US House Redistricting: Minnesota

[jimrtex]

OK here's a minimal change map based on shifting MN-07 down to Iowa.





Works pretty well. MN-08 only had to take in a few rural basically 100% white townships in Beltrami County. MN-01 lost some remote rural counties and regained most of Rice. MN-02 lost a few precincts in Inver Grove and was hardly changed otherwise. MN-04 expanded into MN-06, and MN-03 into Blaine. Nothing seriously changes.

Also I think Torie and jim need to drive on I-94 sometime. I'll concede that the influence of St. Cloud spreads a bit further west in Stearns County than I initially implied, but you could shave off all the township columns to the one immediately west of St. Cloud, and that's about 50k population. That may be high for rural Minnesota, but it also gives that area a comparable population density to Otter Tail County. And that area was settled and populated long before St. Cloud's growth.

Whatever the case this map shows that there is no reason to push MN-08 further into the exurbs. As I noted before, the only reason Chisago and Isanti were included before is because they were historically considered part of northeastern Minnesota and the whole I-90 corridor. Even today Lindstrom is considered a Swedish cultural center for example. That's not true about Benton County or northern Anoka or anywhere like that.

If you stop at St.Joseph you split St.Johns University in Collegeville from College of St.Benedict.  And there is definite suburban type development in Albany and Avon.  Not solid, but certainly areas that you can commute from.

Chisago and Isanti aren't that populous.  Are they 20% of the district?  And they have made the district population stable.  I suspect that the reason that they are metropolitan is that the farmland isn't as good as south of the Metro area (in Rice County) so you have less population actually making a living in the area, and Faribault is a modest town of long standing.  Since metropolitan definitions are based on commuting patterns, you have a larger work-in-the county population in Rice than in Chisago or Rice.

Better farmland means less land to carve up into multi-acre exurban lots, and there is still land in Dakota for intense subdividing.  Because Faribault is in the southern part of Rice, it is just too far to commute from for those who might buy a house in an existing town,

[jimrtex]

Because Faribault is in the southern part of Rice, it is just too far to commute from for those who might buy a house in an existing town,

Someone in a thread here from 2007 talked about commuting from Faribault to Bloomington.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/minnesota/85765-faribault.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you missed the overall point I was making, which is why Chisago and Isanti are both part of the metropolitan area, while Rice is not.

Metropolitan areas are defined by the Census Bureau on the basis of commuter patterns.  It doesn't not define areas that are city-like.  In the past, parts of Utah have been included in the Flagstaff metropolitan area.  These weren't based on people jumping the Grand Canyon to go to work, but crossing the border into Coconino county.  There is part of Nevada in the Sacramento metropolitan area, based on one of the Sierra counties that go from Sacramento to Lake Tahoe.  The commuters aren't traveling to work at the capital, but to Tahoe.  Armstrong County in Texas has less than 1000 persons, but is defined as being part of the Amarillo metropolitan area.

The criteria that is used is the percentage of the labor force in the non-core county that commutes to the core county and/or the part of the employment in the non-core county that commute from the core county.  The percentage is pretty low (15%?).  Even if a county is a "bedroom" county, it needs builders to build the new bedrooms, teachers for the school, clerks for the grocery stores, and attendants at the filling stations.  So even if there are quite a few commuters, there are a lot of stay-at-home workers to provide services for the commuters.  Because of these service workers, the percentage of commuters to trigger metropolitan status is set low.

If a county has a substantial economy of its own, it is harder to flip to becoming part of a metropolitan county, since the people who live there, live there because there are jobs there.
If you go back to 1960, Rice had about 3 times the population of either Isanti or Chisago, and had about twice the population of Scott and Carver, and more than Wright.  The latter 3 have reached a point of massive suburban growth, doubling in population in the last 20 years.

Since 1960, Rice and Isanti have both added about 25,000 people.  But that is a 178% increase for Isanti, and only 58% for Rice.  Chisago has had greater numeric growth, and relative growth 292%.  But Rice still has more population than either one.  So clearly all have seen growth from the Twin Cities, but a smaller percentage share of Rice labor force commutes into the core counties.

