2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Minnesota

[jimrtex]

So can anyone make an argument as to why they believe Minneapolis and St. Paul will be combined that isn't "I'd prefer it that way" or "I, a person on a message board and not a DFL political insider, think it makes sense"? As in why the the DFL House and Walz would agree to it or the Minnesota Supreme Court would do so despite DFL opposition?

Why are you so deferential to Tim Walz and the DFL?

I'm a former DFL precinct chair and district convention delegate.

Why does that make you deferential to Tim Walz?

[Torie]

So can anyone make an argument as to why they believe Minneapolis and St. Paul will be combined that isn't "I'd prefer it that way" or "I, a person on a message board and not a DFL political insider, think it makes sense"? As in why the the DFL House and Walz would agree to it or the Minnesota Supreme Court would do so despite DFL opposition?

Why are you so deferential to Tim Walz and the DFL?

I'm a former DFL precinct chair and district convention delegate.

Why does that make you deferential to Tim Walz?

Whether BRTD is deferential to Walz is not relevant. He is saying he has some knowledge of DFL politics, and based on that, he believes Walz hates it, and the DFL controlled MN Supreme Court hates it, so even if the concept is even better than the Greek ideal of perfection, the concept is going to be dumped in the trash can.

So that leaves you to make the case that what the power players want is misguided, not in their best interest, whatever. As I recall, most of the predictions as to how maps will look on here, or elsewhere, typically prove to be the antithesis of clairvoyance. The only one that was spot on was one that I drew that was adopted into law "as is."  

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So can anyone make an argument as to why they believe Minneapolis and St. Paul will be combined that isn't "I'd prefer it that way" or "I, a person on a message board and not a DFL political insider, think it makes sense"? As in why the the DFL House and Walz would agree to it or the Minnesota Supreme Court would do so despite DFL opposition?

Why are you so deferential to Tim Walz and the DFL?

I'm a former DFL precinct chair and district convention delegate.

Why does that make you deferential to Tim Walz?

His was the first political campaign I ever worked on back in 2006.

[jimrtex]

So can anyone make an argument as to why they believe Minneapolis and St. Paul will be combined that isn't "I'd prefer it that way" or "I, a person on a message board and not a DFL political insider, think it makes sense"? As in why the the DFL House and Walz would agree to it or the Minnesota Supreme Court would do so despite DFL opposition?

Why are you so deferential to Tim Walz and the DFL?

I'm a former DFL precinct chair and district convention delegate.

Why does that make you deferential to Tim Walz?

Whether BRTD is deferential to Walz is not relevant. He is saying he has some knowledge of DFL politics, and based on that, he believes Walz hates it, and the DFL controlled MN Supreme Court hates it, so even if the concept is even better than the Greek ideal of perfection, the concept is going to be dumped in the trash can.

So that leaves you to make the case that what the power players want is misguided, not in their best interest, whatever. As I recall, most of the predictions as to how maps will look on here, or elsewhere, typically prove to be the antithesis of clairvoyance. The only one that was spot on was one that I drew that was adopted into law "as is."  

The state is already preparing for a scenario where the legislature fails to redistrict, as happened after 2001 and 2011.

Congressional and Legislative Redistricting 2020: Timeline Scenarios (PDF)

It is likely the second scenario will happen.

In both decades the Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a special redistricting panel of five judges, who conducted a public process (they did not hide behind closed chambers with DFL operatives such as BRTD. Here is the judgment of the panel in 2012.

Hippert v. Ritchie

The Minnesota Constitution permits the legislature to redistrict congressional districts. Of course this is mandatory under modern circumstances. Minnesota statute requires it to be completed 25 weeks before the 2022 primary.

Whenever the apportionment numbers are announced, suit will be filed claiming that Minnesota does not have 7 congressional districts. The Minnesota Supreme Court will take jurisdiction, but stay further action in case the legislature fails to act. The court only can intervene to correct for legislative action.

Because of the late data release Walz will probably have to call a special session. The Senate is unlikely to approve the House map and vice versa. Certainly no map that stretches from Fargo to Duluth and beyond will pass. DFL legislators in these areas will defect. Legislators tend to be parochial when it comes to district maps. Some will get bent out of shape on a legislative map. If you are being paired with another legislator you are a NO vote. Tim Walz is a non-entity in the process. He can only sign or veto bills and call special sessions.

