2020 census

[jimrtex]

That map wasn't meant to be a gerrymander in any sense. I don't think a DFL Majority would be as merciful as I was in that map. I've played around with creating a DFL gerrymander and the easiest way is to create a Central MN district that functions as a Republican vote sink. A gerrymander would almost certainly be a 5-2 DFL map, not the probable 4-3 DFL map I made. MN-06 is the odd man out when it comes to a 7-seat map. Bachmann would need a Republican gerrymander to stay in the House.

I did play around some more and made some alterations. I kept the two MSP districts and MN-03 the same as before since I think they work quite nicely. Once MN-02 is drawn, there is some excess in the metro that I gave to MN-01 (which is now more of a Southeast MN district). The main reason I split Scott was to avoid a tri-chop of Dakota, though it doesn't really matter where the excess goes. As before, I renumbered MN-08 as MN-06. I found it easier to add St. Cloud to the Iron Range district than with MN-07. (I kept St. Cloud whole, which forced a split of Sherburne County.) MN-07 keeps the entire Red River Valley and extends all the way south to the Iowa border, which has the effect of keeping it more balanced politically than my previous map.

It does seem like the main debate point is where to extend the current MN-08. You can either go down into the Twin Cities metro, the Red River Valley, or St. Cloud. After you decide that, the map should pretty much draw itself. The caveat with all of this is that this is all based on 2010 Census numbers.

As you say, MN-8 is problematic.  Duluth and the Iron Range is a very distinct region, but has far from enough population for a district.

MN-1 is a SE Iowa district which just happens to go all the way to SD.   The SW part of Minnesota drains towards the Missouri, and Sioux Falls is the closest city, so it fits better with the Red River.  There is an interstate along the entire border - it doesn't matter that it is in the Dakotas.

So that really limits your choices to St. Cloud or the MSP metro.

By 2020, you will be having to come further into the metro area.   It makes the most sense to shift the counties in this order: 1,2. Isanti and Chisago, already dropped.  3. Sherburne because it is part of St.Cloud.  4. Wright because it is the most remote.   5. Because the population is extremely concentrated in the Chaska area in the notch in Hennepin.

How about splitting Washington between MN-8 (Iron Range-Duluth-St Croix) and MN-2 (Metro South).   Then create (Minneapolis-St. Paul), (Metro West-Hennepin) and a (Metro North-St Cloud) district from Anoka and northern Ramsey up to St. Cloud.

(East Dakota) and (Southeast Minnesota) stay pretty much as they are.

[Mr.Phips]

There actually isn't a whole lot new to talk about gerrymandering wise if that's the apportionment.  R's are most at risk to get wiped out in NY, CO and NV and D's are most at risk in AZ and IL.  Court maps would improve D prospects drastically in OH, MI, PA or VA.  If D's somehow take control in OH or PA, expect nuclear war on a map (10 districts into Philly or Cuyahoga).

Democrats drew the Illionois legislature to make sure that they have two thirds majorities in both Houses pretty much all of the time, meaning they will be able to override a veto.  And figure in the fact that the governorships of OH, MI, and PA usually switch parties every eight years and will be open in 2018, leaving Democrats in great shape to pick those up.  Getting court drawn maps in those three states alone would probably cost Republicans 10-12 seats right there. 

isn't it possible that the dems could lose some seats in SW Cook and SW Illinois? Those areas (Costello and Lipinski) seem to be trending away from the dems.

Lipinski's seat will never go Republican and after Enyart's near double digit in in IL-12, he's probably safe as long as he runs. 

[politicallefty]

As you say, MN-8 is problematic.  Duluth and the Iron Range is a very distinct region, but has far from enough population for a district.

MN-1 is a SE Iowa district which just happens to go all the way to SD.   The SW part of Minnesota drains towards the Missouri, and Sioux Falls is the closest city, so it fits better with the Red River.  There is an interstate along the entire border - it doesn't matter that it is in the Dakotas.

