Redistricting in Minnesota after the 2010 census

in Minnesota

Fiscal Budgets Minnesota state budget and finances Tax policy in Minnesota Finance Financial regulation in Minnesota Pensions Public pensions in Minnesota Pension health in Minnesota Civil liberties Affirmative action in Minnesota Campaign finance requirements in Minnesota Campaign finance requirements for Minnesota ballot measures Nonprofit regulation in Minnesota Education Charter schools in Minnesota Higher education in Minnesota Public education in Minnesota School choice in Minnesota Elections Ballot access Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Minnesota Ballot access requirements for political parties in Minnesota Political parties in Minnesota Ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in Minnesota Redistricting in Minnesota Voting in Minnesota Energy and Environment Energy policy in Minnesota Fracking in Minnesota Oil and gas extraction on federal land in Minnesota Endangered species in Minnesota Environmental policy in Minnesota Healthcare Healthcare policy in Minnesota Medicaid spending in Minnesota Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Minnesota Immigration Immigration in Minnesota

Redistricting in Minnesota

General information

Partisan control: Republican

Process: Legislative Authority

Deadline: February 21, 2012-(25 weeks before 2012 Statewide Primary).

Total seats

Congress: 8

State Senate: 67

State House: 94

This article details the timeline of redistricting events in Minnesota following the 2010 census. It also provides contextual information about the redistricting process and census information.

Process[edit]

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

During the 2010 redistricting cycle, the Minnesota Legislature proposed and passed redistricting plans as ordinary legislation. To this end, each chamber formed a committee responsible for redistricting. In addition, a joint committee was formed, composed of two Democrats and two Republicans from each chamber. The Governor had the authority to veto any redistricting plan at his discretion.

The Minnesota Constitution provided authority for redistricting to the Legislature in Section 3 of Article IV.

On February 11, 2011, the House Redistricting Committee had its first in a series of public hearings. Committee Chair Sarah Anderson (R) said the goal of the hearings was to increase transparency.^[1] First term Representative Chris Swedzinski said of the meeting, “I look forward to working with committee members and local officials in examining how the redistricting process may affect our community, as well as how the timeframe impacts cities and counties as they redraw their local lines."^[2]

Audio and video from those meetings can be found here.

Leadership[edit]

Chamber Committees[edit]

Each legislative chamber had its own redistricting committee.^[3] The members of those committees were:

There were four members of the Joint Subcommittee on Redistricting. Each was appointed by the Legislative Coordinating Commission. They were:^[4]

Judicial redistricting panel[edit]

Appointed by Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Gildea, a special panel on redistricting decided to host a series of public hearings designed to gather public input on the process. The meetings began in October 2011.^[5][6] The full public schedule can be found here. Live coverage of the hearings was broadcast here.^[7]

The judicial panel accepted map proposals from members of the public. Information on submitting maps can be found here (See #4) and here.^[8]

The following judges were appointed to the Special Redistricting Panel:^[9]

• Wilhelmina Wright, Presiding
• Ivy Bernhardson
• James Florey
• Edward Lynch
• John Rodenberg

Census results[edit]

Minnesota retained all eight of its congressional districts in the 2010 Census.^[10] However, two of the state's congressional districts would have to forfeit population to five other, less populous districts. Districts 2 and 6 had to lose population and Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 needed to gain population.^[11]

On March 15, 2011, Minnesota received its local 2010 census data.^[12] The results showed strong growth in suburban areas. Scott, Wright, and Sherburne counties showed the largest growth, with 45 percent, 39 percent, and 37 percent growth, respectively.^[13]

Minorities also experienced significant growth rates in the decade. This growth made up 80 percent of Minnesota's 7.8 percent net growth. Although minorities made up about 1 in 10 Minnesota residents in 2000, they made up about 1 in every 7 in 2010. Black, Hispanic, and Asian populations all saw strong expansion in the 2000-2010 decade, growing by 61 percent, 74 percent, and 52 percent respectively.^[13]

Congressional redistricting[edit]

Figure 1: This map shows Minnesota's Congressional Districts after the 2000 census.

Figure 2: This map shows the House Republicans' proposed Congressional plan.

