2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Minnesota

[EastAnglianLefty]

I doubt Ilhan Omar wants to take a heaping pile of Anoka County, which would vote against her in a primary. And she's very much part of the DFL establishment, so her opinion matters to map drawers unlike AOC.

I actually would argue that Omar may prefer taking in Anoka county rather than the surrounding blue suburbs in Hennepin.

Omar's big threat comes from a primary. Having Minneapolis in the seat guarantees her safety in a general, but a primary challenger could possibly take her down. Having the blue suburbs of Hennepin shores up Omar in a general-election sense, but it decreases her odds of holding down in a primary, since these very blue voters could turn against her (as many did in the 2020 primary).

Anoka county is much more red, which would make her seat closer than her current. But in the end, that's not the threat that she's facing down. Meanwhile, the purple county of Anoka comes with the benefit of having fewer registered D voters who could go against her Minneapolis base and depose her.

So, if Omar is looking to shore herself up primary-wise, Anoka is the way to go.

This is a very good point when you consider the map of her 2020 primary: https://www.startribune.com/see-which-minneapolis-neighborhoods-district5-precinct-map-carried-ilhan-omar-victory-2020-dfl-democrat-primary/568966621/

Pretty much all the precincts Omar lost were in Minneapolis' western suburbs or the bits of Minneapolis adjacent to them.

[Sol]

Even if there are fewer Democrats in Anoka County (and there are still plenty, especially these days), it seems plausible IMO that recently flipped Democrats in outer suburbs would be more against Omar than rock ribbed white liberals in inner suburbs and minority communities in Brooklyn Park.

[jimrtex]

Aside from what the final population numbers might be, this seems to be the most Dem friendly division of the Twin Cities metro pie. I am a bit surprised it has not been put up yet.  



Now all that is needed is to reverse engineer the COI argument. Well that prong of Anoka used to be or should have been in Hennepin, it is right next door to Minneapolis, and taking in the rest of Anoka just fills out the missing population, and BRTD has relatives in Coon Rapids to boot. The fact that Jimrtex would hate it is proof positive, because there is 100% correlation between what he wants and what is wrong. When was the last time he was even in a place known as full of nice people? We know it is never because he does not like spending time with nice people. That is why he lives in Texas come to think of it.

Moderators, absolutely nothing in the above paragraph is true. I admit that now. So it cannot be infracted because I just denounced it. Thank you.

Honestly, this looks like the most likely outcome to me (or at least something like it).  It's certainly D-leaning, but not so unreasonable that a solidly Democratic-leaning court like the MN SC would have any qualms about choosing it. 

I mean, it certainly makes far more sense than any map combining the Twin Cities (which is both a non-starter for anything other than an aggressive Republican gerrymander and with all due respect to those who disagree, honestly makes no sense from a COI perspective).  Combining the Twin Cities would make sense if you had Republican trifecta or a hyper-partisan Republican State Supreme Court.  However, we have a relatively partisan Democratic State Supreme Court (which was not the case last time). 

Why do believe that the Minnesota Supreme Court will be making the decision, and not assign it to a 5-judge panel as was done in 2001 and 2011? Why do you believe that the 5-judge panel in 2011 was biased? After all, the head of the panel Wilhelmina Wright was subsequently appointed by Mark Dayton to the Minnesota Supreme Court and by Barack Obama to a federal district judgeship.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The current maps Southwestern protrusion of MN-01 and Southward protrusion of MN-02, among other things, is a bit of a Republican tilted map, and its why Dan Feehan lost in 2018 and in 2020. There is nothing terribly outrageous in it, but the tilt is definitely there.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Aside from what the final population numbers might be, this seems to be the most Dem friendly division of the Twin Cities metro pie. I am a bit surprised it has not been put up yet.  



Now all that is needed is to reverse engineer the COI argument. Well that prong of Anoka used to be or should have been in Hennepin, it is right next door to Minneapolis, and taking in the rest of Anoka just fills out the missing population, and BRTD has relatives in Coon Rapids to boot. The fact that Jimrtex would hate it is proof positive, because there is 100% correlation between what he wants and what is wrong. When was the last time he was even in a place known as full of nice people? We know it is never because he does not like spending time with nice people. That is why he lives in Texas come to think of it.

Moderators, absolutely nothing in the above paragraph is true. I admit that now. So it cannot be infracted because I just denounced it. Thank you.

Honestly, this looks like the most likely outcome to me (or at least something like it).  It's certainly D-leaning, but not so unreasonable that a solidly Democratic-leaning court like the MN SC would have any qualms about choosing it.  

I mean, it certainly makes far more sense than any map combining the Twin Cities (which is both a non-starter for anything other than an aggressive Republican gerrymander and with all due respect to those who disagree, honestly makes no sense from a COI perspective).  Combining the Twin Cities would make sense if you had Republican trifecta or a hyper-partisan Republican State Supreme Court.  However, we have a relatively partisan Democratic State Supreme Court (which was not the case last time).  

