State Legislature Redistricting

[they don't love you like i love you]

But they're taking the gambles in the wrong places. They did some pretty clever and downright evil things in northern and western Minnesota (Putting Bemidji in a McCain House seat is the most notable example), but the way they drew southern Minnesota gives the impression that they seem to expect every election to have the same turnout figures as 2010. A lot of it seems like attempts to target certain incumbents by basically carving up the district, without taking into account that they haven't exactly eliminated any friendly district. They seem to have targeted Kory Kath in this manner without realizing that the two new seats split from his old are both MORE Democratic than his current seat.

The most obvious example is 22A. It's clear they're trying to target current 26B incumbent Patti Fritz who barely held on in 2010 by cutting her hometown of Faribault in half. This makes sense, as does running the western half up to the exurbs. But the eastern half is ran up to the college town of Northfield, resulting in a seat that gave Obama about 10 points more than Fritz's current seat. And this seat is also more Democratic than the current 25B which narrowly elected a Republican in 2010 and includes Northfield now. Now I can understand the GOP realizing they can't really shore that guy up and have to just let the chips falls where they are for a Republican from Northfield, but the result is a Dem pack district for no real reason. And they've added this seat to Mike Parry's Senate district as stated before. Kath could easily get elected in 22B, 22A is the most Democratic seat south of the Twin Cities and together the Senate seat is Dem-leaning. So you probably end up with a DFL trifecta in a region where that really shouldn't happen under a GOP gerrymander all because of a very clumsy half-assed attempt to eliminate two DFL incumbents who'll both probably survive anyway AND flip the Senate seat to boot.

Then there's 21B. This is an obvious attempt to shore up the Republican in the current 27A, who narrowly won only because certain types didn't turn out in Freeborn county and the DFL foolishly nominated someone from Mower County to run in that seat. The seat has gone from about 57% to about 54% Obama which is probably the best that can be done for a district containing all of Freeborn County. But for some reason they separated it from Mower County, putting the latter in a Senate district with those two other counties that should easily re-elect Dan Sparks, and giving Freeborn to what's basically Julie Rosen's current seat, flipping it to an Obama district. So they're endangering Rosen without making Sparks really all that vulnerable. I think they're also trying to shore up State Senator Jerry Miller by removing those two south eastern counties and giving him more conservative territory to the north and east of Winona. But that's not a guarantee as that's still not enough to full cancel out Winona especially in an election where the college kids actually turn out, which 2010 was not. So they could go from 2 out of 3 State Senators among those 3 seats to 0 quite easily. Dumb dumb dumb.

Why exactly, should I assume that you are more intelligent than the consensus of the Republican caucus was?

You seriously think gerrymanderers are always intelligent then? LOL. I'm just plugging the numbers and reporting on the results. It's all moot though because Dayton's not going to sign t that.

[ilikeverin]

Yeah Dayton's not going to sign that. But it's much closer to a dummymander than a gerrymander and could easily backfire in many places.

Well, no surprise; the Redistricting Committee was chaired by my ex-Representative, Sarah Anderson, who is the Queen of Generic Suburban R.

[BigSkyBob]

But they're taking the gambles in the wrong places. They did some pretty clever and downright evil things in northern and western Minnesota (Putting Bemidji in a McCain House seat is the most notable example), but the way they drew southern Minnesota gives the impression that they seem to expect every election to have the same turnout figures as 2010. A lot of it seems like attempts to target certain incumbents by basically carving up the district, without taking into account that they haven't exactly eliminated any friendly district. They seem to have targeted Kory Kath in this manner without realizing that the two new seats split from his old are both MORE Democratic than his current seat.

The most obvious example is 22A. It's clear they're trying to target current 26B incumbent Patti Fritz who barely held on in 2010 by cutting her hometown of Faribault in half. This makes sense, as does running the western half up to the exurbs. But the eastern half is ran up to the college town of Northfield, resulting in a seat that gave Obama about 10 points more than Fritz's current seat. And this seat is also more Democratic than the current 25B which narrowly elected a Republican in 2010 and includes Northfield now. Now I can understand the GOP realizing they can't really shore that guy up and have to just let the chips falls where they are for a Republican from Northfield, but the result is a Dem pack district for no real reason. And they've added this seat to Mike Parry's Senate district as stated before. Kath could easily get elected in 22B, 22A is the most Democratic seat south of the Twin Cities and together the Senate seat is Dem-leaning. So you probably end up with a DFL trifecta in a region where that really shouldn't happen under a GOP gerrymander all because of a very clumsy half-assed attempt to eliminate two DFL incumbents who'll both probably survive anyway AND flip the Senate seat to boot.

