2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Minnesota

[Oryxslayer]

It's possible to draw a 5-3 map if you draw a district that hugs the Wisconsin border and connects Duluth to parts of the metro (and possibly even Rochester), but the redistricting panel is not going to draw such a map.

You can alternatively cut the current MN-03 in two and add Rochester + the remainder of Anoka to the the current metro multi-district grouping. Obviously one of the five would be competitive but that's what happens when you can't slice the cities. Not losing a congressional seat doesn't change the fact that the 3 outlying districts need to gain pop - over 100K. The 4 inner will shrink, which could make room for a fifth. Here's a quickly whipped up variant that favors the Ds.



But I doubt we'll get any drastic changes like this and probably just more of the same.

If you mean Anoka by "Ankona" that's already in metro-based districts, but not the second (and it's nowhere near there.)

I don't think that map is particularly great for the DFL, the teal district might've voted for Biden but it wouldn't hold in any even mildly R-leaning year and that's not even a particularly safe district for Craig since it also threw in a bunch of Republican rural counties as well and cut out some of the more Democratic areas in Dakota County. The best way for a solid 5-3 is add Rochester to the 2nd as you did, add Mankato to the 3rd, and allow some other very D suburbs in it to be shifted elsewhere, and then create a Duluth to Washington/Ramsey counties district with some pretty Democratic inner suburbs while putting more Republican ones in the 4th and drowning them with St. Paul. But no way an independent panel is going to draw that, especially since they seem to pride themselves on mostly non-partisan maps and that's what everyone in their "listening tour" is begging for.

Of course the way to do it if you were wanting to gerry is get the NE corner involved, but if one is aiming for neatness, defensible COIs, as well as fairness, they you can't do anything drastic like that or pair the cities with red turf. Eggs would need to be broken and only one seat should reach outwards if one is observing those rules. This wasn't a laser-eyes Dem map, this was just showing you can get 4 reliably Dem seats - the two North/West suburban seats are both essentially the same 3 points more Dem then the state partisan-wise for all recent elections - plus a fifth D leaning one without any of: the northern arm, Rurban links, or multiple seats reaching outside of the metro. All those things would be obvious gerrymanders.

[politicallefty]

If you mean Anoka by "Ankona" that's already in metro-based districts, but not the second (and it's nowhere near there.)

Why hasn't Anoka County shifted as much to the left as the rest of the MSP metro? Apart from 2016, there's been little change in the presidential numbers in the past 20 years.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If you mean Anoka by "Ankona" that's already in metro-based districts, but not the second (and it's nowhere near there.)

Why hasn't Anoka County shifted as much to the left as the rest of the MSP metro? Apart from 2016, there's been little change in the presidential numbers in the past 20 years.

Percentage of population with at least a bachelor's degree:

Hennepin County: 50.1%
Washington County: 44.3%
Ramsey County: 42.3%
Dakota County: 42.2%
Anoka County: 30.5%

Anoka County initially developed quickly because the land there isn't particularly good for farming unlike the land south of the Twin Cities, so it was cheap and got gobbled up by developers and businesses seeking to build factories or open car dealerships or other things. So it developed as a place of cheap newly built housing with a mostly blue collar economy unlike the very educated upper class places that developed in suburban Hennepin County and the south metro. This also meant that the far northern half of the county filled up quickly with cookie cutter exurban housing while the fringes of the southern metro counties and even outer Hennepin County isn't as densely populated because it's still mostly farmland, so it has a higher proportion of those type of exurban Republican voters.

Even the "panhandle" part that reaches down to Northeast Minneapolis isn't particularly educated, although it's still pretty liberal and isn't working class in a Trumpy way at all, (Columbia Heights which voted over 70% for Biden and directly borders Northeast Minneapolis for example is generally associated with people like a woman who didn't finish college after she got pregnant as 20 and now works as a restaurant hostess or guys who couldn't get into a really good college or afford to go to one so they now work as a bartender and a rideshare driver on the side and are still really tied to Minneapolis, they're not particularly culturally white working class even if they technically fit the definition.)

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

BRTD, do you think Craig will get a Clinton district?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BRTD, do you think Craig will get a Clinton district?

