2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Minnesota

[jimrtex]

Yeah, folks without Minnesota ties do like putting the Cities together, but that would never, ever happen (and I appreciate you acknowledging that it wouldn't!) unless Republicans got a trifecta and really felt like flexing their muscles. Keeping Minneapolis and St. Paul separate is sacrosanct.

Why do you want to crack the Hmong population?

[jimrtex]

Is the Hmong community in Minneapolis even that big? The Asian population is only about 6% in Mpls., and that's not all going to be Hmong.

They did elect a council member.

It appears that if you need to include Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center to pick up most of the Hennepin Hmong's. That would also increase the African-American population. There is a considerable Somali population in St. Paul as well.

Minneapolis and St.Paul are about 85K short of  sufficient population for a district. Brooklyn Center and most of Brooklyn Park would satisfy that. Maybe shave a bit of SW Minneapolis into the Hennepin district. I'd probably go ahead and include St.Anthony with Minneapolis.

So we have
Minneapolis-St.Paul-Brooklyn Park/Center
Hennepin
Anoka-Ramsey North-Washington North
Dakota-Scott-Carver-Washington South.

Perhaps bits and pieces of Wright and Sherbourne to get up to enough population for four districts.

We're going to have to cheat a bit to keep an "Iron Range" district while keeping it separate from the Red River. That may determine where St.Cloud goes, perhaps maintaining the current split of Stearns County.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

People in suburbs aren’t inherently worthier or better than people in “inner cities”, Jim.

What’s the population of the “inner city” within St. Paul?

The community among African-Americans, Somalis, Hispanics, and Hmongs, is strong regardless whether they live in St. Paul, Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center, or Brooklyn Park.

You've already crossed the Mississippi River in Minneapolis so that is not a barrier to be kept.

Who said anything about inherent worthiness, "Brittain33"?

[jimrtex]

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.

What's gained by crossing county borders needlessly to put them together?  Are people in inner cities sub-human or something?

Hennepin must be split. Are you aware of that?

[jimrtex]

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.

People in suburbs aren’t inherently worthier or better than people in “inner cities”, Jim.

What’s the population of the “inner city” within St. Paul?

The community among African-Americans, Somalis, Hispanics, and Hmongs, is strong regardless whether they live in St. Paul, Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center, or Brooklyn Park.

You've already crossed the Mississippi River in Minneapolis so that is not a barrier to be kept.

Who said anything about inherent worthiness, "Brittain33"?

What’s the population of the inner city of St. Paul that you argue would “dominate” the district of ~800,000 people?

A large single area of 320,000 population will tend to dominate the district. The representative of the 4th lives in Minneapolis, and for the 5th lives in St.Paul.

[jimrtex]

Yeah, folks without Minnesota ties do like putting the Cities together, but that would never, ever happen (and I appreciate you acknowledging that it wouldn't!) unless Republicans got a trifecta and really felt like flexing their muscles. Keeping Minneapolis and St. Paul separate is sacrosanct.

Why do you want to crack the Hmong population?

That's not what cracking is.  Also, it is tradition in MN each city gets its own district, I don't see that changing.  Neither party would have a reason to do that.  It would upset Twin Cities residents, the Dem base in the state, and make suburban seats bluer, which would upset Republicans.

It was also traditional (read: incumbent protection)  for there to be four metro districts and four outstate districts.

When Jesse Ventura was governor and redistricting went to the courts. The Democrats and Republicans both presented their hack plans, and Ventura looked at reality that the Metro area had close to 5/8 of the population (much closer to 62.5% than 50%), but short a little bit - so that is why St.Cloud is included. The court went with the Ventura plan which was not hackish. If Ventura did nothing else as governor he should be credited with this.

But the metro population is even closer to 4/7. So start with an 11-county metro area and start stripping off counties until you get to 57.1% (start in the North and work around counter-clockwise).

If you put two districts in the center, you have to have the suburban districts wrap around the large core. With one district in the core you have three suburban districts: one to the west, one to the north and east, and one to the south.

[jimrtex]

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?

The population of the cities is similar.

[jimrtex]

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

Clearly, the people who live there and their elected officials don’t agree. This view seems to be coming from people outside who see these large cities as an undifferentiated mass of “inner city” to quote higher up in the thread.

