Minnesota 25th State Senate District Special Election. Predictions?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In a nutshell, this is the district Colin Wixted goes to school in, though it looks like he won't be able to vote in this. It's also the district my grandfather currently lives in and my mom grew up in. The Republican incumbent is resigning to take a judgeship. The primary is December 18th (my birthday!) and the general election is January 3rd (meaning no one will care about it then because of the Iowa caucuses, but oh well).

http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/25_web.pdf

Swing district. Northern part of it is quickly becoming Twin Cities exurbia. Northfield is heavily Democratic, Le Sueur is a swing county, Sibley is uber-GOP. Incumbent only won by 4 points in 2006, Klobuchar by 18, Pawlenty by 6, DFL Sec of State by about 4 and the DFL State Auditor and AG both carried it by 10 and 9 points respectively.

Sadly, my current prediction is going to have to be a GOP hold, just because the DFL relies too much on Northfield and all the students are going to be gone during the election (which is probably why the guy resigned at the time he did and Pawlenty called the special election at the time he did.) But will then be heavily targeted in 2008. However right now the GOP still has no declared candidates, the obvious choice would be State Rep. Laura Brod though. Three DFL candidates have declared, a guy with no web site I know nothing about, a Democratic activist and the mayor of the town of Montgomery whose father also held the seat. My guess is McGuire (the mayor) will win the primary.

General Election prediction (obviously subject to change):

McGuire: 48%
GOP Candidate: 52%

But McGuire will run again in 2008 GE and stand a good chance.

So predictions? Thoughts?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Worth noting: A victory here would give the DFL a veto-proof supermajority.

[muon2]

I believe that both Northfield colleges resume on Jan 3, so there should be students in town. OTOH, it may be tough to focus students on an election on the first day of class.

[MarkWarner08]

Worth noting: A victory here would give the DFL a veto-proof supermajority.

Wow. It seems like just yesterday when the GOP was ascendant in Minny.

[AndrewTX]

Strong Republican.

[Verily]

Looking at that map: Why, oh why does Minnesota get to be the only state with rational legislative districts?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Looking at that map: Why, oh why does Minnesota get to be the only state with rational legislative districts?

Really? I hate this one. Rice County is split and put into two districts, both currently Republican. Rice County is slightly smaller than a Senate district's size, so if it was all in one district plus a few surrounding areas, it'd be a fairly strong DFL district.

[Kevinstat]

Well the Democrats' margin in both of the state house districts coving Rice County in 2006 was less than 10% according to http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/2006_state_house_margin_by_district.pdf .  Of course many of the non-Rice County towns in House District 25-B and particularly House District 26-A are a ways away from Rice County (some are on the far end of adjacent Steele county).  And those districts could have a smaller than usual number of swing voters, such that Republicans can often get 45% of the vote but the Democrats can usually comfortably get over 50% + 1 vote.  (Or maybe the lighter color on that map meant less than 10% over the average of the two major parties' vote, like within 60-40, and many election districts have a fairly solid 40% for the minority party without being really competitive at all.  Ron Dellums's Oakland-Berkeley congressional district was like that I remember reading before the 1991 redistricting when some Republican suburbs to the north I think were removed.)

[Verily]

Looking at that map: Why, oh why does Minnesota get to be the only state with rational legislative districts?

Really? I hate this one. Rice County is split and put into two districts, both currently Republican. Rice County is slightly smaller than a Senate district's size, so if it was all in one district plus a few surrounding areas, it'd be a fairly strong DFL district.

Compare maps in Minnesota to maps in New Jersey, then we'll talk.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well the Democrats' margin in both of the state house districts coving Rice County in 2006 was less than 10% according to http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/2006_state_house_margin_by_district.pdf .  Of course many of the non-Rice County towns in House District 25-B and particularly House District 26-A are a ways away from Rice County (some are on the far end of adjacent Steele county).  And those districts could have a smaller than usual number of swing voters, such that Republicans can often get 45% of the vote but the Democrats can usually comfortably get over 50% + 1 vote.  (Or maybe the lighter color on that map meant less than 10% over the average of the two major parties' vote, like within 60-40, and many election districts have a fairly solid 40% for the minority party without being really competitive at all.  Ron Dellums's Oakland-Berkeley congressional district was like that I remember reading before the 1991 redistricting when some Republican suburbs to the north I think were removed.)

One of those districts was actually a pickup. In 2002, there were NO DFL state legislators from Rice County at all. The GOP got an unfair advantage that's wearing off. Splitting those House districts into separate State Senate districts is just what I have a problem with.

