2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Minnesota

[kwabbit]

My first attempt at Minnesota.

2 safe D, 2 Tossupish, 2 Likely R, 1 Safe R.

The two close Trump/Biden Twin City suburb districts. If I were to guess Emmer and McCollum would go head to head in the North suburb and it would be extremely competitive, although Emmer seems to be pretty strong so he might have the edge. Angie Craig would run in the South suburb district and would be favored. Hagedorn would reprise his role in the Southern MN district and would be favored, although Dems are stronger down ballot here. Stauber would win the Northern, although Dems have more down ballot strength here too. In the central Fischbach. In the Twin Cities Omar, although perhaps McCollum could run here too.

Now that I think about it, this might be the DFL's best chance to get rid of Omar but I doubt they do it.

I know now the Twin Cities are kept separate and I'll also make a new map with them in different districts.

[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.

[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?

[kwabbit]

MN-02 seems like it would be an easy flip for the GOP. Biden +7.2, but Craig underperformed Biden significantly, as did other MSP suburban Democrats. In a wave environment, that's tossup at minimum.

[kwabbit]

MN-02 seems like it would be an easy flip for the GOP. Biden +7.2, but Craig underperformed Biden significantly, as did other MSP suburban Democrats. In a wave environment, that's tossup at minimum.

TBF, I think Craig's margin was lower than it should have been because there was a Weed Party candidate on the ballot. But yeah, MN-02 is definitely a tossup this year.

Is the Legal Marijuana Now Party going to continue to be on the ballot? Their candidate for MN-02 actually died before the election in 2020, but still got 5.8%.