Why do believe that the Minnesota Supreme Court will be making the decision, and not assign it to a 5-judge panel as was done in 2001 and 2011? Why do you believe that the 5-judge panel in 2011 was biased? After all, the head of the panel Wilhelmina Wright was subsequently appointed by Mark Dayton to the Minnesota Supreme Court and by Barack Obama to a federal district judgeship.

The current map doesn’t combine the Twin Cities the way your blatant Republican gerrymander proposal does, for one thing.  Also, the MN SC is significantly more Democratic than it was during the past redistricting cycle.  Nothing but a panel made up of the most hyper-partisan of Republican hacks would even seriously consider a map that combines the Twin Cities; the idea that doing so is anything but a non-starter is simply wishcasting on your part.

[lfromnj]

Aside from what the final population numbers might be, this seems to be the most Dem friendly division of the Twin Cities metro pie. I am a bit surprised it has not been put up yet.  



Now all that is needed is to reverse engineer the COI argument. Well that prong of Anoka used to be or should have been in Hennepin, it is right next door to Minneapolis, and taking in the rest of Anoka just fills out the missing population, and BRTD has relatives in Coon Rapids to boot. The fact that Jimrtex would hate it is proof positive, because there is 100% correlation between what he wants and what is wrong. When was the last time he was even in a place known as full of nice people? We know it is never because he does not like spending time with nice people. That is why he lives in Texas come to think of it.

Moderators, absolutely nothing in the above paragraph is true. I admit that now. So it cannot be infracted because I just denounced it. Thank you.

Honestly, this looks like the most likely outcome to me (or at least something like it).  It's certainly D-leaning, but not so unreasonable that a solidly Democratic-leaning court like the MN SC would have any qualms about choosing it. 

I mean, it certainly makes far more sense than any map combining the Twin Cities (which is both a non-starter for anything other than an aggressive Republican gerrymander and with all due respect to those who disagree, honestly makes no sense from a COI perspective).  Combining the Twin Cities would make sense if you had Republican trifecta or a hyper-partisan Republican State Supreme Court.  However, we have a relatively partisan Democratic State Supreme Court (which was not the case last time). 

Why do believe that the Minnesota Supreme Court will be making the decision, and not assign it to a 5-judge panel as was done in 2001 and 2011? Why do you believe that the 5-judge panel in 2011 was biased? After all, the head of the panel Wilhelmina Wright was subsequently appointed by Mark Dayton to the Minnesota Supreme Court and by Barack Obama to a federal district judgeship.

The current map doesn’t combine the Twin Cities the way your hyper-partisan Republican gerrymander proposal does, for one thing.  Also, the MN SC is significantly more Democratic than it was during the past redistricting cycle.  Nothing but a panel made up of the most hyper-partisan of Republican hacks would even seriously consider a map that combines the Twin Cities; that map was simply wishcasting on your part.

I mean his map is stupid but its hardly a hyper-republican proposal. In the end he even drew it with 4 Clinton districts.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Aside from what the final population numbers might be, this seems to be the most Dem friendly division of the Twin Cities metro pie. I am a bit surprised it has not been put up yet.  



Now all that is needed is to reverse engineer the COI argument. Well that prong of Anoka used to be or should have been in Hennepin, it is right next door to Minneapolis, and taking in the rest of Anoka just fills out the missing population, and BRTD has relatives in Coon Rapids to boot. The fact that Jimrtex would hate it is proof positive, because there is 100% correlation between what he wants and what is wrong. When was the last time he was even in a place known as full of nice people? We know it is never because he does not like spending time with nice people. That is why he lives in Texas come to think of it.

Moderators, absolutely nothing in the above paragraph is true. I admit that now. So it cannot be infracted because I just denounced it. Thank you.

Honestly, this looks like the most likely outcome to me (or at least something like it).  It's certainly D-leaning, but not so unreasonable that a solidly Democratic-leaning court like the MN SC would have any qualms about choosing it.  

I mean, it certainly makes far more sense than any map combining the Twin Cities (which is both a non-starter for anything other than an aggressive Republican gerrymander and with all due respect to those who disagree, honestly makes no sense from a COI perspective).  Combining the Twin Cities would make sense if you had Republican trifecta or a hyper-partisan Republican State Supreme Court.  However, we have a relatively partisan Democratic State Supreme Court (which was not the case last time).  

Why do believe that the Minnesota Supreme Court will be making the decision, and not assign it to a 5-judge panel as was done in 2001 and 2011? Why do you believe that the 5-judge panel in 2011 was biased? After all, the head of the panel Wilhelmina Wright was subsequently appointed by Mark Dayton to the Minnesota Supreme Court and by Barack Obama to a federal district judgeship.

