US House Redistricting: Minnesota

[Torie]

For the St. Paul district, Muon2, why did you expand it into Anoka to the north, rather than into Anoka to the west, where Anoka dips down towards Minneapolis?  Isn't that prong in MN-5 at the moment? The Court is, all things being equal, going to try to minimize changing the lines - lines which it, itself, drew previously?

[muon2]

For the St. Paul district, Muon2, why did you expand it into Anoka to the north, rather than into Anoka to the west, where Anoka dips down towards Minneapolis?  Isn't that prong in MN-5 at the moment? The Court is, all things being equal, going to try to minimize changing the lines - lines which it, itself, drew previously?

For CD-5 I found that adding Bloomington and Edina in the south plus Brooklyn center to the north while subtracting the Anoka section was a close match in population. I will admit that I didn't understand the court's unwillingness to split Hennepin between three districts but it was OK for Anoka (n.b. I once lived in that southern section of Anoka, so perhaps some bias shows. ) Without any other criteria I preferred the more compact arrangement that I show.

That same stretch of Anoka is not really in the same community of interest as Ramsey, but the areas like Blaine and Lino Lakes are, so I used those for CD-4. It's also likely that CD-4 would instead keep the northern part of Dakota and CD-2 would include the southern part of Washington. I splits counties more that way, but there is a strong connection between the suburbs immediately south of St Paul and the city itself. It's that way in the current plan, too.

[Torie]

OK Muon2. I think which suburbs are in which "community of interest" is overdone, and that prong that I suggest be moved into the St. Paul district, is heavily Dem, and would be a pity to unleash it on to the north suburban district, when it is so "used" to being in an inner city CD, but that is just my little opinion.

[minionofmidas]

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?

Split the grey and teal east-west instead, and this is what the courts are exceedingly likely to draw. Perhaps shift the two suburban seats marginally northwards (and thus extend the northwestern district slightly further southwards.)

[Torie]

Yes, that is my guess BRTD. I agree.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Duluth and Moorhead wouldn't really offend anyone. Duluth would prefer to be in the same seat as Moorhead than the exurbs.

I think a court-draw 7-seat map would roughly resemble the area code map, at least outstate. One district would take the northern third of the state where the 218 area code is. It'd be a heavily Dem seat where Cravaack wouldn't live and would likely elect a St. Louis county Democrat (like Tom Rukavina). With that type of district Peterson might as well retire as he wouldn't want to have to face constant primary challenges and exist in a caucus without so many of his fellow Blue Dogs. Much like the above map except the teal seat extends out to the Dakotas border. I figure that teal seat is sort of designed for Cravaack but I don't see a court specifically shoring up any incumbents, particularly a fluke one. In the more area-code based map he could run in the central Minnesota seat which would also be the best seat for Bachmann (who obviously needs to move, her home is basically ending up with St. Paul no matter what.), and still would have a good chance at winning, especially as its an open primary.

Of course an east/west split in northern Minnesota would effectively wipe out Bachmann by completely carving up her district. She'd have to either run against Paulsen, Kline or Cravaack in the primary or move to St. Cloud and run against Peterson. She'd lose against Peterson obviously, and would have a tricky time against Kline as the seat would still be south suburbs based. Bachmann can't win a seat that includes St. Louis County even if she defeated Cravaack. That leaves Paulsen, who has a bit of a solid base in Hennepin and benefits from the open primary. It looks like Bachmann may be doomed unless Minnesota holds all its seats as their isn't really a viable seat for her in a 7-district map (might be true of Peterson as well.)

BTW I'd say that unless he ends up with a sort of exurbs+north central Minnesota map that excludes St. Louis County, Cravaack is probably doomed at some point, you can't survive a seat with St. Louis County at the next Dem wave year. Think of Melissa Bean and Rob Simmons who won under similar circumstances, defeating a long-term very old incumbent who was very detached from the district. And actually Bean got re-elected only in two Dem wave years, Simmons only won some bland pro-incumbent years when the hot issues were greatly to his benefit. Cravaack is no doubt a top target in 2012 and if the seat largely remains the same if Minnesota keeps a seat probably the favorite to lose unless the DFL really blows it with nomination.

[Torie]

Here is the scenario where Craavack perhaps survives. Peterson is primaried out in the new northern district, and his voters all flock to Craavack for the General. Northwest MN is quite volatile. Craavack should watch and wait to see if that seems in the cards, before deciding which CD to run in, perhaps. Perhaps the GOP should finance a Dem challenger to Peterson from the Iron Range.   The new Stearns CD is safely GOP anyway, and any Pubbie could win it. This way, the GOP does have a shot of causing the Dems to lose a seat.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here is the scenario where Craavack perhaps survives. Peterson is primaried out in the new northern district, and his voters all flock to Craavack for the General. Northwest MN is quite volatile.

Cravaack won't be in the same seat as Peterson. Northeastern Minnesota will be with the northwest or exurbs. And it can outvote the northwest easily, especially as Bemidji, Moorhead and the Reservations will still be voting Dem.

[Torie]

Here is the scenario where Craavack perhaps survives. Peterson is primaried out in the new northern district, and his voters all flock to Craavack for the General. Northwest MN is quite volatile.

Cravaack won't be in the same seat as Peterson. Northeastern Minnesota will be with the northwest or exurbs. And it can outvote the northwest easily, especially as Bemidji, Moorhead and the Reservations will still be voting Dem.

Yes, in my scenario, Cravaack would need to move to another part of his existing district. He might be competitive, if Peterson is primaried, is all I am saying. Bermidji and environs might not be too keen on voting for some liberal Dem from Duluth, who took out their local (and quite moderate) boy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Bemidji liberals aren't going to flock to a Republican because a candidate who is probably closer to their views beat him in a primary. See Snowguy and ask if you can see him doing that.

Besides we're not talking about someone like Margaret Anderson-Kelliher or Keith Ellison being nominated. Even Duluth people usually don't give off a latte liberal or far leftist image. The most talked about candidate is State Rep. Tom Rukavina from northern St. Louis County. He is extremely popular and clearly looking at higher office as he did run for Governor this year. Northwestern Minnesota would have no problem with someone like him. He's pro-choice but otherwise fits the area's politics like a glove. Rukavina is very willing to play regional issues and anti-metro sentiment and rural northern Minnesota would prefer that to some carpetbagger from the exurbs. Someone from Duluth proper is unlikely, the most high-profile name there was Dayton's running mate and thus will be Lt. Gov.

Here's a pretty good description of Rukavina: http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/3522/rukavina-for-governor-popular-and-populist

[jimrtex]

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.

The growth in Wright is on the eastern fringe.  According to the 2009 estimates, St. Michael is now the largest city.   The same is true for Sherburne, where Elk River is now the largest city.  A split of Sherburne can probably be justified.   If Minnesota were still in the business of creating counties, the two logical candidates would be St.Cloud and Mankato.  The rivers simply aren't the barriers they once were.  MSA definitions are based on commuting patterns, if X% of county residents commute into a core area it gets included, as well if X% of county jobs are for residents of the core area.  Shelburne gets included in the St.Cloud MSA because part of St.Cloud is in Shelburne, and then the St.Cloud MSA gets included in the CMSA because Elk River residents are commuting into Anoka and Hennepin counties.

Based on 2009 estimates, Goodhue, Rice, and Le Sueur just barely put MN-1 over, and we can switch Pipestone and Murray to MN-7.  Or perhaps all of Northfield can be left in MN-2.  It is common practice in Minnesota to split counties rather than split cities.

MN-7 should really be seen more as a western district than a Red River district (ie East Dakota).  It has an interstate the full length of the district, just over the border.  It then shifts southeastward along I-94 and the Minnesota River.  The largest towns outside of Moorhead, are Alexandria. Fergus Falls, Marshall, and Willmar, and it stretches to Sibley, McLeod, and Meeker.   It already includes part of Stearns County.  It doesn't make sense to force a representative to work with both Wisconsin and Dakota representatives on concerns of joint interest.  MN-1 is really a SE district, with Rochester and Mankato as the large cities (Rochester has far surpassed Duluth as the 3rd city of the state), and its smaller towns like Albert Lea, Austin, Winona, Red Wing, and Faribault, are all in the east.

In the Metro Area.  If we combine Minneapolis and St. Paul, then the remainder of Hennepin County is just over the ideal population, and can be preserved as MN-3.

This then puts Dakota, Scott, Carver, and Wright in MN-2.  The strongest areas of growth in Dakota are in places like Burnsville and Lakeville, along I-35 which is just east of the Scott line.  They are complementary with high growth areas in Scott and Carver, such as Prior Lake and Shakopee, Chaska and Chanhassen.  South Saint Paul and Hastings aren't representative of the population of Dakota as much as they once were.  Wright isn't the ideal county, but it isn't horrible and could get shifted to MN-3 when Hennepin no longer has quite enough people for a district.

Minneapolis has just over enough for 1/2 a district, so we go ahead and add areas outside St. Paul in Ramsey county to balance the two parts of MN-4/5.  Hennepin and Ramsey together have enough for 2.210 districts.  If we kept Ramsey whole, then Minneapolis would be split, and there would be another piece of Hennepin that  would need be split off.

If we try to maintain the current 3, 4, and 5, then MN-3 needs several 100,000 voters outside of Hennepin county, and CD-5  extends into Anoka, Dakota, and perhaps Washington counties chopping all of them apart.   Two splits are necessary in Hennepin+Ramsey.  Given a choice, it is better to split larger counties rather than smaller counties.

To get MN-4/5 up to enough population, Maplewood, Roseville, Lauderdale, and Falcon Heights are included with St.Paul from Ramsey.  To get to precise equality, St. Anthony, Little Canada, and North St. Paul are available.

The remainder of Ramsey, along with Washington, Anoka, and Sherburne form MN-6.  So the basic configuration is:

MN-2 suburbs south of the Mississippi.
MN-3 Hennepin suburbs
MN-4/5 Minneapolis-St.Paul
MN-6 suburbs north of the Mississippi

MN-7 besides gaining Pipestone and Murray, picks up the remainder of Stearns, plus Benton counties.  MN-8 may not really need to go much further south.  I shifted Todd, the reminder of Beltrami, Sweetwater, Lake of the the Woods and Roseau from MN-7 to MN-8.

This gives:

MN-1 1.001
MN-2 0.987
MN-3 1.025
MN-4 1.000
MN-6 1.051
MN-7 0.960
MN-8 0.987

This is with no county splits, other than splitting Minneapolis from the rest of Hennepin, and a split of Ramsey that will make MN-4 equal to 1.000.  Obviously, additional adjustments will be necessary, but they will be rather small.  It is presumed that the western part of Sherburne will be shifted to MN-7, placing all of St.Cloud in that district, while keeping the southeastern part of the county in MN-6.

If I were ranking counties to shift out from the metro area, it would be:

Isanti
Chisago
Sherburne
Wright
Carver
Scott

The growth in the first two is less.  They likely got flipped simply because they had less of a base economy to support employees in the first place.  There can be people from Rice commuting into the Metro area - but Faribault provides enough jobs to keep the area being counted as part of the MSA. 

Sherburne is next, because of the part that is in St.Cloud.  Wright ranks ahead of Carver because of the way Carver forms an indendation in Hennepin County, with Chaska and Chanhassen being closer to Minneapolis than the extreme western part of Hennepin County.  Scott is the fastest growing county in terms of added persons from 2000-2009.  The other 5 counties are indespensible to metro districts.

So I think that a very good case can be made for maintaining Isanti and Chisago in MN-8.  Under an 8-district plan, MN-8 and MN-3 were closest to the ideal population.  MN-3 would still need modification because of the need for more people in MN-4, but MN-8 would need very minimal changes.

[jimrtex]

Duluth and Moorhead wouldn't really offend anyone. Duluth would prefer to be in the same seat as Moorhead than the exurbs.

So all the evidence to the contrary in 2001 was just to snow the courts?

[jimrtex]

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.

Emmer had a plurlaity in Hennepin County excluding Minneapolis - and presumably independent voters would break Republican. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

All the areas Emmer won are obviously already in MN-3. The suburbs in MN-5 which would be displaced obviously didn't vote for him.

[jimrtex]

All the areas Emmer won are obviously already in MN-3. The suburbs in MN-5 which would be displaced obviously didn't vote for him.

Dayton carried Hennepin County 237,998 to 168,524 and 57,116.

Dayton carried Minneapolis 100,664 to 22,919 and 13,854.

Therefore Dayton lost the portion of Hennepin County that does not include Minneapolis

137,334 to 145,606 and 43,362

The portion of Hennepin County that does include Minneapolis includes MN-3 (except Coon Rapids in Anoka County), and the portion of MN-5 that is not in Minneapolis and would constitute MN-3 under my reform proposal.

QED

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes but like I said the parts that are going to be displaced out of MN-5 if this somehow passed (unlikely, Dayton would veto any map that combined the Twin Cities and the courts aren't likely to draw that either) all would've been strong for Dayton. Emmer's strongest legislative seat that is mostly in MN-5 is 45A where he got 40.97% to Dayton's 46.32%. And that's including parts of Plymouth in it that are not currently in MN-5. Most of the inner-ring suburb seats had Dayton winning by about 20 points. All the Republican parts of Hennepin county are already in MN-3.

Also Obama won Hennepin County outside of Minneapolis by about 12 points, so it's kind of foolish to assume all those independent voters are Republican-leaning and that the same turnout numbers will apply in presidential years as the evidence shows otherwise.

[jimrtex]

Yes but like I said the parts that are going to be displaced out of MN-5 if this somehow passed (unlikely, Dayton would veto any map that combined the Twin Cities and the courts aren't likely to draw that either) all would've been strong for Dayton. Emmer's strongest legislative seat that is mostly in MN-5 is 45A where he got 40.97% to Dayton's 46.32%. And that's including parts of Plymouth in it that are not currently in MN-5. Most of the inner-ring suburb seats had Dayton winning by about 20 points. All the Republican parts of Hennepin county are already in MN-3.

Also Obama won Hennepin County outside of Minneapolis by about 12 points, so it's kind of foolish to assume all those independent voters are Republican-leaning and that the same turnout numbers will apply in presidential years as the evidence shows otherwise.

Coleman defeated Franken in Hennepin County outside of Minneapolis, and the Barkley support correlated more with Coleman than it did with Franken.

The courts have drawn the last two plans, and if they follow the logic they used in 2001, then combining Minneapolis and St.Paul is the logical conclusion.

There is population for 4 districts in the metro area, 1.5 northeast of the Mississippi, 2.5 southwest of the Mississippi so there has to be at least one cross-river seat.  Minneapolis-St.Paul makes more sense than far western Hennepin-Anoka,

[Brittain33]

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.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

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.

Using Google Earth, I asked for directions from Duluth to Fargo, and for Duluth to Grand Forks. This was the result:



The red lines are the current congressional district boundaries.

[Torie]

Yes but like I said the parts that are going to be displaced out of MN-5 if this somehow passed (unlikely, Dayton would veto any map that combined the Twin Cities and the courts aren't likely to draw that either) all would've been strong for Dayton. Emmer's strongest legislative seat that is mostly in MN-5 is 45A where he got 40.97% to Dayton's 46.32%. And that's including parts of Plymouth in it that are not currently in MN-5. Most of the inner-ring suburb seats had Dayton winning by about 20 points. All the Republican parts of Hennepin county are already in MN-3.

Also Obama won Hennepin County outside of Minneapolis by about 12 points, so it's kind of foolish to assume all those independent voters are Republican-leaning and that the same turnout numbers will apply in presidential years as the evidence shows otherwise.

We totally agree on Minnesota regarding redistricting, but few believe in our little way of seeing things. Such is life.

[ilikeverin]

Yes but like I said the parts that are going to be displaced out of MN-5 if this somehow passed (unlikely, Dayton would veto any map that combined the Twin Cities and the courts aren't likely to draw that either) all would've been strong for Dayton. Emmer's strongest legislative seat that is mostly in MN-5 is 45A where he got 40.97% to Dayton's 46.32%. And that's including parts of Plymouth in it that are not currently in MN-5. Most of the inner-ring suburb seats had Dayton winning by about 20 points. All the Republican parts of Hennepin county are already in MN-3.

Also Obama won Hennepin County outside of Minneapolis by about 12 points, so it's kind of foolish to assume all those independent voters are Republican-leaning and that the same turnout numbers will apply in presidential years as the evidence shows otherwise.

We totally agree on Minnesota regarding redistricting, but few believe in our little way of seeing things. Such is life.

Don't worry, all sanes know that putting Minneapolis and St. Paul in the same CD would cause rioting.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah no one would like it. Even people outside the cities. People in St. Louis Park or Roseville don't want to be in the same district as places willing to vote for Michele Bachmann.

[jimrtex]

Yeah no one would like it. Even people outside the cities. People in St. Louis Park or Roseville don't want to be in the same district as places willing to vote for Michele Bachmann.

Roseville would be included in the Twin Cities district.

[Dgov]

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.

[muon2]

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?

There's an interesting dynamic in the Twin Cities. In many ways the metro area has more strong regional organizations than other similar metro regions. At deeper level there is a longstanding competition between the Cities. One newspaper used to run a regular feature noting the times a business or group took one city's label while being located in the other - they even kept score. Most suburbs take up an identity associating with one city or the other, largely based on transportation patterns. It is a bit like the Cubs - Sox rivalry in Chicagoland, where everyone seems to take a side.