So that really limits your choices to St. Cloud or the MSP metro.

By 2020, you will be having to come further into the metro area.   It makes the most sense to shift the counties in this order: 1,2. Isanti and Chisago, already dropped.  3. Sherburne because it is part of St.Cloud.  4. Wright because it is the most remote.   5. Because the population is extremely concentrated in the Chaska area in the notch in Hennepin.

How about splitting Washington between MN-8 (Iron Range-Duluth-St Croix) and MN-2 (Metro South).   Then create (Minneapolis-St. Paul), (Metro West-Hennepin) and a (Metro North-St Cloud) district from Anoka and northern Ramsey up to St. Cloud.

(East Dakota) and (Southeast Minnesota) stay pretty much as they are.

I think this is basically what you're proposing:



It certainly does seem like a plausible map, but I have to say that I'm partial to keeping separate Minneapolis and St. Paul districts. If you extend the current MN-08 down into the Twin Cities metro, I think you're forced to have a combined MSP district. It does preserve something resembling MN-06. Bachmann could run there, though she'd probably have considerable trouble considering McCain only won it by 2%. Republicans also probably wouldn't like MN-03 (which is entirely contained within Hennepin). That voted 55-43 for Obama in 2008. The Outstate districts change only very marginally politically. The only real safe district would be the new MN-04. Overall, it's a reasonable map, though I would prefer the other that leaves MSP separate and combines the Iron Range with St. Cloud.

[jimrtex]

As you say, MN-8 is problematic.  Duluth and the Iron Range is a very distinct region, but has far from enough population for a district.

MN-1 is a SE Iowa district which just happens to go all the way to SD.   The SW part of Minnesota drains towards the Missouri, and Sioux Falls is the closest city, so it fits better with the Red River.  There is an interstate along the entire border - it doesn't matter that it is in the Dakotas.

So that really limits your choices to St. Cloud or the MSP metro.

By 2020, you will be having to come further into the metro area.   It makes the most sense to shift the counties in this order: 1,2. Isanti and Chisago, already dropped.  3. Sherburne because it is part of St.Cloud.  4. Wright because it is the most remote.   5. Because the population is extremely concentrated in the Chaska area in the notch in Hennepin.

How about splitting Washington between MN-8 (Iron Range-Duluth-St Croix) and MN-2 (Metro South).   Then create (Minneapolis-St. Paul), (Metro West-Hennepin) and a (Metro North-St Cloud) district from Anoka and northern Ramsey up to St. Cloud.

(East Dakota) and (Southeast Minnesota) stay pretty much as they are.

I think this is basically what you're proposing:



It certainly does seem like a plausible map, but I have to say that I'm partial to keeping separate Minneapolis and St. Paul districts. If you extend the current MN-08 down into the Twin Cities metro, I think you're forced to have a combined MSP district. It does preserve something resembling MN-06. Bachmann could run there, though she'd probably have considerable trouble considering McCain only won it by 2%. Republicans also probably wouldn't like MN-03 (which is entirely contained within Hennepin). That voted 55-43 for Obama in 2008. The Outstate districts change only very marginally politically. The only real safe district would be the new MN-04. Overall, it's a reasonable map, though I would prefer the other that leaves MSP separate and combines the Iron Range with St. Cloud.

By 2020, you may need to shift St. Cloud into MN-7 (it will have to pick up the slack for both MN-1 and MN-7, since MN-1 can't come further north.

You can't really rationalize MN-4.5 without having MN-3 being the rest of Hennepin.    At some point, MN-4.5 might have to start including more of the inner suburbs, and extending MN-3 into Wright or Carver, but I'd be inclined to add more of Ramsey, simply to help out on the balance between Minneapolis and St.Paul.