May 2011: House releases Congressional maps[edit]

On May 9, 2011, Minnesota's House Republicans released proposed maps for the state's eight congressional seats. The maps redrew Districts 7 and 8, exchanging Collin Peterson (D) for Chip Cravaack (R).^[14]

Peterson criticized the new maps. He argued that changes to the 7th and 8th Districts did not make sense given regional differences. He also said that the plan seemed aimed at solidifying Cravaack's re-election and making Rep. Tim Walz (District 1) more vulnerable. Peterson also predicted that the plan was headed for judicial intervention. The author of the plan, Sarah Anderson (R), defended the plan saying that it represented the recent demographic and economic changes in the state.^[15]

May 2011: House passes congressional plan[edit]

On May 13, 2011, the Minnesota House of Representatives passed its congressional redistricting plan. The plan passed on a party-line vote, 71-61.^[16][17]

May 2011: Senate passes congressional plan[edit]

On May 17, 2011, the Minnesota State Senate passed the Congressional redistricting plan passed by the House. The plan then moved to the Governor's desk. Dayton stated that bi-partisan support was a condition for his signing any plan.^[17][18]

May 2011: Dayton vetoes maps[edit]

On May 19, 2011, Governor Mark Dayton vetoed the legislature's Congressional and legislative redistricting plans. In a letter accompanying his veto, Dayton cited two reasons for his veto. First, he argued that the maps were to designed for the purposes of protecting or defeating incumbents, citing the disproportionate number of Democrats displaced by the plans. Second, Dayton reiterated that he would not sign a map without bi-partisan support.^[19][20]

Legislative redistricting[edit]

April 2011: Maps proposed[edit]

Rep. Sarah Anderson (R) and fellow Republicans proposed a state legislative redistricting plan in April 2011. Under the plan, 20 incumbent representatives would have been paired in 10 of the newly drawn districts. Six incumbent senators would have been paired in three of these districts. In the House, the plan would pair 10 incumbent Democrats in five districts. Only two Republicans would be paired. The remaining four districts would contain cross-party match-ups. In the Senate, four Democrats would be paired in two districts, and one district would contain a bipartisan match-up. ^[21][22][23]

May 2011: House passes plan[edit]

On May 6, 2011, the Minnesota House of Representatives passed the proposed state redistricting plan along party lines.^[24][25]

May 2011: Senate passes plan[edit]

On May 17, 2011, the Minnesota State Senate passed the House-authored legislative redistricting plan along party lines. The new plan moved to the governor's desk.^[17][26]

May 2011: Dayton vetoes maps[edit]

On May 19, 2011, Gov. Mark Dayton (D) vetoed the legislature's Congressional and legislative redistricting plans. In a letter accompanying his veto, Dayton cited two reasons for his veto. First, he argued that the maps were to designed for the purposes of protecting or defeating incumbents, citing the disproportional number of Democrats displaced by the plans. Second, Dayton reiterated that he would not sign a map without bi-partisan support.^[27][28]

Court-based redistricting process[edit]

June 2011: Chief Justice names redistricting panel[edit]

In early June 2011, Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Gildea selected a five-member panel of judges to hear lawsuits over the Minnesota redistricting process and complete the map-making process, if necessary. Court documents (submissions, orders, etc.) can be found here.^[29]

October 2011: Court sets date for oral arguments[edit]

Minnesota’s special judicial redistricting panel scheduled oral arguments in the case for January 4, 2012. Parties in the case had to submit their motions to adopt plans by November 19, 2011. The panel’s decision in the case was not expected until February 2012. Meanwhile, House Redistricting Chair Sarah Anderson (R) renewed calls for a legislative compromise on redistricting plans.^[30][31]

October 2011: Court considers redistricting principles[edit]

On October 26, 2011, the judicial redistricting panel heard from Republicans and Democrats concerning the principles that should guide redistricting efforts. Republicans said they wanted equal population and compact districts that respect city and county lines. Democrats argued that these considerations had to be balanced with protection for communities of interests (racially, socially, or economically unique areas). Republicans expressed concerns that subjective criteria could be used to justify virtually any map.^[32][33]

November 2011: Court settles on redistricting principles[edit]

On November 4, 2011, Minnesota’s judicial redistricting panel released a list of principles to guide its redistricting efforts. For both congressional and legislative redistricting, the panel planned to attempt to draw districts that were very close to population targets, preserve minority voting rights, display compactness and contiguity, respect political subdivisions, protect communities of interest, and neither protect incumbents nor generate excessive incumbent conflicts. For the purpose of legislative redistricting, the panel decided to expand the definition of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area to include 11 rather than seven counties.^[34]

• The court order detailing these principles can be found here.