Looking at that map: Why, oh why does Minnesota get to be the only state with rational legislative districts?

Really? I hate this one. Rice County is split and put into two districts, both currently Republican. Rice County is slightly smaller than a Senate district's size, so if it was all in one district plus a few surrounding areas, it'd be a fairly strong DFL district.

Compare maps in Minnesota to maps in New Jersey, then we'll talk.

Got a map? Minnesota's overall aren't too bad, but this little bit of incumbent protection in this area annoys me.

[Jake]

Wow. It seems like just yesterday when the GOP was ascendant in Minny.

Anyone touting statewide "swings" based on a few elections should be ignored indefinitely.

[Verily]

Looking at that map: Why, oh why does Minnesota get to be the only state with rational legislative districts?

Really? I hate this one. Rice County is split and put into two districts, both currently Republican. Rice County is slightly smaller than a Senate district's size, so if it was all in one district plus a few surrounding areas, it'd be a fairly strong DFL district.

Compare maps in Minnesota to maps in New Jersey, then we'll talk.

Got a map? Minnesota's overall aren't too bad, but this little bit of incumbent protection in this area annoys me.

[Brittain33]

Superficially, no one's going to notice anything weird about New Jersey. It's also not an extraordinary map in general; it primarily favors Democrats because of what it did to incumbents from the 1990s, and with a few changes around the margins. At this point, incumbency, county machines, and a wacked finance system amount for the Democratic ascendancy, particularly in the Senate where the map doesn't account for Democratic strength in South Jersey. In a good Republican year, and without incumbent advantages, they could take over the Senate with the current map.

In a state full of 90-95% Democratic cities and 55% Republican suburbs, a map without districts like the 34th, 22nd, and 38th would amount to a Republican gerrymander. The 1990s were the outlier, not the 2000s.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Superficially, no one's going to notice anything weird about New Jersey. It's also not an extraordinary map in general; it primarily favors Democrats because of what it did to incumbents from the 1990s, and with a few changes around the margins. At this point, incumbency, county machines, and a wacked finance system amount for the Democratic ascendancy, particularly in the Senate where the map doesn't account for Democratic strength in South Jersey. In a good Republican year, and without incumbent advantages, they could take over the Senate with the current map.

In a state full of 90-95% Democratic cities and 55% Republican suburbs, a map without districts like the 34th, 22nd, and 38th would amount to a Republican gerrymander. The 1990s were the outlier, not the 2000s.

The 1990s were a good Republican map, but the 2000s were a good Democratic map.  Good evidence of this would be the 2003 State Senate elections, where Democrats won 22 of 40 seats even though Republicans got more votes statewide than Democrats did.

There is certainly a middle ground.  There is no reason why the Union County suburbs of Scotch Plains and Fanwood need to be grouped in with Linden or Plainfield, and there is no reason Clifton should have gotten grouped in with all those heavily minority areas in Essex.

And let's not forget that 36 and 18 were intentionally (and successfully) made more democratic to oust Republican incumbents.

[Verily]

Superficially, no one's going to notice anything weird about New Jersey. It's also not an extraordinary map in general; it primarily favors Democrats because of what it did to incumbents from the 1990s, and with a few changes around the margins. At this point, incumbency, county machines, and a wacked finance system amount for the Democratic ascendancy, particularly in the Senate where the map doesn't account for Democratic strength in South Jersey. In a good Republican year, and without incumbent advantages, they could take over the Senate with the current map.

Well, yes, it's not ridiculously gerrymandered. That's not really the point. My main objection is unusual district shapes; with normal-looking districts, gerrymandering can't happen. You pointed out some of them, but look at 40, 18, 12, 14, the combined shapes of 4, 5 and 6, etc. Minnesota does a much better job of rationally dividing things.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I suppose it depends on what your goals in redistricting are.  In an ideal world, I'd draw maps blind to partisan registration/affiliation based almost exclusively on:

(1) Existing political boundaries (counties and cities).
(2) Grouping together communities of interest.

In this sense, I don't consider District 5 to be especially gerrymandered, because, in addition to Camden, it includes some heavily other African-American towns inside Camden County.  District 6 groups together the more suburban-type towns in Camden County, and is similarly unoffensive to me.

District 36 brutally fails this test, since it includes three counties (Bergen, Essex, Passaic) and groups together towns that have little in common aside from their State Senator.  (Passaic and Nutley, together at last!)

