Redistricting 2020, doomed incumbents

[Idaho Conservative]

We talked about this in the Georgia thread, but here is the situation. I don't think we have ever seen Redistricting mappers destroy an AA opportunity/VRA seat at any level when the state was gaining AA pop, unless it was ordered by a court. Republicans in the past loved AA seats since they packed in Dem votes, and Dems are always happy to appease their coalition, though their AA seats are not as pack-y as the Republicans ones. Therefore, Georgia would stick out, and not in a good way. Cutting GA02 and trying for 11-3 would not just end up as a dummymander, it would likely be quickly invalidated by the courts. However, they really want to get rid of GA02: the rural parts of the belt are losing AA pop, the seat was not 50% AA to begin with, Bishop seems unlikely to continue serving in Congress after 2022 (health hopefully, but he may die unfortunately), and the surrounding districts are all blood red. The only way the GOP could potentially survive the case that will come if GA02 is cut up is if they improve AA opportunity in another part of the map. This would ideally be a 4th performing VRA seat in Atlanta.

Therefore, GA indirectly will have 4 AA seats at minimum in 2022. Cutting GA02 is suicidal unless it is replaced with a additional seat. Therefore GA will always have the three Atlanta AA seats, and either the belt or the 4th Atlanta seat. This also is not factoring in the possibility of a 5th Atlanta seat, likely a mixed opportunity seat somewhere in Gwinnett or a belt-to-atlanta AA seat. Such a seat would both improve the maps ability to survive the courts, and improve the odds of surviving a decade of democratic growth into the city and suburbs. The odds of that seat emerging likely depend upon how blue the GA elections are in 2020.

then my map should hold up in court then.

[Idaho Conservative]

I'm going to cover most of these when we hit their turn on the state  megathread but here  my hotlist. I'm not going to count anyone who is sitting in a opposing seat like Brindisi since getting redistricting from red to red or blue to blue doesn't count as getting drawn out. Right now those with near-guaranteed ticking timers are:

- Jim Cooper (TN05) is the most vulnerable incumbent in Congress to the pen. R's didn't crack him back in 2010 cause they feared a dixiecrat revival...which never came. I did the  math on a personal map and even with Bresden's numbers there are ways that a Quad-cut gets all seats to Blackburn+10. A 5-way cut is also possible if nobody want too much of Nashville, while not compromising the protection for the Knoxville seats. Something similar would be happening in KY03 if Beshear didn't get elected last week, and can court-block the most outrageous proposals.

- Someones going down in VA, likely Rob Whitman (VA01) if dems have the cahones.

- One of the Dem's from the north jersey suburbs. There needs to be a second R seat up there to make everyone else safe, if NJ-07 flips in 2020 then the decision process gets easier. If some gets the ax congressionally they get a free ticket statewide.

- John Katko (NY24) if he survives 2020. He's facing Brindisi if Brindisi survives because NY22 is a guaranteed reapportionment, and Syracuse likely gets custody of Ithaca.

- IN01 (Open) if the GOP is feeling cocky. Similarly, MO05 (Emmanuel Cleaver). Both might survive because their remote location on the  map demands a major reshuffling of district lines. If/When MO05 gets cut it probably triggers ballot petitions for fair districts, and starts a process similar to what we saw in FL in 2016.

-IL12/13 are getting merged and one redistributed, but the reps may survive by getting stuck in other seats and having to primary other GOP'ers.

-Alex Mooney (WV02) is dead weight, always underpreforming his baseline massively. He's the easy GOP cut, especially now that WV03 seems a lock for the future.

- Someone loses the DvD primary in RI, unless they get to go statewide.

-AL02 (Open).

- Sanford Bishop (GA02) if the GOP increases AA power overall using ATL, even while making the 2nd red. They also need cleaver lawyers, because its the VRA.

-Inside California, someone from LA is losing their seat to redistribution to the OC/SD region. The new seat still will be blue though because of which areas are growing.

Someones losing their seat in MN, MI, PA, Long Island, and OH because reapportionment. But which seat is cut is a open question. Ohio is general is a black box this cycle.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/345f09d8-6559-4bf9-8705-3b570ddc4546
a good georgia map. 4 aa districts.

No, dumb and illegal map. You won't be able to get away with killing off the black belt district, the best scenario is to have 3 AA Atlanta districts, 1 AA Black Belt district, and 10 Safe R districts elsewhere.

lmao, illegal?  My map has 4 aa districts, doesn't matter that it is now in Atlanta instead of southern GA.  Also, Bishop's district isn't even vra protected, but I drew the 4th aa district in case it gets ruled GA needs a 4th district that is majority-minority.  

You don’t think splitting up the Black Belt would invite legal challenges?

Anyway, Republicans were the ones that wanted GA-02 to be a black belt district in the first place in 1992.

it would only invite legal challenges if it's not replaced, my map replaced it.

