US House Redistricting: Minnesota

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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?

[jimrtex]

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) 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.

[jimrtex]

The courts have drawn the last two Minnesota congressional plans.  In 2001, the courts switched to a (2:3) 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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[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. 

[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

[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,

[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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.
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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

St.Cloud extends quite a long way east of the river, abput 1/2 way into second tier of townships.  Sartell also is on both sides of the river, with a 33% increase since 2009.  Rice city has a 105% increase since 2009.

According to 2009 census estimates, St Cloud has 52.3K in Stearns, 8.5K in Benton, and 6.4K in Sherburne.  To get all of St. Cloud, you have to go two Jeffersonian townships into Benton, which is half the county, so you might as well take keep the whole of both.

The Census Bureau has 2009 estimates for county subdivisions in Minnesota, which includes both cities and townships.  The inner tier suburbs of Minneapolis are losing population.  If they were settled in the 1960s or 70s, the original settlers are dieing off so household sizes are declining, and young families might not be able to afford to live there, and there might not be any land available for multi-family housing.

I'd think it more likely that MN-5 needs Edina and Brooklyn Center, and part of Brooklyn Park.

[jimrtex]

St.Johns University is 3-1/2 miles from St.Joseph, and College of St.Benedict only has 2000 students.

For goodness sake, why do people keep looking at the two colleges separately?

I was characterizing the population of the city of St.Joseph.

Would it be better to say that 1/2 of the population of St Joseph, if we include 2000 persons who don't actually live in the city of St.Joseph, nor for that matter in St.Joseph township, are students at either College of Saint Benedict (in St.Joseph) or St. Johns University (not in St.Joseph, nor St.Joseph township), but the non-campus portion of St.Joseph is rapidly growing, including an annexed area formerly in St.Wendel township with several 100 building sites?

[jimrtex]

The Anoka panhandle was originally a separate county (Manomin), apparently because Ramsey County couldn't go west of a dotted line, or perhaps because the river got in the way of having neat 6 mile square townships.  They decided that it was never going to work as a separate county, so it got added to Anoka County, which sort of made sense because the only town (Anoka) was along the river, and it made sense to have county boundaries along the river (eg Anoka was the rural county on the east bank north of the twin cities).

Columbia Heights is one of the earliest suburbs, developing in the 1920s when it became the most populous city in Anoka County, so it is probably older than many areas of Minneapolis and St.Paul let alone the areas that developed post WWII.

[jimrtex]

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.

MN-7 can come south all the way to Iowa.  The last 4 westernmost counties mostly drain toward the Missouri River rather than the Des Moines River.  They probably look at Sioux Falls as the big city, just like those who live in Moorhead and East Grand Forks look to Fargo and Grand Forks.   When the decision was made to go with 3 outer districts, it was noted that one or two districts would have go the length of the border.  The Canadian border was out due to lack of transportation other than canoe or sea plane; so they chose the Iowa border because of I-90.  But I-29 lies along the entire western border.  MN-1 and MN-8 have medium sized cities (Rochester and Duluth), so MN-7 will have to be bigger.  And MN-1 can come north so the counties around its two cities of Rochester and Mankato are within the same district.   MN-7 is really a SE district with a long western tail. 

[jimrtex]

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.

When the court drew the 2000s map, the main issue was whether to retain the existing 4:4 plan (Greater Minnesota : Metro) or switch to a 5:3 plan.  The court decided to go with a 5:3 plan, since the metropolitan share was close to 62.5% than 50%, and it was slowly increasing.  To actually get to 62.5% they had to include St.Cloud, which they decided was the area closest related to the Twin Cities (more so than Rochester, Mankato, or Duluth).

During the 1990s at least, St. Cloud was in MN-07, perhaps because it needed the population, since there was at the time a SW Minnesota district.  I don't think that the decision to split Stearns was entirely to make the boundary smoother.  I think it was to recognize that the western part of the county was pretty remote from the Twin Cities, and even St. Cloud.

While the court gave the existence of I-90 as the reason for choosing MN-1 as the district that extends the full length of the border, this was partially a rationalization made for population balance reasons.  MN-8 needed Isanti and Chisago, or it would have to go west towards Fargo, which they had made a decision not to do, or SW towards St. Cloud, but would have meant splitting St.Cloud.

But losing Isanti and Chisago meant that the 5 metro districts would need some more population, which they got from the three counties south of the metro area (Le Sueur, Rice, and Goodhue).  It looks vaguely like an extended metro area to be acceptable, but it then meant MN-01 which had been a SE district would have to extend westward.

A court will assert that the 5:3 plan should be continued, that St.Cloud is still needed for the metro population, but that extreme southern fringe is no longer need.  It need not mention Chisago and Isanti have anything to do with this (especially since shifting them would mess up everything and MN-8 is really close to the ideal population).

The court then adjusts the southern boundary of the Metro 5 area assigns it to MN-1 and starts population balancing.

It explains that MN-7 is short X people, and gives the 5 options and explains why the first 4 won't work.

1) Go east from Bemidji.  Won't work because low population and MN-8 would be forced to go into Anoka or Washington County.

2) Go east near St. Cloud, but this would split the city of St. Cloud.

3) Go east into Wright County, but this is into the metro area.

4) Go SE Mankato but would(?) require taking of North Mankato and St. Peter and New Ulm.

5) Go south to the Iowa border, which also takes the excess from MN-1 from its going north.

You add in some language about the close ties between these areas and the Dakotas.  If they grow wheat and raise cattle, rather than corn and hogs, you mention that.  And then give a rationale for MN-1 becoming a SE district, and emphasize the importance of Rochester and Mankato so that the district isn't dominantly agriculture, and toss in the importance of the Mississippi River.

This will mean that MN-2 shifts north in Dakota County, and MN-4 more into Washington, which is OK since MN-6 extends NW to St Cloud which.