The current map doesn’t combine the Twin Cities the way your hyper-partisan Republican gerrymander proposal does, for one thing.  Also, the MN SC is significantly more Democratic than it was during the past redistricting cycle.  Nothing but a panel made up of the most hyper-partisan of Republican hacks would even seriously consider a map that combines the Twin Cities; that map was simply wishcasting on your part.

I mean his map is stupid but its hardly a hyper-republican proposal. In the end he even drew it with 4 Clinton districts.

It’s still a hyper-partisan Republican gerrymander, he just did a bad job  And either way, it’s a moot point since we’re probably gonna get a Democratic courtmander here and combining the Twin Cities is a non-starter.

[kwabbit]

MN map with no county splits besides the necessary one in Hennepin. What is the chance that this would go through? It's essentially the same set-up as the current, pretty fair map, and would be 4 Biden/ 3 Trump in 2020. The twin cities districts are a little overpopulated, but population deviation has occasionally been accepted if it minimizes county splits.

I'm guessing population deviation would get more severe as time goes on though, so the map might get more out of whack by 2020 data.

[Stuart98]

There's no point to making no county split maps before we get census data, they're universally going to require extensive reworking.

[jimrtex]

Aside from what the final population numbers might be, this seems to be the most Dem friendly division of the Twin Cities metro pie. I am a bit surprised it has not been put up yet.  



Now all that is needed is to reverse engineer the COI argument. Well that prong of Anoka used to be or should have been in Hennepin, it is right next door to Minneapolis, and taking in the rest of Anoka just fills out the missing population, and BRTD has relatives in Coon Rapids to boot. The fact that Jimrtex would hate it is proof positive, because there is 100% correlation between what he wants and what is wrong. When was the last time he was even in a place known as full of nice people? We know it is never because he does not like spending time with nice people. That is why he lives in Texas come to think of it.

Moderators, absolutely nothing in the above paragraph is true. I admit that now. So it cannot be infracted because I just denounced it. Thank you.

Honestly, this looks like the most likely outcome to me (or at least something like it).  It's certainly D-leaning, but not so unreasonable that a solidly Democratic-leaning court like the MN SC would have any qualms about choosing it.  

I mean, it certainly makes far more sense than any map combining the Twin Cities (which is both a non-starter for anything other than an aggressive Republican gerrymander and with all due respect to those who disagree, honestly makes no sense from a COI perspective).  Combining the Twin Cities would make sense if you had Republican trifecta or a hyper-partisan Republican State Supreme Court.  However, we have a relatively partisan Democratic State Supreme Court (which was not the case last time).  

Why do believe that the Minnesota Supreme Court will be making the decision, and not assign it to a 5-judge panel as was done in 2001 and 2011? Why do you believe that the 5-judge panel in 2011 was biased? After all, the head of the panel Wilhelmina Wright was subsequently appointed by Mark Dayton to the Minnesota Supreme Court and by Barack Obama to a federal district judgeship.

The current map doesn’t combine the Twin Cities the way your blatant Republican gerrymander proposal does, for one thing.  Also, the MN SC is significantly more Democratic than it was during the past redistricting cycle.  Nothing but a panel made up of the most hyper-partisan of Republican hacks would even seriously consider a map that combines the Twin Cities; the idea that doing so is anything but a non-starter is simply wishcasting on your part.

The current map has one too many districts. You do understand that do you not?

I don't see that is particularly relevant about the composition of Supreme Court. You do realize that they won't be the ones drawing the map? Thissin is likely a DFL hack but do you think that he will convince the rest of the Supreme Court to change the procedures they have used the past two decades?

The Chief Justice who appointed the 5-judge panel in 2011 is still the chief justice. Do you think she appointed a hackish panel in 2011?

[jimrtex]

Aside from what the final population numbers might be, this seems to be the most Dem friendly division of the Twin Cities metro pie. I am a bit surprised it has not been put up yet.  



Now all that is needed is to reverse engineer the COI argument. Well that prong of Anoka used to be or should have been in Hennepin, it is right next door to Minneapolis, and taking in the rest of Anoka just fills out the missing population, and BRTD has relatives in Coon Rapids to boot. The fact that Jimrtex would hate it is proof positive, because there is 100% correlation between what he wants and what is wrong. When was the last time he was even in a place known as full of nice people? We know it is never because he does not like spending time with nice people. That is why he lives in Texas come to think of it.

Moderators, absolutely nothing in the above paragraph is true. I admit that now. So it cannot be infracted because I just denounced it. Thank you.

Honestly, this looks like the most likely outcome to me (or at least something like it).  It's certainly D-leaning, but not so unreasonable that a solidly Democratic-leaning court like the MN SC would have any qualms about choosing it. 

I mean, it certainly makes far more sense than any map combining the Twin Cities (which is both a non-starter for anything other than an aggressive Republican gerrymander and with all due respect to those who disagree, honestly makes no sense from a COI perspective).  Combining the Twin Cities would make sense if you had Republican trifecta or a hyper-partisan Republican State Supreme Court.  However, we have a relatively partisan Democratic State Supreme Court (which was not the case last time). 