So Rice remains outside the metropolitan area, while Isanti and Chisago are in it.  But none are citified in the same sense that Wright, Scott, and Carver are.

If someone want to live in these areas, they need a job, so they have to commute.  They also need housing, with utilities.  They can buy some acreage, drill a well, put in a septic tank, and propane, etc.  This adds a lot to the cost.   Or they can wait for someone to subdivide the area and put in utilities.  Or they can find a small town, that probably has some housing, or maybe someone has subdivided 10 or 20 acres and hooked into the town utilities.  These will be small houses by current standards, but relatively inexpensive.  And it isn't in unlimited supply.  If Faribault were closer, it would be better.  It may limit job choices.  Bloomington is OK since it is straight shot up I-35.  But what if that job ends, or moves to a different location.  The commute gets longer.  And eventually there will be jobs in the southern part of Dakota.  There might be a hospital or at least a medical center.  A dental hygienist who lives in Faribault can work there.  So maybe it isn't "too far", but "quite far", and some of it is mental image.  One can become accustomed to long commutes, especially if it means the difference between working or not.  But one doesn't start out that way.  If they are new to a city, they find a job, or were already hired.  They find temporary housing near work.  If they get married and have kids, they move to the suburbs, because they want to own a house, and have good schools.  Later, if their job situation changes, they may decide to keep the house, and commute a longer distance to a different job.

Summary: When splitting districts between metropolitan and outer districts, counties like Chisago, Isanti, and Rice can go either way, depending on where counties are needed to be for population balance.  In 2000, it worked to have Chisago and Isanti in MN-8, and Rice, Goodhue, and Le Sueur in a metro district.  With an increase in population share for the metro area, some of the latter need to be shifted out for population balancing.

[jimrtex]

The Canadian border was out due to lack of transportation other than canoe or sea plane...  But I-29 lies along the entire western border. 

Help me understand this. If the objection is that you can't trace the actual border route on foot, I don't understand the relevance of that to the links between communities within the district (which are all connected by roads, east-west; very few people live literally in the middle of a swamp straddling the border), and then I don't understand the comparison to I-29, which requires you to not trace the western border on foot but to cross over into other states, indicating you don't need to travel as the crow flies to justify a district. With a regular automobile, you can reach nearly all of the communities within a unified northern district as easily as you could reach them from within MN-8 or MN-7 now.

Final Court Order 2000 Redistricting

See page 5 or so.  It describe I-90 as making CD-1 "convenient contiguous territory", which is a requirement of the Minnesota constitution, and apparently interpreted similarly in previous litigation.  While I-29 would be less convenient, I don't think it would be inconvenient.

Would a state court overrule a Duluth-Fargo district drawn by the legislature, because it was "not" convenient?  Perhaps.  It might depend on how grotesque the other districts were.  A Minnesota court might rule Massachusetts-, New York-, or Maryland-like districts as not being convenient.  But if it had never been taken to court in the past, they might not.  If "convenient" had been interpreted in the past to mean "non-equipopulous in order to maintain communities of interest", they could decide that "convenient" was superfluous language since it violated the US Constitution.

Would a state court draw a Duluth-Fargo district.  Probably not, unless Minnesota were down to 6 districts.  And of course, they would not characterize the area as only being traversible by float plane or canoe, since snowmobile is also possible in the 8 or 9 winter months.

Would a state court overrule a district the length of the Dakotas' border?  I don't think they would.  And I think they might draw such a district, especially if the alternative is greater infringement on the Twin Cities metro area.

Zachman v. Kiffmeyer, 2000s redistricting

This has links to the briefs, etc. for the 2000s redistricting litigation, that also included legislative redistricting.  Zachman was the first to file suit, and there were other intervening plaintiffs.  Kiffmeyer was the Secretary of State.

Minnesota redistricting 1860-

This has links to previous redistricting laws (verbal not maps) from throughout Minnesota's history.

2000s redistricting maps

Maps of the redistricting plans:

The parties to the litigation were;

Zachman, et al   Republicans who were pushing for a Minneapolis-St Paul district and radical changes elsewhere, but generally a 5-3 plan.  Since these included a Duluth-Fargo district, some of the arguments against such a northern district may have been motivated because the plan would also have combined the twin cities.