If St.Louis continues to come out like it did in 2012, it doesn't matter what you add on the south end.  Nolan ran up a 30K lead in St.Louis, and held Cravaack to about 2K in his best counties (Morrison, Isanti, Chisago).  Nolan had a larger margin than that in Itasca.   A curiosity is that Nolan ran 3 to 4% ahead of Obama in the Republican areas, but behind Obama in St.Louis.

In 2010, Oberstar only managed 15K in St.Louis, and Cravaack was getting 3K and 4K out of his counties.  Itasca was almost even.  And Cravaack still barely won.

So you would have 2 solid D districts: MN-4.5 and MN-8, two R districts MN-2 and MN-6, and 3 competitive seats, MN-1, MN-3, and MN-7.

[traininthedistance]

I would be inclined to do something like this for a 7-district MN:



Basically, divide the metro districts as Ramsey-Washington, Inner Hennepin, South, and North/West.  As for outstate, I think St. Cloud plus Iron Range makes as least as much sense as any other arrangement of those areas.

I think that if they were to keep Minneapolis and St. Paul separate, and I'm inclined to do so but not totally wedded to it, the right way to carve it up would be to have Minneapolis anchor an all-Hennepin district, and have the exurban areas go north, basically combining MN-3 and MN- 6.

[Ban my account ffs!]

That map would create 5 safe DFL seats with 1 lean DFL, and only one safe GOP seat.  Me likey   But my fellow Minnesotans who happen to be Republican might disagree.

[politicallefty]

If St.Louis continues to come out like it did in 2012, it doesn't matter what you add on the south end.  Nolan ran up a 30K lead in St.Louis, and held Cravaack to about 2K in his best counties (Morrison, Isanti, Chisago).  Nolan had a larger margin than that in Itasca.   A curiosity is that Nolan ran 3 to 4% ahead of Obama in the Republican areas, but behind Obama in St.Louis.

In 2010, Oberstar only managed 15K in St.Louis, and Cravaack was getting 3K and 4K out of his counties.  Itasca was almost even.  And Cravaack still barely won.

So you would have 2 solid D districts: MN-4.5 and MN-8, two R districts MN-2 and MN-6, and 3 competitive seats, MN-1, MN-3, and MN-7.

You do have a good point with MN-08. As long as the Iron Range is kept together, MN-08 (and it's successor number) should be safe barring a massive GOP wave year. It doesn't really matter what you add to it, whether it be metro MSP or St. Cloud. Obama circa 2008 wins either incarnation by around 8-10%.

I also think you're mostly right on the partisan stats. I do think all of the districts are potentially winnable for the DFL under the right circumstances (and not necessarily even a wave). Walz should be quite entrenched by next redistricting. I would say the same of Paulsen in MN-03, but 55% Obama could be too much. That MN-06 should be a Republican-leaning district (like MN-02), but not if Bachmann ran there.

Basically, divide the metro districts as Ramsey-Washington, Inner Hennepin, South, and North/West.  As for outstate, I think St. Cloud plus Iron Range makes as least as much sense as any other arrangement of those areas.

I think that if they were to keep Minneapolis and St. Paul separate, and I'm inclined to do so but not totally wedded to it, the right way to carve it up would be to have Minneapolis anchor an all-Hennepin district, and have the exurban areas go north, basically combining MN-3 and MN- 6.

I was drawing more neutral/court-type maps myself (and keeping county splits low, etc), but I could easily see that map passing under a DFL trifecta. It does seem pretty apparent that the three rural Outstate districts are very easily drawn. Your map also supports my theory that only a DFL-drawn map would save Bachmann, by keeping MSP separate and creating a heavily Republican district a la your MN-03. You also do a very good job at attempting to take out Paulsen, whose district would be ripped apart. He'd either have to take on Bachmann in a primary (and lose) or run in a mostly foreign district (MN-02). The DFL would be very smart to obliterate Paulsen's district like you did.

[memphis]

I'll be bold and say ND will gain a seat due to the oil boom.

[Skill and Chance]

So for the states that may gain/lose, what are we looking at?