Why do believe that the Minnesota Supreme Court will be making the decision, and not assign it to a 5-judge panel as was done in 2001 and 2011? Why do you believe that the 5-judge panel in 2011 was biased? After all, the head of the panel Wilhelmina Wright was subsequently appointed by Mark Dayton to the Minnesota Supreme Court and by Barack Obama to a federal district judgeship.

The current map doesn’t combine the Twin Cities the way your hyper-partisan Republican gerrymander proposal does, for one thing.  Also, the MN SC is significantly more Democratic than it was during the past redistricting cycle.  Nothing but a panel made up of the most hyper-partisan of Republican hacks would even seriously consider a map that combines the Twin Cities; that map was simply wishcasting on your part.

I mean his map is stupid but its hardly a hyper-republican proposal. In the end he even drew it with 4 Clinton districts.

Why do you believe it is stupid?

Minneapolis and St. Paul do have a community of interest. Why are they referred to as the "twin cities"?

[ilikeverin]

Aside from what the final population numbers might be, this seems to be the most Dem friendly division of the Twin Cities metro pie. I am a bit surprised it has not been put up yet. 



Now all that is needed is to reverse engineer the COI argument. Well that prong of Anoka used to be or should have been in Hennepin, it is right next door to Minneapolis, and taking in the rest of Anoka just fills out the missing population, and BRTD has relatives in Coon Rapids to boot. The fact that Jimrtex would hate it is proof positive, because there is 100% correlation between what he wants and what is wrong. When was the last time he was even in a place known as full of nice people? We know it is never because he does not like spending time with nice people. That is why he lives in Texas come to think of it.

Moderators, absolutely nothing in the above paragraph is true. I admit that now. So it cannot be infracted because I just denounced it. Thank you.

Honestly, this looks like the most likely outcome to me (or at least something like it).  It's certainly D-leaning, but not so unreasonable that a solidly Democratic-leaning court like the MN SC would have any qualms about choosing it. 

I mean, it certainly makes far more sense than any map combining the Twin Cities (which is both a non-starter for anything other than an aggressive Republican gerrymander and with all due respect to those who disagree, honestly makes no sense from a COI perspective).  Combining the Twin Cities would make sense if you had Republican trifecta or a hyper-partisan Republican State Supreme Court.  However, we have a relatively partisan Democratic State Supreme Court (which was not the case last time). 

Why do believe that the Minnesota Supreme Court will be making the decision, and not assign it to a 5-judge panel as was done in 2001 and 2011? Why do you believe that the 5-judge panel in 2011 was biased? After all, the head of the panel Wilhelmina Wright was subsequently appointed by Mark Dayton to the Minnesota Supreme Court and by Barack Obama to a federal district judgeship.

The current map doesn’t combine the Twin Cities the way your hyper-partisan Republican gerrymander proposal does, for one thing.  Also, the MN SC is significantly more Democratic than it was during the past redistricting cycle.  Nothing but a panel made up of the most hyper-partisan of Republican hacks would even seriously consider a map that combines the Twin Cities; that map was simply wishcasting on your part.

I mean his map is stupid but its hardly a hyper-republican proposal. In the end he even drew it with 4 Clinton districts.

Why do you believe it is stupid?

Minneapolis and St. Paul do have a community of interest. Why are they referred to as the "twin cities"?

Because they're two separate cities with their own identities that are located next to each other. Twins aren't interchangeable. Perhaps you haven't met many.

Sorry, Jim. No matter who draws the districts, they will be drawn by Minnesotans, who would never draw a district that included Minneapolis and St. Paul together, as has been testified by every Minnesotan in this thread, decades of years of map drawing, and even recent experience with this panel in 2000 and 2010.

[Nyvin]

I find it utterly hilarious how much of this thread is devoted to the idea of pairing Minneapolis and St Paul together...when that is never going to happen under any scenario.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I find it utterly hilarious how much of this thread is devoted to the idea of pairing Minneapolis and St Paul together...when that is never going to happen under any scenario.

Woke: pairing Minneapolis and ST Paul
Broke: pairing Minneapolis and Dulutch
Bespoke: pairing greater Minnesota with the twin cities
https://twitter.com/dhmontgomery/status/1363918368667918336?s=19

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I find it utterly hilarious how much of this thread is devoted to the idea of pairing Minneapolis and St Paul together...when that is never going to happen under any scenario.

Woke: pairing Minneapolis and ST Paul
Broke: pairing Minneapolis and Dulutch
Bespoke: pairing greater Minnesota with the twin cities
https://twitter.com/dhmontgomery/status/1363918368667918336?s=19

Bring back At-Large seats
 _{in democratic states with Republican enclaves}

[Stuart98]

I find it utterly hilarious how much of this thread is devoted to the idea of pairing Minneapolis and St Paul together...when that is never going to happen under any scenario.