Moe, et al.  He was the DFL gubernatorial candidate in 2002 vs.Pawlenty.  This party also included Reps. McCollum, Sabo, Luther, Peterson, and Oberstar.  They were promoting retention of a 4:4 plan, with 4 Greater Minnesota districts in the corners.  Because the SE, NW, and NE districts each had a city (Rochester, St. Cloud, and Duluth, respectively), and the SW district did not, it had to encroach on the metro area.

Cotlow, et al.  DFL party, were in favor of 5:3 plan which was close to the final plan.  Would have brought MN-8 further down into northern Anoka county, and fairly substantially different suburban districts.

Ventura, who was governor at the time.  This was also a 5:3 plan,  but would have drawn a district a length of the Dakotas' border.  The SE district would have been more compact, and the western district was more a SW district with a Red River panhandle.  The NW district would have been the eliminated district, split between the Red River being added to the SW district, St.Cloud being shifted to the metro area, and central northern Minnesota being shifted to the NE.  The districts are numbered differently, because there was agreement that districts being numbered from south to north.

The Ventura, Cotlow, and court plans were all 5:3 plans.  In 2000, the metro area was closer to 5/8 of the state population than 4/8.  But it needed St.Cloud plus a bit more to get to 5/8.  The three plans took their bit more from different areas.  The Ventura plan went north to include Mille Lacs, Kanabec, and part of Pine.   The Cotlow plan came south, and took in Goodhue, Rice, and Le Sueur, while giving up Isanti and Chisago.  It also went west to include Meeker, McLeod, and Sibley, while giving up part of northern Anoka county.  The final court plan eliminated this western extension and kept all of Anoka in the district.

The Ventura plan was closer to the Census Bureau definition of the metro area, while the Cotlow plan was the worst, since it stripped part of the 3rd most populous county out of a metro area district.  The court plan might have been the closest did not extend to counties that were clearly outside the metro area.

The manner that the 5:3 split was made then guided the way the suburban and outstate districts were drawn, though in the case of the Cotlow plan, it was likely the inverse was done.   The Ventura map rotated the outstate districts counterclockwise relative to the court plan, and was perhaps slightly more definitive in creating the northern and southern suburban districts, with a more visually appealing link between St.Cloud and the rest of the northern suburban district.  An argument for the Ventura plan is it put St.Cloud and the non-metropolitan counties in the same district.

The Cotlow configuration exhibited a political bias.  It would have paired two Republican incumbents in a Hennepin-St. Cloud district, and configured a district drawn tightly around Ramsey County, including Washington, southern Anoka, and northeastern Hennepin counties, where Bill Luther might be elected.  The reason for moving northern Anoka to MN-8 was to pull out Republicans, since Oberstar was seen as being invulnerable.

Under the court plan, Mark Kennedy and Bill Luther were paired in MN-6, though just barely.  Kennedy had been elected from the SW district and lived on the extreme eastern end.  He was barely inside the western boundary of MN-6 which wrapped around to the Wisconsin line.  Kennedy was elected and served for 2 more terms until he ran for the US senate, and was replaced by Michele Bachman.  Bill Luther switched to MN-2 and was beaten.

If redistricting goes to courts again, then there will be two basic approaches.  No one will challenge the 5:3 split, since the metro area is now closer to 5/8 of the state population than it was in 2000.

One approach would argue that since the existing map is based on the 5:3 split, then all that is needed is to make the minimal inter-district shifts to make the population equal again.  Currently,

MN-2 and MN-6 are quite a bit over (75K)
MN-3 and MN-8 are quite close.
MN-1 is somewhat under (25K)
MN-7, 5, and 4 are under (45K)

MN-5 and MN-4 can get their additional population from MN-2 and MN-6, via MN-3 in the case of MN-5.  And MN-1 can get its topping off from MN-2.

But there is nowhere for MN-7 to get its additional population from the Metro 5, other than splitting apart St.Cloud, or encroaching on the western suburbs in Wright or Carver.  But then you have to violated the basis premise behind the 5:3 split.  So the court will reject this.