[Skill and Chance]

We talked about this in the Georgia thread, but here is the situation. I don't think we have ever seen Redistricting mappers destroy an AA opportunity/VRA seat at any level when the state was gaining AA pop, unless it was ordered by a court. Republicans in the past loved AA seats since they packed in Dem votes, and Dems are always happy to appease their coalition, though their AA seats are not as pack-y as the Republicans ones. Therefore, Georgia would stick out, and not in a good way. Cutting GA02 and trying for 11-3 would not just end up as a dummymander, it would likely be quickly invalidated by the courts. However, they really want to get rid of GA02: the rural parts of the belt are losing AA pop, the seat was not 50% AA to begin with, Bishop seems unlikely to continue serving in Congress after 2022 (health hopefully, but he may die unfortunately), and the surrounding districts are all blood red. The only way the GOP could potentially survive the case that will come if GA02 is cut up is if they improve AA opportunity in another part of the map. This would ideally be a 4th performing VRA seat in Atlanta.

Therefore, GA indirectly will have 4 AA seats at minimum in 2022. Cutting GA02 is suicidal unless it is replaced with a additional seat. Therefore GA will always have the three Atlanta AA seats, and either the belt or the 4th Atlanta seat. This also is not factoring in the possibility of a 5th Atlanta seat, likely a mixed opportunity seat somewhere in Gwinnett or a belt-to-atlanta AA seat. Such a seat would both improve the maps ability to survive the courts, and improve the odds of surviving a decade of democratic growth into the city and suburbs. The odds of that seat emerging likely depend upon how blue the GA elections are in 2020.

I think you are way underestimating how aggressive things could get.  Expect a lot of test cases with states asking federal courts for more latitude.  For example, Alabama is expected to lose a CD.  I would not be surprised if it passed a map eliminating AL-07 and then asked SCOTUS to rule that VRA Section 2 does not apply to redistricting at all.   

If Breyer and/or RBG are replaced by new Justices with Thomas/Gorsuch/Alito views between now and 2022, I wonder if even Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims (CD and state senate district population equality within narrow limits) are safe?  I don't think Kemp would actually sign a map drawing one giant Dem CD covering all territory within 40 miles of Atlanta and/or one giant Fulton County state senate district, because he doesn't want the area voting 90%+ against him in 2022, but in a state where the statewide officials are completely safe in the GE, someone might try something similar?

[Oryxslayer]

We talked about this in the Georgia thread, but here is the situation. I don't think we have ever seen Redistricting mappers destroy an AA opportunity/VRA seat at any level when the state was gaining AA pop, unless it was ordered by a court. Republicans in the past loved AA seats since they packed in Dem votes, and Dems are always happy to appease their coalition, though their AA seats are not as pack-y as the Republicans ones. Therefore, Georgia would stick out, and not in a good way. Cutting GA02 and trying for 11-3 would not just end up as a dummymander, it would likely be quickly invalidated by the courts. However, they really want to get rid of GA02: the rural parts of the belt are losing AA pop, the seat was not 50% AA to begin with, Bishop seems unlikely to continue serving in Congress after 2022 (health hopefully, but he may die unfortunately), and the surrounding districts are all blood red. The only way the GOP could potentially survive the case that will come if GA02 is cut up is if they improve AA opportunity in another part of the map. This would ideally be a 4th performing VRA seat in Atlanta.

Therefore, GA indirectly will have 4 AA seats at minimum in 2022. Cutting GA02 is suicidal unless it is replaced with a additional seat. Therefore GA will always have the three Atlanta AA seats, and either the belt or the 4th Atlanta seat. This also is not factoring in the possibility of a 5th Atlanta seat, likely a mixed opportunity seat somewhere in Gwinnett or a belt-to-atlanta AA seat. Such a seat would both improve the maps ability to survive the courts, and improve the odds of surviving a decade of democratic growth into the city and suburbs. The odds of that seat emerging likely depend upon how blue the GA elections are in 2020.

I think you are way underestimating how aggressive things could get.  Expect a lot of test cases with states asking federal courts for more latitude.  For example, Alabama is expected to lose a CD.  I would not be surprised if it passed a map eliminating AL-07 and then asked SCOTUS to rule that VRA Section 2 does not apply to redistricting at all.   

If Breyer and/or RBG are replaced by new Justices with Thomas/Gorsuch/Alito views between now and 2022, I wonder if even Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims (CD and state senate district population equality within narrow limits) are safe?  I don't think Kemp would actually sign a map drawing one giant Dem CD covering all territory within 40 miles of Atlanta and/or one giant Fulton County state senate district, because he doesn't want the area voting 90%+ against him in 2022, but in a state where the statewide officials are completely safe in the GE, someone might try something similar?

Well, if there is a majority to remove all VRA restrictions, then things change. But right now, there is not. Instead, there is a trend towards creating compact packs for each party, as seen with the Ohio commissions county cut restrictions and the new NC map. Visible gerrymanders are targets for a informed and partisan electorate, on both sides as seen in MD and NC. Unless the mappers have no shame like Madigan, a hypothetical tentacled map that produces say a 8-3 is less attractive then a 7-4 where everyone is packed into seats with arguable COIs. 

[Minnesota Mike]

In Illinois whoever ends up in IL-3 after 2020 might be screwed in 2022 since it's almost certainly going to be made a hispanic majority seat.

