So, I haven’t noticed any discussion about Minnesota redistricting, and it’s true that this probably isn’t the most exciting state when it comes to that, but I decided to make a map anyhow.
A couple of things are worth noting ahead of time:
1) Four of the last five redistricting cycles in Minnesota have resulted in court-drawn maps because of legislative deadlock.
2) The population growth in Minnesota has been almost entirely in the Twin Cities suburbs represented by Bachmann and Kline, so the main changes will involve those districts shedding voters.
In any case, I decided to take the new population estimates on Dave’s app and make a ‘least change’ map much as I would expect a court panel to implement. The results are after the fold.
Below I have posted a full-state map and a close-up of the Twin Cities. The changes are not particularly exciting, but what I want to highlight is that this suggests opportunity for up to three Democratic pick-ups in the 2012 election. I’ve used the precinct figures at the Minnesota SoS website to calculate the Obama/McCain numbers for the new districts that I project compared to the current districts. These are the Obama/McCain percentages with third party votes excluded.
MN-01 (Walz-D)
Current: 52.4% Obama to 47.6% McCain
Projected: 52.0%Obama to 48.0% McCain
There is no meaningful change here.
MN-02 (Kline-R)
Current: 49.3% Obama to 50.7% McCain
Projected: 50.0% Obama to 50.0% McCain
Obama would’ve won the projected district by a tiny margin of 268 votes. What is most worth noting is that the MN-02 district will surely need to shed territory, and that the more territory that it needs to shed the less Republican it will become, because the Republican votes are more concentrated along the southern and western parts of the district. The DCCC should seriously consider contesting this district in my view regardless.
MN-03 (Paulsen-R)
Current: 53.3% Obama to 46.7% McCain
Projected: 53.0% Obama to 47.0% McCain
This Obama district becomes slightly less so, but there’s also little doubt in my view that the Democrats need to recruit a strong candidate here. They should not have lost the district in the first place after Ramstad’s retirement.
MN-04 (McCollum-D)
Current: 65.7% Obama to 34.3% McCain
Projected: 65.1% Obama to 34.9% McCain
No excitement here.
MN-05 (Ellison-D)
Current: 75.7% Obama to 24.3% McCain
Projected: 75.6% Obama to 24.4% McCain
Even less here.
MN-06 (Bachmann-R)
Current: 45.5% Obama to 54.5% McCain
Projected 45.1% Obama to 54.9% McCain
Unfortunately, Bachmann gets a slight bump on my map. I would add, however, that this district (along with MN-03) ends up with a disproportionately high number of 2008 voters on my map (nearly 400,000 versus somewhat less than 350,000 voters for the others). That suggests to me that the population estimates on Dave’s app may be low for MN-06 and MN-03. If that’s the case, MN-03 will not expand as much and MN-06 will need to shed voters. If that’s true, this district will become more Democratic the more that it contracts toward the Twin Cities.
MN-07 (Peterson-D)
Current: 48.6% Obama to 51.4% McCain
Projected: 48.0% Obama to 52.0% McCain
There is no meaningful change here. Still a swing district.
MN-08 (Cravaack-R)
Current: 54.4% Obama to 45.6% McCain
Projected: 54.3% Obama to 45.7% McCain
This is obviously a prime target for a takeback bid – hopefully by someone younger than his mid-70s. There was no call for Oberstar losing this district, and there’s no good reason why Cravaack should still be representing it in 2013.
That said, if the MN-06 district needs to contract more than above, then this district is likely to pick up the greater part of the spillover, which will make it more GOP. How much is an open question.
Any thoughts?
All I know is, if Paulsen and Cravaack don’t have serious opposition in 2012, it’s an oversight by the DNC.
I haven’t done a compromise/court map yet. I did a few before the election that were more DFL-drawn. Your districts seem reasonable for what the court may do. But I have a couple thoughts on this nonetheless.
Your first district nearly identical to the current one. Walz is safe for as long as he wants it.
Your 2nd and 3rd districts have the same problem for a Democrat. There are “ancestrally Republican” areas in terms of congressional representatives. The parts of your second district have been Republican since the lines were drawn a decade ago, and before that, when there was the “4-squares” districts of the 1990s, I believe all of that territory was split between the 1st and the 6th (The second was a rural SW Minnesota district back then), which were both Republican districts for pretty much the entire decade of the 90s. So it has been a very long time since the people in Dakota/Washington counties have seen a DFL representative, and that history may be enough to keep voting for Kline, who has not shown to be an underperformer in his district. The 3rd has been more or less Hennepin County-sans-Minneapolis for as many decades as I can find maps for (Minnesota likes consistency over political points when it comes to districts), and you have to go back to the 1950s before you find a DFL winner in an election there. Yes, at the state-wide level, and at the legislative level (except 2010), this are is very friendly to DFLers, but at the congressional level, it likes its Republicans. Yes, I know Paulsen is WAY too conservative for this district, but I don’t think he will be unseated unless there are freakish changes to his district, or he wants a promotion in 2012 or 2014. Even with these maps, I still see Paulsen and Kline winning reelection pretty easily.