Remember that State Legislative districts are not allowed to break up municipalities.  (Newark and Jersey City have, of course, been excepted from the rule out of necessity.)  This can create some very jagged lines that make districts look a little more gerrymandered than they otherwise are.

[Brittain33]

Well, yes, it's not ridiculously gerrymandered. That's not really the point. My main objection is unusual district shapes; with normal-looking districts, gerrymandering can't happen. You pointed out some of them, but look at 40, 18, 12, 14, the combined shapes of 4, 5 and 6, etc. Minnesota does a much better job of rationally dividing things.

A key difference here is that Minnesota has square townships and New Jersey doesn't. Look at 18; it may look like it has lots of squiggly lines, but that's because those are the borders of East Brunswick Twp. The district combines Edison, South Plainfield, East Brunswick, and Metuchen, and that gets it to approximately the right population. When you combine larger towns together to get to that population, the smaller ones end up as odds or ends in other districts. 4, 5, and 6 are because you have a lot of geographically tiny little towns in Camden County and with N.J.'s emphasis on home rule the borders between them are carried over into districts. I don't think there's anything wrong with that if it isn't done for strongly partisan reasons. I don't know enough about Camden County to say whether it matters where that line is drawn or not.

N.J. should get credit for keeping town boundaries intact, where possible. I believe that's state law.

[Brittain33]

The 1990s were a good Republican map, but the 2000s were a good Democratic map.  Good evidence of this would be the 2003 State Senate elections, where Democrats won 22 of 40 seats even though Republicans got more votes statewide than Democrats did.

There's a limit to that analysis, because we all know that voter turnout in urban districts is much lower than it is in suburban districts, and as long as the cities have the population to sustain districts, there's no way to draw the maps to account for the difference in voting between north Bergen County and Newark. I'm not going to dispute that the current map favors Democrats, though.

[Verily]

Well, yes, it's not ridiculously gerrymandered. That's not really the point. My main objection is unusual district shapes; with normal-looking districts, gerrymandering can't happen. You pointed out some of them, but look at 40, 18, 12, 14, the combined shapes of 4, 5 and 6, etc. Minnesota does a much better job of rationally dividing things.

A key difference here is that Minnesota has square townships and New Jersey doesn't. Look at 18; it may look like it has lots of squiggly lines, but that's because those are the borders of East Brunswick Twp. The district combines Edison, South Plainfield, East Brunswick, and Metuchen, and that gets it to approximately the right population. When you combine larger towns together to get to that population, the smaller ones end up as odds or ends in other districts. 4, 5, and 6 are because you have a lot of geographically tiny little towns in Camden County and with N.J.'s emphasis on home rule the borders between them are carried over into districts. I don't think there's anything wrong with that if it isn't done for strongly partisan reasons. I don't know enough about Camden County to say whether it matters where that line is drawn or not.

N.J. should get credit for keeping town boundaries intact, where possible. I believe that's state law.

IMO, keeping town boundaries intact is not ideal; in fact, it's often a problem, given that town boundaries themselves are only occasionally logical (and certainly not when dealing with geographically large and politically and culturally diverse townships such as East Brunswick). In any case, New Jersey has too many independent municipalities; combining some would be to our benefit.

The primary concern should be to draw districts approximately round in shape, or at least as close to round as possible. (For example, a proper district map in New Jersey would have a Camden district, two suburban districts on either side, then probably a big exurban district surrounding the whole thing, maybe two.) The current map isn't too bad for that, but it does so in rather convoluted ways.

Without looking too much at population itself, I'll draw up a sample map of what things should look like.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm not sure what happened between now and the primary, but both DFL candidates I mentioned appear to have dropped out and someone named Kevin Dahle won the primary unanimously.

The GOP primary was easily won by former State Rep. Ray Cox, a strong moderate. Cox even voted against banning gay marriage but was narrowly defeated in 2006.

I'm going to call this fairly strong GOP hold due to Cox being the candidate.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's tonight. Makes a nice side event although I'd be very surprised if Cox loses.

[Mr.Phips]

Cox will likely carry this easily. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Either way it's an improvement at least. Cox is probably to the left of Ramstad, the Olympia Snowe of Minnesota politics (not the Lincoln Chaffee, that's the defeated in 2004 former State Rep. Jim Rhodes). The previous incumbent was a staunch conservative, so it's a step up I suppose.

[Mr.Phips]

It looks like Democrats actually picked up this seat.  http://mncampaignreport.com/

[minionofmidas]

And with over a ten point lead, too.