Yeah, it's pretty telling when every single Minnesotan who's wandered into this thread has been shocked and horrified to hear this proposed seriously (rather than as an intellectual exercise, which it is interesting to think about that way). I think folks in Cottage Grove would be pretty upset to see themselves geographically clustered with, say, Bloomington or Coon Rapids rather than with St. Paul.

Not as shocked as if they were clustered with Duluth, Moorhead, or Mankato.

I suspect they would see them clustered with the rest of Washington County and the northern part of Ramsey County.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

Uhmmm...how can you be this dense?  This is unequivocally not a racial thing.  A unified MSP district is not even 1/3 non-white (30.8%).  Such a district logically results from a thought exercise that groups the most similar places in MN together based on several non-political criteria (i.e., density, demographics, history, development, transportation, etc.)  More concretely, Longfellow and Highland Park simply have a lot more in common than Longfellow and Hopkins or Highland Park and Cottage Grove do.  Moreso, this approach is even more justifiable from a racial standpoint because it would combine all of the predominantly Black/Asian neighborhoods in MSP into a single district where these communities would have a better chance of representation aligned with their actual population rather than being sidelined as politically irrelevant constituencies in White, suburb-heavy split districts.  Separating the two cities is a de facto racial crack of MSP.

This might be a convincing argument if jimrtex hadn't been making transparently bad faith claims that an MSP district was required to avoid cracking the Hmong population.

I never said it was a requirement. But it is a desirable outcome. I even added Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park to recognize to movement of Hmong (and African Americans) out of North Minneapolis.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

IMO Pine County is probably the best place to split between the great northern and St. Cloudish district, unless there's a county with more internally distinct communities of interest.

There is no reason to divide smaller counties.

Start with the 5 inner Metro counties, and add in Scott, Carver, (Wright, Sherbourne, Chisago, and Isanti) one at a time until you get as close to the 4/7 of the population as possible. The last four can be any order based on which get you to 4/7.

Simply divide the rest of the state into three districts using whole counties, making swaps as necessary to improve equality.

[jimrtex]

Have Minor Civil Divisions (townships) been disestablished in Hennepin County?

They are not in the Census Estimates file.

[jimrtex]

We note that the Metro Area has about 4/7 of the population.

Beginning with the 5-county core, we add Scott and Carver, which gets us to 3.880 district equivalents. Scott is clearly the 6th county, and because 2/3 of its population is in the southeastern panhandle (Chaska, Chanhassen, Victoria, Carver) Carver is the 7th.

Wright and Sherburne are suburban fringe trending into exurban, or in the case of Sherburne moving into the St. Cloud area. Chisago and Isanti are more pure exurban plays.

Sherburne has about the right population to take us to 4 districts. Nonetheless, we add Wright because it makes for a more compact metro area, there are several cities on the Wright-Hennepin line, and keeping Sherburne with Chisago and Isanti provides more population for maintaining the northeast district.

About 70% of Wright's population will be in the Metro districts.



We now simply need to draw a 3-district map and a 4-district map, dividing Wright as we produce the final map.

[jimrtex]

Division into three districts is straightforward and maintains the current distribution. The metro area (was and is) short of 5/8 of the population, 4/7 is a better fit, so all of the outstate districts push inward toward the Twin Cities.



Population:

MN-1 (South) 0.996
MN-6 (Northeast) 1.004
MN-7 (West) 1.000

I'm trying to maintain district numbers. Since MN-8 can't maintain its number, I let MN-7 maintain its number.

Inclusion of Lake of the Woods in MN-6 slightly overpopulates the district but keeps most of Red Lake Indian Reservation in the district. I would also include the portion of the reservation in Clearwater.

The hearings in Bemidji and Brainerd indicated a preference to maintaining more of the current boundaries with the Red Lake Indian Reservation being in MN-7, and Hubbard and Wadena remaining in MN-6.

My map drawers are working on the change.

The placement of Pipestone and Sibley is based solely on population. If more flexibility is permitted in population deviation, they would be swapped.

[jimrtex]

Division into three districts is straightforward and maintains the current distribution. The metro area (was and is) short of 5/8 of the population, 4/7 is a better fit, so all of the outstate districts push inward toward the Twin Cities.