Woke: pairing Minneapolis and ST Paul
Broke: pairing Minneapolis and Dulutch
Bespoke: pairing greater Minnesota with the twin cities
https://twitter.com/dhmontgomery/status/1363918368667918336?s=19

Isn't this illegal? I thought at-large districts in states with multiple representatives were made illegal in 1967.

[I’m not Stu]

I find it utterly hilarious how much of this thread is devoted to the idea of pairing Minneapolis and St Paul together...when that is never going to happen under any scenario.

Woke: pairing Minneapolis and ST Paul
Broke: pairing Minneapolis and Dulutch
Bespoke: pairing greater Minnesota with the twin cities
https://twitter.com/dhmontgomery/status/1363918368667918336?s=19

Isn't this illegal? I thought at-large districts in states with multiple representatives were made illegal in 1967.

It's just temporary until a new map is drawn. The 1967 law can also be repealed by Congress.

[jimrtex]

MN map with no county splits besides the necessary one in Hennepin. What is the chance that this would go through? It's essentially the same set-up as the current, pretty fair map, and would be 4 Biden/ 3 Trump in 2020. The twin cities districts are a little overpopulated, but population deviation has occasionally been accepted if it minimizes county splits.

I'm guessing population deviation would get more severe as time goes on though, so the map might get more out of whack by 2020 data.

If it were passed by the legislature and signed (or not vetoed) by the governor it might be accepted by a court.

The key is that you religiously applied the rule of minimizing county splits, while equalizing population deviation. In the past some states have claimed that they were eliminating county splits, while using them elsewhere. If a plaintiff could show fewer county splits while equalizing population they would demonstrate that the states assertions behind the drawing of the map were pretext (and/or outright lies).

For this reason I have moved Todd from MN-6 to MN-7.

Deviation:

MN-1 -1.3% (South)
MN-2 +0.5% (South Metro)
MN-3 +0.8% (Anoka-West Hennepin)
MN-4 +1.1% (Ramsey-Washington)
MN-5 +1.0% (Minneapolis, St.Anthony, Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Robbindale, Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Edina, Richfield, Fort Snelling, Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Chanhassen)
MN-6 -0.6% (Central)
MN-7 -1.4% (North)

Stuart98 misunderstands your concept. You are reducing county splits based on estimates, but you would redo your map if the actual population causes further variance.

In the past Arkansas passed two maps, one based on whole counties, and the other with adjustments to equalize population. The second was contingent on a successful challenge to the first. Everyone realized that moving the village of Arky Sparky from its county into another district did not really improve the map. In Minnesota could determine the adjustments needed to equalize, and then pick township(s) within a county with close to the required amount and move those. A further alignment would involve division of a township.

We could even score a plan based on the minimal subcounty adjustments.

The US Constitution directs that it is the legislative process in each state that prescribes the manner of congressional election in each state, subject to congressional override. Congress has directed that each state use single-member districts, and the districts be used for the election in year '2' following the census.

The state constitution and statutes prescribe the legislative process for each state. That is why Arizona can use a redistricting commission. The Minnesota constitution gives the power to draw congressional district to the legislature.

This requires passage in both houses by whatever procedures are dictated by the constitution, including the role of the governor in vetoing or signing bills, and calling special sessions.

The only role for the judiciary in Minnesota is to act when the legislature fails to act, or acts in an unlawful or unconstitutional manner. But in doing so, the judiciary can not apply political judgment. It is quite constitutional for the legislature to act as political hacks (the courts have been quite reticent to get involved in such cases). They can only act in a minimal fashion following past legislative judgment to the extent possible. In the past, the Minnesota redistricting panels have said they are more restricted than the legislature in equalizing population. In 2011, they directed that any submitted plans have 3 districts with population N, and 5 districts with population N+1 (or something similar since the state population was not a multiple of 8).

If the legislature fails to act, a Minnesota panel (1) will not implement your radical northern district. It simply is not necessary to create 7 districts which are based on past districts. (2) they won't permit any deviation.

That is why your map can only be implemented by the legislature. Which it won't, because the two houses are divided.

Conceivably the legislature could enact a law that says that any map must minimally split counties, while minimizing deviation, and keeping all deviation under 2%.

But the deviation can almost certainly be reduced by putting Hennepin and Anoka in separate districts and Dakota and Scott in separate districts. The concept of Urban County Clusters is to prevent such mischief.

Minnesota election law specifically defines a 11-county metropolitan area. The purposes in statute are fairly minimal - restrictions on poll opening times and limits on election precincts. But past redistricting panels have used it as the basis for forming districts. A panel might have problems with your MN-2 extending outside the metropolitan area, when it is not necessary. The court will also require exact population equality.

[muon2]

I find it utterly hilarious how much of this thread is devoted to the idea of pairing Minneapolis and St Paul together...when that is never going to happen under any scenario.

Woke: pairing Minneapolis and ST Paul
Broke: pairing Minneapolis and Dulutch
Bespoke: pairing greater Minnesota with the twin cities
https://twitter.com/dhmontgomery/status/1363918368667918336?s=19

Isn't this illegal? I thought at-large districts in states with multiple representatives were made illegal in 1967.

It's just temporary until a new map is drawn. The 1967 law can also be repealed by Congress.

It seems like they should have plenty of time to draw a map for 2022. The primary is not until Aug 9, 2022. Assuming the data is available by Sep 30, 2021 they could take six months to draw a map and battle in court and still have four months to get petitions and ballots ready for the primary.

[kwabbit]

MN map with no county splits besides the necessary one in Hennepin. What is the chance that this would go through? It's essentially the same set-up as the current, pretty fair map, and would be 4 Biden/ 3 Trump in 2020. The twin cities districts are a little overpopulated, but population deviation has occasionally been accepted if it minimizes county splits.

I'm guessing population deviation would get more severe as time goes on though, so the map might get more out of whack by 2020 data.

If it were passed by the legislature and signed (or not vetoed) by the governor it might be accepted by a court.

The key is that you religiously applied the rule of minimizing county splits, while equalizing population deviation. In the past some states have claimed that they were eliminating county splits, while using them elsewhere. If a plaintiff could show fewer county splits while equalizing population they would demonstrate that the states assertions behind the drawing of the map were pretext (and/or outright lies).

For this reason I have moved Todd from MN-6 to MN-7.

Deviation:

MN-1 -1.3% (South)
MN-2 +0.5% (South Metro)
MN-3 +0.8% (Anoka-West Hennepin)
MN-4 +1.1% (Ramsey-Washington)
MN-5 +1.0% (Minneapolis, St.Anthony, Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Robbindale, Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Edina, Richfield, Fort Snelling, Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Chanhassen)
MN-6 -0.6% (Central)
MN-7 -1.4% (North)

Stuart98 misunderstands your concept. You are reducing county splits based on estimates, but you would redo your map if the actual population causes further variance.

In the past Arkansas passed two maps, one based on whole counties, and the other with adjustments to equalize population. The second was contingent on a successful challenge to the first. Everyone realized that moving the village of Arky Sparky from its county into another district did not really improve the map. In Minnesota could determine the adjustments needed to equalize, and then pick township(s) within a county with close to the required amount and move those. A further alignment would involve division of a township.

We could even score a plan based on the minimal subcounty adjustments.

The US Constitution directs that it is the legislative process in each state that prescribes the manner of congressional election in each state, subject to congressional override. Congress has directed that each state use single-member districts, and the districts be used for the election in year '2' following the census.

The state constitution and statutes prescribe the legislative process for each state. That is why Arizona can use a redistricting commission. The Minnesota constitution gives the power to draw congressional district to the legislature.

This requires passage in both houses by whatever procedures are dictated by the constitution, including the role of the governor in vetoing or signing bills, and calling special sessions.

The only role for the judiciary in Minnesota is to act when the legislature fails to act, or acts in an unlawful or unconstitutional manner. But in doing so, the judiciary can not apply political judgment. It is quite constitutional for the legislature to act as political hacks (the courts have been quite reticent to get involved in such cases). They can only act in a minimal fashion following past legislative judgment to the extent possible. In the past, the Minnesota redistricting panels have said they are more restricted than the legislature in equalizing population. In 2011, they directed that any submitted plans have 3 districts with population N, and 5 districts with population N+1 (or something similar since the state population was not a multiple of .

If the legislature fails to act, a Minnesota panel (1) will not implement your radical northern district. It simply is not necessary to create 7 districts which are based on past districts. (2) they won't permit any deviation.

That is why your map can only be implemented by the legislature. Which it won't, because the two houses are divided.

Conceivably the legislature could enact a law that says that any map must minimally split counties, while minimizing deviation, and keeping all deviation under 2%.

But the deviation can almost certainly be reduced by putting Hennepin and Anoka in separate districts and Dakota and Scott in separate districts. The concept of Urban County Clusters is to prevent such mischief.

Minnesota election law specifically defines a 11-county metropolitan area. The purposes in statute are fairly minimal - restrictions on poll opening times and limits on election precincts. But past redistricting panels have used it as the basis for forming districts. A panel might have problems with your MN-2 extending outside the metropolitan area, when it is not necessary. The court will also require exact population equality.

Why was my MN-7 radical? Is it just a Minnesotan political faux pas to create a Northern and Central, rather than a Western and Northeastern? Or was it too underpopulated?

You mentioned Arizona, I read somewhere that their population deviation was quite large? Is that true?

[jimrtex]

Edit: Corrected name of Mississippi lawsuit. Pretty weird that I would associate Hyde and Smith with Mississippi.

I find it utterly hilarious how much of this thread is devoted to the idea of pairing Minneapolis and St Paul together...when that is never going to happen under any scenario.

Woke: pairing Minneapolis and ST Paul
Broke: pairing Minneapolis and Dulutch
Bespoke: pairing greater Minnesota with the twin cities
https://twitter.com/dhmontgomery/status/1363918368667918336?s=19

Isn't this illegal? I thought at-large districts in states with multiple representatives were made illegal in 1967.

Sort of. You are referring to 2 USC 2c. But when Congress enacted 2 USC 2c, they failed to repeal 2 USC 2a(c).

After Congress required single-member districts, they relaxed the standard following reapportionment.

A state that gained seats would elect the additional representative(s) at-large until the state was redistricted. If there were fewer representatives than districts, then all representatives would be elected at large. Further, states were not required to redistrict. They would continue to use their districts "until" they changed.

The US Constitution requires representatives to be elected by the people of a State, election by representatives by all the people of a State can hardly be considered a violation of the US Constitution.

After Wesberry v Sanders essentially declared almost all districts in the US unconstitutional, federal district courts were left with a dilemma of how to remedy the situation. They were reluctant to draw district plans, and they were reluctant to enjoin elections from being held - though in retrospect that would have been the wisest action.

So they fashioned a solution where 2 USC 2a(c) would apply until lawful districts could be drawn. Several federal district courts were threatening to impose at-large elections on their states.

Congress stepped in and passed 2 USC 2c. Originally, they had intended to delete 2 USC 2a(c) but for some reason that failed to occur. It had always been assumed that even without explicit repeal, it had been implicitly repealed.

But in Branch v Smith, there was a possible suggestion that 2 USC 2a(c) might come into effect in extreme circumstances, such as not only a legislature failing to act, but both the state and federal judiciary to do so.

But the actual suggestion in the complaint is that Smiley v Holm would apply. Smiley v Holm was a 1932 SCOTUS decision that a veto by the governor was part of the redistricting process. Drawing of congressional districts is a manner regulation under the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 4). The SCOTUS construed the word "Legislature" in that context as the legislative process rather than the body of the legislature. In other contexts (e.g. Article I, Section 3 prior to the 17th Amendment; Article IV, Section 4; and Article V) the Constitution can only be construed as referring to the members of the legislature acting as a group, but not legislating.

But when Smiley v Holm was decided, 2 USC 2a(c) was clearly in effect. In Minnesota, the legislature had passed a map, but that map was vetoed by the government. Because the legislative process had not passed a map, and Minnesota was apportioned fewer representatives than it had districts, the 1932 election in Minnesota was at-large for 9 members.

[jimrtex]

I find it utterly hilarious how much of this thread is devoted to the idea of pairing Minneapolis and St Paul together...when that is never going to happen under any scenario.

Woke: pairing Minneapolis and ST Paul
Broke: pairing Minneapolis and Dulutch
Bespoke: pairing greater Minnesota with the twin cities
https://twitter.com/dhmontgomery/status/1363918368667918336?s=19

Isn't this illegal? I thought at-large districts in states with multiple representatives were made illegal in 1967.

It's just temporary until a new map is drawn. The 1967 law can also be repealed by Congress.

This would require action by Congress. That is an oxymoron.

[jimrtex]

I find it utterly hilarious how much of this thread is devoted to the idea of pairing Minneapolis and St Paul together...when that is never going to happen under any scenario.

Woke: pairing Minneapolis and ST Paul
Broke: pairing Minneapolis and Dulutch
Bespoke: pairing greater Minnesota with the twin cities
https://twitter.com/dhmontgomery/status/1363918368667918336?s=19

Isn't this illegal? I thought at-large districts in states with multiple representatives were made illegal in 1967.

It's just temporary until a new map is drawn. The 1967 law can also be repealed by Congress.

It seems like they should have plenty of time to draw a map for 2022. The primary is not until Aug 9, 2022. Assuming the data is available by Sep 30, 2021 they could take six months to draw a map and battle in court and still have four months to get petitions and ballots ready for the primary.

Minnesota has a statute that requires redistricting to be completed 25 weeks before the primary (mid-February 2021).

The Minnesota legislature has not redistricted the legislature in the first legislative session after the Census since 1881 (sic). They have failed to perform congressional redistricting for several decades.

In 2011, a lawsuit was filed as soon as it was demonstrated that the population of the districts were non-equal. The court told the plaintiffs to cool their jets. In June 2011, after governor Dayton vetoed the plan passed by the legislature, (the Chief Justice of) the Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a 5-judge panel to redistrict. The Secretary of State (the formal defendant) argued that the governor might still call a special session. The court said, "that's fine, if the legislature does pass a plan by the February deadline it will supersede any map produced by the 5-judge panel. I think the actual judicial map was released in November 2011. After the legislature had failed to act by the February deadline, the court formally imposed their map.

I don't know how it will shake out this year since the legislature will believe that they won't be able to do anything until October.

The lawsuit relies on Smiley v Holm. You may recall this was the case where the SCOTUS determined that a governor's veto was part of the legislative process by which a "legislature" prescribes manner regulation. The Minnesota legislature had passed a map which had been vetoed by the governor. The plaintiff, W. Yale Smiley, argued that no plan had been enacted, and 2 USC 2a(c) should be applied. The defendant was Mike Holm the SOS (he was SOS for 31 years and served under 9 governors, from 1921 to 1952).

The SCOTUS determined that the legislative process had failed to produce a map, even though the literal "legislature" had. They also determined that 2 USC 2a(c) which had been passed in 1911 was still in effect. Traditionally, Congress had always enacted regulations for congressional elections as part of the apportionment act. In 1921 they failed to do so, and in 1931 passed a new apportionment but did not bother to amend or repeal 2 USC 2a(c).

As a result in 1932 Minnesota elected its 9 representatives at large. A new map was passed by 1934.

After Wesberry v Sanders, federal district courts were threatening to invoke 2 USC 2a(c). It was a slam dunk to find a state's congressional districts unconstitutional. Fashioning a remedy is problematic. It is abhorrent that the federal judiciary legislates by drawing maps (and has led to using the courts as a weapon). But they could interpret the language in 2 USC 2a(c) as "until the legislature enacts lawful districts". At-large elections are not contrary to Wesberry v Sanders

As a result, in 1967 Congress passed 2 USC 2c which requires immediate redistricting (the exception in 2 USC 2c applies only to the 1968 election for states which had always elected their representatives (plural) at-large (i.e. NM and HI). NM did district before the 1968 election, HI did not, and thus is the last state to have at-large elections for representatives.

When 2 USC 2c was first proposed it explicitly would have repealed 2 USC 2a(c), but this was lost along the way. It was generally presumed that 2 USC 2c had implicitly repealed 2 USC 2a(c). But in Branch v Smith, the SCOTUS interpreted it as applying in extreme cases such a legislature failing to act AND state and federal courts also failing to do so. This was really a side issue on Branch v Smith, which involved a state court plan where it was not clear that the state court had the authority to act, and in any event had not been pre-cleared under Section 5 of the VRA, and a federal court had enacted its own plan (maps drawn by state courts are subject to pre-clearance, those drawn by a federal court are not).

It is probably an exaggeration to say that Minnesota will have at-large elections, but it is a reasonable conjecture that they might if the state court does not intervene.

The SOS (the defendant) will argue that the case is not ripe. The court will agree, but will take jurisdiction and put it on pause, until events shake out. The goal here may be to establish state court jurisdiction, and keep the federal courts out. If the case goes further, other parties will intervene.

[jimrtex]

I find it utterly hilarious how much of this thread is devoted to the idea of pairing Minneapolis and St Paul together...when that is never going to happen under any scenario.

Woke: pairing Minneapolis and ST Paul
Broke: pairing Minneapolis and Dulutch
Bespoke: pairing greater Minnesota with the twin cities
https://twitter.com/dhmontgomery/status/1363918368667918336?s=19

Isn't this illegal? I thought at-large districts in states with multiple representatives were made illegal in 1967.

It's just temporary until a new map is drawn. The 1967 law can also be repealed by Congress.

It seems like they should have plenty of time to draw a map for 2022. The primary is not until Aug 9, 2022. Assuming the data is available by Sep 30, 2021 they could take six months to draw a map and battle in court and still have four months to get petitions and ballots ready for the primary.

Here is the complaint. This links to the Carver County District Court and will be available for about 30 days. I'm guessing it will get kicked up to the Minnesota Supreme Court at some time.

Wattson v Simon complaint (PDF)

You will be interested in an Appendix that includes a proposal for a redistricting commission, though I don't think can be voted on until 2022.

[muon2]

Here is the complaint. This links to the Carver County District Court and will be available for about 30 days. I'm guessing it will get kicked up to the Minnesota Supreme Court at some time.

Wattson v Simon complaint (PDF)

You will be interested in an Appendix that includes a proposal for a redistricting commission, though I don't think can be voted on until 2022.

I am a personal acquaintance of the plaintiff and very familiar with his views on redistricting law and reform. He's a national expert with few peers.

I haven't spoken to him about this, but I know he is very familiar with the inability of a divided MN legislature to pass a map in a timely fashion. He is also aware that the state justices went to a third party to create the current map. I think he's putting down a marker to be that third party or how that third party should operate.

I'm not sure why the tweet focused on large elections for congress, since that was more a passing comment as to one possible outcome. The outcome he would like seems to be a commission along the lines in the appendix. More importantly he has created plans using the criteria in the model legislation and asks that they be used absent a legislature-created plan.

One challenge for this thread might be to draw 7 CD plans using the criteria proposed for the commission in the complaint. It would be interesting to see how they compare to the map they drew.