The second approach is to go back to the basic principle behind the 5:3 split and draw a new boundary to account for the slight increase in the metro share.  This means that Le Sueur, Rice, or Goodhue, or some combination are removed from the Metro 5.

The court verifies that this will work out for the outstate 3.  It does.  The detatched territory can be shifted to MN-1, with the western end of MN-1 moved to MN-7.  The court can write at  length as to whether MN-7 is "convenient", but will conclude that is given all the other constraints.  Peterson has an office in Marshall (and in Redwood Falls one day per week).  Walz only has offices in Rochester and Mankato.

Since the metro to outstate shift was from MN-2, then MN-3, 5, and 4 need to expand westward, northward, and/or eastward.   Because MN-6 ends up in St Cloud, a case can be made for having MN-4 to go east, for MN-2 to extend further northward to include all of Dakota, and perhaps some more or Washington.  Then extend MN-3 into Carver county, rather than northward.

This would make it:

5) Minneapolis and inner suburbs.
3) Western suburbs
4) Eastern suburbs plus St.Paul
2) Southern suburbs
6) Northern suburbs and St.Cloud

[jimrtex]

I have rearranged the three.

The first is based on the 2009 ACS which reports population estimates directly for each congressional district,  The ACS replaces the census long form.  Instead of the long form going to about 1 in 6 households April every 10th year, it is conducted to a small sample each  month.  The 1:6 sampling for the long form was intended to provide statistically reliable data for small areas such as block groups and census tracts, which have populations of about 1000 and 5000 respectively.  Monthly ACS samples over a 5 year period may be aggregated to produce the equivalent data for small areas, albeit time-smeared.  But since the ACS is being conducted on a continuous basis, a new 5-year period can be produced annually.  Recently, the census bureau released its 1st 5-year ACS data for 2005-2009, which should be roughly equivalent to that generated from the long form, if it had been conducted in 2007 in the middle of the period.  If one wanted intracounty population distribution, I would start with this data.

The ACS also releases data for larger areas.  It recently released data for 2007-2009 which is statistically significant for areas with population greater than 20,000.  It also released one year data for areas of population greater than 60,000, including congressional districts.

So let's say that the one year sample is about 3%, which is split into 12 monthly samples, then in 2009 about 3% of the households in Coon Rapids were surveyed, with that population information included in the estimate for MN-3, while that for Blaine was included in MN-6.

The first set of data is directly from the 2009 ACS.  I took the Minnesota estimate, divided by 8 and calculated the deviations.  Since all districts had the same population in 2000, the deviation is also the same as the change in deviation since 2009.  One could get a little better estimate by projecting it forward for another 9 months. So at the time of the April 2000, MN-6 would be about 100,000 over.

The second set of numbers was just my recollection of the first set without actually going back to that data, and IMO accurately classifies the districts into 4 groups:

4, 5, and 7: slow growth relative to the Minnesota average.  Since Minnesota CD's had around 615,000 persons in 2000, these three districts actually are virtually unchanged in absolute terms from 2000.  Not losing population, but not gaining either.

1: moderately slow growth relative to the slate, tepid growth in absolute terms (this won't be constant across the district, which will show faster growth in Rochester and Mankato, and the metro fringe such as Rice, and perhaps losses in rural counties, particularly those not on I-90.

3 and 8: growing slightly slower than the state.  Perhaps 6% vs 7% for the state.

2 and 6: growing significantly faster than the state, and even a bit faster than the USA as whole.

Incidentally, Le Sueur had its largest population increase since the 1880s (sic).  I don't know whether this is a Mankato effect or the extreme edge of the metro area (Meeker and McLeod are also showing a small amount of growth, atypical for rural areas).

I don't know what Torie's numbers are.  The state population is a bit lower (35K) than from the ACS, but this is probably just a difference in estimate sources.  But the districts don't match current districts.

In this thread, I see three different breakdowns of the congressional district deviation from average.  So, which one of these can we go by?

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

Currently,

MN-2 and MN-6 are quite a bit over (75K)
MN-3 and MN-8 are quite close.
MN-1 is somewhat under (25K)
MN-7, 5, and 4 are under (45K)

[jimrtex]

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

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

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(Red Lake misspelled in original) Note that while this is specifically for legislative redistricting that the two western reservations would be in the same senate district, it would presumably be the same interest for a congressional district.

