2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Minnesota

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Is anyone taking into account that the Minnesota Supreme Court is 5D-2R when drawing these maps? The notion they'd draw a map that combines the Twin Cities and hurts the DFL as a result is kind of laughable.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm not sure if Scott County is really a great fit with Dakota County--maybe some of the more Minneapolis-y parts like Apple Valley or w/e but isn't the bulk of Dakota more St. Paul oriented?

That's a really superb map--it's frustrating that a district combining the St. Paul suburbia and the Minneapolis suburbia has to be drawn, but after criticizing someone else's map for it earlier it became clear when I played with the boundaries myself that it's impossible to avoid.

The only nitpick I have is that Chisago and Isanti might be better fits in the Blue seat--they're kind of exurban Minneapolis zones like Sherburne.

If one was doing a California-style map which elevates CoI over county lines, I might would trade territory to put Elk River in the purple--but that's probably not the right approach for Minnesota.

You're overthinking it. No one outside of first-ring inner suburbs and/or who live directly east/west of the Twin Cities thinks of themselves as living in a "Minneapolis suburb" or "St. Paul suburb" or at least enough to particularly care about this or be combined politically. People are probably thinking of Eagan as a "St. Paul suburb" for example but when I'm not working at home my commute to there is about as long as commuting from certain areas in St. Paul. And because of the way I-35 splits Chisago and Isanti are about equidistant to both.

Combining Dakota County with Scott County is perfectly fine because both are thought of as simply "south metro". Also Apple Valley is 24 minutes from downtown Minneapolis and 25 minutes from downtown St. Paul to illustrate the point above.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And with the brown CD having a new design, you could adjust the mini county chops in the Twin Cities metro area between the red, tan and brown CD's like this:



It is quite surprising to me how many people some of those relatively far northern counties have, e.g., Crow Wing with some 64,000 people, a bit more than my county, Columbia, in NY has, which is hardly in the middle of nowhere. I wonder what life is like up there.

Crow Wing isn't really that remote. It's based around Brainerd, which is a regional center. It's not a very big town, but it does have what are basically suburbs even if that's uncommon for a town of its size, Baxter is about half of its size for example. As for what life is like up there, in addition to being a center for shopping and transportation for the whole region it's an area with heavy tourism, due to all the lakes. Lots of Twin Citians have lakeside cabins there. If anyone has ever seen the movie Young Adult, I'm pretty sure that "Mercury" is based on Brainerd (it's mostly likely a composite of various outstate Minnesota towns Diablo Cody had in mind, but the end result ended up resembling Brainerd more than anywhere else.) Also Fargo is mostly set around Brainerd despite the title. Frances McDormand's character is explicitly said to be the Brainerd police chief.

Also home to this amusement park, which I have many fond childhood memories of going to, and thus this music video really hit home for me (even if the band and song weren't both fantastic!)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here is a 5-3 GOP map based on the 2016 Prez results. I'm really curious if Biden won this hypothetical MN-4 district.

Why would the MN Supreme Court draw a GOP gerrymander (even if a somewhat mild one)?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hmong population in the twin cities is estimated at about 60,000, which is about 8% of a single congressional district’s population. I don’t think that their ability to elect the candidate of their choice would stand up as a rationale in court.

Who said it was a legal requirement?

Why should suburbs be placed in inner city dominated districts?

The argument made against a Twin Cities districts is "we don't like it" and we remember when Minneapolis had its own district.

But then you are conflict with the reality that you are chopping up suburbs to a greater extent to keep Minneapolis and St.Paul apart.

The answer to the second question is that's what the DFL wants, and the MN Supreme Court has a 5-2 DFL majority.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I seem to recall having this exact same argument ten years ago...and look what map the court drew!

And actually for that matter please also note the GOP passed map that Dayton vetoed that didn't combine the Twin Cities either.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also, if domination by a jurisdiction (or an “inner city”) is a thing we have a compelling interest in avoiding, why is it ok for Minneapolis to dominate St. Paul but not for St. Paul to dominate smaller suburbs?

Because Minneapolis and St Paul have more in common than St. Paul and Cottage Grove?  Idk just a thought

What do you think the DFL House leaders, DFL Governor Walz and the 5-2 D majority MN Supreme Court care more about:

-The wishes of DFL leaders to keep the cities separate.
-These sort of thoughts from random people on internet forums.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I seem to recall having this exact same argument ten years ago...and look what map the court drew!

And actually for that matter please also note the GOP passed map that Dayton vetoed that didn't combine the Twin Cities either.

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

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I seem to recall having this exact same argument ten years ago...and look what map the court drew!

And actually for that matter please also note the GOP passed map that Dayton vetoed that didn't combine the Twin Cities either.

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

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

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

You assume wrong.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

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

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

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

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

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

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

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

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

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

Which city is that?

Brooklyn Center.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

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

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

Which city is that?

Brooklyn Center.

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

Map was updated after my post.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So when drawing metro districts I think the important thing to keep in mind is that people in the north and south metros usually don't think of themselves as living in a "Minneapolis suburb" or "St. Paul suburb" unless they live in Hennepin/Ramsey County or one of the cities with "St. Paul" in the name, especially as the highway system setup means commuting to each one is about the same time. (East and West metro is different for obvious reasons.) However they do associate those areas together as a community. So keeping the Twin Cities separate from a community of interest perspective is important, but not the areas immediately to their north or south. But you also don't want to draw districts that wrap around one of the Twin Cities and combines both north and south metro areas because those are considered seperate CoIs.

For the record the 2011 map that DFL legislative leaders proposed actually did contain a south metro district of a string of first ring suburbs both south of Minneapolis and St. Paul. This was the easiest way to draw a strongly DFL suburban district pre-Trump. But I can't see them drawing a district that combines north and south metro areas unless it's an attempt at a pack seat, and I can't see a supposedly neutral court doing it, period.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So when drawing metro districts I think the important thing to keep in mind is that people in the north and south metros usually don't think of themselves as living in a "Minneapolis suburb" or "St. Paul suburb" unless they live in Hennepin/Ramsey County or one of the cities with "St. Paul" in the name, especially as the highway system setup means commuting to each one is about the same time. (East and West metro is different for obvious reasons.) However they do associate those areas together as a community. So keeping the Twin Cities separate from a community of interest perspective is important, but not the areas immediately to their north or south. But you also don't want to draw districts that wrap around one of the Twin Cities and combines both north and south metro areas because those are considered seperate CoIs.

For the record the 2011 map that DFL legislative leaders proposed actually did contain a south metro district of a string of first ring suburbs both south of Minneapolis and St. Paul. This was the easiest way to draw a strongly DFL suburban district pre-Trump. But I can't see them drawing a district that combines north and south metro areas unless it's an attempt at a pack seat, and I can't see a supposedly neutral court doing it, period.

What are the differences between the north and soth metro burbs?

South metro tends to be a lot more white collar and educated. North metro is actually pretty WWC. This is why for example Anoka County still votes well to the right of Dakota County (and even swung to Trump in 2016!) and that's even with that panhandle that reaches right down to Minneapolis.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That 2nd district is not truly contiguous as there's no bridge connection from Chaska to it. You'd have to cross over into the 6th to take a bridge.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Assuming Minnesota drops to seven districts after next Census,

It won't. We're projected to overtake Wisconsin by then.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Assuming Minnesota drops to seven districts after next Census,

It won't. We're projected to overtake Wisconsin by then.

That'd be interesting and I hope you're right. But what's to say both MN and WI won't each lose a seat?

The projections has us keeping one and them losing one.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Thought I'd see how close Minnesota could be to having a VRA district.

Here's what I got- the new 6th is 42% white, 28% black, 17% Asian, 12% Hispanic, 3% Native.

So... not really a proper VRA district yet, but things are heading in a direction where one may be possible in future.

That's not what a "VRA district" is. The VRA does not require that majority non-white districts be drawn or making those outlandish gerrymandered maps just to have them, and in fact this wasn't even done until after the 1990 Census.

What the VRA states is that if an area has a notable population of a certain protected minority community, then that community must be able to elect the preferred candidate of the community. (This does not necessarily mean "Black/Hispanic person.") Basically chopping up such an area to gerrymandered is not permitted unlike how the current Texas map chopping up the white part of Austin is. Since obviously every district covered by this area elects a Democrat, the preferred candidate of the minority communities, there is no VRA violation nor will there be any in the future barring any out of nowhere and very notable voting realignments.

(As for why those districts started being drawn in the 90s, it was because back then the South was full of districts that were like 30-40% black that mostly elected white conservative Democrats, which was legal under the VRA. But then the Republicans realized that if they could get most of the black voters into only one district and made the surrounding remaining districts only like 10-20% black they'd actually have a chance at winning them...so they under the table set up a bit of an astroturf campaign to draw black majority districts when possible under the guise of electing a black Representative. This was unfortunately then supported by some black leaders and in most of those states a Republican+black legislator coalition passed such maps, and the plan was mostly successful. [Just look at Georgia for the textbook example.] Today however it's kind of moot, the old districts would mostly just elect Republicans now and the Republicans would be fine with them.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

FWIW the panel that will do the redistricting has already been set up although they officially won't have any power until February, and has already done a "listening tour" of sorts. The five judge panel (four women interestingly) consists of two Pawlenty appointees, two Dayton appointees and one Ventura appointee. However one of those Pawlenty appointees (who is also the chair of the panel) is not particularly conservative, and he approached such appointees in an almost entirely non-partisan way and instead things like going based the recommendation of the local Bar Association. So I don't expect a rather R-friendly panel. However it definitely won't be a partisan D panel either, meaning it's unlikely any type of gerrymander will happen but it's definitely not a stretch to see Craig shored up.

I'm far more interested in the legislative maps, since with the population shift and bleeding of rural areas it could potentially be UGLY for the Republicans and I could see a scenario where they fail to take the House or even hold the Senate even during an R wave. Like the Democrats would gain enough seats alone just by population shift and Outstate losing seats, not to mention things like the now de facto gerrymander giving the Republicans two Senate seats from Rochester is no longer feasible even if the panel wanted to keep it as such.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.