2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Minnesota

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I seem to recall having this exact same argument ten years ago...and look what map the court drew!

And actually for that matter please also note the GOP passed map that Dayton vetoed that didn't combine the Twin Cities either.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also, if domination by a jurisdiction (or an “inner city”) is a thing we have a compelling interest in avoiding, why is it ok for Minneapolis to dominate St. Paul but not for St. Paul to dominate smaller suburbs?

Because Minneapolis and St Paul have more in common than St. Paul and Cottage Grove?  Idk just a thought

What do you think the DFL House leaders, DFL Governor Walz and the 5-2 D majority MN Supreme Court care more about:

-The wishes of DFL leaders to keep the cities separate.
-These sort of thoughts from random people on internet forums.

[Former President tack50]

When people talk about combining the twin cities, other than what everyone who has lived in the area has said; I will also add that it adds an extra county chop

It's not a huge chop or anything but it is there. If you separate the 2 cities, you get:

>Ramsey + Washington (you have to to make a cut worth 5k)
>Minneapolis + inner suburbs
>Rest of Hennepin + Anoka (again you have to make a cut worth 5k people)
>Carver + Scott + Dakota + Goodhue + Rice (you get short by 15k, which if you want no county splits, you can add from Sibley, or from splitting any of the other counties)

Meanwhile, if you combine the 2 cities, you get:

>Minneapolis + St Paul + a couple inner suburbs (huge cut into Ramsey)
>Rest of Hennepin
> Rest of Ramsey + Anoka + Washington

It's not a super huge county chop or anything, but is it really a worthy chop at all when a solution with no such cuts exists? So if you need a "real" argument, I guess county integrity works.

[Brittain33]

I seem to recall having this exact same argument ten years ago...and look what map the court drew!

And actually for that matter please also note the GOP passed map that Dayton vetoed that didn't combine the Twin Cities either.

I’ve spent this decade anticipating this exact thread starting up again.

[Idaho Conservative]

One thing combining the cities would accomplish would be to make Ilhan Omar safer in her primary.  Not that the DFL even wants that, though.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Combining the Twin Cities doesn't necessarily serve the GOP perfectly either. Indeed, a MN GOPmander would do well to combine Minneapolis with areas farther west, soaking up Dem trending suburbs in the Twin Cities metro.

[Torie]

Combining the Twin Cities doesn't necessarily serve the GOP perfectly either. Indeed, a MN GOPmander would do well to combine Minneapolis with areas farther west, soaking up Dem trending suburbs in the Twin Cities metro.

Yes I don't think the contretemps over the marriage or divorce of the twin cities makes that much of a partisan difference, at least given the current profile of the parties, which of course is more subject to change in unknown directions than is usually the case going forward. Good maps that hew to accepted redistricting principles can be made either way, so whatever floats your boat is my attitude.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This is a GOP-leaning map designed to keep things clean and relatively good-looking from a CoI perspective. The 5th is packed with Dems in order to make MN-03 more competitive, though I doubt that Dean Phillips would be a massive underdog in his new district. MN-02 has lost its entire share of Washington County in return for heavily R exurbs. Both move 3-4 points to the right under 2012/2016 PVIs. MN-01 also gains more heavily R turf in the Southwest of the state, now resembling its 2000s iteration in shape. MN-06 is chopped up among most of its neighbors, to unlock its R voters.

There are only three county splits: Washington County (once), Wright County (once), and Hennipen County (once).
https://davesredistricting.org/join/7ae7d0d7-cd78-40b9-846e-5f0de8a1a5b3

[Del Tachi]

Also, if domination by a jurisdiction (or an “inner city”) is a thing we have a compelling interest in avoiding, why is it ok for Minneapolis to dominate St. Paul but not for St. Paul to dominate smaller suburbs?

Because Minneapolis and St Paul have more in common than St. Paul and Cottage Grove?  Idk just a thought

Clearly, the people who live there and their elected officials don’t agree. This view seems to be coming from people outside who see these large cities as an undifferentiated mass of “inner city” to quote higher up in the thread.