Then there's 21B. This is an obvious attempt to shore up the Republican in the current 27A, who narrowly won only because certain types didn't turn out in Freeborn county and the DFL foolishly nominated someone from Mower County to run in that seat. The seat has gone from about 57% to about 54% Obama which is probably the best that can be done for a district containing all of Freeborn County. But for some reason they separated it from Mower County, putting the latter in a Senate district with those two other counties that should easily re-elect Dan Sparks, and giving Freeborn to what's basically Julie Rosen's current seat, flipping it to an Obama district. So they're endangering Rosen without making Sparks really all that vulnerable. I think they're also trying to shore up State Senator Jerry Miller by removing those two south eastern counties and giving him more conservative territory to the north and east of Winona. But that's not a guarantee as that's still not enough to full cancel out Winona especially in an election where the college kids actually turn out, which 2010 was not. So they could go from 2 out of 3 State Senators among those 3 seats to 0 quite easily. Dumb dumb dumb.

Why exactly, should I assume that you are more intelligent than the consensus of the Republican caucus was?

You seriously think gerrymanderers are always intelligent then? LOL. I'm just plugging the numbers and reporting on the results. 

No, you simply have not done that. You have seized upon a talking point, namely, this is a dummymander, and have shaded the map to reenforce your talking point.


If this really were a dummymander you would be encouraging Dayton to sign the bill.
You are not. What is an objective observer to make of these facts?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Somehow I don't think the main factor in which Dayton will sign it or not is what I tell him.

Dayton won't sign it because it screws over some individual Democrats who'll be lobbying him not to. As I said, it does target some areas well, but some of the other moves are just dumb and I could see it failing if all Democrats vote against it along with endangered Republicans.

[freepcrusher]

BRTD, presidential results are not a good example when determining who will win a legislative race. Most of the time a gubernatorial result makes more sense.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The IP doesn't run as strong in state legislative races in Minnesota so that doesn't work very well. Also Southern Minnesota is pretty polarized, races tend to be the same all the way downballot.

[Verily]

BRTD, presidential results are not a good example when determining who will win a legislative race. Most of the time a gubernatorial result makes more sense.

This is far more true in some states than others (and, even within states, in some specific regions/demographic groups than in others). Minnesota does not have much difference between its state and federal voting patterns.

[BigSkyBob]

Somehow I don't think the main factor in which Dayton will sign it or not is what I tell him.

Dayton won't sign it because it screws over some individual Democrats who'll be lobbying him not to. As I said, it does target some areas well, but some of the other moves are just dumb and I could see it failing if all Democrats vote against it along with endangered Republicans.

I'm not commenting on whether, or not, Dayton, will support the map, though if it truly is a dummymander he ought sign the bill. I am commenting on your position. Again, if you truly believe that this is a dummymander, why aren't you supporting the passage of this bill?


The par assumption to make is that you are opposing this bill precisely because it does benefit the Republicans.

[they don't love you like i love you]

It does in some areas. But there are some where the moves are just puzzling and obviously won't benefit.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Somehow I don't think the main factor in which Dayton will sign it or not is what I tell him.

Dayton won't sign it because it screws over some individual Democrats who'll be lobbying him not to. As I said, it does target some areas well, but some of the other moves are just dumb and I could see it failing if all Democrats vote against it along with endangered Republicans.

I'm not commenting on whether, or not, Dayton, will support the map, though if it truly is a dummymander he ought sign the bill. I am commenting on your position. Again, if you truly believe that this is a dummymander, why aren't you supporting the passage of this bill?


The par assumption to make is that you are opposing this bill precisely because it does benefit the Republicans.

No, even if it's a semi-dummymander, Dayton should try to force a neutral or even lean-dem map.  It's Minnesota for God sakes, there's no reason to accept an even semi-pro Republican map.  Btw, who controls the State Supreme Court there, btw?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Two Democrats (well one was appointed by Arne Carlson so he's probably more of a Souter.), one appointed by Ventura, and the remaining four are Pawlenty appointees. The Chief Justice though, while a Pawlenty appointee has a history of working with and being appointed by both parties as well as Ventura. She was known for sounding openly annoyed and hostile to Coleman during the recount hearings. Of the other three though two are obviously right wing and one there isn't a lot of information on.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Two Democrats (well one was appointed by Arne Carlson so he's probably more of a Souter.), one appointed by Ventura, and the remaining four are Pawlenty appointees. The Chief Justice though, while a Pawlenty appointee has a history of working with and being appointed by both parties as well as Ventura. She was known for sounding openly annoyed and hostile to Coleman during the recount hearings. Of the other three though two are obviously right wing and one there isn't a lot of information on.

So neither party would really want this to go the courts (but perhaps the Democrats a little less than the Republicans)?

[krazen1211]

So neither party would really want this to go the courts (but perhaps the Democrats a little less than the Republicans)?