In Pennsylvania, it probably makes the most sense to divide up either PA-13 or PA-15 between east and west.   

In Minnesota I don't see any other possibility other than chopping up MN-7, it's already the least populated.   Assuming MN loses a seat obviously.

A tough one to call is Michigan.    I'd probably predict the commission remakes MI-5 to include Flint with both Saginaw and Midland, and move Bay City in with the Thumb district (MI-10) since the entire area is losing population.  After that it's probably one of the mid-northern districts to get the axe (MI-2 or MI-4).

If MN loses a seat (still up in the air) MN-06 would be the obvious one to get chopped up,  it borders 6 of the other 7 districts. Chopping up MN-07 would require making huge changes to the entire map, chopping up Mn-06 would leave the remaining districts in pretty much as they are.

[cvparty]

In Illinois whoever ends up in IL-3 after 2020 might be screwed in 2022 since it's almost certainly going to be made a hispanic majority seat.

In Pennsylvania, it probably makes the most sense to divide up either PA-13 or PA-15 between east and west.  

In Minnesota I don't see any other possibility other than chopping up MN-7, it's already the least populated.   Assuming MN loses a seat obviously.

A tough one to call is Michigan.    I'd probably predict the commission remakes MI-5 to include Flint with both Saginaw and Midland, and move Bay City in with the Thumb district (MI-10) since the entire area is losing population.  After that it's probably one of the mid-northern districts to get the axe (MI-2 or MI-4).

If MN loses a seat (still up in the air) MN-06 would be the obvious one to get chopped up,  it borders 6 of the other 7 districts. Chopping up MN-07 would require making huge changes to the entire map, chopping up Mn-06 would leave the remaining districts in pretty much as they are.

i’m not sure about that, MN-01 and MN-08 will both have to expand westward since 1) they need to hold 1/7 of the state’s population now instead of 1/8, and 2) they’re the slowest-growing districts in the state. that eats up more of MN-07 than the fast-growing TC metro districts eat into MN-06.

even if you consider the central district to still be “MN-07”, it really is de facto just a more rural MN-06. especially true since the seat becomes a guaranteed republican pickup—peterson loses a massive amount of his incumbency strength since reapportionment/population shifts change his district boundaries drastically.

[politicallefty]

Minnesota probably depends somewhat on whether or not Democrats get total control over redistricting. That probably depends on whether or not Democrats can win back the MN Senate. It has one of the stranger terms, with elections in the 0-2-6 years, so there was no opportunity for a big win in 2018 (like the massive win Democrats had in the MN House).

Either way, I think the current MN-07 is done (and there does seem to be the expectation that one way or the other Colin Peterson will not be running in 2022 anyway, either through defeat or winning one last term). Like most, I expect MN-08 to move west to the ND border, taking in the northern third of the state. That could actually pull it a couple points to the left if drawn right, but the trendlines are very bad. After that, the outstate districts basically draw themselves. If Dems have total control, I think they try lock down the current four districts they have around MSP and maybe tinker around the edges in the outstate districts.

I don't think Democrats would ever try to attempt a 5-2 map unless they somehow won back MN-01 or MN-08 this year (the latter being a much further reach than the former). Even then, it's going to be a monstrosity. I might give it a try soon, but it'd have to involve separating Duluth from the more Republican western areas of the Iron Range and sending it down into the MSP area. A district that runs from the Duluth area and runs down along the Wisconsin border taking in Washington County and ending in Rochester would be almost exactly even between Clinton and Trump. Short of and still possibly including a number of tentacles, that'd leave a contiguous region in MSP stretching to Mankato and St. Cloud at roughly 59-60% two-party vote for Clinton to divide among 4 districts.

I was thinking about something like this:


It was just a rough draft so not even close to perfected or anything of the sort (not to mention dividing the state into 7 parts based on the 2010 Census). It's just to get a visual. The blue district is 1 district that's about 50-50 Clinton-Trump. The yellow area is roughly equal to 4/7 of the population, and close to 60% Clinton two-party share. The purple is about 2 districts that voted just over 2-1 Trump over Clinton. If Dems have full power over the pen, I think they should absolutely go for what I'm showing here. It's not 5-2, more like 4D-2R-1, but I like the D odds in the blue seat. If Nashville is facing a pizza slice, Democrats in other states need to be aggressive and that could and should include Minnesota.

[Minnesota Mike]

Minnesota probably depends somewhat on whether or not Democrats get total control over redistricting. That probably depends on whether or not Democrats can win back the MN Senate. It has one of the stranger terms, with elections in the 0-2-6 years, so there was no opportunity for a big win in 2018 (like the massive win Democrats had in the MN House).

Either way, I think the current MN-07 is done (and there does seem to be the expectation that one way or the other Colin Peterson will not be running in 2022 anyway, either through defeat or winning one last term). Like most, I expect MN-08 to move west to the ND border, taking in the northern third of the state. That could actually pull it a couple points to the left if drawn right, but the trendlines are very bad. After that, the outstate districts basically draw themselves. If Dems have total control, I think they try lock down the current four districts they have around MSP and maybe tinker around the edges in the outstate districts.