Funny, I never see red avatars (including you) making hay in the GA or TX redistricting threads over maps that combine hitherto unconnected parts of Metro ATL or DFW to make Democratic-leaning districts, lol

I'm aware that (historically) there hasn't been an appetite for a unified MSP district.  However, that doesn't negate that there are "good map" criteria that could be used to justify such a district (maximizing minority influence would be one such criterion) or that a Minny/SP split benefits D's from a partisan perspective. 

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

a Minny/SP split benefits D's from a partisan perspective. 

It's not clear that it does. A combined MSP district could very well produce 3 likely D suburban seats.

[Del Tachi]

a Minny/SP split benefits D's from a partisan perspective. 

It's not clear that it does. A combined MSP district could very well produce 3 likely D suburban seats.

In some maps it does, it just depends on how the other seats get drawn as a result.  In the future, suburban D's may prefer a unified MSP district as a way to maximize suburban representation

[Brittain33]

Also, if domination by a jurisdiction (or an “inner city”) is a thing we have a compelling interest in avoiding, why is it ok for Minneapolis to dominate St. Paul but not for St. Paul to dominate smaller suburbs?

Because Minneapolis and St Paul have more in common than St. Paul and Cottage Grove?  Idk just a thought

Clearly, the people who live there and their elected officials don’t agree. This view seems to be coming from people outside who see these large cities as an undifferentiated mass of “inner city” to quote higher up in the thread.

Funny, I never see red avatars (including you) making hay in the GA or TX redistricting threads over maps that combine hitherto unconnected parts of Metro ATL or DFW to make Democratic-leaning districts, lol

I'm aware that (historically) there hasn't been an appetite for a unified MSP district.  However, that doesn't negate that there are "good map" criteria that could be used to justify such a district (maximizing minority influence would be one such criterion) or that a Minny/SP split benefits D's from a partisan perspective.  

I’m not sure I understand what I’m expected to object to on the Georgia and Texas threads...

There’s a strain in Republican thinking that says cities are bad, people who live in cities are bad and not real Americans, their votes shouldn’t count as much, it’s better if they don’t vote or can’t vote, and if they have to vote, let’s pack them in as few districts as possible to limit their power. Referring to “inner city” isn’t a dog whistle, it’s a bullhorn for this attitude, and coming off an election where once again Republicans argued that votes cast in Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Atlanta shouldn’t count and are probably fake and definitely not American, I’m salty towards comments which show this dismissive attitude toward cities.

[SevenEleven]

Also, if domination by a jurisdiction (or an “inner city”) is a thing we have a compelling interest in avoiding, why is it ok for Minneapolis to dominate St. Paul but not for St. Paul to dominate smaller suburbs?

Because Minneapolis and St Paul have more in common than St. Paul and Cottage Grove?  Idk just a thought

Clearly, the people who live there and their elected officials don’t agree. This view seems to be coming from people outside who see these large cities as an undifferentiated mass of “inner city” to quote higher up in the thread.

Funny, I never see red avatars (including you) making hay in the GA or TX redistricting threads over maps that combine hitherto unconnected parts of Metro ATL or DFW to make Democratic-leaning districts, lol

I'm aware that (historically) there hasn't been an appetite for a unified MSP district.  However, that doesn't negate that there are "good map" criteria that could be used to justify such a district (maximizing minority influence would be one such criterion) or that a Minny/SP split benefits D's from a partisan perspective.  

I’m not sure I understand what I’m expected to object to on the Georgia and Texas threads...

There’s a strain in Republican thinking that says cities are bad, people who live in cities are bad and not real Americans, their votes shouldn’t count as much, it’s better if they don’t vote or can’t vote, and if they have to vote, let’s pack them in as few districts as possible to limit their power. Referring to “inner city” isn’t a dog whistle, it’s a bullhorn for this attitude, and coming off an election where once again Republicans argued that votes cast in Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Atlanta shouldn’t count and are probably fake and definitely not American, I’m salty towards comments which show this dismissive attitude toward cities.

Del Tachi has a habit of not so subtle racism and frankly it has been tolerated around here for far too long.

[Gass3268]

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.

[lfromnj]

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.

Incumbency protection and even a court map naturally does that . Fairly boring overall.

[ilikeverin]

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.

[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.

[ilikeverin]

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.

You betcha, and we take that with us no matter where we go

It was certainly shocking to me when I moved out of the state to encounter people who hadn't voted or weren't planning to vote. Growing up in MN-03, I essentially had never heard of such a thing.

[Del Tachi]

Also, if domination by a jurisdiction (or an “inner city”) is a thing we have a compelling interest in avoiding, why is it ok for Minneapolis to dominate St. Paul but not for St. Paul to dominate smaller suburbs?

Because Minneapolis and St Paul have more in common than St. Paul and Cottage Grove?  Idk just a thought

Clearly, the people who live there and their elected officials don’t agree. This view seems to be coming from people outside who see these large cities as an undifferentiated mass of “inner city” to quote higher up in the thread.

Funny, I never see red avatars (including you) making hay in the GA or TX redistricting threads over maps that combine hitherto unconnected parts of Metro ATL or DFW to make Democratic-leaning districts, lol

I'm aware that (historically) there hasn't been an appetite for a unified MSP district.  However, that doesn't negate that there are "good map" criteria that could be used to justify such a district (maximizing minority influence would be one such criterion) or that a Minny/SP split benefits D's from a partisan perspective. 

I’m not sure I understand what I’m expected to object to on the Georgia and Texas threads...

The best argument against a unified MSP district I've seen in this thread is literally "it's never been done before."  Maintaining existing district alignment (i.e., "minimal change") can be a good, neutral map criterion in the absence of other concerns.  However, I never (for some unfathomable reason?) see red avatars in the GA thread complaining about an ATL district that combines Decatur, Druid Hills, Buckhead, Dunwoody and Johns Creek to create a majority "White liberal" district when these cities have literally never been together in a CD before.  Keeping MSP and St. Paul separate has the effect of allowing the cities to dominate 2/7 (~30%) of Minnesota's congressional delegation despite being only 13% of the statewide population.  13% is almost exactly what you need for a single district in MN (1/7 = ~14.3%.)  Keeping them separate produces bad results     

There’s a strain in Republican thinking that says cities are bad, people who live in cities are bad and not real Americans, their votes shouldn’t count as much, it’s better if they don’t vote or can’t vote, and if they have to vote, let’s pack them in as few districts as possible to limit their power. Referring to “inner city” isn’t a dog whistle, it’s a bullhorn for this attitude, and coming off an election where once again Republicans argued that votes cast in Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Atlanta shouldn’t count and are probably fake and definitely not American, I’m salty towards comments which show this dismissive attitude toward cities.

Uhmmm...how can you be this dense?  This is unequivocally not a racial thing.  A unified MSP district is not even 1/3 non-white (30.8%).  Such a district logically results from a thought exercise that groups the most similar places in MN together based on several non-political criteria (i.e., density, demographics, history, development, transportation, etc.)  More concretely, Longfellow and Highland Park simply have a lot more in common than Longfellow and Hopkins or Highland Park and Cottage Grove do.  Moreso, this approach is even more justifiable from a racial standpoint because it would combine all of the predominantly Black/Asian neighborhoods in MSP into a single district where these communities would have a better chance of representation aligned with their actual population rather than being sidelined as politically irrelevant constituencies in White, suburb-heavy split districts.  Separating the two cities is a de facto racial crack of MSP.

FWIW, if current trends continue I expect a unified MSP district to be realized 1-2 more redistricting cycles from now.  As Suburban Ds become a larger part of the DFL coalition they'll want more representation for themselves, which means uniting MSP to get three, Democratic-leaning suburban seats.           

[lfromnj]

   If someone is so worried about the Minority community being split just make a Minneapolis district that that takes in Brooklyn Park and give Edina to MN03.  That creates just as non white a district as a Minneapolis/St.Paul combination.
   Anyway so far there hasn't been any serious demands by any major group for a combined district including the suburban towns. If they start complaining about Minneapolis/St.Paul being "split apart" into 2 districts then yes one should consider placing them together. However until then the most obvious choice is just keep them separate. Tradition absolutely forms a part of a culture which forms what determines what is a community of interest.

However I do agree that Brittain is getting too annoyed about "minorities" being packed when in reality its just packing white liberals into one super D district.

[Sol]

The best argument against a unified MSP district I've seen in this thread is literally "it's never been done before."  Maintaining existing district alignment (i.e., "minimal change") can be a good, neutral map criterion in the absence of other concerns.  However, I never (for some unfathomable reason?) see red avatars in the GA thread complaining about an ATL district that combines Decatur, Druid Hills, Buckhead, Dunwoody and Johns Creek to create a majority "White liberal" district when these cities have literally never been together in a CD before.  Keeping MSP and St. Paul separate has the effect of allowing the cities to dominate 2/7 (~30%) of Minnesota's congressional delegation despite being only 13% of the statewide population.  13% is almost exactly what you need for a single district in MN (1/7 = ~14.3%.)  Keeping them separate produces bad results     

This is interesting because I actually agree-redistricters actually do give way too much deference to precedent, often to the point of idiocy--see the CT or KY lines, or the unbearable wholeness of Bucks County.

However, that's not really the justification for separating Minneapolis and St. Paul. The two clearly identify as pretty distinct from each other, and it's not right to ignore that by concern trolling as a proxy for making the districts as more Republican.

[lfromnj]

Anyway if anybody was looking to make one seat as non white as possible this is what one could do without combining the cities.Still its 72.9% white by CVAP. A twin cities district would only be 69.4%. 

[Former President tack50]

To be honest, Minnesota is so white that minorities should not be considered at all when drawing a map.

Even if you did an absolutely horrendous tentacle district I doubt you could get the minority % below 60%; let alone make a proper minority district where the minority in question is able to always elect a candidate of their choice. Not to mention minorities are having 0 trouble getting elected in those districts (see: Ilhan Omar)

As for the "combine the cities" argument, like I said it's an unnecesary county chop. It's not the best argument ever I know, but if you combine the twin cities you are cutting Ramsey County in half.

Also, let me doubt about the "2 separate districts means 2 districts dominated by cities argument". The St. Paul district definitely would not be dominated by cities. Here is a quick summary of how such a district looks like:

>302k people from St. Paul proper (38%)
>239k people from the rest of Ramsey County (30%)
>249k people from Washington county (31%)

I struggle to see how St Paul, being only 38% of the district, is somehow dominating it.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Uhmmm...how can you be this dense?  This is unequivocally not a racial thing.  A unified MSP district is not even 1/3 non-white (30.8%).  Such a district logically results from a thought exercise that groups the most similar places in MN together based on several non-political criteria (i.e., density, demographics, history, development, transportation, etc.)  More concretely, Longfellow and Highland Park simply have a lot more in common than Longfellow and Hopkins or Highland Park and Cottage Grove do.  Moreso, this approach is even more justifiable from a racial standpoint because it would combine all of the predominantly Black/Asian neighborhoods in MSP into a single district where these communities would have a better chance of representation aligned with their actual population rather than being sidelined as politically irrelevant constituencies in White, suburb-heavy split districts.  Separating the two cities is a de facto racial crack of MSP.

This might be a convincing argument if jimrtex hadn't been making transparently bad faith claims that an MSP district was required to avoid cracking the Hmong population.

[jimrtex]

Yeah, folks without Minnesota ties do like putting the Cities together, but that would never, ever happen (and I appreciate you acknowledging that it wouldn't!) unless Republicans got a trifecta and really felt like flexing their muscles. Keeping Minneapolis and St. Paul separate is sacrosanct.

Why do you want to crack the Hmong population?

That's not what cracking is.  Also, it is tradition in MN each city gets its own district, I don't see that changing.  Neither party would have a reason to do that.  It would upset Twin Cities residents, the Dem base in the state, and make suburban seats bluer, which would upset Republicans.

It was also traditional (read: incumbent protection)  for there to be four metro districts and four outstate districts.

When Jesse Ventura was governor and redistricting went to the courts. The Democrats and Republicans both presented their hack plans, and Ventura looked at reality that the Metro area had close to 5/8 of the population (much closer to 62.5% than 50%), but short a little bit - so that is why St.Cloud is included. The court went with the Ventura plan which was not hackish. If Ventura did nothing else as governor he should be credited with this.

But the metro population is even closer to 4/7. So start with an 11-county metro area and start stripping off counties until you get to 57.1% (start in the North and work around counter-clockwise).

If you put two districts in the center, you have to have the suburban districts wrap around the large core. With one district in the core you have three suburban districts: one to the west, one to the north and east, and one to the south.