I'd guess the opposite. The Minnesota GOP looks like its on borrowed time; a court won't draw the Great White North Congressional district or some of the 4 way cracks on the legislative map.

Minnesota isn't like the rest of the midwest though. The GOP administered shellackings in places like Michigan, but I think its been a while since any Republican hit 50% in any statewide MN election.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I don't think either side fears a court drawn map, our last four maps have been that way. The current map doesn't really favor either side that much either, the Republicans had a bigger House majority in the first election under this map than they do now. But they probably know there's a lot of seats they aren't holding if they remain the same population shifts might benefit them a little, but considering they lost the popular vote for the legislature even in 2010 and had a ton of close seats, there are simply many who know that they are done if radical changes aren't made in their favor. A couple might survive on a fluke, but most wouldn't.

And the last Republican to get 50% in Minnesota was Arne Carlson in 1994.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Here's the map of the Illinois House proposal. It's quite a masterwork of spaghetti-strand districts.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Here's the map of the Illinois House proposal. It's quite a masterwork of spaghetti-strand districts.

Yikes. The south side of Chicago is surely the worst we've seen yet.

[BigSkyBob]

Here's the map of the Illinois House proposal. It's quite a masterwork of spaghetti-strand districts.

Here's another example of Democratic hypocrisy in action.  Due to split control the map went to the coin flip in 1980, 1990, and 2000.  The Democrats won the flip in 1980 and 2000. In 1990, the Republicans won the coin flip, and proceeded to draw a map that favored the Republicans.

The Democratically controlled State Supreme Court found that legislative districts must be compact, and ordered the districts redrawn. The Republicans were forced to square up the districts to their detriment.


These districts are less compact that the Illinois Supreme Court struck down as unacceptable.


In a raw exercise of partisan hypocrisy, that same Court will let this map through without comment.


On the upside, the districts, effectively, won't last ten years. When Illinois inevitably goes into receivership,  Court appointed overseers, not legislators, will run the show.

[ag]

On the upside, the districts, effectively, won't last ten years. When Illinois inevitably goes into receivership,  Court appointed overseers, not legislators, will run the show.

Aside from anything else, lease cite the lawe that would allow this to happen (that is that courts may appoint overseers instead of state legislators and that such legislators would have the power to draw districts) )))

[BigSkyBob]

On the upside, the districts, effectively, won't last ten years. When Illinois inevitably goes into receivership,  Court appointed overseers, not legislators, will run the show.

Aside from anything else, lease cite the lawe that would allow this to happen (that is that courts may appoint overseers instead of state legislators and that such legislators would have the power to draw districts) )))

You missed my point. After the overseers take charge, it won't matter whether tweedle-dee or tweedle-are wins any particular seat. Voters will choice legislators, and the overseer will set policy.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Here's a pretty map from the Chicago Tribune of the proposed Illinois Senate districts.

[ag]

You missed my point. After the overseers take charge, it won't matter whether tweedle-dee or tweedle-are wins any particular seat. Voters will choice legislators, and the overseer will set policy.

And now find a law that would allow appointment of such an overseer. It's not a municipality - it's a state. It can go bankrupt, but it is still a state - it's sovereign. You may lock it out of the financial markets, but you can't strip the legislature and the governor of their constitutional powers.

Anyway, any reason to believe Illinois goes bankrupt before, say Texas? Arguably, IL is more willing to tax to pay it off - and that's, in the end, what determines whether state debts get paid. Honestly, I'd be more scared if I held TX debt these days.

[krazen1211]

MALDEF is attacking the Illinois house map.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/5568895-418/latino-group-says-dem-redistricting-plan-violates-election-law.html



I give them credit for being nonpartisan.

[jimrtex]

MALDEF is attacking the Illinois house map.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/5568895-418/latino-group-says-dem-redistricting-plan-violates-election-law.html

I give them credit for being nonpartisan.

If it was the congressional map, they would be complaining that it was too compact.

[ill ind]

  The Illinois GOP put out its own competing map today--called 'Fair map'
Probably wont get voted on, but kudos for offering an alternative.

http://news.ilhousegop.org/themap/

Ill Ind

[ill ind]

  That wierd strip north of Waukegan is most likely an attempt to boost the Hispanic  population of the Waukegan District.  That district, along with the Elgin-Carpentersville District, the Franklin Park District near O'hare with the two funny hooks going west from it, the Aurora District, the 3 Hispanic Districts on the North Side, and 4 of the 6 on the South Side appear to verbatim duplicate those originally proposed by MALDEF.  The other two on the South Side appear to to have some modifications from MLADEF's proposal.
 
  They split Rockford and that would put the one Dem representative there in danger, while the Dems map consolidated 2 representative districts (1 Senate District) which puts the sitting GOP state senator in danger.

  "Fair" --it all depends on what the definition of 'is' is.

Ill Ind