I don't think Democrats would ever try to attempt a 5-2 map unless they somehow won back MN-01 or MN-08 this year (the latter being a much further reach than the former). Even then, it's going to be a monstrosity. I might give it a try soon, but it'd have to involve separating Duluth from the more Republican western areas of the Iron Range and sending it down into the MSP area. A district that runs from the Duluth area and runs down along the Wisconsin border taking in Washington County and ending in Rochester would be almost exactly even between Clinton and Trump. Short of and still possibly including a number of tentacles, that'd leave a contiguous region in MSP stretching to Mankato and St. Cloud at roughly 59-60% two-party vote for Clinton to divide among 4 districts.

I was thinking about something like this:


It was just a rough draft so not even close to perfected or anything of the sort (not to mention dividing the state into 7 parts based on the 2010 Census). It's just to get a visual. The blue district is 1 district that's about 50-50 Clinton-Trump. The yellow area is roughly equal to 4/7 of the population, and close to 60% Clinton two-party share. The purple is about 2 districts that voted just over 2-1 Trump over Clinton. If Dems have full power over the pen, I think they should absolutely go for what I'm showing here. It's not 5-2, more like 4D-2R-1, but I like the D odds in the blue seat. If Nashville is facing a pizza slice, Democrats in other states need to be aggressive and that could and should include Minnesota.

Yeah that's not happening in Minnesota. Naive as it may be Minnesotans like to consider themselves good government types and will produce a relatively clean map that follows the county/city lines as much as possible.  My guess is the Western CD (current MN-07) will expand east to take in St Cloud and and the rest of Stearns county (about 120,000 people).  The NE district (current MN-08) will take in as much of Benton and Sherburne as needed. The southern district (MN-01) would take take in the current rural areas of MN-02 pushing MN-02 north. The St Paul anchored district will be Ramsey and Washington counties.  MN-02 would change the most consisting of Dakota, Scott, Carver and Wright counties. The Minneapolis and western Hennepin districts would divide up Anoka county.  This is all very rough but I would bet that is a rough outline of what happens.

[Brittain33]

MN-02 would change the most consisting of Dakota, Scott, Carver and Wright counties.

RIP Angie Craig

[Minnesota Mike]

MN-02 would change the most consisting of Dakota, Scott, Carver and Wright counties.

RIP Angie Craig

Yeah my MN-02 may be a off (Like I said rough draft). 

[Oryxslayer]

I personally think that the senate is going blue here (the map favors team Blue) but if it doesn't then we will cross the less likely bridge when we come to it. I got three Dem drawn styles of map here, and the overall result is 5 Clinton seats on both the 8 District and the 7 District map. It's really not hard, even if you avoid cutting towns like I did here since MN historically doesn't like cutting towns.

Here's a map whose theme is 'aggression.' The Northern tentacles really are not bad, they even maintain a COI; the native reservations. The southern tentacles are more notable. This map tries to get every blue bit inside a blue seat, and it shows. I don't think this map is very likely.



1: 62.6/29/7 Trump, R+13.5 CPVI
2: 47.5/43.1 Clinton, D+2.2
3: 53.2/37.7 Clinton, D+4.2
4: 56.3/37.5 Clinton, D+9.9
5: 61.7/29.6 Clinton, D+15.3
6: 62.5/29.4 Trump, R+15.7
7: 46.6/44.8 Clinton, D+3.1

Here's a 7 district map that tries to better respect COI's in certain cases. It at least is less ugly in regards to MN02 and MN07. I find this map rather interesting because bit shows three different types of D+2 seats. A reservation tentacle remains for MN07.



1: 60.8/3.7 Trump, R+12.9
2: 49.2/41.4 Clinton, D+2.6
3: 50.9/40 Clinton, D+2.3
4: 54.1/37 Clinton, D+8.4
5: 62.2/29.3 Clinton, D+16
6: 62.4/30.2 Trump R+13.1
7: 47/44.3 Clinton D+2.4

Finally, here's a map where Minnesota keeps her 8th seat. Keeping the 8th seat allows the Blue seats to become safer. This map also sees a big reorientation of the three GOP seats to satisfy the democratic mappers. This map probably has 4 safe blue seats.



1: 50.4/40.2 Clinton, D+3.7 CPVI
2: 55.2/36.7 Trump, R+7.7
3: 55/36.1 Clinton, D+5.9
4: 55.1/36 Clinton, D+8.7
5: 65.5/25.7 Clinton, D+18.9
6: 62.5/29.6 Trump, R+14.4
7: 61.3/31.8 Trump, R+12.8
8: 47.5/43.9 Clinton, D+3.1

The theme of any MN Blue gerrymander is pairing each of the twin cities with as much exurbs as one can without making it vulnerable.

[Minnesota Mike]

I personally think that the senate is going blue here (the map favors team Blue) but if it doesn't then we will cross the less likely bridge when we come to it. I got three Dem drawn styles of map here, and the overall result is 5 Clinton seats on both the 8 District and the 7 District map. It's really not hard, even if you avoid cutting towns like I did here since MN historically doesn't like cutting towns.