November 2011: Major parties submit proposals[edit]

In late November 2011, both parties submitted their proposals for Minnesota's congressional districts to the judicial redistricting panel. The Democratic plan paired Congresswoman Michele Bachmann with Democrat Betty McCollum. The Republican plan split the Democratic Iron Range into separate congressional districts. The judicial panel was expected to settle on new maps by late February 2012.^[35]

• The Republican proposal can be found here.
• The Democratic proposal can be found here.

• A full list of all the maps submitted can be found here.

January 2012: Oral arguments on map submissions[edit]

Minnesota's judicial redistricting panel heard oral arguments on Wednesday, January 4, 2012, concerning redistricting proposals made by both Republicans and Democrats. Both sides accused the other of drawing partisan maps. A decision on final maps was expected by February 21.^[36]

February 2012: Judicial panel releases final maps[edit]

On February 21, 2012, the judicial panel released its maps. In total, the legislative maps paired 46 incumbents. In the House, the plan paired 30 incumbents and left 15 open House seats. In the Senate, the plan paired 16 incumbents and left eight open Senate seats.^[37]

The congressional districts showed fewer changes. Most notably, the plan moved Bachmann into District 4 with McCollum.^[38]

• Interactive versions of the new maps can be found here.

• The court order establishing the new maps can be found here.

• A breakdown of the pairings and open seats can be found here.

Legal issues[edit]

January 2011: Democrats file suit

On January 12, 2011, four Democrats filed suit in federal court over Minnesota redistricting.^[10][39] Attorneys for the plaintiffs raised concerns over whether politicians can draw the lines in a fair manner.^[10] The lawsuit asked the court to invalidate the current political boundaries and require leaders to submit their redistricting plans to the court.^[39] The lawsuit was initially postponed while legislators worked on a plan. Following Gov. Dayton's veto of the legislature's proposed maps, the case resumed. Republican attorneys argued that the case should first pass through the state courts before federal courts intervene.^[40]

January 2011: Republican file suit

Several Republicans filed a redistricting lawsuit on January 21, 2011, in state court.^[41]

Timeline[edit]

History[edit]

Since it was first drafted in 1858, the Minnesota Constitution required districts to be drawn by population. Redistricting took place on schedule up until 1913. Following that year, districts were not changed until the late 1950s due to the courts stepping in.

The legislature ignored redistricting during this time due to the rural/urban divide. Rural interests were concerned that if the legislature were redistricted by population, they would lose a great deal of power. The courts also played a role - in 1914 the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not require population uniformity so long as redistricting had been a good-faith effort and without improper motives. In 1945 they ruled that, as long as a redistricting act had once been valid, it could not be unconstitutional due to subsequent population changes.

In 1957, a suit was brought to federal court arguing that redistricting was necessary. The court agreed, instructing the legislature to redistrict more equitably. This led to a new redistricting law in 1959, which brought districts closer in population. The act took effect in 1962 and moved five and a half Senate districts and 11 House districts from rural areas to the Twin Cities area.

Following the United States Supreme Court 1962 decision in Baker v. Carr, Minnesota's governor convened a reapportionment commission in order to bring districts closer to population equality. The legislature ignored the commission's recommendations, but were forced to redraw districts in 1965 anyway after the 1959 plan was ruled invalid. The legislature passed a new plan, only to have it vetoed by the governor. This led to a special session, where a compromise led to another four and a half Senate and nine House districts being transferred from rural to urban areas.

Redistricting following the 1970 census ended up with the federal district court redrawing the lines. In 1980, a constitutional amendment to create a special reapportionment commission was approved by 58 percent of voters, but fell short of the required majority by about 3,000.^[44]

2001 redistricting[edit]

Deviation from Ideal Districts[edit]

Lawsuits related to the 2000 Census[edit]

There were 7 lawsuits, not counting appeals, related to the Minnesota 2000 census redistricting process.^[46]

• Zachman v. Kiffmeyer, No. CX-01-116 (10th Dist. Wright Co., complaint served Jan. 4, 2001) : The complaint alleged that legislative districts ordered by a state court in 1991, and congressional districts drawn by the state court in 1992, are out of population balance based on 1999 estimates by the State Demographer and 2000 census counts released December 28, 2000, and that the Legislature had failed and would fail to redraw them. It demanded an injunction against use of the old plans for the 2002 election and that the court draw new plans if the Legislature failed.

• Cotlow v. Kiffmeyer, No. C8-91-985 (Minn. Spec. Redis. Panel, motion served Jan. 12, 2001) : The motion asserted that the legislative districts approved by the court, and congressional districts drawn by the court, in 1992 were out of population balance. It moved the court to modify its previous orders and declare that the old plans may no longer be used and to notify the Legislature that the court would draw new plans unless the Legislature adopted constitutional plans in a timely manner.

