2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Minnesota

[jimrtex]

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?

The population of the cities is similar.

[jimrtex]

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.

Yeah, it's pretty telling when every single Minnesotan who's wandered into this thread has been shocked and horrified to hear this proposed seriously (rather than as an intellectual exercise, which it is interesting to think about that way). I think folks in Cottage Grove would be pretty upset to see themselves geographically clustered with, say, Bloomington or Coon Rapids rather than with St. Paul.

Not as shocked as if they were clustered with Duluth, Moorhead, or Mankato.

I suspect they would see them clustered with the rest of Washington County and the northern part of Ramsey County.

[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?

The population of the cities is similar.

Minneapolis is 40% larger than St. Paul and has enough population to dominate a primary if there are geographical candidates. You are putting the interests of suburbs of 5,000, 10,000, 15,000 who are never going to be more than a fraction of a district ahead of the interests of a city of 300,000 that has been the largest jurisdiction in its congressional district for longer than you and I have been alive.

[jimrtex]

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.

10 years ago, Minneapolis and St. Paul had more population than would fit into a district. It is the loss of the district that makes this feasible.

[jimrtex]

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.

I never said it was a requirement. But it is a desirable outcome. I even added Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park to recognize to movement of Hmong (and African Americans) out of North Minneapolis.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Since we're showing off Minnesota's I made a 6/2 dem map that's somewhat stable. Could be a 4/4 at worst in a strong republican year. Trump did win the 1st narrowly but he's the only person to have one it in any of the data sets so I'm almost sure it snapped back in 2018 and 2020. The 2nd is also a little swingy, but stays fairly consistently for the democrats. In Disitrcts 1, 2, and 4 there was almost 10% of the vote going to third parties. Shift around the Minneapolis and St. Paul area and they could be made a lot safer, but could move others into being more vulnerable

• District 1 - Trump .4%
• District 2 - Clinton 4.1%
• District 3 - Clinton 12.4%
• District 4 - Clinton 3.7%
• District 5 - Clinton 25.5%
• District 6 - Clinton 17.7%
• District 7 - Clinton 26.3%
• District 8 - Clinton 29.9%

[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.

10 years ago, Minneapolis and St. Paul had more population than would fit into a district. It is the loss of the district that makes this feasible.

That still does not explain why either the DFL House or DFL Governor would sign off on such a plan or why the DFL appointed Supreme Court would push it.

[jimrtex]

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.

10 years ago, Minneapolis and St. Paul had more population than would fit into a district. It is the loss of the district that makes this feasible.

That still does not explain why either the DFL House or DFL Governor would sign off on such a plan or why the DFL appointed Supreme Court would push it.

I'm assuming that the Minnesota Supreme Court are not partisan hacks like Pennsylvania, and it is going to get into the courts because the Senate and House won't agree. Why would the legislature or the governor have standing to advocate for plans that only got through one House.

[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.

10 years ago, Minneapolis and St. Paul had more population than would fit into a district. It is the loss of the district that makes this feasible.

That still does not explain why either the DFL House or DFL Governor would sign off on such a plan or why the DFL appointed Supreme Court would push it.

I'm assuming that the Minnesota Supreme Court are not partisan hacks like Pennsylvania, and it is going to get into the courts because the Senate and House won't agree. Why would the legislature or the governor have standing to advocate for plans that only got through one House.

You assume wrong.

[EastAnglianLefty]

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.

10 years ago, Minneapolis and St. Paul had more population than would fit into a district. It is the loss of the district that makes this feasible.

In point of fact, they had 4655 more people than the district average. I do not think that the reason the idea went nowhere was because you would have had to remove a couple of outlying precincts.

[Torie]

The MN high court in the 2010 cycle was not partisan when it came to drawing the CD's, and I have no reason to believe that they would be this time. But my guess is that both parties will agree on a map, in part because, as in so many other places, the evolution of MN politics, and where, is unusually uncertain. The map will have 3 Pub CD's, 3 Dem CD's, and one swing CD that will favor the Dems (e.g., Trump 2020 actually lost a CD that would combine Wright, Carver, Scott and Dakota counties by a few thousand votes), if the Pub Party continues to embrace a politics that is off putting to better educated suburban voters.

[R.P. McM]

The MN high court in the 2010 cycle was not partisan when it came to drawing the CD's, and I have no reason to believe that they would be this time. But my guess is that both parties will agree on a map, in part because, as in so many other places, the evolution of MN politics, and where, is unusually uncertain. The map will have 3 Pub CD's, 3 Dem CD's, and one swing CD that will favor the Dems (e.g., Trump 2020 actually lost a CD that would combine Wright, Carver, Scott and Dakota counties by a few thousand votes), if the Pub Party continues to embrace a politics that is off putting to better educated suburban voters.

I do — the Capitol insurrection. Which was inspired by the entire MN GOP Congressional delegation, who signed onto the TX AG's lawsuit. Punishing insurrectionists isn't partisan, it's the duty of any liberal democrat. Republicans will cry, but who cares? Maybe they ought to try to win a statewide election. Alternatively, after we curb-stomp the My Pillow guy, maybe we need to appoint more partisan judges. No more playing nice.

[Nyvin]

The MN high court in the 2010 cycle was not partisan when it came to drawing the CD's, and I have no reason to believe that they would be this time. But my guess is that both parties will agree on a map, in part because, as in so many other places, the evolution of MN politics, and where, is unusually uncertain. The map will have 3 Pub CD's, 3 Dem CD's, and one swing CD that will favor the Dems (e.g., Trump 2020 actually lost a CD that would combine Wright, Carver, Scott and Dakota counties by a few thousand votes), if the Pub Party continues to embrace a politics that is off putting to better educated suburban voters.

I do — the Capitol insurrection. Which was inspired by all four of the MN GOP Congressional representatives, who signed onto the TX AG's lawsuit. Punishing insurrectionists isn't partisan, it's the duty of any liberal democrat.

Yeah, the MNSC "should" be partisan in favor of the Democrats because the Republican Party in this country has legitimately gone insane.

[R.P. McM]

The MN high court in the 2010 cycle was not partisan when it came to drawing the CD's, and I have no reason to believe that they would be this time. But my guess is that both parties will agree on a map, in part because, as in so many other places, the evolution of MN politics, and where, is unusually uncertain. The map will have 3 Pub CD's, 3 Dem CD's, and one swing CD that will favor the Dems (e.g., Trump 2020 actually lost a CD that would combine Wright, Carver, Scott and Dakota counties by a few thousand votes), if the Pub Party continues to embrace a politics that is off putting to better educated suburban voters.

I do — the Capitol insurrection. Which was inspired by all four of the MN GOP Congressional representatives, who signed onto the TX AG's lawsuit. Punishing insurrectionists isn't partisan, it's the duty of any liberal democrat.

Yeah, the MNSC "should" be partisan in favor of the Democrats because the Republican Party in this country has legitimately gone insane.

INDEEEEEEEEED.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The MN high court in the 2010 cycle was not partisan when it came to drawing the CD's, and I have no reason to believe that they would be this time.

The 2010 Minnesota Supreme Court consisted of four Pawlenty appointees, one Ventura appointee, one Arne Carlson appointee and one who was directly elected instead of appointed (but was known as a liberal.)

The current one consists of two Pawlenty appointees, one Walz appointee and four Dayton appointees. And Dayton's appointees especially are the most partisan ones on the court in decades if not ever. I mean one is a former DFL House Speaker. Completely different ballgame.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

On a side note, it's kind of hilarious how f[inks]ed Pawlenty got by his judicial appointments. He actually appointed five to the Minnesota Supreme Court but only two of those (including Barry Anderson, who's still on the Court) were both relatively young and consistently conservative. Minnesota has a mandatory retirement age of 70 for judges, so you can't have people trying to stick around forever like RBG and Clarence Thomas, but a 50-year old can still get a good 20 years on the Court. However for one of his appointments Pawlenty went with a guy who was over 60, basically repaying a political debt since he served as Pawlenty's 2002 gubernatorial campaign attorney. And then he also retired seven months early.

As far as his other appointments go, one of them seemed like a slam dunk being both quite young (he was 36 when he took his seat on the Court!) and solidly conservative, but he later resigned to take a federal court appointment from Trump. Perhaps still an overall win in the grand scheme of things. But then he was suckered by GOP leaders to appoint Lorie Skjerven Gildea (and then upgrade her to Chief Justice), who while 49 when initially appointed ended being fairly moderate and is exactly the type of person Trump has alienated from the GOP.

However the real cucking of Pawlenty came from his first Chief Justice appointment. In 2008 he appointed Eric Magnuson, a former law partner of his (obviously from way long ago, since Pawlenty hadn't practiced law in over a decade even before he got elected to his first political office) to be the Chief Justice, resulting in a wave of controversy and outcry from the DFL. And then...Magnuson went ahead and basically ruled on the Court as a liberal for his whole tenure. Most notably when he authored a 4-3 decision against Pawlenty stating he overstepped his authority in rescinding funding from the legislature, and then retired two months later after only two years on the Court. LMAO. Although in doing so he actually allowed Pawlenty to appoint his replacement instead of Dayton, but that resulted in Gildea being elevated to Chief Justice and though Pawlenty did get a seemingly slam dunk pick to replace fill Gildea's AJ seat, it's also the guy I mentioned earlier who also resigned early to go to federal court.

Dayton meanwhile got six appointments, four of which are still on, one of whom resigned to take a federal court appointment from Obama, and one who resigned last year due to Parkinson's disease and had his seat filled by Walz.

[It’s so Joever]

How should I change this map? I want to protect COI's the most.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a10403f5-7cec-42a5-b546-0dda86c7cf4e

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How should I change this map? I want to protect COI's the most.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a10403f5-7cec-42a5-b546-0dda86c7cf4e

No reason to do a three-way split of Hennepin County. Especially one that links the immediate northern suburbs of Minneapolis (including the only majority non-white city in Minnesota outside of a Reservation) with the exurbs.

[walleye26]

How should I change this map? I want to protect COI's the most.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a10403f5-7cec-42a5-b546-0dda86c7cf4e

No reason to do a three-way split of Hennepin County. Especially one that links the immediate northern suburbs of Minneapolis (including the only majority non-white city in Minnesota outside of a Reservation) with the exurbs.

Which city is that?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How should I change this map? I want to protect COI's the most.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a10403f5-7cec-42a5-b546-0dda86c7cf4e

No reason to do a three-way split of Hennepin County. Especially one that links the immediate northern suburbs of Minneapolis (including the only majority non-white city in Minnesota outside of a Reservation) with the exurbs.

Which city is that?

Brooklyn Center.

[ilikeverin]

How should I change this map? I want to protect COI's the most.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a10403f5-7cec-42a5-b546-0dda86c7cf4e

No reason to do a three-way split of Hennepin County. Especially one that links the immediate northern suburbs of Minneapolis (including the only majority non-white city in Minnesota outside of a Reservation) with the exurbs.

Which city is that?

Brooklyn Center.

Brooklyn Center is in MN-05 in that map with Minneapolis. It looks like a two-way split of Hennepin to me.

Hmm... the way you've split up Hennepin in that map does correspond to the classic division of "inner ring" suburbs to "outer ring" ones, which I like (Edina in particular would be delighted to be separated from Minneapolis!), but I agree with BRTD that there's a lot of splits there that might not be necessary. A district that includes Red Wing and Columbia Heights doesn't make a lot of sense.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How should I change this map? I want to protect COI's the most.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a10403f5-7cec-42a5-b546-0dda86c7cf4e

No reason to do a three-way split of Hennepin County. Especially one that links the immediate northern suburbs of Minneapolis (including the only majority non-white city in Minnesota outside of a Reservation) with the exurbs.

Which city is that?

Brooklyn Center.

Brooklyn Center is in MN-05 in that map with Minneapolis. It looks like a two-way split of Hennepin to me.

Map was updated after my post.

[ilikeverin]

How should I change this map? I want to protect COI's the most.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a10403f5-7cec-42a5-b546-0dda86c7cf4e

No reason to do a three-way split of Hennepin County. Especially one that links the immediate northern suburbs of Minneapolis (including the only majority non-white city in Minnesota outside of a Reservation) with the exurbs.

Which city is that?

Brooklyn Center.

Brooklyn Center is in MN-05 in that map with Minneapolis. It looks like a two-way split of Hennepin to me.

Map was updated after my post.

Ah, gotcha!

In addition to my previous comments, the MN-04 in the map also violates the West Metro/East Metro split that jim and Del Tachi insist does not exist; if you split Anoka, try to do it by extending a line north of the western border of Ramsay and dividing it like that. You do a better job with Dakota between your 2nd and 3rd districts! Apple Valley and Eagan could probably go either way, and I had no concept of Lakeville whatsoever when I left Minnesota, so I don't know where it belongs.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Zumbrota and Otsego being in the same district is highly questionable.

[Sol]

Was looking at the demographics of Brooklyn Center since it was discussed in the thread. The white flight it experienced in the 2000s is absolutely astonishing--71% to 49% White!