At some point, Walz will give up and tell the Supreme Court to draw the lines. They will appoint a special panel of judges just as happened in 2001 and 2011.

They will note that plans considered by the legislature have no standing. Actual plans pass by a legislature reflect legislative intent, and even if parts are illegal, the judiciary should give them deference.

Following the analysis done in 2011, the panel will note that the Metro area is way short of the 71.4% needed for 5/7 of the districts. They will also note that extending the Metro districts out to St. Cloud was merely the least worst option, and at that time most public comments were that Stillwater and St. Cloud had nothing in common.

At the same time, if you trim Sherburne, part of Wright, and the counties south of Scott and Dakota, you are at 4/7.

The panel is also required to adopt a least-change map. They have no authority to impose political judgment when they are only correcting for too many districts and population equality. When you lose a district, least-change is not necessarily little-change.

The panel will accept my proposal for the three outstate districts. The only reasonable complaint is splitting the St. Cloud on the county line/Mississippi River. This can be remedied by including the east bank portions of St. Cloud in MN-7, and putting Wadena back in MN-6 where it currently is (MN-8 2010).

MN-1, MN-6, and MN-7 in my map are the least change districts. While it might seem unfair to preserve the most underpopulated districts in the state, it is consistent with correcting the anomalous inclusion of St. Cloud in a metro district.

MN-2 preserves the core of the existing district, shedding areas outside the metro area, and adding Carver, and Eden Prairie in Hennepin. This can be regarded as a least change district.

This leaves MN-3, MN-5, MN-4, and MN-6 to form 3 districts. Least change is not to totally eviscerate one district and divvy up the spoils. Because MN-6 lost Stearns (most), Benton, Sherburne, Wright, and Carver (some) it is the least populated.

So we add it to MN-4 to its south with which it shares a long border. But this is over-populated, so we keep the suburban counties, plus suburban Ramsey. The excess is St. Paul which we add to MN-5. MN-3 then is restored to its traditional Hennepin configuration.

One might argue that the legislature coulda, shoulda, woulda, reconfigured all districts, but the fact is that they did not (or will not). While my plan may seem radical, it actually the most conservative and preservative of existing districts.

In 1930, Minneapolis was 90% of Hennepin; and Minneapolis-St.Paul was 28.7% of the state population. Together the Twin Cities were entitled to 2.58 of Minnesota's 9 representatives, essentially one for St.Paul and 1.5 for Minneapolis.

The Twin Cities continued to dominate through 1950, when Minneapolis reached its peak population. At the time, southern Minneapolis could be considered suburban, but growth to the west had begun, as Minneapolis dropped to 77% of Hennepin.

Suburban growth truly took off in the 1950's. In 1960, the Twin Cities dropped to 23.3% of the state population. Minnesota lost its 9th seat, dropping the entitlement to 1.87 districts. By 1970, the Twin Cities had dropped to 19.6% of the state population, and an entitlement of 1.56 districts. We could not have placed the two cities in one district, and Minneapolis still constituted 0.92 districts.

But now based on 2019 estimates, the Twin Cities constitute only 13.1% of the state population, and together with the loss of 8th seat, are only entitled to 0.92 districts.

An inner city district and three suburban districts, to the west, the south, and north/east makes demographic sense in 2020.

[jimrtex]

Is this with the 2020 census figures, or the 2018 estimates?

Are you referring to my maps?

If so, 2019 estimates projected forward to April 1, 2020.

I was thinking about a possible rotation. Moving MN-6 down to the Mississippi River, taking parts of Ramsey just north of St. Paul into MN-5. Putting Brooklyn Center, Robbindale, and Crystal into MN-3, and then pushing MN-2 up into Hennepin (Bloomington?). What do you think?

I can't really draw what you described, because I don't have your population numbers, and your verbal description confuses me, but if it entails an extra county or municipal chop or both, that would be a negative. My inference from the numbers I saw from replicating the metro part of your posted map, is that among other things, given that  Bloomington has more people than that the south suburbs CD absorbs than it lost in Washington County, suggests that it won't work, and Richfield is wedged in between to boot (see map below).