Most likely since she'll shed some rural territory due to population shifts even in a minimal change map.

[Minnesota Mike]

MN House (DFL) releases their proposed Congressional map.

https://www.gis.lcc.mn.gov/redist2020/Congressional/C2101_0/maps/C2101_0.pdf

[Minnesota Mike]

House DFL plan On DRA. 2020 presidential results.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b3920b98-9aff-4c75-ba1c-b3d671b4af00

[Stuart98]

Wonder why they don't put Moorhead in MN-08; that would make it a Trump by single digits district without impacting the rest of the map.

EDIT: https://davesredistricting.org/join/6c7f3f54-284a-46bd-add4-d64397811242

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The DFL has proposed a map: https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-house-democrats-roll-out-new-congressional-map/600120119/

[Torie]

I don't think this orgy of metro county chopping to move the quad set of metro districts north, to unpack the 3 northern CD's a bit as they move north out of Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington, and thereby shove MN-02 north, as they slice off the southern exurban ends of Carver and Dakota, is going to fly with the Court unless it hews to the proportional metric, rather than the geographic metric, which has not been the case in the past. It also snatches away a  competitive district of course, so that it will forever be a boring election night in MN when it comes to CD results. So let's see what cleaning up the chop orgy does from a partisan standpoint. How many purloined PVI points are in play?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Strange that they actually removed Northfield from Craig's district. Trying to make the 1st competitive again?

[Nyvin]

Strange that they actually removed Northfield from Craig's district. Trying to make the 1st competitive again?

Yeah, I was thinking they're angling for MN-1 to be a target later in the decade.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Strange that they actually removed Northfield from Craig's district. Trying to make the 1st competitive again?

Isn't MN-01 competitive as is?

[Roll Roons]

Strange that they actually removed Northfield from Craig's district. Trying to make the 1st competitive again?

Isn't MN-01 competitive as is?

It went for Trump by 10 points last year, but Hagedorn is a pretty weak incumbent who significantly underperformed. He probably would have lost if a left-wing third party candidate hadn't been on the ballot.

[Torie]

Below is the cleanest least change map. MN-02 has a PVI of 0, and Biden won it by 5 [7.2] points - almost identical to the existing CD [the existing MN-02 being Biden 6.8%]. The Dem map is in LOL territory. The Courts are not going there, but I would not be surprised if they don't just stamp the Torie map and call it a day. If the Dems want to try to pick the partisan pocket in MN, they need to show more skill than they what they just published. What they did is amateur hour.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Below is the cleanest least change map. MN-02 has a PVI of 0, and Biden won it by 5 points - almost identical to the existing CD. The Dem map is in LOL territory. The Courts are not going there, but I would not be surprised if they don't just stamp the Torie map and call it a day. If the Dems want to try to pick the partisan pocket in MN, they need to show more skill than they what they just published. What they did is amateur hour.

I really don't think they are going to make Craig's redder. A Biden +10 district using Dakota, Scott and some of  Washington is very compact and clean looking

[Mr.Phips]

Below is the cleanest least change map. MN-02 has a PVI of 0, and Biden won it by 5 points - almost identical to the existing CD. The Dem map is in LOL territory. The Courts are not going there, but I would not be surprised if they don't just stamp the Torie map and call it a day. If the Dems want to try to pick the partisan pocket in MN, they need to show more skill than they what they just published. What they did is amateur hour.

I really don't think they are going to make Craig's redder

No especially given that the court is dominated by Dem appointees.

[Nyvin]

All the Dem proposal does to MN-2 is add more of Washington while shrinking the district northward by removing Goodhue, Wabasha, Rice, and a small portion of Scott and Dakota.    MN-2 needs to shrink by 19k people and MN-1 needs to grow by 23k people.  

How is adding Carver county to MN-2 in anyway at all "least change"?  There's absolutely nothing requiring that whatsoever.  Also adding more of Rice to MN-2 is a completely unneeded change, there's nothing pulling the district southward or westward in anyway at all.  All of the metro districts need to shrink so if you're moving MN-2 south or west it's for nothing but partisan purposes.

Expand MN-1 northward into the district that needs to shrink until you get population equity and then adjust MN-2 as needed.  That is least change.