4th and 5th expand a tiny bit, but not much. I don’t see the need for the 4th to take in tiny chunks of all 3 bordering counties, but changing those lines to only expand into one would not change a thing when it comes to the district. Both are safe DFL for whomever runs there.
Your 6th seems absolutely imposibly large. I don’t see anywhere were you shed population from the current lines, and the district is currently way too big and needs to shed major numbers to get it to the same size as the others. Regardless, this is a very Republican district, and you didn’t draw Bachmann out of her district, so she will have this seat for a while longer, although her crazy may be enough to kick her to the curb and get a DFLer in there for a single term.
I have a problem with your 7th. You added very very very conservative exurbs to Peterson’s district. Peterson plays well with the center-right farmers, but he really has nothing to offer the bible-thumpers in Carver County, and this makes his district over a point more Republican. I am very leery about an ambitious right-wing legislator from the exurbs able to make a play at Peterson, as the exurbs are growing fast, and the farm land is shedding population. There are lots of Tom-Emmer types there, and one of them, in a GOP year, could knock off Peterson. I am not a person to want to give Peterson a stronger district, but I also don’t think he needs to be weakened that way, at least not there. Giving Peterson Stearns County would be a better fit, as it is mostly conservative farmers that Peterson mops the floor with.
Your 8th seems to be pretty much what it is now. If, as you said, the 6th needs to shed more population (I am pretty sure it does, by a lot), stretching the 8th down into St. Cloud proper, without taking up any of the surrounding areas, and giving the rest of the surrounding areas to Peterson would be a great way to make sure Cravaack loses, and Peterson isn’t thrown to the wolves. But that leaves Carver and McLeod counties unaccounted for. As much as you want to unseat Kline, I really think that giving him those very Republican areas is in the best interest of the redistricting process.
Other than those points, I think this is a very good map, and could very well resemble what the courts end up drawing this summer.
and yes Minnesota will be quite interesting to see what happens. Predicting what happens in Minnesota 2011 will be a lot like winning a lottery ticket with the numbers 4-8-15-16-23-42.
I am not sure why but I look at MN is a different way then your map does. I do think a compromise will happen but here’s what my thinking is and it starts with the most important congressman in Minnesota. That used to be James Oberstar but now its Collin Peterson. He used to be the chairman of the Agriculture committee and may have that title again one day. He has made his peace with the DFL and is well liked by the legislators in his district. He is a big man in the Ag business and yes MN is a big Ag state. Just follow my logic is.
Peterson is a conservative democrat in a GOP leaning seat and its short of population. So where will Congressman Peterson pick up his 50K. Let me list the alternatives.
1. 10K Beltrami–47%Dayton–nice stuff for Peterson
2. 13K Koochiching county- 49% Dayton-sweet for Peterson
3. 44K Itasca County–53% Dayton–Mother lode sweet democrat stuff for a D bigwig.
4. 50K in Stearns county-36% for Dayton–you got to be kidding. That’s below Daytons numbers–Peterson will not want that area.
Okay lets compromise we don’t give him Stearns or the Northern stuff that is blue. Lets give Peterson the senior member of the Minnesota delegation with his powerful position of Ag chairman (to be circa 2013) 50K in Carver county. Gov Dayton got 28% in Carver county. Yup we give this popular democrat 50K in the most republican county in MN.
Maybe I am just crazy but I don’t see Peterson and his allies thinking this a good idea. In fact would any judicial panel consider that a bipartisan move.
I got beat up when I suggested this earlier but I don’t see Peterson getting any of CD1 or Stearns county (the western suburbs are more conservative then the county as a whole)but here’s what I see happening.
I see MN7 getting Hubbard-balance of Beltrami plus Koochiching. CD1 gets what it needs in Rice county–CD8 gets part of Benton & Sherburne county.
CD1 & CD7 are better off while CD8 gains some republican strength. CD2-CD3-CD6 all stay GOP while CD4 & CD5 stay democratic.
Now that’s a compromise. My crystal ball sees something like that.