Population:

MN-1 (South) 0.996
MN-6 (Northeast) 1.004
MN-7 (West) 1.000

I'm trying to maintain district numbers. Since MN-8 can't maintain its number, I let MN-7 maintain its number.

Inclusion of Lake of the Woods in MN-6 slightly overpopulates the district but keeps most of Red Lake Indian Reservation in the district. I would also include the portion of the reservation in Clearwater.

The hearings in Bemidji and Brainerd indicated a preference to maintaining more of the current boundaries with the Red Lake Indian Reservation being in MN-7, and Hubbard and Wadena remaining in MN-6.

My map drawers are working on the change.

The placement of Pipestone and Sibley is based solely on population. If more flexibility is permitted in population deviation, they would be swapped.

This map switches Beltrami and Lake of the Woods for Hubbard and Todd to better match the current districts. I put Hubbard and Todd in MN-6 rather than the current Hubbard and Wadena for population regions.

Beltrami and Lake of Woods puts the White Lake and Red Lake reservations together in MN-7. I seem to recall that there was some reason that the Leech Lake reservation wanted to be in a different district. This map also puts the four southwestern townships of Beltrami (Ten Lake, Sugar Bush, Brook Lake, and Moose Lake) into MN-6 so as to keep all of Leech Lake reservation in the district. Presumably, maintaining whole reservations would take precedence over maintaining whole counties.



MN-1 (South) 0.996
MN-6 (Northeast) 1.000
MN-7 (West) + MN-2,3,4,5 (Metro) = 5.004 = average 1.001.

[jimrtex]

These are my final maps. I think the split of Wright worked particularly well.





MN-1 (South) 0.996
MN-2 (Dakota-Scott-Carver) 0.992 Also includes the southern of Washington similar to the current map; and Eden Prairie and the tiny bit of Chanhassen in Hennepin. This is to balance population. Eden Prairie is a good fit at the Carver-Scott junction, and with Chaska and Chanhassen.
MN-3 (Hennepin-Wright) 0.991 Buffalo is about at the limits of commuting range, as you would spend an 1-1/2 in a car each day to get to and from Minneapolis, and it would be a grind when the roads are snow-packed.
MN-4 (Anoka-Ramsey-Washington) 1.006 Excludes St. Paul and St.Anthony in Ramsey and the southern part of Washington
MN-5 (Twin Cities) 1.014 Brooklyn Park was too large, so I added Robbindale and Crystal instead. Both have an increasing black population which might be approaching 20%. St. Anthony (Hennepin and Ramsey parts) was added to avoid a quadruple split of Hennepin County.
MN-6 (Northeast) 0.998
MN-7 (West) 1.001

[jimrtex]

Is this with the 2020 census figures, or the 2018 estimates?

Are you referring to my maps?

If so, 2019 estimates projected forward to April 1, 2020.

I was thinking about a possible rotation. Moving MN-6 down to the Mississippi River, taking parts of Ramsey just north of St. Paul into MN-5. Putting Brooklyn Center, Robbindale, and Crystal into MN-3, and then pushing MN-2 up into Hennepin (Bloomington?). What do you think?

[jimrtex]

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?

[jimrtex]

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?

[jimrtex]

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?

Whether BRTD is deferential to Walz is not relevant. He is saying he has some knowledge of DFL politics, and based on that, he believes Walz hates it, and the DFL controlled MN Supreme Court hates it, so even if the concept is even better than the Greek ideal of perfection, the concept is going to be dumped in the trash can.

So that leaves you to make the case that what the power players want is misguided, not in their best interest, whatever. As I recall, most of the predictions as to how maps will look on here, or elsewhere, typically prove to be the antithesis of clairvoyance. The only one that was spot on was one that I drew that was adopted into law "as is."  

The state is already preparing for a scenario where the legislature fails to redistrict, as happened after 2001 and 2011.

Congressional and Legislative Redistricting 2020: Timeline Scenarios (PDF)

It is likely the second scenario will happen.

In both decades the Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a special redistricting panel of five judges, who conducted a public process (they did not hide behind closed chambers with DFL operatives such as BRTD. Here is the judgment of the panel in 2012.