The Dem proposal might have added more of Washington then they needed to, but at least that can be explained by the other districts needing to shrink in the metro (kind of explained anyway).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Below is the cleanest least change map. MN-02 has a PVI of 0, and Biden won it by 5 points - almost identical to the existing CD. The Dem map is in LOL territory. The Courts are not going there, but I would not be surprised if they don't just stamp the Torie map and call it a day. If the Dems want to try to pick the partisan pocket in MN, they need to show more skill than they what they just published. What they did is amateur hour.

I really don't think they are going to make Craig's redder

No especially given that the court is dominated by Dem appointees.

The panel is two Pawlenty appointees, two Dayton and one Ventura. The chair (Pawlenty appointee) is not that conservative though.

[Torie]

Here we go. It is not exact, because not only do the MN Dems hate county lines, they also seem to hate census blocks. Anyway, there is no point in depicting governmental jurisdictional lines, when it is all about red versus blue here. MN-8 and MN-01 shave the Trump 2020 margin by 3 points each. The taking of MN-02 off the competitive table is mostly about moving the heavily Dem and sizable city of Woodbury into it in Washington County, and shedding Pub places elsewhere plus the Northfield gift to MN-01 as BRTD immediately noticed of course.

Speaking of Northfield, I remember flying to a bridge tournament in Minneapolis, and sat next to this long haired guy with granny glasses with a copy of Gravity's Rainbow sitting in his lap. I said, hey you must be going to Carlton College right? He looked at me kind of shocked, and asked how I knew that. That would be telling I replied.  

https://davesredistricting.org/join/4a5b978b-6365-436e-8687-fc4fef70a799

Oh, what is this about MN-02 getting redder? It is the same in my beautiful least change map. Altas critters always seem to assume the courts are packed with hacks. That displays a shameful degree of cynicism and lack of respect for the courts. Cleanse thyself.

[Torie]

All the Dem proposal does to MN-2 is add more of Washington while shrinking the district northward by removing Goodhue, Wabasha, Rice, and a small portion of Scott and Dakota.    MN-2 needs to shrink by 19k people and MN-1 needs to grow by 23k people.  

How is adding Carver county to MN-2 in anyway at all "least change"?  There's absolutely nothing requiring that whatsoever.  Also adding more of Rice to MN-2 is a completely unneeded change, there's nothing pulling the district southward or westward in anyway at all.  All of the metro districts need to shrink so if you're moving MN-2 south or west it's for nothing but partisan purposes.

Expand MN-1 northward into the district that needs to shrink until you get population equity and then adjust MN-2 as needed.  That is least change.

The Dem proposal might have added more of Washington then they needed to, but at least that can be explained by the other districts needing to shrink in the metro (kind of explained anyway).

Well draw your own least change map pretending that you are non partisan. And then we can each submit are respective least change maps to the court in amicus briefs. Granted maybe you will want to argue the Dem map is the most perfect least change map, and incorporate it by reference. Nothing surprises me out there anymore. Nothing.

And why are we sure it will go to the state court? Wasn't it in the federal court last time?

No, my bad, it was the state court and they used the least change metric. The map this round of course would be a least change from its prior map. And the current map shows great deference to metro areas, jurisdictional lines and compactness. The court obviously was brainwashed by Muon2.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

All the Dem proposal does to MN-2 is add more of Washington while shrinking the district northward by removing Goodhue, Wabasha, Rice, and a small portion of Scott and Dakota.    MN-2 needs to shrink by 19k people and MN-1 needs to grow by 23k people.  

How is adding Carver county to MN-2 in anyway at all "least change"?  There's absolutely nothing requiring that whatsoever.  Also adding more of Rice to MN-2 is a completely unneeded change, there's nothing pulling the district southward or westward in anyway at all.  All of the metro districts need to shrink so if you're moving MN-2 south or west it's for nothing but partisan purposes.

Expand MN-1 northward into the district that needs to shrink until you get population equity and then adjust MN-2 as needed.  That is least change.

The Dem proposal might have added more of Washington then they needed to, but at least that can be explained by the other districts needing to shrink in the metro (kind of explained anyway).