Bemidji is the county seat of Beltrami county.

[jimrtex]

For MN, I've used the 2009 census estimates at the level of minor civil divisions to get the metro area pop for 2010. This is much more accurate than the direct estimates from the App, which I used only to draw the maps. Using that data, I've tried to minimize changes to existing districts while respecting counties and municipalities to the extent possible.

I'd go west with CD-3, probably into Carver taking Chanhasen and Chaska.  Including Coon Rapids may have been OK in 2000 when just needed to go outside Heneppin a bit, but now CD-3 has to become more of a west Metro, rather than just Hennepin.  You could also go into Wright, but a lot of the growth in Wright is towards the NW, so you would be somewhat cutting off MN-6 from St.Cloud.

And with MN-5 extending northward toward Brooklyn River, it is cutting off Anoka from Hennepin, and MN-3 is threatening to split Anoka.

If MN-3 went into Carver, then MN-2 could take all of Dakota and the southern part of Washington, which would force MN-4 further north in Washington, and make MN-6 more of Anoka and St Cloud district.

[jimrtex]

Hard to argue with those maps Mike. In short, they are as boring as hell! 

I doubt it will happen. In the last map the Courts argued about the relevent merits of having an outstate district span either all of Southern Minnesota, all of Western Minnesota, or all of Northern Minnesota. The court claimed the facts pointed to the Southern span being the preferable partition.

To swap the South Western corner of Minnesota would reverse that decision.

That was more of a preference than an imperative, and they were trying to wipe out the SW district when they went from a 4:4 plan to a 5:3 plan.  The nearest city to the 4 counties is Sioux Falls, and the drainage run towards the Missouri rather than the Mississippi.

Population equality is an imperative, and the switch is preferable to having the western district encroaching on St.Cloud, or a metro district extending so deeply into SE Minnesota.

The only reason to not do it, would be in anticipation of 2020, when Minnesota loses its 8th district and St.Cloud gets moved to the NW district.  But a Minnesota court would not base a decision on a presumption of declining representation.

[jimrtex]

Back in January on this thread I speculated on a plan with minimal changes. This assumed that the plan would be drawn again by the court. Since the Gov vetoed the GOP plan, I've updated my earlier map to reflect the actual 2010 populations. Drawn at the VTD (precinct) level, this map has a range of 99 and a maximum deviation of 56.

Would a court implement a minimal change plan?  After all the 2000 map was a radical change.

By going north with MN-3, you are cutting off MN-6 and the direct route to St.Cloud.  MN-6 is more of a leftovers district, than a Northern Suburbs + St. Cloud.

What if MN-3 goes west into Carver County?  Folks in Chaska must think of themselves living west of Minneapolis rather than south.

Then bring MN-2 northward.  Whole counties (Dakota) is just as a good a rationale as demographics (aging industrial river ports (S. and W. St Paul).

And then MN-4 goes eastward.

[jimrtex]

So removing part of Carver and replacing it with the industrial areas south of St. Paul? While that's not impossible, I don't think Kline would be too fond of it.

What do the courts care about incumbents?

[jimrtex]

So removing part of Carver and replacing it with the industrial areas south of St. Paul? While that's not impossible, I don't think Kline would be too fond of it.

What do the courts care about incumbents?

They don't, but the northern tip of Dakota including West St Paul and South St Paul are very much part of the St Paul community of interest. The rest of Dakota is primarily newer suburbs and would be viewed as a different COI.

They would be considered part of the St.Paul COI only if Ramsey County didn't have enough population for a CD.  Chaska must be similar to the western parts of Hennepin, and the inner suburbs are in CD-5.  If you are going to have a western, southern, and northern suburban district, then it makes sense for St.Paul to go east because you can't go into Wisconsin.

If there were a court challenge that there was an unreasonable number of county splits, a court might defer to a legislative rationale of keeping the St.Paul's together.

But if the court itself is drawing the map, they might not decide to draw the Minneapolis and St.Paul districts, and then the Hennepin and outstate districts, and then just throw CD-2 and CD-6 from what is left over.  They could take a more holistic approach.

[jimrtex]

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.

I think I'd take the GOP metro map and merge it with the DFL outstate map.

Outstate this keeps the current general configuration.  An Iowa-border district looks nice, but the population is concentrated in the Rochester and other areas in the southeast.  A Dakota-border districts seems to be elongated, but it gives you a a pure agricultural district, and ties to Dakota cities (Fargo, Grand Forks, Sioux Falls).   The fact that interstate is in the Dakotas is not reason to reject it.  And it keeps the mining/recreation/port areas separate in the northeast.

In the metro area, this gives you a clear northern and southern district and then the horizontal stack of three districts, including the Minneapolis and St. Paul seats.

It also would probably be a better transition to the 7-seat plan in 2010, which will have to be a 4:3 plan with St. Cloud definitely outstate.

[jimrtex]

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.

I think I'd take the GOP metro map and merge it with the DFL outstate map.

Outstate this keeps the current general configuration.  An Iowa-border district looks nice, but the population is concentrated in the Rochester and other areas in the southeast.  A Dakota-border districts seems to be elongated, but it gives you a a pure agricultural district, and ties to Dakota cities (Fargo, Grand Forks, Sioux Falls).   The fact that interstate is in the Dakotas is not reason to reject it.  And it keeps the mining/recreation/port areas separate in the northeast.

In the metro area, this gives you a clear northern and southern district and then the horizontal stack of three districts, including the Minneapolis and St. Paul seats.

It also would probably be a better transition to the 7-seat plan in 2010, which will have to be a 4:3 plan with St. Cloud definitely outstate.

I think what you suggest is basically what I posted above. Do you see any reason why a judge wouldn't like it?

I would try to keep the central stack from leaking into Anoka County (beyond the panhandle) which is the core of a northern suburban district, but maybe that really isn't possible.

You could move MN-5 further west, and MN-3 into Carver, MN-2 further south, MN-1 west and northwest, but I don't see how you get into MN-6.

If you take the 5 Metro districts from the GOP map and plop them on to the Democratic map, which areas are:

(1) In a Demo-map outstate district, but a GOP-map metro district.  (this will cause underpopulation of the outstate districts).

(2) In a Demo-map metro district, but a GOP-map outstate district.  (these areas will be unassigned).

The two classes will have equal population.  To create a compromise plan you either have to assign the areas in (2) to outstate districts; or shift them into a metro district, and shift equivalent amounts of metro districts out.

[jimrtex]

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

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.

It also prepares for 2020 when 3, 5, 4 get merged into two districts, 2 and 6 take up the leftovers beginning with Washington, Anoka, and Carver, and parts of Ramsey and Hennepin as needed (eg St.Paul and Minneapolis in one district, and Hennepin in the other).

It will be a bit of a challenge for 8 to pick up enough population, but perhaps that Benton and Sherburne with continued growth in Chisago and Isanti will be enough.  If not, start peeling townships off on northern Anoka.

The remainder of Stearns and possibly Wright go to 7.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

That said, even if the GOP attempts the twin cities pack, you result in 3 ~49-52% districts. Bachmann of course would have to take the bulk of Ramsey County.

Maybe not.  My  map a couple of years ago was Minneapolis+St Paul plus the first tier north of St.Paul.  By 2020 it could be Minneapolis+Ramsey.

[jimrtex]

I wrote a really long explanation which was lost.

Anyhow, the colored areas are the central counties of the larger metropolitan areas (more than 10% of a congressional district), exluding the Minnesota portions of the Fargo, Grand Forks, and La Crosse metro areas.  Central counties are defined based on the presence of urban areas, densely, continuously populated areas.

Summary: Central counties are a better measure of metropolitan areas for redistricting purposes, and provide a measure for preferred shedding counties, the percentage of the county population within the core urbanized area:

Ramsey 100%
Hennepin 98%
Dakota 89%
Anoka 85%
Washington 78%
Scott 68%
Carver 61%
Wright 27%
Sherburne 22%

Clearly the latter two are peripheral with the Urbanized Area reaching the two along I-94 and US 52 up the Mississippi rather than more general spillover.

The outlying counties of Le Sueur, Sibley, Mille Lacs, Isanti, Chisago, St Croix (Wisc.), and Pierce (Wisc.) are included on the basis of commuting patterns, which may simply reflect the relatively dearth of non-agricultural jobs in rural counties.  And while Sibley and Mille Lacs are included, Rice is not, because Faribault does provide a source of jobs.

[jimrtex]

This map confirms that a 4-3 map should be drawn.

Possible configurations:

A) 4-1-2

1) St. Cloud-Outer Metro North, Chisago, Isanti, Benton, Stearns, Benton, Sherburne, and Wright, plus areas to the north and west.  The metro area is shifted south to include Goodhue, Rice, and Le Sueur.
2) Duluth-Grand Forks- Fargo, and coming way south past the the Minnesota River.
3) Southern Minnesota, La Crosse to Sioux Falls, anchored in Rochester and Mankato.

B) 4-3

1) Duluth-Northern Exurbs-St.Cloud
2) Western Minnesota - Manitoba to Iowa, with a somewhat irregular border.
3) Southeastern Minnesota.

C) 4-3

1) Duluth-Northern Exutbs and points west.
2) St. Cloud to southwest corner.
3) Southeastern Minnesota.


ps Can anyone get the minor civil division estimates for 2011 or 2012 for Lake of the Woods, Hennepin, and Koochiching counties.  I noticed Lake of the Woods first, and thought maybe there was something odd about the county, but then I found the other two as well.  Either the Census Bureau doesn't have the data, or their is some weird interaction  with my browser.


It happens that it may be possible to make districts largely out of whole counties in the Metro area.   Ramsey+Washington, Hennepin+Anoka (2), with northern and western Hennepin with Anoka.   Dakota+Scott+Carver+Wright.

If a Minneapolis-St.Paul district is created, then a chop of Ramsey would be needed: Anoka+Washington+Northern Ramsey.  The district wholly in Hennepin then would be the suburbs.

[jimrtex]

Possible configurations:

A) 4-1-2

1) St. Cloud-Outer Metro North, Chisago, Isanti, Benton, Stearns, Benton, Sherburne, and Wright, plus areas to the north and west.  The metro area is shifted south to include Goodhue, Rice, and Le Sueur.
2) Duluth-Grand Forks- Fargo, and coming way south past the the Minnesota River.
3) Southern Minnesota, La Crosse to Sioux Falls, anchored in Rochester and Mankato.

I rather like this.   The 4 metro districts total 4.007.  If you want to equalize a bit more, trim a tiny bit off Anoka (say, Linwood).

You have the cut of Hennepin, and then have to take about 25,000 from the south. 

Some possibilities include

a) Chanhassen, though I don't like splitting it from Chaska.

b) South St. Paul or West St. Paul, with a shift through Ramsey or Washington.

c) Hasting, with a shift through Ramsey or Washington.  I think I prefer Hastings since it is somewhat isolated from most of Dakota, and does cross the Mississippi.

[jimrtex]

D) 4-1-2

1) St. Cloud-Outer Metro North West: Stearns, Benton, Sherburne, and Wright, plus areas to the west including Fargo.  The metro area is shifted south to include Goodhue, Rice, and Le Sueur.
2) Northern Minnesota: Duluth to Grand Forks including the northern exurbs.
3) Southern Minnesota: La Crosse to Sioux Falls, anchored in Rochester and Mankato.

I think that the split of the Red River will be a hard sale.

[jimrtex]

Possible configurations:

B) 4-3

1) Duluth-Northern Exurbs-St.Cloud
2) Western Minnesota - Manitoba to Iowa, with a somewhat irregular border.
3) Southeastern Minnesota.

This preserves the northern Red River/Iron Range-Great Lakes split.  I think a swap of St.Cloud for Brainerd and Bemidji might be better.

McLeod and LeSueur were swapped to give the Metro districts 4.001.  Reversing the swap, the Metro districts need about 7000 persons.   An alternative would be to take a little bit from Sherburne, Isanti, or Chisago.