Here's a map whose theme is 'aggression.' The Northern tentacles really are not bad, they even maintain a COI; the native reservations. The southern tentacles are more notable. This map tries to get every blue bit inside a blue seat, and it shows. I don't think this map is very likely.



1: 62.6/29/7 Trump, R+13.5 CPVI
2: 47.5/43.1 Clinton, D+2.2
3: 53.2/37.7 Clinton, D+4.2
4: 56.3/37.5 Clinton, D+9.9
5: 61.7/29.6 Clinton, D+15.3
6: 62.5/29.4 Trump, R+15.7
7: 46.6/44.8 Clinton, D+3.1

Here's a 7 district map that tries to better respect COI's in certain cases. It at least is less ugly in regards to MN02 and MN07. I find this map rather interesting because bit shows three different types of D+2 seats. A reservation tentacle remains for MN07.



1: 60.8/3.7 Trump, R+12.9
2: 49.2/41.4 Clinton, D+2.6
3: 50.9/40 Clinton, D+2.3
4: 54.1/37 Clinton, D+8.4
5: 62.2/29.3 Clinton, D+16
6: 62.4/30.2 Trump R+13.1
7: 47/44.3 Clinton D+2.4

Finally, here's a map where Minnesota keeps her 8th seat. Keeping the 8th seat allows the Blue seats to become safer. This map also sees a big reorientation of the three GOP seats to satisfy the democratic mappers. This map probably has 4 safe blue seats.



1: 50.4/40.2 Clinton, D+3.7 CPVI
2: 55.2/36.7 Trump, R+7.7
3: 55/36.1 Clinton, D+5.9
4: 55.1/36 Clinton, D+8.7
5: 65.5/25.7 Clinton, D+18.9
6: 62.5/29.6 Trump, R+14.4
7: 61.3/31.8 Trump, R+12.8
8: 47.5/43.9 Clinton, D+3.1

The theme of any MN Blue gerrymander is pairing each of the twin cities with as much exurbs as one can without making it vulnerable.

LOL. Nice theoretical exercise but something like that would never pass IRL.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I personally think that the senate is going blue here (the map favors team Blue) but if it doesn't then we will cross the less likely bridge when we come to it. I got three Dem drawn styles of map here, and the overall result is 5 Clinton seats on both the 8 District and the 7 District map. It's really not hard, even if you avoid cutting towns like I did here since MN historically doesn't like cutting towns.

Here's a map whose theme is 'aggression.' The Northern tentacles really are not bad, they even maintain a COI; the native reservations. The southern tentacles are more notable. This map tries to get every blue bit inside a blue seat, and it shows. I don't think this map is very likely.



1: 62.6/29/7 Trump, R+13.5 CPVI
2: 47.5/43.1 Clinton, D+2.2
3: 53.2/37.7 Clinton, D+4.2
4: 56.3/37.5 Clinton, D+9.9
5: 61.7/29.6 Clinton, D+15.3
6: 62.5/29.4 Trump, R+15.7
7: 46.6/44.8 Clinton, D+3.1

This isn't as aggressive as it could be. The D+15 and D+10 districts could be un-packed, allowing you to either leave the map as 5-2 and make it appear visually cleaner by chopping off/broadening the tentacles in certain places, or alternatively possibly by making it into a 5-1-1 map (which might also allow it to look visually cleaner, because you could have the swing district take in a decent # of the tentacle-ish areas and also some surrounding R areas to smooth out the lines a bit, particularly in the north where there is very low population.

In addition, these maps are all using 2016 estimates. It should be easier to draw favorable maps (with relatively clean looking lines, if desired) for the Dems with the 2020 data, because more of the population share will have shifted into the MSP metro area and out of the rural areas.

[Oryxslayer]

I personally think that the senate is going blue here (the map favors team Blue) but if it doesn't then we will cross the less likely bridge when we come to it. I got three Dem drawn styles of map here, and the overall result is 5 Clinton seats on both the 8 District and the 7 District map. It's really not hard, even if you avoid cutting towns like I did here since MN historically doesn't like cutting towns.

Here's a map whose theme is 'aggression.' The Northern tentacles really are not bad, they even maintain a COI; the native reservations. The southern tentacles are more notable. This map tries to get every blue bit inside a blue seat, and it shows. I don't think this map is very likely.



1: 62.6/29/7 Trump, R+13.5 CPVI
2: 47.5/43.1 Clinton, D+2.2
3: 53.2/37.7 Clinton, D+4.2
4: 56.3/37.5 Clinton, D+9.9
5: 61.7/29.6 Clinton, D+15.3
6: 62.5/29.4 Trump, R+15.7
7: 46.6/44.8 Clinton, D+3.1

This isn't as aggressive as it could be. The D+15 and D+10 districts could be un-packed, allowing you to either leave the map as 5-2 and make it appear visually cleaner by chopping off/broadening the tentacles in certain places, or alternatively possibly by making it into a 5-1-1 map (which might also allow it to look visually cleaner, because you could have the swing district take in a decent # of the tentacle-ish areas and also some surrounding R areas to smooth out the lines a bit, particularly in the north where there is very low population.

In addition, these maps are all using 2016 estimates. It should be easier to draw favorable maps (with relatively clean looking lines, if desired) for the Dems with the 2020 data, because more of the population share will have shifted into the MSP metro area and out of the rural areas.

Yes, things could get more aggressive or partisan, especially if they break Minneapolis in two. But this is Minnesota, and they don't really like to cut towns or make things too weird. We tend to think if Minnesota of having 'good govt' democrats, but that is giving them a bit too much credit. Minnesota just has had a lot of divided government over the past 20 years, and parties have gotten used to compromising, especially on the districts. For a state with such a history of voting democratic, the only time the state has had any trifecta in the last 25 years was a democratic one between 2012 and 2014. Most, but not all of that will end up ignored if the trifecta comes into power in 2020. The town lines probably will be respected though, it is in most of the Midwest.

[Idaho Conservative]

I personally think that the senate is going blue here (the map favors team Blue) but if it doesn't then we will cross the less likely bridge when we come to it. I got three Dem drawn styles of map here, and the overall result is 5 Clinton seats on both the 8 District and the 7 District map. It's really not hard, even if you avoid cutting towns like I did here since MN historically doesn't like cutting towns.

Here's a map whose theme is 'aggression.' The Northern tentacles really are not bad, they even maintain a COI; the native reservations. The southern tentacles are more notable. This map tries to get every blue bit inside a blue seat, and it shows. I don't think this map is very likely.



1: 62.6/29/7 Trump, R+13.5 CPVI
2: 47.5/43.1 Clinton, D+2.2
3: 53.2/37.7 Clinton, D+4.2
4: 56.3/37.5 Clinton, D+9.9
5: 61.7/29.6 Clinton, D+15.3
6: 62.5/29.4 Trump, R+15.7
7: 46.6/44.8 Clinton, D+3.1

Here's a 7 district map that tries to better respect COI's in certain cases. It at least is less ugly in regards to MN02 and MN07. I find this map rather interesting because bit shows three different types of D+2 seats. A reservation tentacle remains for MN07.



1: 60.8/3.7 Trump, R+12.9
2: 49.2/41.4 Clinton, D+2.6
3: 50.9/40 Clinton, D+2.3
4: 54.1/37 Clinton, D+8.4
5: 62.2/29.3 Clinton, D+16
6: 62.4/30.2 Trump R+13.1
7: 47/44.3 Clinton D+2.4

Finally, here's a map where Minnesota keeps her 8th seat. Keeping the 8th seat allows the Blue seats to become safer. This map also sees a big reorientation of the three GOP seats to satisfy the democratic mappers. This map probably has 4 safe blue seats.



1: 50.4/40.2 Clinton, D+3.7 CPVI
2: 55.2/36.7 Trump, R+7.7
3: 55/36.1 Clinton, D+5.9
4: 55.1/36 Clinton, D+8.7
5: 65.5/25.7 Clinton, D+18.9
6: 62.5/29.6 Trump, R+14.4
7: 61.3/31.8 Trump, R+12.8
8: 47.5/43.9 Clinton, D+3.1

The theme of any MN Blue gerrymander is pairing each of the twin cities with as much exurbs as one can without making it vulnerable.

Huge dummymander risk, dems still over-perform in rural mn down-ballot, these maps evaporate that remaining support.  Dems would be wise to draw a 4d-3r map, with 2 of the r districts being rural districts that dems have been able to win in the past decade.  Dems would be smart to give Phillips some of Minneapolis and Craig some of Stp to shore them up, but a visually wird gerrymander into rural mn would garner huge backlash, and risks dummymander in a state which has trended r.   

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ee1bb222-5386-4292-97cd-f56cf4ece4c5
here's a more likely MN map.  I wouldn't support this, but all 4 dem seats have double digit Clinton margins and only 1 seat would've stayed red the entire last decade.  If dems run candidates more appealing to rural voters, they could win 6/7 of the seats. 

[Minnesota Mike]

No way legislature would have the Twin Cities suburbs (Washington county) connected to the Iron Range. You have to at least try to keep COI together,

[Oryxslayer]

No way legislature would have the Twin Cities suburbs (Washington county) connected to the Iron Range. You have to at least try to keep COI together,

Washington county already borders the 8th, this isn't some huge gerrymander here. The north range didn't have enough pop on it's own, it had to reach into the exurbs in 2010. The other option was disrupting Peterson's base, which wasn't an really a option. If the north gets even more red in 2020, they will have no option but to pair the two: Dems won't sink Duluth into a red seat, bit there is nothing more favorable left in the north.

Also:

I personally think that the senate is going blue here (the map favors team Blue) but if it doesn't then we will cross the less likely bridge when we come to it. I got three Dem drawn styles of map here, and the overall result is 5 Clinton seats on both the 8 District and the 7 District map. It's really not hard, even if you avoid cutting towns like I did here since MN historically doesn't like cutting towns.

Here's a map whose theme is 'aggression.' The Northern tentacles really are not bad, they even maintain a COI; the native reservations. The southern tentacles are more notable. This map tries to get every blue bit inside a blue seat, and it shows. I don't think this map is very likely.

Here's a 7 district map that tries to better respect COI's in certain cases. It at least is less ugly in regards to MN02 and MN07. I find this map rather interesting because bit shows three different types of D+2 seats. A reservation tentacle remains for MN07.



Finally, here's a map where Minnesota keeps her 8th seat. Keeping the 8th seat allows the Blue seats to become safer. This map also sees a big reorientation of the three GOP seats to satisfy the democratic mappers. This map probably has 4 safe blue seats.



The theme of any MN Blue gerrymander is pairing each of the twin cities with as much exurbs as one can without making it vulnerable.

Huge dummymander risk, dems still over-perform in rural mn down-ballot, these maps evaporate that remaining support.  Dems would be wise to draw a 4d-3r map, with 2 of the r districts being rural districts that dems have been able to win in the past decade.  Dems would be smart to give Phillips some of Minneapolis and Craig some of Stp to shore them up, but a visually wird gerrymander into rural mn would garner huge backlash, and risks dummymander in a state which has trended r.  

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ee1bb222-5386-4292-97cd-f56cf4ece4c5
here's a more likely MN map.  I wouldn't support this, but all 4 dem seats have double digit Clinton margins and only 1 seat would've stayed red the entire last decade.  If dems run candidates more appealing to rural voters, they could win 6/7 of the seats.  

No, the rurals are turning red. Peterson is retiring in 2022 or losing in 2020, so he's gone. Klobuchar was the only one who could keep the old rurals, but even in 2018 her victory map was extremely urban. Dems don't hold any legislative seats outside the 5 blue seats under the aggressive plan, and the second plan only strands the Fargo legislators. The 'almost' victories in the 1st and 8th in 2018 were fought on urban-rural lines, and every plan takes the blue urban areas and ushers them away to safety. No district relies on any rural area going blue, every one has a majority of the voters being democrats in Suburbs or scattered cities like Duluth or Rochester.

I think I already explained why Dems won't be cutting towns, but if they do then tons of different options open up.

[Minnesota Mike]

No way legislature would have the Twin Cities suburbs (Washington county) connected to the Iron Range. You have to at least try to keep COI together,

Washington county already borders the 8th, this isn't some huge gerrymander here. The north range didn't have enough pop on it's own, it had to reach into the exurbs in 2010. The other option was disrupting Peterson's base, which wasn't an really a option. If the north gets even more red in 2020, they will have no option but to pair the two: Dems won't sink Duluth into a red seat, bit there is nothing more favorable left in the north.

Have you ever been to Minnesota? Washington county may border the current 8th but it is a different world. Iron range Democratic legislators would fight this map as hard as anybody.

Also some other rules of thumb for Minnesota, Minneapolis and St Paul will not be split nor will they be thrown in the same district. They will also not be combined with rural areas outside the 7 county metro.

The political reality is this, if the Democrats do win the state senate it will be by a narrow margin. A highly gerrymandered map that totally dismisses COI stands no chance of getting the needed near unanimous Democratic caucus.

[Idaho Conservative]

No way legislature would have the Twin Cities suburbs (Washington county) connected to the Iron Range. You have to at least try to keep COI together,

Washington county already borders the 8th, this isn't some huge gerrymander here. The north range didn't have enough pop on it's own, it had to reach into the exurbs in 2010. The other option was disrupting Peterson's base, which wasn't an really a option. If the north gets even more red in 2020, they will have no option but to pair the two: Dems won't sink Duluth into a red seat, bit there is nothing more favorable left in the north.

Also:

I personally think that the senate is going blue here (the map favors team Blue) but if it doesn't then we will cross the less likely bridge when we come to it. I got three Dem drawn styles of map here, and the overall result is 5 Clinton seats on both the 8 District and the 7 District map. It's really not hard, even if you avoid cutting towns like I did here since MN historically doesn't like cutting towns.

Here's a map whose theme is 'aggression.' The Northern tentacles really are not bad, they even maintain a COI; the native reservations. The southern tentacles are more notable. This map tries to get every blue bit inside a blue seat, and it shows. I don't think this map is very likely.

Here's a 7 district map that tries to better respect COI's in certain cases. It at least is less ugly in regards to MN02 and MN07. I find this map rather interesting because bit shows three different types of D+2 seats. A reservation tentacle remains for MN07.



Finally, here's a map where Minnesota keeps her 8th seat. Keeping the 8th seat allows the Blue seats to become safer. This map also sees a big reorientation of the three GOP seats to satisfy the democratic mappers. This map probably has 4 safe blue seats.



The theme of any MN Blue gerrymander is pairing each of the twin cities with as much exurbs as one can without making it vulnerable.

Huge dummymander risk, dems still over-perform in rural mn down-ballot, these maps evaporate that remaining support.  Dems would be wise to draw a 4d-3r map, with 2 of the r districts being rural districts that dems have been able to win in the past decade.  Dems would be smart to give Phillips some of Minneapolis and Craig some of Stp to shore them up, but a visually wird gerrymander into rural mn would garner huge backlash, and risks dummymander in a state which has trended r.  

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ee1bb222-5386-4292-97cd-f56cf4ece4c5
here's a more likely MN map.  I wouldn't support this, but all 4 dem seats have double digit Clinton margins and only 1 seat would've stayed red the entire last decade.  If dems run candidates more appealing to rural voters, they could win 6/7 of the seats.  

No, the rurals are turning red. Peterson is retiring in 2022 or losing in 2020, so he's gone. Klobuchar was the only one who could keep the old rurals, but even in 2018 her victory map was extremely urban. Dems don't hold any legislative seats outside the 5 blue seats under the aggressive plan, and the second plan only strands the Fargo legislators. The 'almost' victories in the 1st and 8th in 2018 were fought on urban-rural lines, and every plan takes the blue urban areas and ushers them away to safety. No district relies on any rural area going blue, every one has a majority of the voters being democrats in Suburbs or scattered cities like Duluth or Rochester.

I think I already explained why Dems won't be cutting towns, but if they do then tons of different options open up.

You act as if present trends are set in stone.  Until 2018 Republican held a light blue Minneapolis area seat and dems held 2 other rural seats besides Peterson.  If Dems run more socially moderate/conservative but economically populist candidates  they could maybe win rural seats.  Probably not, but it's possible.  Also after Trump Republicans could come back in the Twin cities, if they do that and hold the rural areas, MN is a red state.  Your map makes NC's old districts look pretty and it is too aggressive, it would be like Texas Republicans trying to keep only 2 Dem seats in DFW in 2022, bad idea.  MN dems would be wise to instead draw a clean bincumbent protection map that gives Phillips a safe seat and Craig a likely D seat.   The math might be there to draw a 5D-2R map, but it's not feasible without drawing an ugly map which would upset.  The political geography is bad for Dems in MN.

[Sol]

Minnesota seems like the kind of state where Democrats might go for a light-to-medium gerrymander, like Indiana or Wisconsin last time. In practice that probably means the 7th gets cut up between the 6th and 8th and everybody else gets shored up.

That probably means a great northern district--if Peterson holds on he'd have better odds with Duluth and the Iron Range. It'd probably still be likely R but probably more favorable than either district is currently.

Of course, this is all assuming that Minnesota loses a seat...

[Idaho Conservative]

Minnesota seems like the kind of state where Democrats might go for a light-to-medium gerrymander, like Indiana or Wisconsin last time. In practice that probably means the 7th gets cut up between the 6th and 8th and everybody else gets shored up.

That probably means a great northern district--if Peterson holds on he'd have better odds with Duluth and the Iron Range. It'd probably still be likely R but probably more favorable than either district is currently.

Of course, this is all assuming that Minnesota loses a seat...

realistically, they'll draw something like this.  It's not the best dems could do, but without cracking the twin cities or drawing weird districts, this is a pretty solid 4-3 map.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/bf2b2217-b59d-49e3-9cb7-a0ff2c1a28ed

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Why did this become a Minnesota redistricting thread?

[Tintrlvr]

Minnesota seems like the kind of state where Democrats might go for a light-to-medium gerrymander, like Indiana or Wisconsin last time. In practice that probably means the 7th gets cut up between the 6th and 8th and everybody else gets shored up.

That probably means a great northern district--if Peterson holds on he'd have better odds with Duluth and the Iron Range. It'd probably still be likely R but probably more favorable than either district is currently.

Of course, this is all assuming that Minnesota loses a seat...

realistically, they'll draw something like this.  It's not the best dems could do, but without cracking the twin cities or drawing weird districts, this is a pretty solid 4-3 map.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/bf2b2217-b59d-49e3-9cb7-a0ff2c1a28ed

I agree, this is pretty reasonable for the Democrats. It also leaves them with the possibility of winning two more seats (despite the Trump margins, I wouldn't call 1 or 2 safe for the Republicans).

[Sol]

Minnesota seems like the kind of state where Democrats might go for a light-to-medium gerrymander, like Indiana or Wisconsin last time. In practice that probably means the 7th gets cut up between the 6th and 8th and everybody else gets shored up.

That probably means a great northern district--if Peterson holds on he'd have better odds with Duluth and the Iron Range. It'd probably still be likely R but probably more favorable than either district is currently.

Of course, this is all assuming that Minnesota loses a seat...

realistically, they'll draw something like this.  It's not the best dems could do, but without cracking the twin cities or drawing weird districts, this is a pretty solid 4-3 map.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/bf2b2217-b59d-49e3-9cb7-a0ff2c1a28ed

Yeah, a map like that would make a lot of sense. You could probably help democrats by dropping Carver and Scott counties and picking up Rochester instead if Democrats are willing to concede the 1st.

Playing around with a version of your map on 2016 population; not done yet but so far some of these districts look like they have some population imbalances which will need correcting--which makes sense since Minneapolis is growing even as the state is losing a district.

[Nyvin]

Why did this become a Minnesota redistricting thread?

I actually agree.   It'd be nice if a mod separated all the MN post in this into a special Minnesota redistricting thread.