AL: Would have to lose one R seat due to VRA, 5R-1D
 
AZ: assuming Colleen Mathis isn't chair, 6R-4D with one of the D seats being close

CA: not really predictable, a fair map would produce 37-40D/17-14R by PVI

CO: Probably 6D-2R the way things are going here, could be 5R-3D with court map

FL: probably 18R-10D by PVI, could be as even as 15R-13D if it goes to court

GA: 11R-4D

IL:  Probably 12D-5R, chance of something like 9D-8R in court  

MI: 9R-4D (gerrymander) or 7-6 one way or the other (court map)

MN: probably 5D-2R, might be 4R-3D by PVI, though

MT: interestingly, MT-02 would probably lean D for 1R-1D, a commission draws here

NC: 10R-4D, D's will regret taking away the veto here for many decades

NE: 2-0 R, NE-02 is never in play anymore

NY: Either 20D-5R or 23D-2R

OH: 8R-7D (court map) or 11R-4D (gerrymander), R's very close to 2/3rds in legislature

OR: probably 5D-1R, outside chance at 3D-3R

PA: 12R-5D (gerrymander) or 9R-8D (court map)

VA: likely a court map, 6R-6D or 7R-5D with one of the R seats being an ~R+1 2X Obama seat

RI: 1-0 D (duh), Cicilline would lose the primary to Langevin

TX: they will try for 27R-12D, but they will get sued...

WV: should be 3-0 R by 2020, then the 2 southern districts get combined for 2-0 R

[Skill and Chance]

If St.Louis continues to come out like it did in 2012, it doesn't matter what you add on the south end.  Nolan ran up a 30K lead in St.Louis, and held Cravaack to about 2K in his best counties (Morrison, Isanti, Chisago).  Nolan had a larger margin than that in Itasca.   A curiosity is that Nolan ran 3 to 4% ahead of Obama in the Republican areas, but behind Obama in St.Louis.

In 2010, Oberstar only managed 15K in St.Louis, and Cravaack was getting 3K and 4K out of his counties.  Itasca was almost even.  And Cravaack still barely won.

So you would have 2 solid D districts: MN-4.5 and MN-8, two R districts MN-2 and MN-6, and 3 competitive seats, MN-1, MN-3, and MN-7.

You do have a good point with MN-08. As long as the Iron Range is kept together, MN-08 (and it's successor number) should be safe barring a massive GOP wave year. It doesn't really matter what you add to it, whether it be metro MSP or St. Cloud. Obama circa 2008 wins either incarnation by around 8-10%.

I also think you're mostly right on the partisan stats. I do think all of the districts are potentially winnable for the DFL under the right circumstances (and not necessarily even a wave). Walz should be quite entrenched by next redistricting. I would say the same of Paulsen in MN-03, but 55% Obama could be too much. That MN-06 should be a Republican-leaning district (like MN-02), but not if Bachmann ran there.

Basically, divide the metro districts as Ramsey-Washington, Inner Hennepin, South, and North/West.  As for outstate, I think St. Cloud plus Iron Range makes as least as much sense as any other arrangement of those areas.

I think that if they were to keep Minneapolis and St. Paul separate, and I'm inclined to do so but not totally wedded to it, the right way to carve it up would be to have Minneapolis anchor an all-Hennepin district, and have the exurban areas go north, basically combining MN-3 and MN- 6.

I was drawing more neutral/court-type maps myself (and keeping county splits low, etc), but I could easily see that map passing under a DFL trifecta. It does seem pretty apparent that the three rural Outstate districts are very easily drawn. Your map also supports my theory that only a DFL-drawn map would save Bachmann, by keeping MSP separate and creating a heavily Republican district a la your MN-03. You also do a very good job at attempting to take out Paulsen, whose district would be ripped apart. He'd either have to take on Bachmann in a primary (and lose) or run in a mostly foreign district (MN-02). The DFL would be very smart to obliterate Paulsen's district like you did.

