In case the 2010 speculation isn’t enough, Swing State Project is exploring possible outcomes of Congressional redistricting in 2012. Minnesota is expected to be on the line between keeping and losing its Eighth Congressional District (the one that has historically housed the DFL labor bastions of the Iron Range and Duluth). With seven districts, redistricting could be quite dramatic and at least one incumbent will be ousted or forced to retire. SSP has projected two possible Minnesota district maps under the premise that incumbents will seek to protect themselves.
Under one “bipartisan” scenario Rep. Tim Walz (D) would be pitted against Rep. John Kline (R). Under the other “DFL-controlled” scenario Rep. Michelle Bachman’s (R) district would be eliminated and she’d face a tough race against Rep. Keith Ellison (D) in a heavily Hennepin County district.
But that’s not why I’m posting this. Both of SSP’s projections have Itasca and Koochiching Counties heading over to Rep. Collin Peterson’s (D) district, now called CD6, leaving St. Louis County and most of the Range staying with Rep. Jim Oberstar (D) in the new CD7. The Range would be divided! SSD says this:
Collin Peterson’s new 6th and Jim Oberstar’s new 7th are configured similarly in both maps, with Oberstar’s diluted a bit and Peterson’s shored up a tad to create two mildly Dem-friendly rural districts (though Peterson’s is still tough, especially with its geographical identity changing as population loss forces it to leech toward the Iowa border!).
SSD points out, the result is two districts that would be perpetual swing districts upon Peterson’s and Oberstar’s eventual retirement. Not that swing districts are bad, but it seems short sighted that Democrats would seek two new swing districts instead of taking the safe district. Peterson’s district is Democratic because of Peterson, not because it is naturally Democratic. Also, as an Itasca County resident who identifies far more with the Iron Range and Duluth than I do with the farms of the Southwest I don’t like the idea of having to explain the Range to what would likely be a farming-focused Congressperson. (And, by all means, feel free to attack my Range-centric world view).
In any event, the message here is for all Minnesotans to participate in the Census because there is still a chance that Minnesota could keep its eight districts, a scenario that probably works best for both Democrats and Republicans in the long run.
Actually, Aaron, a Range-centric world view is entirely appropriate. The region’s history and economy differs from parts of Greater Minnesota that have traditionally relied on agriculture and now turn to biobusiness and renewable energy.
Not to mention you live in the Range.
A former school studies teacher like Tim Walz could probably bridge the gap, but I don’t think he’ll get the privilege of representing the Range in Congress even after redistricting.
As a resident of CD6, I have to say that having a part of the Range in the district would not be a good thing for the residents there.
I think Mr. Peterson does an excellent job for our region, but the region is very agcentric. Agcentric to the point of not much else mattering when it comes to a legislative agenda. This is unfortunate, but probably a necessary evil. I would say that CD6 is not a swing region, but a solidly Republican region.
I would hate to see any part of the Range lumped in with us. It just doesn’t fit, the Range is better off united.
The map is ultimately going to end up getting drawn by the state supreme court, one way or another. Even if one party ends up with control of both houses of the state legislature and the governor’s mansion (Dems may have a shot), the other party will take the matter to court. Assuming the branches are somehow split between the parties like they are now, it’s 100% certain that the maps will be drawn by the courts.
While the Dems have managed to avoid it so far, during one of these redistricting cycles it’s inevitable that the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul are going to be combined into one district. It’s hard to argue with a straight face that people living in the inner cities of Minneapolis or Saint Paul have more in common with their surrounding suburbs than they do with each other. While it might have made sense long ago to split them while there was a major rivalry between the two, that rivalry today only exists among the Sid Hartmans of the world. And when the populations of the two cities are combined, it comes out to a little over 600,000 people. That’s about how many people were supposed to be in each Congressional district during the last redistricting cycle.
It may not happen until 2020, but it’s bound to happen at some point.
Thanks for all the great comments so far.
@Sally: Tim Walz is EVERYONE’S favorite congressman. He’s the salve for all difficult political districts. But you’re right, it’s a stretch to get Mankato in with Marble. 🙂
@Slik: Agreed. That’s really a GOP district represented by a conservative Dem. Getting another Collin Peterson will be very difficult and I know Itasca county would lose under this situation.
@Anon: You might be right that the courts will get to do this if it’s divided. But with an all-DFL government it’s possible they could draw something that would only be subject to court challenge if it’s totally outrageous. As for Mpls/St Paul, your theory is possible, but much depends upon how the urban area develops over the next 10-20 years. Richard Florida says cities may see a recovery in comparison to suburbs. If that proves true, you could see each city with their own district. Though I do think there will be three solidly suburban districts under a seven-district scenario.
Anonymous is correct. To the extent Minnesota loses a congressional district, it’s time the central core cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul be combined. They are much more “communities of interest” (a key redistricting principle)than combining the 6th CD with any other district. Minneapolis and St. Paul are either losing population or growing at a lower rate than the suburban based districts (3rd, 6th, 2nd).