[jimrtex]

Possible configurations:

B) 4-3

1) Duluth-Northern Exurbs-St.Cloud
2) Western Minnesota - Manitoba to Iowa, with a somewhat irregular border.
3) Southeastern Minnesota.

This shifts LeSueur to the south, and makes creates a clear Manitoba-Iowa district.  The metro area will need about 27,000 from Sherburne, Isanti, or Chisago (likely the SE corner of Sherburne).

[jimrtex]

Possible configurations:

B) 4-3

1) Duluth-Northern Exurbs-St.Cloud
2) Western Minnesota - Manitoba to Iowa, with a somewhat irregular border.
3) Southeastern Minnesota.

This version exchanges St.Cloud for Brainerd and Bemidji.  Like the previous version this will require about 27,000 persons shifted from Sherburne to the metro area.

[jimrtex]

Possible configurations:

C) 4-3

1) Duluth-Northern Exutbs and points west.
2) St. Cloud to southwest corner.
3) Southeastern Minnesota.

The previous version, Plan B2, shows that a St.Cloud-South West district stretches North to the Canadian border.  To have a northern district, it has to be pushed out of the Metro exurbs.  This map shifts Sherburne to the St.Cloud-Southwest, but the northern district divides Fargo and Grand Forks.



This version takes the St.Cloud-Southwest district across the northern exurbs, and creates a northern district north of Duluth-Brainerd-Fargo.   It is the same as in Plan A.  About 27,000 persons will be shifted from Sherburne, Isanti, or Chisago to the metro districts.



This shifts Wright to the St.Cloud-Southwest district.  I think this is the best configuration for such a district, avoiding going north to Fargo, or east to Wisconsin.  To compensate for the the loss of Wright, the south metro district will need about 135,000 from either Hennepin or Washington, which forces the other districts to take in the northern exurbs.

If Ramsey-Washington is maintained, then Hennepin will need to be double chopped.

The alternative which is implied by this map is to create the Minneapolis-St.Paul district.   That will require a Ramsey split, and likely Washington and Anoka splitts.

[jimrtex]

Possible configurations:

B) 4-3

1) Duluth-Northern Exurbs-St.Cloud
2) Western Minnesota - Manitoba to Iowa, with a somewhat irregular border.
3) Southeastern Minnesota.

This shifts LeSueur to the south, and makes creates a clear Manitoba-Iowa district.  The metro area will need about 27,000 from Sherburne, Isanti, or Chisago (likely the SE corner of Sherburne).

If we are looking at these with an eye towards 2020, the growth will be predominantly in the TC metro. My projections are that Hennepin+Anoka will be about 43K larger than two CDs and Ramsey+Washington will be about 20K larger than a CD. The four counties that wrap from Wright to Dakota will be about 16K larger than a CD. Those metro counties will have to shed population to the rest of the state - most likely by moving Wright to St Cloud's district and running the south suburbs to Rice+.

I used the 2002 estimates.  The scenario was that the US had continuous reapportionment like is used in Australia, and that this reapportionment had been triggered by the shift of one representative from Minnesota to North Carolina. 

Of course, if this were Australia, they would base the new districts on projected growth.

There are 3 triggers used in Australia:

1) Change in apportionment for a State.
2) 1/3 of divisions with more than 10% deviation from ideal.
3) 7 years from previous distribution.

Districts must have a deviation of less than 10% at commencement, and a projected deviation of less than 3.5% in 3.5 years (midway through the ordinary cycle).

[jimrtex]

Possible configurations:

B) 4-3

1) Duluth-Northern Exurbs-St.Cloud
2) Western Minnesota - Manitoba to Iowa, with a somewhat irregular border.
3) Southeastern Minnesota.

This version exchanges St.Cloud for Brainerd and Bemidji.  Like the previous version this will require about 27,000 persons shifted from Sherburne to the metro area.

This one seems very nice!

Agreed.  If you don't want a Duluth-Grand Forks or Duluth-Fargo district, then the western district has to go from Manitoba to Iowa, and the districts will also need to include St.Cloud and the northern exurbs (Sherburne, Isanti, and Chisago).

If you put St.Cloud and the exurbs into the same district with Duluth, then they represent half of the district, and could dominate the district.  By splitting them apart, you have more balance.