Well draw your own least change map pretending that you are non partisan. And then we can each submit are respective least change maps to the court in amicus briefs. Granted maybe you will want to argue the Dem map is the most perfect least change map, and incorporate it by reference. Nothing surprises me out there anymore. Nothing.

And why are we sure it will go to the state court? Wasn't it in the federal court last time?

No, my bad, it was the state court and they used the least change metric. The map this round of course would be a least change from its prior map. And the current map shows great deference to metro areas, jurisdictional lines and compactness. The court obviously was brainwashed by Muon2.

It goes to a panel of five state judges and they've already been appointed. Technically the panel only has "advisory" powers until the deadline for the Legislature and Governor to pass a map in February is missed but no one is expecting that to not happen.

[Minnesota Mike]

All the Dem proposal does to MN-2 is add more of Washington while shrinking the district northward by removing Goodhue, Wabasha, Rice, and a small portion of Scott and Dakota.    MN-2 needs to shrink by 19k people and MN-1 needs to grow by 23k people.  

How is adding Carver county to MN-2 in anyway at all "least change"?  There's absolutely nothing requiring that whatsoever.  Also adding more of Rice to MN-2 is a completely unneeded change, there's nothing pulling the district southward or westward in anyway at all.  All of the metro districts need to shrink so if you're moving MN-2 south or west it's for nothing but partisan purposes.

Expand MN-1 northward into the district that needs to shrink until you get population equity and then adjust MN-2 as needed.  That is least change.

The Dem proposal might have added more of Washington then they needed to, but at least that can be explained by the other districts needing to shrink in the metro (kind of explained anyway).

Well draw your own least change map pretending that you are non partisan. And then we can each submit are respective least change maps to the court in amicus briefs. Granted maybe you will want to argue the Dem map is the most perfect least change map, and incorporate it by reference. Nothing surprises me out there anymore. Nothing.

And why are we sure it will go to the state court? Wasn't it in the federal court last time?

No, my bad, it was the state court and they used the least change metric. The map this round of course would be a least change from its prior map. And the current map shows great deference to metro areas, jurisdictional lines and compactness. The court obviously was brainwashed by Muon2.

It goes to a panel of five state judges and they've already been appointed. Technically the panel only has "advisory" powers until the deadline for the Legislature and Governor to pass a map in February is missed but no one is expecting that to not happen.

The panel of judges.

https://www.mncourts.gov/2021RedistrictingPanel.aspx

Two Judges originally appointed by Dayton (D),  two appointed by Pawlenty (R), and one appointed by Ventura (I). While they are not officially charged with drawing maps yet they have already have had 10 public hearings and have laid down redistricting principles and everyone expects they will end up drawing the maps. The DFL maps submitted this week and the Rep maps that will soon be submitted are just basically starting points for the court.

[politicallefty]

Here's the map I drew with the current lines overlaid:



It's not a least-change map, but I did have the current lines in mind when I drew it. I actually didn't look at partisanship until after it was done. The population trends within the state are pulling the districts inward to the Twin City metro. The most major change to the partisanship was the fact that I pulled MN-08 out of Washington County (opening up territory for MN-02), as I feel it is unnecessary to split the county between three districts. That also enables MN-02 to become a true suburban southern MSP district.

The DFL was pretty aggressive in trying to take MN-02 off the competitive table. My map takes it to Biden+9.4 versus theirs at Biden+12. I think you can definitely make a case for a huge northern district, but I think it's unlikely to come out of anything this decade (perhaps if MN had adopted a commission?). In terms of the broad strokes, the DFL map isn't bad. It's just very unnecessarily sloppy in terms of chopping up counties.

Going forward, MN-01 should be an interesting district to watch if it's drawn anything like my map (or the DFL's, which is extremely similar). Democrats seem to be holding up relatively well in the current iteration (as opposed to MN-08, which is gone). It moves about 3% to the left in terms of the overall margin compared with the current district. That would've been enough to hold onto the district in 2018 and probably 2020 as well.

[Torie]

The above map I think is more likely to fly than the Dem map. Here is a close to a very least change map that has MN-02 at Biden 8.2%. I still like my first map best however since the CD's are more compact, at Biden 7.2%. It should make for an interesting lawsuit, which is where it is likely headed  if the mindset of the legislature is even remotely similar to the posters on this thread.