If it's a DFL map, it depends on whether Peterson is still in MN-07 and how mean they are willing to get.  If Peterson wants protection, you can actually give him an Obama 2008 district, but this means that there will be 2 exurban >55% McCain seats.  Paulsen gets a 61% Obama 2008 seat and Ellison and McCollum would both fall to about 62% Obama 2008 to make that happen.  MN-08 stays about where it is now.  If they want to get MD about it, they can also draw Walz into part of St. Paul for a >57% Obama 2008 seat. 

If they concede Peterson's seat, they can make the 2 suburban districts and the Walz seat likely D with one rural and one exurban vote sink.

[traininthedistance]

That map would create 5 safe DFL seats with 1 lean DFL, and only one safe GOP seat.  Me likey  But my fellow Minnesotans who happen to be Republican might disagree.

I think your analysis of my map is too rosy.  MN-2 is 51.7% Obama and only 49.8% Dem, hardly safe.  (Though it's probably likely to trend DFL by 2020.)  MN-7, of course, is 46.7% Obama and 47.8% Dem; I would expect that district to have flipped R by 2020, or at least whenver Peterson retires.  And of course, further exurban growth might imperil MN-1 and MN-6( as well.  I look at this map and I see only two solid DFL districts (4 and 5), along with two lean DFL (1 and 6), one swing (2), one lean R (7), and one solid R (3).

Also, I wonder how the population distribution will change over time.  I could imagine a future Minnesota map with only two outstate districts (in which case the Great Northern obviously has to happen), and 5 anchored in the metro area (presumably Minneapolis, St. Paul, and North/West/South burbs).

[Brittain33]

I think ND's population would have to increase by 80% or more to get a second district. The oil boom is not increasing population of that magnitude.

[politicallefty]

If it's a DFL map, it depends on whether Peterson is still in MN-07 and how mean they are willing to get.  If Peterson wants protection, you can actually give him an Obama 2008 district, but this means that there will be 2 exurban >55% McCain seats.  Paulsen gets a 61% Obama 2008 seat and Ellison and McCollum would both fall to about 62% Obama 2008 to make that happen.  MN-08 stays about where it is now.  If they want to get MD about it, they can also draw Walz into part of St. Paul for a >57% Obama 2008 seat. 

If they concede Peterson's seat, they can make the 2 suburban districts and the Walz seat likely D with one rural and one exurban vote sink.

I can't say for sure, but I doubt the political culture in Minnesota would do anything remotely like Maryland (which is horrendously ugly due to where the incumbents live). MN-07 is probably one of those seats where Democrats probably outperform presidential numbers. From what I understand, it's a major taboo to split either of the Twin Cities, so a DFL map would have a Minneapolis district and a St. Paul district with both cities entirely intact. Walz could probably be shored up somewhat, but he may also be quite entrenched anyway.

Ultimately, a DFL map would depend primarily if they want to cede one or two districts to the GOP. If you cede one, it's probably better to create a third metro MSP district in the suburban areas north of Minneapolis and St. Paul (while keeping the cities whole). That would leave MN-04 and MN-05 safe, while bringing a new MN-03 to 57-41 Obama 2008. The Republican vote sink ends up at about 57-58% McCain. MN-01 would be unchanged politically (fine for Walz), MN-07 gets even closer (McCain by 1-2%), and MN-06 (Iron Range+St. Cloud) goes Obama 2008 by 8-9%. I haven't really played around with ceding two seats to really judge that option.

[Gass3268]

One that that will be interesting to see in the upcoming years is if Arizona and Nevada continue to gain population as fast as they were in the 00's. I know that the recession has caused new home construction to slow and population growth has slowed a bit. With the economy getting better, I wonder if the population growth will pick up again?

[Brittain33]

Arizona is recovering more quickly than Nevada, and Phoenix is much larger and has a more diverse economy than Las Vegas.

[krazen1211]

How on earth do you get a 23-2 map in New York in a neutral election?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think ND's population would have to increase by 80% or more to get a second district. The oil boom is not increasing population of that magnitude.

Yeah... even the rosiest projections would grow ND's population by about 20-25% by 2020.. and that would be incredible for them.

They won't be getting a 2nd seat any time soon.

[Skill and Chance]

How on earth do you get a 23-2 map in New York in a neutral election?

Upstate and downstate ~60% McCain vote sinks with the remainder of the state being like 66% Obama.  You can distribute that evenly enough so that every other seat is 2-time 60% Obama or safer.  Of course NYC would look like O'Malley's Baltimore x10, but I don't think a D trifecta would give a darn after being out of a House majority for 12 years.

[krazen1211]

How on earth do you get a 23-2 map in New York in a neutral election?

Upstate and downstate ~60% McCain vote sinks with the remainder of the state being like 66% Obama.  You can distribute that evenly enough so that every other seat is 2-time 60% Obama or safer.  Of course NYC would look like O'Malley's Baltimore x10, but I don't think a D trifecta would give a darn after being out of a House majority for 12 years.

NYC will never consent to be baconstripped like that. Heck, they screeched about stretching Charlie Rangel to Westchester.

[politicallefty]

I'm fairly sure the only 60%+ McCain seat that can be drawn in New York is in Brooklyn, which Democrats would never draw. They'd almost certainly take every NYC seat. Drawing NYC districts into Upstate may be one thing, but I'd be curious if they decided to get aggressive with districts 1-4 (namely taking Peter King's district).

[traininthedistance]

First off, NY is probably only going to lose one next time around.

Second, I can't get NY to work in DRA right now, so I can't demonstrate this with a map... but it is almost trivially easy to draw a fairly clean-looking map with only two intended Republican seats, as long as you do the following two things that are not completely realistic:

1) Send the Staten Island district into Lower Manhattan again.

2) Assume that making all the Long Island seats D+1 will knock off Peter King but keep the LI Dems safe.

Then you cede two Upstate districts to the Republicans, and voila.

[jimrtex]

How on earth do you get a 23-2 map in New York in a neutral election?

Upstate and downstate ~60% McCain vote sinks with the remainder of the state being like 66% Obama.  You can distribute that evenly enough so that every other seat is 2-time 60% Obama or safer.  Of course NYC would look like O'Malley's Baltimore x10, but I don't think a D trifecta would give a darn after being out of a House majority for 12 years.

With a loss of one seat, 1/2 is from upstate and 1/2 from NYC.   So you basically start with slicing NY-16 in half and start making major shifts down the Hudson. NY-17, NY-18, NY-19.   The upstate districs that are anchored by Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo will be hard to change dramatically, but will just expand outward a bit.   So the districts like NY-22 and NY-23 will get shoved around.  No one who has a large city, will want to have it sliced up to distribute Democrats to these other districts, they grudgingly accept as few Republicans as possible.

At most you will have some personal considerations, and you may be able to pair a couple of upstate representatives if they live in the wrong place.  For example, if the incumbent is NY-22 lives in Binghampton, and the map drawers don't like him, he might end up living in NY-23, and NY-22 will take more of the Mohawk Valley and areas SW of Albany.

In NYC there is a lot more flexibility, since you have 3 Bronx districts that can move north.  You could nibble some (150,000) for each district, or you could rip NY-14 out of Queens.   This would open up moving NY-3 into Queens in a major way, and letting the LI districts rotate counterclockwise, with NY-5 shifting into Nassau (instead of 4 Long Island districts, make it 3 and 2 halves).

[Biden his time]

People really didn't anticipate Montana, did they?

[jimrtex]

People really didn't anticipate Montana, did they?

Montana has an excess of about 5000 people.

Ever since it lost its second seat, it has been close to gaining it back.

It gained 136K during the decade, for an average of 13.6K per year.  But four years were below that. If that been true a few more years, then Montana would not regain the seat.