US House Redistricting: Minnesota

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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.

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.

[Torie]

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?

[Torie]

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).

[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?

[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.

[Torie]

Yes, that is my guess BRTD. I agree.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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? 

Am I missing something?

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

Where do you want MN-07 to expand again BRTD?  Remember this a court plan drawing, not what  Democrats might want at the edges. I agree that St. Cloud and its burbs should all be in MN-06, and if I didn't get it all, that needs to be revised. When MN drops to seven seats in 10 years, then all will change. But it didn't, and so it won't.  Benton  County is not all that GOP anyway. Sherburne is, and I could sense you distaste for MN-08 impinging on it - right away.   But cheer up, the numbers we are talking about here are small.

[Torie]

Again, BRTD, you have to think what a court would do, particularly since they drew the existing map. MN-07 expanding further east into rural Stearns (basically about three rows of rather empty townships, won't give it enough population, and it makes the CD more erose, so where do you go next?  And the court is certainly not going to exchange counties between CD's, unless there is a very good reason to do so.

It makes no sense to me. The western half, the empty rural half, of Stearns was put in MN-07 ten years ago, simply to make the CD look less erose. What does make sense is for MN-07 to take in the third of Birjumdi (sp) that it does not currently have, and to make a nice clean north south line, and that takes care of MN-07, and MN-08 takes in some more exurbs, but not much really, to make it less erose.

I would be very surprised if a court does not redraw very closely to my map.

[Torie]

OK, below is a map of the Twin Cities CD's and adjacent ones, drawn based on population density. As one can see, MN-01 ends up with way too many people, and MN-02 needs to go south into what is not really the Twin Cities urban mass, to equalize. MN-06 needs to pick up a few people from MN-07, and MN-08 is desperate for people, and needs to invade the exurbs - somewhere.  Before it too the NE, and now it needs a bit more territory. I think my map gets pretty close in defining what that territory is (the bottom map), which includes some that is not even in the urban mass in Benton County.

So it seems to me that you just fill in counties, and then play at the edges, to make it work. And I think that is what the court was focused on last time.

[Torie]

Here is the map which draws the MN-02 and  MN-06 to  totally fill in the density zone. They are short about 27,000 people (all in MN-06, with MN-08 having the excess. So the population balancing is done with the whited out precincts. MN-07 moves north a bit, taking 18,000 people from MN-08, MN-06 grabs a few precincts from MM-07 to get its first 9,000 third of the 27,000 votes that it needs (as does MN-01, and MN-02 grabs one more), takes another (9,000 from MN-02 (which MN-02 gets back from MN-01, with MN-01 then getting them back from MN0-07), and MN-06 completes the job by taking the last 9,000 voters from MN-08 directly.

So MN-08 gets quite a bit more Dem, with the Dems taking the seat, MN-07 perhaps gets a tad more GOP, and certainly less erratic, and will probably go GOP when Peterson goes, MN-01 may be slightly more GOP, but not enough to threaten the Dem in it,   MN-02 may be a tad more Dem, but not enough to threaten Klein, and MN-06 gets even more GOP. Not a bad map for the Dems.

[Torie]

That is far more shifting than necessary. Also I think you drew Peterson out of his seat.

And MN-01 doesn't get more Republican, it lost a bunch of heavily Republican counties in exchange for a Dem-leaning one, a GOP-leaning one, and a swing one leaning just barely to the GOP. Obama no doubt won the new territory added to the seat.

Yes, I changed my text, because you are right about MN-01. But if the court is really serious about a map that has the Twin Cities CD's match where the Twin Cities actually are, based on population density, this is the map. The rest to mind mind is just rhetoric. What this map does is avoid the outer three CD's taking in any high density population zone appending the Twin Cities area (like MN-08 does now), and just has the two suburban CD's in the end grab 27,000 people outside Twin Cities density template. In other words, the Twin Cities density zone is 27,000 people short of being 5 CD's in size, about 3,250,000 people.

This has nothing to do by the way with partisan considerations or where any incumbent lives. Why should the court worry where incumbents live by the way?

[Torie]

Man, the intra county shifts in Hennepin County were larger than I expected, Muon2. That is a big shift there, with MN-05 now not only taking in Brooklyn Center (which I expected the bulk of which would be absorbed), but also a slug of Brooklyn Park, making MN-03 quite comfortably Pubbie now. The map that will be drawn will look very close to the one that you drew; I would think the only issue being how MN-08, MN-07 and MN-01 move around really, to equalize population. There are two or three reasonable choices there. I picked one, and you picked another, I think.

[Torie]

Man, the intra county shifts in Hennepin County were larger than I expected, Muon2. That is a big shift there, with MN-05 now not only taking in Brooklyn Center (which I expected the bulk of which would be absorbed), but also a slug of Brooklyn Park, making MN-03 quite comfortably Pubbie now. The map that will be drawn will look very close to the one that you drew; I would think the only issue being how MN-08, MN-07 and MN-01 move around really, to equalize population. There are two or three reasonable choices there. I picked one, and you picked another, I think.

To give you an idea of the difference consider that all my districts are within a couple hundred of the ideal based on a 2010 projection of the 2009 estimates by town/city. Here's what Dave's App has for the metro districts.

CD 2: -15.0 K
CD 3: -36.3 K
CD 4: +23.5 K
CD 5: +51.9 K
CD 6: -42.2 K

That deviation in CD 5 is about 8%! That's why it's best to have town estimates in any urban county split.

Interesting. By the way Muon2, do you think the court would really continue to live with the split in Bejumdi (sp)?  Would not they at least unify that county in MN-07? 

I also like the straight north south line myself (which means also MN-07 also taking Hubbard County), but that is just my sense of aesthetics I guess. And then that avoids a shift of those southwestern corner counties from MN-01 to MN-07. All thing being pretty equal means avoiding the musical chairs game, no? But then MN-08 needs some more territory (rural (and yes it is rural based on a population density metric) Benton County outside the St. Cloud elbow room zone!), and around and around we go. 

[Torie]

The most problematical part of Muon2's map to me is where MN-04 will expand. He is moving around a lot of territory in order to rather perfervidly avoid splits of anything. I tend to think the court will hew more to the existing lines between MN-02 and MN-04, and just work from there. So MN-04 expands more into Dakota where it was before, and out of Washington. Just my wild guess.

[Torie]

Unless a court is going to draw a map like the Pubbies did, if the parties cannot cut a deal, then yes, the map is DOA. As a Dem I would just toss it in the wastebasket and laugh at how the Pubbies can dream the impossible dream.

[Torie]

Someone didn't get the memo that the court is probably going to try to minimize changes from the existing map, which it itself drew. So that is the default option, which means neither party is going to give the other something that would appear likely to be more than the other party would get from the court. Any cross party deal is going to have to be pretty close to the anticipated default option when it comes to partisan balance. And there you have it.