2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Minnesota

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

MN does not have fajita strips? Who knew?

Oh, but it does!

https://davesredistricting.org/join/323e42f6-3aeb-4d96-8aee-64412f9bc87e

[patzer]

I tried making a map that's somewhat favourable to the Dems while still looking reasonable. No cities have been divided, and county splits minimized.

[Frodo]

Here is my least change court drawn map to put in the hopper. Not much happens vis a vis the existing map.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ecd8e1ba-c809-4be2-91f5-4e7c3a81b549

There have been lots of rather exotic-looking maps drawn in this thread, but if Minnesota (against all odds) is keeping its eighth congressional district, this will be the most likely (though boring) map to be adopted, especially given the evenly divided and split nature of the legislature.  So largely an incumbent-protection map with some minor shifts to account for population changes.    

[Minnesota Mike]

Here is my least change court drawn map to put in the hopper. Not much happens vis a vis the existing map.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ecd8e1ba-c809-4be2-91f5-4e7c3a81b549

There have been lots of rather exotic-looking maps drawn in this thread, but if Minnesota (against all odds) is keeping its eighth congressional district, this will be the most likely (though boring) map to be adopted, especially given the evenly divided and split nature of the legislature.  So largely an incumbent-protection map with some minor shifts to account for population changes.    

Yep. I highly doubt the new congressional map changes any more than necessary from the current one. State legislative maps will be far more interesting.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Here is my least change court drawn map to put in the hopper. Not much happens vis a vis the existing map.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ecd8e1ba-c809-4be2-91f5-4e7c3a81b549

There have been lots of rather exotic-looking maps drawn in this thread, but if Minnesota (against all odds) is keeping its eighth congressional district, this will be the most likely (though boring) map to be adopted, especially given the evenly divided and split nature of the legislature.  So largely an incumbent-protection map with some minor shifts to account for population changes.     

Yep. I highly doubt the new congressional map changes any more than necessary from the current one. State legislative maps will be far more interesting.

What do you see happening there?

[Minnesota Mike]

Here is my least change court drawn map to put in the hopper. Not much happens vis a vis the existing map.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ecd8e1ba-c809-4be2-91f5-4e7c3a81b549

There have been lots of rather exotic-looking maps drawn in this thread, but if Minnesota (against all odds) is keeping its eighth congressional district, this will be the most likely (though boring) map to be adopted, especially given the evenly divided and split nature of the legislature.  So largely an incumbent-protection map with some minor shifts to account for population changes.    

Yep. I highly doubt the new congressional map changes any more than necessary from the current one. State legislative maps will be far more interesting.

What do you see happening there?

I think you will see more impact from the population growing faster in the Twin Cities with the legislative maps than the congressional maps. Rural areas will probably lose 3-4 house seats and 1-2 senate seats to the metro. That should benefit the Democrats. Also interested to see if fast growing Rochester is split evenly again among 2 senate seats (currently both R) that also contain bright red rural areas again. If a senate seat is totally within Rochester that would certainly be a Democratic pickup. Little changes could make a huge difference in the closely divided legislature.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/kevinfeatherly/status/1410354644862357511

2 TPaw, 1 Ventura,2  Dayton.

[Minnesota Mike]

https://twitter.com/kevinfeatherly/status/1410354644862357511

2 TPaw, 1 Ventura,2  Dayton.

Panel is a backup in case the legislature does not draw maps on time.

[Meatball Ron]

How would one draw a least change map that results in the following:
*MN-02 becomes a few points friendlier for Dems (Biden +7 --> Biden +11ish)
*MN-01 becomes a few points friendlier for Dems (Trump +10 --> Trump +5ish)
*MN-03, MN-04, and MN-05 remain safe for Dems

Presumably MN-06, MN-07, and MN-08 take in even more GOP turf but what would the mechanics be here? Presumably MN-02 takes in some of the Southern part of MN-04, MN-05, or MN-03 (wherever the most Dem friendly votes are), and then MN-01 sheds some conservative turf to MN-07, but where do its Dem votes come from? Would love to see this mapped if anyone knows how.

PS - my interest in this is because this is what I would consider a "fair" / partisan proportional map for Minnesota. It's essentially 4-4, but since this is a Dem state, there's a Dem advantage in the sense that all four Dem seats are safe but one of the four GOP seats is competitive.

[ProgressiveModerate]

How would one draw a least change map that results in the following:
*MN-02 becomes a few points friendlier for Dems (Biden +7 --> Biden +11ish)
*MN-01 becomes a few points friendlier for Dems (Trump +10 --> Trump +5ish)
*MN-03, MN-04, and MN-05 remain safe for Dems

Presumably MN-06, MN-07, and MN-08 take in even more GOP turf but what would the mechanics be here? Presumably MN-02 takes in some of the Southern part of MN-04, MN-05, or MN-03 (wherever the most Dem friendly votes are), and then MN-01 sheds some conservative turf to MN-07, but where do its Dem votes come from? Would love to see this mapped if anyone knows how.

PS - my interest in this is because this is what I would consider a "fair" / partisan proportional map for Minnesota. It's essentially 4-4, but since this is a Dem state, there's a Dem advantage in the sense that all four Dem seats are safe but one of the four GOP seats is competitive.

I’ll try making a clean 4-1-3 map later. I think another option could be to have MN-2 take in Rochester alongside most if not all of Dakota County, while MN-6 gets pulled more in to Minneapolis and becomes a swingy suburban district that narrowly went to Trump, being mostly Anoka and Washington. This might screw up some COIs though.

However making a swingy MN-1 usually involves MN-7 shifting south leading to a weird situation with MN-8. MN geography is honestly really annoying because it seems like no matter what, 1 district is going to be “leftovers”

Also, MN geography is slightly unfavorable to Ds so a “fair map” from a partisanship standpoint is something one has to go out of their way to make; 4-4 map on 2020 numbers is kinda like the “default”

[Mr.Phips]

How would one draw a least change map that results in the following:
*MN-02 becomes a few points friendlier for Dems (Biden +7 --> Biden +11ish)
*MN-01 becomes a few points friendlier for Dems (Trump +10 --> Trump +5ish)
*MN-03, MN-04, and MN-05 remain safe for Dems

Presumably MN-06, MN-07, and MN-08 take in even more GOP turf but what would the mechanics be here? Presumably MN-02 takes in some of the Southern part of MN-04, MN-05, or MN-03 (wherever the most Dem friendly votes are), and then MN-01 sheds some conservative turf to MN-07, but where do its Dem votes come from? Would love to see this mapped if anyone knows how.

PS - my interest in this is because this is what I would consider a "fair" / partisan proportional map for Minnesota. It's essentially 4-4, but since this is a Dem state, there's a Dem advantage in the sense that all four Dem seats are safe but one of the four GOP seats is competitive.

I’ll try making a clean 4-1-3 map later. I think another option could be to have MN-2 take in Rochester alongside most if not all of Dakota County, while MN-6 gets pulled more in to Minneapolis and becomes a swingy suburban district that narrowly went to Trump, being mostly Anoka and Washington. This might screw up some COIs though.

However making a swingy MN-1 usually involves MN-7 shifting south leading to a weird situation with MN-8. MN geography is honestly really annoying because it seems like no matter what, 1 district is going to be “leftovers”

Also, MN geography is slightly unfavorable to Ds so a “fair map” from a partisanship standpoint is something one has to go out of their way to make; 4-4 map on 2020 numbers is kinda like the “default”

I think Dems would be OK with a 4-4 map as long as Craig is made much safer.

[ProgressiveModerate]

First attempt at a partisan fair map. Don't like MN-4

[ProgressiveModerate]

Tried a swingy MN-1; worked out a bit better I think. Anoka County is split 4 ways though.

[Tintrlvr]

Here is my least change court drawn map to put in the hopper. Not much happens vis a vis the existing map.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ecd8e1ba-c809-4be2-91f5-4e7c3a81b549

There have been lots of rather exotic-looking maps drawn in this thread, but if Minnesota (against all odds) is keeping its eighth congressional district, this will be the most likely (though boring) map to be adopted, especially given the evenly divided and split nature of the legislature.  So largely an incumbent-protection map with some minor shifts to account for population changes.    

Yep. I highly doubt the new congressional map changes any more than necessary from the current one. State legislative maps will be far more interesting.

On this note, is there a way to start with the existing Congressional map on the current version of DRA? It seems like there ought to be, and there has been in past iterations of DRA, but if there is right now, I can't figure it out.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Here is my least change court drawn map to put in the hopper. Not much happens vis a vis the existing map.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ecd8e1ba-c809-4be2-91f5-4e7c3a81b549

There have been lots of rather exotic-looking maps drawn in this thread, but if Minnesota (against all odds) is keeping its eighth congressional district, this will be the most likely (though boring) map to be adopted, especially given the evenly divided and split nature of the legislature.  So largely an incumbent-protection map with some minor shifts to account for population changes.    

Yep. I highly doubt the new congressional map changes any more than necessary from the current one. State legislative maps will be far more interesting.

On this note, is there a way to start with the existing Congressional map on the current version of DRA? It seems like there ought to be, and there has been in past iterations of DRA, but if there is right now, I can't figure it out.

Yes. On the home page, click on the state you want, then in that state, you should see option to "explore the state Senate and State House map". You click on the one you want. Once it's open, click on the paintbrush tool to duplicate the map.

[Meatball Ron]

Tried a swingy MN-1; worked out a bit better I think. Anoka County is split 4 ways though.

Thank you!

Agreed that a 4-1-3 is challenging to make seem clean given the geography

[Del Tachi]

Here's a 5-3 Trump map I like:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/836392aa-e28f-4064-a0a3-d232265d7236

Narrowest Trump win is MN-02, which he still won by 5 pts

[Tartarus Sauce]

An aesthetic, compact 4-4 map. Population deviation ~5,000.

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::2f56daab-e81d-46e4-9419-b25967dde887

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

A mostly clean 4-4 Minnesoda map. 

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0d176302-2a44-47d8-a5d5-a622218afb43

[Nyvin]

This could be considered a slightly cleaned up least change map.  I could see the state supreme court drawing this.







https://davesredistricting.org/join/7f034fda-12ec-49ed-9860-f1d526237634

No municipality splits other than the ones that cross counties.   No major changes from the existing map really.   

Don't see why MN-2 needs Goodhue, Rice, and Wabasha when it can get all the population it needs from Washington pretty easily.  Also this gets rid of that ugly western tail of MN-1.

[Minnesota Mike]

No municipality splits other than the ones that cross counties.   No major changes from the existing map really.   

Don't see why MN-2 needs Goodhue, Rice, and Wabasha when it can get all the population it needs from Washington pretty easily.  Also this gets rid of that ugly western tail of MN-1.

But you push the MN-04 (St Paul) into the exurbs.

[Nyvin]

No municipality splits other than the ones that cross counties.   No major changes from the existing map really.   

Don't see why MN-2 needs Goodhue, Rice, and Wabasha when it can get all the population it needs from Washington pretty easily.  Also this gets rid of that ugly western tail of MN-1.

But you push the MN-04 (St Paul) into the exurbs.

That can be fixed easily, but it requires a muni split in Anoka.

[Minnesota Mike]

No municipality splits other than the ones that cross counties.   No major changes from the existing map really.   

Don't see why MN-2 needs Goodhue, Rice, and Wabasha when it can get all the population it needs from Washington pretty easily.  Also this gets rid of that ugly western tail of MN-1.

But you push the MN-04 (St Paul) into the exurbs.

That can be fixed easily, but it requires a muni split in Anoka.

One other complication (or not) is Fischbach is drawn into MN-06 with Emmer. She lives just outside of St Cloud in Stearns county.

[Devils30]

If Dems win the legislature in '22, any chance they do a mid-decade redistricting?

[Mr.Phips]

If Dems win the legislature in '22, any chance they do a mid-decade redistricting?

I don’t know if the state constitution allows it.  In most states it doesn’t.