 and 2006.

I'm not sure about the Reservation situation but I'll admit that could've been a factor. Still the split around Bemidji is weird, though I'll admit that a compromise plan or a court may not care about it.
I think it is in the masters report from the 2000 redistricting.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines