US House Redistricting: Minnesota

[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.)

[minionofmidas]

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.

[minionofmidas]

MOTHER OF ALL BUMPS!

The court will hand down the map in late february, of course.

Meanwhile, here's the parties' proposals to it, made in late november.

http://politicsinminnesota.com/files/2011/11/GOP-Congress.jpg

http://politicsinminnesota.com/files/2011/11/DFL-Congress.jpg

http://politicsinminnesota.com/files/2011/11/gop-metro.jpg

http://politicsinminnesota.com/files/2011/11/dfl-metro.jpg

Both of these include a double whammy that any unbiased court should laugh out of itself, obviously. In the GOP map, obvious attempt to bolster accidental congressman is obvious. And they are seriously suggesting splitting Saint Cloud (the city, not just the area) down the middle. Also, North Mankato from Mankato. That 7th is really something. In the metro, the third expands outward to boost its R hold.

In the Dem map, all of Saint Cloud (the city) is put in the 8th instead of exurbifying territory further east, otherwise it's sane minimal change outstate. Even that makes sense, or would if all of the St Cloud area could be transferred. The ugly bits are all around the 5th district. Moving way more of Washington into the St Paul district than is necessary in order to sink Bachmann (though she'd be replaced with another crazy in that 6th), putting the southern inner suburbs of St Paul into the 3rd in order to nick it, with outer Hennepin transferred to the 2nd as a result.

[minionofmidas]

They also put Cravaack in the 6th, to open the 8th and put pressure on Bachmann. It looks very similar to the tactics used by the Dems in the IL map.

Lol, completely overlooked that. Where does Cravaack live, exactly?

On the GOP side MN 1 seems to follow the county line, but it actually splits through North Mankato. If it didn't it would be 7815 persons short.
[/quote]Well the county line splits the urban core anyways. Though not the official city of Mankato.

[minionofmidas]

Ah, I remember that GOP map being posted earlier and the argument from BigSkyBob it was a completely logical map and not a gerrymander.

You're right, the GOP submission is the same map that Dayton vetoed.

Well, I'm glad that Minnesota is not like Colorado and the courts are perfectly free to draw their own map. Though I guess the submitted maps would have been slightly more reasonable otherwise.

[minionofmidas]

Not quite. The GOP map quite needlessly shores up the third by running it out into some German rural/exurban counties. Other than that though, yeah.

[minionofmidas]

Technically the ruling was that until tomorrow, no deadlines of any kind had been missed, the legislature and governor could still theoretically pass a map of their own design even though they'd clearly stated they wouldn't, and the court thus could not act at all until tomorrow at the earliest.

But yeah, that does mean they'll release their map tomorrow.

[minionofmidas]

Lol, website crashes at 1pm CT on the dot.

[minionofmidas]

Here we go.

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Court_Information_Office/Redistricting2011Final/Minnesota_Congressional_Districts_Statewide.pdf

Cravaack remains in the 8th. Saint Cloud remains in the sixth. None of Southern Washington County does. They found a compromise between extending the 7th to the southwest corner or not doing so - extending it almost to the southwest corner!

With changes.
Metro

[minionofmidas]

Fun fact: 2002 map had 8 split counties and 7 split townships. The Republican map (apparently it exists in two marginally different versions) has 7 and 7. The DFL map, 7 and 10.
The new court map, 9 and 8.

[minionofmidas]

So does Bachmann move, or just run for a district she doesn't live in, or lose to McCollum, or retire? Inquiring minds want to know.

[minionofmidas]

Kline losing? Keep dreaming. There's a reason they put those South St Paul suburbs they removed from the fourth (a fact they glossed over in their order, btw) here and not in the 3rd, as the Dem proposal did. Because they would have made a difference there.
It's a 4-4 map, but with Peterson having proven he can hold a (marginally) false-party district seemingly forever, and Cravaack not having proven anything of the kind yet. And thus arguably a 5-3 map.
And one R incumbent has a problem, but that just opens opportunities for other Republicans.

[minionofmidas]

So the followed my recommendation and extended 3 westward into Carver County, and moved the northern tip of Dakota into 2, clearly establishing 2 and 6 as northern and southern metro districts.

I think I would have put more of Rice in 2, and Wabasha and Goodhue in 2, but that is a minor quibble.  A quite excellent plan.

Agree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I don't really think it'll go like that...

[minionofmidas]

So the followed my recommendation and extended 3 westward into Carver County, and moved the northern tip of Dakota into 2, clearly establishing 2 and 6 as northern and southern metro districts.

I think I would have put more of Rice in 2, and Wabasha and Goodhue in 2, but that is a minor quibble.  A quite excellent plan.

Agree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I don't really think it'll go like that...

There are 5 metro districts which have slightly less than 5 districts worth of population. Eliminating a Republican metro district makes the most sense.

Unless of course the GOP has a trifecta; in which case putting both Twin Cities into 1 district and carefully cracking the interior suburbs works.

They have slightly less than 5/8 which is why they have to include St.Cloud.

But they have nowhere close to 5/7.  It is much closer to a bit more than 4/7.  So Chisago and Isanti will continue to be trimmed,  and perhaps Wright and Sherbourne.  Maybe the fringes of Carver, Scott, and Dakota get trimmed.

With 4 metro districts you can't have 3,5,4 in a stack and one wraparound district.  And shopping Hennepin 3 ways (between Minneapolis and a northern and southern suburban district doesn't make sense.  Because Minneapolis is larger than St. Paul, and you run out of room to the east, the center of the metro area keeps moving west.

Splitting Hennepin 3 ways gives you a northern suburb district, a southern suburb district, a Hennepin/Minneapolis district, and a Ramsey/Washington district.

And then you put St Cloud wholly into the 7th and the far northwest into the 8th, and trim the second's not-really-suburban edges into the 1st. Amend the southwest corner of the state as necessary.
This is, of course, assuming a court to draw the map in 2022.

[minionofmidas]

Top obviously, not that bottom is great.

Your point being that it is technically possible to construct fantasy examples where the number of such county/district border matches is not just slightly but very much off?

[minionofmidas]

The results should probably hold up anywhere east of the Great American Desert.