Hippert v. Ritchie

The Minnesota Constitution permits the legislature to redistrict congressional districts. Of course this is mandatory under modern circumstances. Minnesota statute requires it to be completed 25 weeks before the 2022 primary.

Whenever the apportionment numbers are announced, suit will be filed claiming that Minnesota does not have 7 congressional districts. The Minnesota Supreme Court will take jurisdiction, but stay further action in case the legislature fails to act. The court only can intervene to correct for legislative action.

Because of the late data release Walz will probably have to call a special session. The Senate is unlikely to approve the House map and vice versa. Certainly no map that stretches from Fargo to Duluth and beyond will pass. DFL legislators in these areas will defect. Legislators tend to be parochial when it comes to district maps. Some will get bent out of shape on a legislative map. If you are being paired with another legislator you are a NO vote. Tim Walz is a non-entity in the process. He can only sign or veto bills and call special sessions.

At some point, Walz will give up and tell the Supreme Court to draw the lines. They will appoint a special panel of judges just as happened in 2001 and 2011.

They will note that plans considered by the legislature have no standing. Actual plans pass by a legislature reflect legislative intent, and even if parts are illegal, the judiciary should give them deference.

Following the analysis done in 2011, the panel will note that the Metro area is way short of the 71.4% needed for 5/7 of the districts. They will also note that extending the Metro districts out to St. Cloud was merely the least worst option, and at that time most public comments were that Stillwater and St. Cloud had nothing in common.

At the same time, if you trim Sherburne, part of Wright, and the counties south of Scott and Dakota, you are at 4/7.

The panel is also required to adopt a least-change map. They have no authority to impose political judgment when they are only correcting for too many districts and population equality. When you lose a district, least-change is not necessarily little-change.

The panel will accept my proposal for the three outstate districts. The only reasonable complaint is splitting the St. Cloud on the county line/Mississippi River. This can be remedied by including the east bank portions of St. Cloud in MN-7, and putting Wadena back in MN-6 where it currently is (MN-8 2010).

MN-1, MN-6, and MN-7 in my map are the least change districts. While it might seem unfair to preserve the most underpopulated districts in the state, it is consistent with correcting the anomalous inclusion of St. Cloud in a metro district.

MN-2 preserves the core of the existing district, shedding areas outside the metro area, and adding Carver, and Eden Prairie in Hennepin. This can be regarded as a least change district.

This leaves MN-3, MN-5, MN-4, and MN-6 to form 3 districts. Least change is not to totally eviscerate one district and divvy up the spoils. Because MN-6 lost Stearns (most), Benton, Sherburne, Wright, and Carver (some) it is the least populated.

So we add it to MN-4 to its south with which it shares a long border. But this is over-populated, so we keep the suburban counties, plus suburban Ramsey. The excess is St. Paul which we add to MN-5. MN-3 then is restored to its traditional Hennepin configuration.

One might argue that the legislature coulda, shoulda, woulda, reconfigured all districts, but the fact is that they did not (or will not). While my plan may seem radical, it actually the most conservative and preservative of existing districts.

In 1930, Minneapolis was 90% of Hennepin; and Minneapolis-St.Paul was 28.7% of the state population. Together the Twin Cities were entitled to 2.58 of Minnesota's 9 representatives, essentially one for St.Paul and 1.5 for Minneapolis.

The Twin Cities continued to dominate through 1950, when Minneapolis reached its peak population. At the time, southern Minneapolis could be considered suburban, but growth to the west had begun, as Minneapolis dropped to 77% of Hennepin.

Suburban growth truly took off in the 1950's. In 1960, the Twin Cities dropped to 23.3% of the state population. Minnesota lost its 9th seat, dropping the entitlement to 1.87 districts. By 1970, the Twin Cities had dropped to 19.6% of the state population, and an entitlement of 1.56 districts. We could not have placed the two cities in one district, and Minneapolis still constituted 0.92 districts.

But now based on 2019 estimates, the Twin Cities constitute only 13.1% of the state population, and together with the loss of 8th seat, are only entitled to 0.92 districts.

An inner city district and three suburban districts, to the west, the south, and north/east makes demographic sense in 2020.

[jimrtex]

Is this with the 2020 census figures, or the 2018 estimates?

Are you referring to my maps?

If so, 2019 estimates projected forward to April 1, 2020.

I was thinking about a possible rotation. Moving MN-6 down to the Mississippi River, taking parts of Ramsey just north of St. Paul into MN-5. Putting Brooklyn Center, Robbindale, and Crystal into MN-3, and then pushing MN-2 up into Hennepin (Bloomington?). What do you think?

I can't really draw what you described, because I don't have your population numbers, and your verbal description confuses me, but if it entails an extra county or municipal chop or both, that would be a negative. My inference from the numbers I saw from replicating the metro part of your posted map, is that among other things, given that  Bloomington has more people than that the south suburbs CD absorbs than it lost in Washington County, suggests that it won't work, and Richfield is wedged in between to boot (see map below).

In other news, someday I hope to post an essay on this COI thing based on intangible factors. Even if real, rather than self interested partisan spin, sometimes it would seem to me to have divergent COI's in a CD, to incentivize compromise, rather than trying to maximize homogeneity.  Other times it would not, if it means one side of the COI divide gets all of the pie, and the other side none, rather than a compromise resolution. The migration towards the "Manicheanization"  of the polity, where each side views the other as just plain evil, that must be stamped out and destroyed, is just not my cup of tea, either for facilitating good policy or to avoid having to endure being exposed to very caustic commentary that reveals little other than ambition and anger.



Again, not knowing your population data, here is another possible concept.

You understood correctly.

It turns out that Bloomington + Richfield - Eden Prairie matches southern Washington.

It turns out that we get better population equality, better compactness, eliminate a county split, and improve the Hennepin-Ramsey balance in MN-05 to 53.5%-46.5%.

It appears that there is a modest black population in the inner St. Paul suburbs (7%) but a considerable and increasing Asian (Hmong?) population.

As Alexander Hamilton said, "if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent".



MN-1 (South) 0.996
MN-2 (Dakota-Scott-Carver) 1.000. Also includes Bloomington, Richfield, and Fort Snelling in Hennpin.
MN-3 (Hennepin-Wright) 1.005. Buffalo is about at the limits of commuting range, as you would spend an 1-1/2 in a car each day to get to and from Minneapolis, and it would be a grind when the roads are snow-packed.
MN-4 (Anoka-Ramsey-Washington) 0.999. Excludes St. Paul and Roseville, St. Anthony, Lauderdale, Falcon Park, and Little Canada in Ramsey.
MN-5 (Twin Cities) 0.998 Minneapolis, St Paul, and inner Ramsey suburbs.
MN-6 (Northeast) 0.998
MN-7 (West) 1.001

[jimrtex]

The "irony" of the discussion above  is that your iteration is probably the most favorable for the Democrats. The downside for some perhaps is that it reduces from 2 to 1 the number of CD's that would be hospitable to "bold progressives, leaving the other three metro based CD's at "risk" of hosting "mushy moderates." Whether that concern has any traction with Mr. Walz, or Mr. BRTD, etc., I have no idea.

Did you have a chance to read the decision from the redistricting panel in 2011?

Do you think that the legislature will pass congressional redistricting in 2021? Take a look at the partisan composition of the two houses.

If the two chambers of the legislature fail to agree, Tim Walz is irrelevant. His only leverage is to keep calling special sessions, and eventually the court will take it out of his hands.

The legislature will have no standing. The lawsuit will say that the legislature failed to legislate. The plaintiffs and intervenors will likely be front groups for the DFL and Republicans.

[jimrtex]

The panel is also required to adopt a least-change map. They have no authority to impose political judgment when they are only correcting for too many districts and population equality. When you lose a district, least-change is not necessarily little-change.

The panel will accept my proposal for the three outstate districts. The only reasonable complaint is splitting the St. Cloud on the county line/Mississippi River. This can be remedied by including the east bank portions of St. Cloud in MN-7, and putting Wadena back in MN-6 where it currently is (MN-8 2010).

How tremendously arrogant.

Why do you say so?

Do you believe the 5-judge panel will ignore the procedures and precedents from the past two decades?