In other news, someday I hope to post an essay on this COI thing based on intangible factors. Even if real, rather than self interested partisan spin, sometimes it would seem to me to have divergent COI's in a CD, to incentivize compromise, rather than trying to maximize homogeneity.  Other times it would not, if it means one side of the COI divide gets all of the pie, and the other side none, rather than a compromise resolution. The migration towards the "Manicheanization"  of the polity, where each side views the other as just plain evil, that must be stamped out and destroyed, is just not my cup of tea, either for facilitating good policy or to avoid having to endure being exposed to very caustic commentary that reveals little other than ambition and anger.



Again, not knowing your population data, here is another possible concept.

You understood correctly.

It turns out that Bloomington + Richfield - Eden Prairie matches southern Washington.

It turns out that we get better population equality, better compactness, eliminate a county split, and improve the Hennepin-Ramsey balance in MN-05 to 53.5%-46.5%.

It appears that there is a modest black population in the inner St. Paul suburbs (7%) but a considerable and increasing Asian (Hmong?) population.

As Alexander Hamilton said, "if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent".



MN-1 (South) 0.996
MN-2 (Dakota-Scott-Carver) 1.000. Also includes Bloomington, Richfield, and Fort Snelling in Hennpin.
MN-3 (Hennepin-Wright) 1.005. Buffalo is about at the limits of commuting range, as you would spend an 1-1/2 in a car each day to get to and from Minneapolis, and it would be a grind when the roads are snow-packed.
MN-4 (Anoka-Ramsey-Washington) 0.999. Excludes St. Paul and Roseville, St. Anthony, Lauderdale, Falcon Park, and Little Canada in Ramsey.
MN-5 (Twin Cities) 0.998 Minneapolis, St Paul, and inner Ramsey suburbs.
MN-6 (Northeast) 0.998
MN-7 (West) 1.001

[Torie]

The "irony" of the discussion above  is that your iteration is probably the most favorable for the Democrats. The downside for some perhaps is that it reduces from 2 to 1 the number of CD's that would be hospitable to "bold progressives," leaving the other three metro based CD's  "at risk" of hosting "mushy moderates." Whether that concern has any traction with Mr. Walz, or Mr. BRTD, etc., I have no idea.

[Sol]

The panel is also required to adopt a least-change map. They have no authority to impose political judgment when they are only correcting for too many districts and population equality. When you lose a district, least-change is not necessarily little-change.

The panel will accept my proposal for the three outstate districts. The only reasonable complaint is splitting the St. Cloud on the county line/Mississippi River. This can be remedied by including the east bank portions of St. Cloud in MN-7, and putting Wadena back in MN-6 where it currently is (MN-8 2010).

How tremendously arrogant.

[jimrtex]

The "irony" of the discussion above  is that your iteration is probably the most favorable for the Democrats. The downside for some perhaps is that it reduces from 2 to 1 the number of CD's that would be hospitable to "bold progressives, leaving the other three metro based CD's at "risk" of hosting "mushy moderates." Whether that concern has any traction with Mr. Walz, or Mr. BRTD, etc., I have no idea.

Did you have a chance to read the decision from the redistricting panel in 2011?

Do you think that the legislature will pass congressional redistricting in 2021? Take a look at the partisan composition of the two houses.

If the two chambers of the legislature fail to agree, Tim Walz is irrelevant. His only leverage is to keep calling special sessions, and eventually the court will take it out of his hands.

The legislature will have no standing. The lawsuit will say that the legislature failed to legislate. The plaintiffs and intervenors will likely be front groups for the DFL and Republicans.

[jimrtex]

The panel is also required to adopt a least-change map. They have no authority to impose political judgment when they are only correcting for too many districts and population equality. When you lose a district, least-change is not necessarily little-change.

The panel will accept my proposal for the three outstate districts. The only reasonable complaint is splitting the St. Cloud on the county line/Mississippi River. This can be remedied by including the east bank portions of St. Cloud in MN-7, and putting Wadena back in MN-6 where it currently is (MN-8 2010).

How tremendously arrogant.

Why do you say so?

Do you believe the 5-judge panel will ignore the procedures and precedents from the past two decades?

[MaxQue]

The panel is also required to adopt a least-change map. They have no authority to impose political judgment when they are only correcting for too many districts and population equality. When you lose a district, least-change is not necessarily little-change.

The panel will accept my proposal for the three outstate districts. The only reasonable complaint is splitting the St. Cloud on the county line/Mississippi River. This can be remedied by including the east bank portions of St. Cloud in MN-7, and putting Wadena back in MN-6 where it currently is (MN-8 2010).

How tremendously arrogant.

Why do you say so?

Do you believe the 5-judge panel will ignore the procedures and precedents from the past two decades?

You're the one proposing getting rid of a centuries old precedent.

[jimrtex]

The panel is also required to adopt a least-change map. They have no authority to impose political judgment when they are only correcting for too many districts and population equality. When you lose a district, least-change is not necessarily little-change.

The panel will accept my proposal for the three outstate districts. The only reasonable complaint is splitting the St. Cloud on the county line/Mississippi River. This can be remedied by including the east bank portions of St. Cloud in MN-7, and putting Wadena back in MN-6 where it currently is (MN-8 2010).

How tremendously arrogant.

Why do you say so?

Do you believe the 5-judge panel will ignore the procedures and precedents from the past two decades?

You're the one proposing getting rid of a centuries old precedent.

What is that centuries old precedent?

[ilikeverin]

Although the archive isn't complete, there is literally not a single map on the Minnesota legislature's historical archive of CD maps that combines Minneapolis and St. Paul. Of course, House members were elected on a joint ticket in the 1930s, but that seems to be the one exception since the 1880s, when Minneapolis and St. Paul were indeed combined.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/457efc6a-abe1-4392-a284-fcfe34cab9b9
This is designed to be a Dem-friendly counterpart of the concept map I made previously. MN-02 is drawn to be "ideal" CoI-wise but also in a way that helps Dems; it probably moves very slightly to the left. MN-03 becoming more GOP-friendly is inevitable but I cushioned things for Dean Phillips by giving him some heavily Dem suburbs in the north of Hennipen County. MN-01, in this iteration, barely moves right at all. MN-07 gets eliminated, with Fischbach facing a primary with either Stauber or Emmer.
The MSP districts reflect the division between north and south parts of the metro, though the specifics of the border between 3 and 5 are very much in line with a laser-focus on helping Dean Phillips.

[ilikeverin]

Dean Phillips lives in Deephaven, which is in your MN-05 (it's on Lake Minnetonka).

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Dean Phillips lives in Deephaven, which is in your MN-05 (it's on Lake Minnetonka).

I know.
He'd have to move. It'd be for his own good.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/89e2c6e9-76ef-4eab-8810-8be2f1788a58
MN state house map based off 2018 population estimates

https://davesredistricting.org/join/c36c01ee-ebda-4f37-832b-2dd4e4bdbcbb
MN state senate

Criteria was: reduction of county splits, compactness, and reduction of municipal splits (from most to least important)

[jimrtex]

Although the archive isn't complete, there is literally not a single map on the Minnesota legislature's historical archive of CD maps that combines Minneapolis and St. Paul. Of course, House members were elected on a joint ticket in the 1930s, but that seems to be the one exception since the 1880s, when Minneapolis and St. Paul were indeed combined.

You may have missed my discussion about the relative population of Minneapolis and St. Paul and how that has declined over the years.

After the 1860 Census, Minnesota had two districts. The 1st district was a strip across the southern part of the state. Hennepin and Ramsey together had 14.5% of the state population and were entitled to 0.149 and 0.141 districts. Fillmore was the most populous county.

At the 1870 Census, Minnesota gained a 3rd district. The first two were strips across the southern part of the state, agricultural areas that we might consider to be North Iowa. North of that you started getting in areas less hospitable to farming. The growing season was shorter, the soil less forgiving, and more trees to clear. Had it not been for the Iron Range, this area might still be a great wilderness, inhabited mainly by Indians. Minneapolis and St.Paul were in effect the gateways to the Great North. They had dropped to 12.4% of the state population, and were entitled to 0.215 and 0.158 districts.

Minneapolis and St. Paul are favored as head of navigation for the Mississippi. St. Anthony Falls provide hydro-power. Both the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers serve to transport goods to and from the hinterlands. The two counties had 37% of the population for a district that covered well over half the states.

By 1880, Minnesota had 5 districts. This had been a period of rapid growth for Minnesota, but the two counties increased population share to 14.5%. The two counties were entitled to 0.429 and 0.294 districts. 0.723 total. The two counties were paired with Washington, Wright, Pine, Kanabec, Anoka, Sherburne, Chisago, and Isanti. Because they comprised almost 3/4 of a district, only a few counties were needed to make up the rest of the district.

The two counties exploded in the 1880s. Ramsey tripled in population and Hennepin nearly tripled. The Northern Pacific was completed in 1883, which was the catalyst for adding six new states to the Union. All this traffic funneled through the Twin Cities. The farmers of the Dakotas railed at their exploitation by the railroads and Minneapolis bankers and grain mills. The two counties jumped to 26.9% of the state population. The state now had seven districts. Hennepin was entitled to 1.072 districts, and Ramsey 0.809.

In an era where districts were defined by counties, it is little wonder that Hennepin had its own district. Ramsey added Washington, Chisago, Isanti, and Kanabec.

Growth slowed somewhat, and by 1900, the two counties had dropped to 22.8% of the state. But Minnesota had gained two seats. Hennepin was entitled to 1.173 districts, and Ramsey 0.876. The 17.3% excess was ignored and Hennepin remained a single district, while Ramsey was in a district with Washington and Chisago.

Heneppin gained almost 50% by 1910, and Minnesota gained a 10th seat. Hennepin was entitled to1.607 districts, and Ramsey 1.078. The two counties had 26.8% of the state population. The legislature failed to redistrict for the 1912 election, instead electing the 10th representative at large. My surmise is that they couldn't figure out how to handle Hennepin.

Eventually they divided not only Hennepin, but Minneapolis (at this time Minneapolis was 90% of the county, St. Paul was 96% of Ramsey. Ramsey became its own district, and would remain so through 1980. 10 of 13 wards of Minneapolis along with St. Anthony formed a district. The remaining 3 wards, the western part of Hennepin and Wright, Anoka, Chisago, Isanti, Kanabec, Pine, and Mille Lacs formed the other district (looping around Sherburne).

The three wards were those in northwest Minneapolis. Recall that in Minneapolis, "north" is upstream, and "south" is downstream, "east" is east of the river, while "west" is west of the river. Though Minneapolis is fairly rectangular, the directions are not orthogonal to the city limits.

Incidentally, if you are interest in historical ward maps (1905-1982) check here.

http://collections.mnhs.org/maps/index.php/10001848

There was not apportionment after the 1920 Census, and Minnesota did not redistrict. There was a redistricting before the 1930 elections, to adjust for annexation by Minneapolis. Previously, the southern boundary was 54th Street, so the city limits moved a mile to the south, except for the two notches at the southeastern and southwestern corners (that still exist).

By the 1930 Census, Hennepin was entitled to 1.818 representatives, and Ramsey to 1.006. Minnesota lost a district, but did not redistrict, so in 1932 elected all 9 representative at large. Interestingly, the delegation was five FL, three R, and 1 from 3rd party D, Einar Hoidale who had been the Democratic nominee for US Senator in 1930 ran well ahead of the other Democrats (all 9 FL and 9 R candidates ran ahead of the other D candidates). Most of the district R incumbents running at large were defeated, but several were returned in 1934 after the state redistricted. Under pre-1960 law, the outcome of the upcoming failure to redistrict would be to elect all seven representatives at large.

When they did redistrict in time for the 1934 election, one district consisted of southeast Minneapolis (everything south (west) of the river, and south of the Great Northern mainline southwest of downtown (roughly I-394). The other district consisted of eastern Minneapolis (northeast of the river), northwestern Minneapolis, the remainder of Hennepin, Anoka, Washington, Chisago, and Isanti counties. Over 3/5 of this district was in Minneapolis, and another 1/5 in Hennepin outside the city.

By 1940, Hennepin was entitled to 1.818 districts, and Ramsey to 0.999. By 1950, it was Hennepin 1.891 and Ramsey 1.072.

Minnesota did not redistrict between 1934 and 1962. That redistricting was triggered by loss of Minnesota's ninth district. By 1960, the two counties had 37.1% of the state population. Hennepin was entitled to 1.975 districts, and Ramsey to 0.990. The three suburban counties: Anoka, Dakota, and Washington had a population equivalent to 0.51 districts.

The legislature overpopulated the districts by current standards:

City of Minneapolis: 1.132.
Remainder of Hennepin and Anoka: 1.044.
Ramsey and Washington: 1.113 (Ramsey alone was 0.990).

Nonetheless this managed to withstand any challenged under Wesberry v Sanders,

By 1970, the two counties comprised 37.7% of the state, their peak share. Hennepin was entitled to 2.019 and Ramsey 1.001. The five suburban counties were entitled to 0.921 districts collectively (Scott and Carver were just beginning to develop).

The legislature produced more exact population equality. Rather than giving the metro area four districts (it was only 28,000 short) it propped up outstate districts.

MN-1 (southeast) came up from Rochester and took most of Dakota, including the areas just south of St.Paul, and Washington.
MN-2 (south) came up from Mankato and took the remainder of Dakota, along with Scott and Carver, and southwestern corner of Minnetonka.
MN-6 (southwest) began in the southwest corner, went up through St.Cloud and then down to include northeastern Hennepin.
MN-8 (northeast) came down from the Iron Range and Duluth to include (most of Anoka).

MN-4 included all of Ramsey, except for St. Anthony. This was the first time that Ramsey was breached.
MN-5 included most of Minneapolis, St. Anthony (both counties), and the Anoka panhandle (Columbia Heights, Fridley, Hilltop).
MN-3 included an odd sliver of Minneapolis and most of the near suburbs in Hennepin wrapping around from Brooklyn Park to Bloomington, Richfield, and the airport.

The sliver of Minneapolis is quite odd, following residential streets in northwest Minneapolis, going south a few blocks, then east, then south, etc., before jogging north and west. It would be interesting to know who lived north of 34th St. N, between Sheridan and Girard in 1971.

During the 1970's both counties lost in absolute population and the counties declined to entitlements in 1980 of 1.848 and 0.902 districts. The 6 suburban counties (now including Wright) were entitled to 1.282 districts. Collectively this represented 4.032 districts, and a 4th district was created in the metro area.

MN-4 now extended outside Ramsey for the first time since 1910 to include the northern bulge of Dakota County, as well as Newport in Washington County. Oddly, it lost its portion of St.Anthony, but not to the Hennepin portion of the city, but to the Anoka panhandle.
MN-5 now included all of the Minneapolis, and extended outward to include Brooklyn Center, Robbindale, Crystal, Richfield, and parts of Bloomington.
MN-3 included the rest of the inner Hennepin suburbs, as well as most of Dakota, Scott, and Carver. Physically it looks like a southern suburb district, but the population is concentrated in the western suburbs.
MN-6 included Anoka and Washington along with a broad swath of northwestern Hennepin from Brooklyn Park around through Minnetonka's, as well as big chunks of Sherburne and Wright.

By 1990, the two counties were entitled to 1.888 and 0.888 districts, while the suburbs were entitle to 1.535 districts. The total for the metro areas was 4.311 districts.

This meant that the out-state districts needed to encroach on metro districts. MN-2 (southwest Minnesota) took Wright, Carver, much of Scott and a bite out of Hennepin. MN-5 expanded out from Minneapolis to take most of the first tier suburbs to the west. MN-4 spilled over into Washington.

Hennepin was quadruple split, Washington, Dakota, and Scott were triple split.

By 2000, the two counties were entitled to 1.815 and 0.831 districts. The other 9 counties, now including Isanti, Chisago, and Sherburne, were now entitled to 2.019 districts. The metro area was entitled to 4.665. This was when it was switched to 5:3.

By 2010, the two counties were entitled to 1.738 and 0.767 districts. The 9 suburban counties to 2.253 districts. Collectively they metro area was entitled to 4.758 districts. If Minnesota retained the 8th district, it is pretty close to being able to release St. Cloud.

In 2020, the two counties will be entitled to 1.575 and 0.684 districts, 2.259 collectively. The 9 suburban counties 2.034 districts. Altogether, the metro area will be entitled to 4.294 districts. We trim off the 3 most remote, exurban counties, and create four metro districts.

The two inner counties have a bit over enough to create two districts. We create one district in the western part of the tandem, and the other in the east.

[jimrtex]

Although the archive isn't complete, there is literally not a single map on the Minnesota legislature's historical archive of CD maps that combines Minneapolis and St. Paul. Of course, House members were elected on a joint ticket in the 1930s, but that seems to be the one exception since the 1880s, when Minneapolis and St. Paul were indeed combined.

In 1930, Minneapolis and St. Paul had enough for 2.583 districts. Minneapolis alone had more than enough for one district and was split.

The 1930 Minneapolis population is greater than the 2020 population of Minneapolis, while the average district size is 183% larger, almost three times.

In 2020, Minneapolis and St. Paul have enough population for 0.918 districts. I added adjacent towns to get up to the quota.

[jimrtex]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/457efc6a-abe1-4392-a284-fcfe34cab9b9
This is designed to be a Dem-friendly counterpart of the concept map I made previously. MN-02 is drawn to be "ideal" CoI-wise but also in a way that helps Dems; it probably moves very slightly to the left. MN-03 becoming more GOP-friendly is inevitable but I cushioned things for Dean Phillips by giving him some heavily Dem suburbs in the north of Hennipen County. MN-01, in this iteration, barely moves right at all. MN-07 gets eliminated, with Fischbach facing a primary with either Stauber or Emmer.
The MSP districts reflect the division between north and south parts of the metro, though the specifics of the border between 3 and 5 are very much in line with a laser-focus on helping Dean Phillips.

Is your map going to get through both houses of the legislature?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/457efc6a-abe1-4392-a284-fcfe34cab9b9
This is designed to be a Dem-friendly counterpart of the concept map I made previously. MN-02 is drawn to be "ideal" CoI-wise but also in a way that helps Dems; it probably moves very slightly to the left. MN-03 becoming more GOP-friendly is inevitable but I cushioned things for Dean Phillips by giving him some heavily Dem suburbs in the north of Hennipen County. MN-01, in this iteration, barely moves right at all. MN-07 gets eliminated, with Fischbach facing a primary with either Stauber or Emmer.
The MSP districts reflect the division between north and south parts of the metro, though the specifics of the border between 3 and 5 are very much in line with a laser-focus on helping Dean Phillips.

Is your map going to get through both houses of the legislature?

The previous map I made had little chance to get through the Dem house, and this second map has little chance of getting through the Rep senate. Minnesota is likely to end up with a court map.

[jimrtex]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/89e2c6e9-76ef-4eab-8810-8be2f1788a58
MN state house map based off 2018 population estimates

You know that House districts have to nest inside senate districts? It could be better to draw the senate map, then split the districts. It it doesn't work out, then adjust some of the senate districts.

[EastAnglianLefty]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/457efc6a-abe1-4392-a284-fcfe34cab9b9
This is designed to be a Dem-friendly counterpart of the concept map I made previously. MN-02 is drawn to be "ideal" CoI-wise but also in a way that helps Dems; it probably moves very slightly to the left. MN-03 becoming more GOP-friendly is inevitable but I cushioned things for Dean Phillips by giving him some heavily Dem suburbs in the north of Hennipen County. MN-01, in this iteration, barely moves right at all. MN-07 gets eliminated, with Fischbach facing a primary with either Stauber or Emmer.
The MSP districts reflect the division between north and south parts of the metro, though the specifics of the border between 3 and 5 are very much in line with a laser-focus on helping Dean Phillips.

Is your map going to get through both houses of the legislature?

This is a question that could equally be asked of your maps, and the answer would be a definite no. Why precisely do you think that the Minnesota courts would be any more sympathetic to your opinions than any other Minnesotan?

[Torie]

Just why are the usual suspects of mapping nerds more obsessed by Minnesota than any other state this cycle? Inquiring minds want to know!

Ten years ago the center of the universe was Michigan btw.

I also wonder how many hours Jimrtex spent preparing his tour de horizon of the history of Minnesota CD's since the time that rocks cooled. That would have taken me a week or more.

[Biden his time]

All of you on this thread will be so upset if Minnesota's population is 30,000 or so bigger than expected and Minnesota keeps its 8th seat.

[ilikeverin]

All of you on this thread will be so upset if Minnesota's population is 30,000 or so bigger than expected and Minnesota keeps its 8th seat.

Au contraire. I think all of us defending Minnesota from jim's vile plots would be delighted for the glorious tundra to maintain its eighth seat!