• Cotlow v. Growe, No. C8-91-985 and Zachman v. Kiffmeyer, No. C0-01-160 (Minn. Mar. 2, 2001) : The Minnesota Supreme Court consolidated the two cases and found that the role of the three-judge special redistricting panel in Cotlow v. Growe was confined to cases based on the 1990 Census, a role that has ended. The Court appointed a new special redistricting panel “to hear and decide the Zachman case and any other redistricting challenges that may be filed based on the 2000 Census.” In deference to the legislative process, the Court stayed appointment of the new panel until “it is determined that panel action must commence in order that the judicial branch can fulfill its proper role in assuring that valid redistricting plans are in place in time for the 2002 state legislative and congressional elections....”

• Zachman v. Kiffmeyer, No. C0-01-160 (Minn. Spec. Redis. Panel Mar. 19, 2002) : The 2001 session of the Minnesota Legislature adjourned without completed redistricting principles or plans. With the Legislature scheduled to begin its next regular session on January 29, 2002, plaintiffs moved the Court for an order appointing a three-judge panel to draw plans to be adopted before January 1. On July 12, 2001, the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a five-judge special redistricting panel and ordered them to release a redistricting plan “only in the event a legislative redistricting plan is not enacted in a timely manner.” On October 29, 2001, the panel issued a scheduling order setting December 28 as the deadline for the parties to submit proposed plans, and March 19, 2002 (the statutory deadline for the Legislature to complete action on redistricting plans) as the date when the panel would issue plans of its own, if necessary. The panel’s order stating redistricting principles and requirements for plan submissions was issued December 11, 2001. Following the January 16, 2002, oral argument on the plans submitted by the parties, the court issued an order setting a schedule for public hearings on how citizens preferred their communities to be viewed during redistricting. On March 19, 2002, the panel issued its orders adopting a legislative redistricting plan and a congressional redistricting plan. The panel awarded attorney’s fees and costs to all four groups of plaintiffs, subject to a limit of $100,000 each for attorney’s fees and $4,500 each for costs and disbursements.

• McGuire v. Windschitl, No. C0-02-1352 (Minn. Aug. 28, 2002) : On August 8, 2002, petitioner filed an original petition alleging that Senate District 26 candidate Jeremy W. Eller had not resided in the district for six months preceding the general election as required by Minnesota Constitution. The Supreme Court appointed a referee who issued findings that Eller had in fact established residence and the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

• Lundquist v. Leonard, No. C9-02-1351 (Minn. Oct. 17, 2002) : On August 8, 2002, petitioner filed an original petition alleging House District 38A candidate Margaret J. Tilley had not resided in the district for six months preceding the general election as required by Minnesota Constitution. The Supreme Court appointed a referee who issued findings that Tilley had in fact established residence and the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

• Olson v. Zuehlke, No. C2-02-1353 (Minn. Oct. 17, 2002) : On August 9, 2002, petitioner filed an original petition in the Supreme Court alleging House District 3B candidate Loren Solberg had not resided in the district for six months preceding the general election as required by the Minnesota Constitution. The Supreme Court appointed a referee who issued findings that Solberg had in fact established residence and the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

• Piepho v. Bruns, No. C4-02-1354 (Minn. Oct. 17, 2002) : On August 9, 2002, petitioner filed an original petition in the Supreme Court alleging Senate District 23 candidate John C. Hottinger had not resided in the district for six months preceding the general election as required by the Minnesota Constitution. The Supreme Court appointed a referee who issued findings that Hottinger had in fact established residence and the Supreme Court issued its order dismissing the petition.

See also[edit]

• State Legislative and Congressional Redistricting after the 2010 Census
• State-by-state redistricting procedures

External links[edit]

• Minnesota Supreme Court, Special Redistricting Panel
• Subcommittee on Redistricting Page
• Sen. Geoff Michel discusses redistricting on public radio

Footnotes[edit]

v • e Redistricting after the 2010 census State-by-state Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Overviews State legislative and congressional redistricting • State legislative redistricting maps • Redistricting deadlines • Redistricting timelines • Status of redistricting maps • Redistricting lawsuits • Partisan balance of redistricting committees

v • e Election policy Voting policy Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Ballot access for state and federal candidates Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Ballot access for political parties Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Ballot access for presidential candidates Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Redistricting Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming