2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Minnesota

[ProgressiveModerate]

Here's scenario that I'm not sure has been discussed yet: what if Minnesota keeps their 8th seat? Given all the weirdness with doing the count due to COVID-19, some of the Trump fears with minority responses, and the fact Minnesota's response rate was the best nationwide, I think the possibility is greater than zero.

From what I remember of muon's explanation of 2010, it seems like this is some of how we kept our seat then - Minnesotans are just very, very conscious about filling out census forms, which allowed our last seat to just squeak by.

MN also tends to be the best or one of the best states when it comes to turning out for elections. Minnesotans seem like very engaged citizens compared to the rest of the nation.

[ProgressiveModerate]

How would one draw a least change map that results in the following:
*MN-02 becomes a few points friendlier for Dems (Biden +7 --> Biden +11ish)
*MN-01 becomes a few points friendlier for Dems (Trump +10 --> Trump +5ish)
*MN-03, MN-04, and MN-05 remain safe for Dems

Presumably MN-06, MN-07, and MN-08 take in even more GOP turf but what would the mechanics be here? Presumably MN-02 takes in some of the Southern part of MN-04, MN-05, or MN-03 (wherever the most Dem friendly votes are), and then MN-01 sheds some conservative turf to MN-07, but where do its Dem votes come from? Would love to see this mapped if anyone knows how.

PS - my interest in this is because this is what I would consider a "fair" / partisan proportional map for Minnesota. It's essentially 4-4, but since this is a Dem state, there's a Dem advantage in the sense that all four Dem seats are safe but one of the four GOP seats is competitive.

I’ll try making a clean 4-1-3 map later. I think another option could be to have MN-2 take in Rochester alongside most if not all of Dakota County, while MN-6 gets pulled more in to Minneapolis and becomes a swingy suburban district that narrowly went to Trump, being mostly Anoka and Washington. This might screw up some COIs though.

However making a swingy MN-1 usually involves MN-7 shifting south leading to a weird situation with MN-8. MN geography is honestly really annoying because it seems like no matter what, 1 district is going to be “leftovers”

Also, MN geography is slightly unfavorable to Ds so a “fair map” from a partisanship standpoint is something one has to go out of their way to make; 4-4 map on 2020 numbers is kinda like the “default”

[ProgressiveModerate]

First attempt at a partisan fair map. Don't like MN-4

[ProgressiveModerate]

Tried a swingy MN-1; worked out a bit better I think. Anoka County is split 4 ways though.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Here is my least change court drawn map to put in the hopper. Not much happens vis a vis the existing map.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ecd8e1ba-c809-4be2-91f5-4e7c3a81b549

There have been lots of rather exotic-looking maps drawn in this thread, but if Minnesota (against all odds) is keeping its eighth congressional district, this will be the most likely (though boring) map to be adopted, especially given the evenly divided and split nature of the legislature.  So largely an incumbent-protection map with some minor shifts to account for population changes.    

Yep. I highly doubt the new congressional map changes any more than necessary from the current one. State legislative maps will be far more interesting.

On this note, is there a way to start with the existing Congressional map on the current version of DRA? It seems like there ought to be, and there has been in past iterations of DRA, but if there is right now, I can't figure it out.

Yes. On the home page, click on the state you want, then in that state, you should see option to "explore the state Senate and State House map". You click on the one you want. Once it's open, click on the paintbrush tool to duplicate the map.

[ProgressiveModerate]

If Minnesota had lost a congressional seat as it almost did, which party likely would have lost the seat?

A fair map would be 4D-3R, but most compact configurations ended up at 4R-3D from my playing around so hard to say.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Why is it so hard to draw 5 democratic CDs in a biden +8 state. The Nevada democrats did it in a biden +2 state

Because the Minneapolis district is Biden +60 while MN07 is Trump +30.

I made a similar point in Colorado where the 2 most natural seats were Denver and El Paso. The former was Biden +60 and the latter was Trump +11

Ye there is no other remotely viable COI outside the Twin Cities which is D leaning; the Twin cities are extremely one-sided and high turnout which doenst help eitehr

[ProgressiveModerate]

Basically least change. Glad MN-02 is slightly bluer and MN-06 seems like it could become competitive eventually

[ProgressiveModerate]

What's the partisanship of MN-02?

Looks about Biden + 7.5ish

[ProgressiveModerate]

Median seat still voted Trump in 2020 L

[ProgressiveModerate]

Like CT this means MN will have basically had the same map for 30 years

[ProgressiveModerate]

It's almost like the court prioritized keeping the partisan balance of the districts the same.  Obviously that's impossible everywhere with the Twin Cities growing so much faster than the rest of the state, but they really didn't shift any districts meaningfully in either direction.  MN-1 shift 1 point, MN-2 didn't really move much at all, and MN-6 moved only about 3 points left.

If they took a different approach they could've had a bigger impact on partisanship but kinda avoided that IMO.

It’s def a least change. Kinda hoping they’d prioritize partisan fairness as geography isn’t not good for Dems in MN but it is what it is, and despite its partisan problems it’s a good map. Along with CO and AZ, this is one of the underwhelming maps for Dems this cycle

[ProgressiveModerate]

Basically least change. Glad MN-02 is slightly bluer and MN-06 seems like it could become competitive eventually

It's really just Carver that's a big problem for R's in that district. The rest of the district is lower education than the rest of Minneapolis suburbia.

For now…
It’d probably take quite a lot and still unlikely to flip this decade but I guarantee you gentrification is coming, especially since the eastern suburbs are already more developed.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Basically least change. Glad MN-02 is slightly bluer and MN-06 seems like it could become competitive eventually

It's really just Carver that's a big problem for R's in that district. The rest of the district is lower education than the rest of Minneapolis suburbia.

For now…
It’d probably take quite a lot and still unlikely to flip this decade but I guarantee you gentrification is coming, especially since the eastern suburbs are already more developed.

Anoka has been pretty damn stagnant for 20 years, Carver has moved left a lot but St. Clouds and Wright have moved right. There just isn't enough potential leftward trending areas for this district to become competitive at the presidential level.

St Cloud is definitely moving left, the Dems flipped the senate seat there just in 2020, Biden definitely improved there from Clinton too.   Carver is moving left too, the rest of the district is just kinda meh, not moving significantly either way.

It definetely moved left in 2020. However this may merely have been a bounceback from 2016. The district is still a few points more Republican than it was in 2012.

Ye very unlikely, and it's unclear how blue of bubble Minneapolis will be. MN-03 kinda takes in most of the true suburbs from MN-8 so my guess is if it does become competitive. it'll kinda have to be like a Dallas County IA scenario where the suburbs develop very fast. That whole corridor between Minneapolis and St. Cloud seems to yield a lot of potential, but potential is just that, something that could happen but may not or even probably won't.

If the blue bubble and suburbs extends beyond Hennepin County, I guarantee you it will become competative.

[ProgressiveModerate]

So the MN legislature did all this just to move a grand total of 14 people!? Also in the CD level literally no one changed CDs

[ProgressiveModerate]

A MN gerrymander would be truly awful because you have to pizza MSP; there is not pocket of Dem votes anywhere else in the state enough to sustain a D-leaning CD. I think if and HUGE IF Democrats decide to gerrymander MN, it'd fall below the level of even Illinois.

Gerrymandering is inexcusable, but to gerrymander NC, really the only thing truly sinful one has to do is crack Greensboro like 2 or 3 ways. The D sinks sort of fall "naturally" and each seat can still represent a clear community.

[ProgressiveModerate]

My reading of the Minnesota Constitution indicates that it does not allow for mid-decade redistricting.

Dems should go ahead and pass independent redistricting here while they have a rare trifecta.  Don’t wanna risk Republicans getting a trifecta after 2030 in time for redistricting.

I'm going to make a bold prediction that the DFL House holds all decade. Even the trends worshipping people would probably have to admit that if they look at the actual breakdown, there's far more marginal D-trending R-held seats than D-held R-trending ones. The GOP already got almost all of the low-hanging fruit.

Dems are very concentrated in MSP which alone can get them half the seats + Rochester and Duluth IF and big if they can secure down a lot of these narrowly Biden suburban seats for the rest of the decade. The demographic shifts seem quite favorable given the relatively educated nature of MSP, but it's hard to say.

Honestly, there are very few swing seats in the MN legistlature just because most rural areas are universally R now and there's a very sharp political cutoff with the suburbs.