Redistricting in Minnesota

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Note: Redistricting takes place every 10 years after completion of the United States Census. The information here pertains to the 2010 redistricting process.

Redistricting in Minnesota
Policypedia-Election-logo-no background.png
General information
Partisan control:
Legislative Authority
February 21, 2012-(25 weeks before 2012 Statewide Primary).
Total seats
State Senate:
State House:
Redistricting in other states
AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

Horizontal-Policypedia logo-color.png
Redistricting on PolicypediaState legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 CensusState-by-state redistricting procedures


Redistricting in Minnesota is handled by the State Legislature. Minnesota is one of 28 states in which lawmakers are wholly responsible for redrawing maps.


The Minnesota Legislature proposes and passes redistricting plans as ordinary legislation. To this end, each chamber forms a committee responsible for redistricting. In addition, a joint committee is formed, composed of two Democrats and two Republicans from each chamber. The Governor can veto any redistricting plan at his discretion.



Chamber Committees

Each legislative chamber also had its own redistricting committee.[1]

House committee

Senate Subcommittee

Joint Subcommittee

There were four members of the Joint Subcommittee on Redistricting. Each was appointed by the Legislative Coordinating Commission. They were:[2]



Public hearings

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.[3] 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."[4]

Note: Although the Redistricting Committee's public hearings are now finished, audio and video from those meetings can be found here.

Judicial redistricting panel

The following judges were appointed to the Special Redistricting Panel:[5]

Judicial panel to hold public hearings

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. Friday, September 16, 2011, was the deadline to register to speak at the hearings.[6][7] The full schedule can be found here. Live coverage of the hearings was broadcast here.[8]

Judicial panel to accept proposed maps

The judicial panel accepted map proposals from members of the public. Information on submitting maps can be found here (See #4) and here.[9]

Census results

This three-minute video provides an introduction to redistricting in Minnesota.

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. Overall, Districts 2 and 6 had to lose population and District's 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 needed to gain population. District 6 had to shed about 96,000 residents, while District 2 had to give up about 70,000.[11]

Local data received

On March 15, 2011, Minnesota received its local 2010 census data. The data was intended to guide the state as it redrew congressional, state, and local electoral districts.[12] The results showed strong growth in suburban areas, which would likely result in the redrawing of every congressional and legislative district. Scott, Wright, and Sherburne counties showed the largest growth, with 45 percent, 39 percent, and 37 percent growth, respectively.[13] Given the controversies created by these changes and the fact that the courts had carried out redistricting in the past three cycles, observers thought that the 2011-2012 redistricting process might result in the courts drawing the new state maps.[14]

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. However, the state still remained 87 percent white.[13]

Governor urges adoption of redistricting principles

Every ten years, the Minnesota legislature adopts a set of principles to guide redistricting. In spring 2011, with only weeks remaining in the session, no set of principles had been adopted. On April 25, 2011, Governor Mark Dayton (D) sent a letter to House Redistricting Committee Chair Sarah Anderson, urging the legislature to adopt bipartisan guidelines for redistricting. Dayton criticized the Republican's proposed principles as inadequate, as they only mandated that senate districts be formed from house districts and that districts should be compact and contiguous. Dayton, however, expressed a desire to see broader principles introduced, including achieving minimal deviations, protecting racial and language minorities, preserving communities of interest, and avoiding incumbent favoritism. In addition to these guidelines, legislative Democrats introduced their own proposal which also sought to promote increased competition. While Dayton's Democratic party was a minority in both chambers, the Governor had veto power over any map produced.[15]

  • Republican's proposed redistricting principles: HF1546, HF1547,
  • Democrat's proposed redistricting principles: HF0406

Congressional maps

Figure 1: This map shows the Minnesota Congressional Districts after the 2000 census.
Figure 2: This map shows the House Republicans' proposed Congressional plan.

David Wasserman of The Cook Political Report outlined congressional redistricting scenarios for Minnesota in a December 17, 2010 blog post.[16] Before the Census numbers were released, Wasserman mentioned if the state retained all of eight of its congressional seats, both parties would fight over how to redraw Michele Bachmann's (6th District) congressional seat.[16] If Bachmann's district needed to reduce its size by 100,000 residents, as seemed likely at the time,[17] Wasserman suggested that most Republicans would want some of her GOP precincts moved to Chip Cravaack's district.[16] Cravaack (8th District) unseated long-time Democrat Jim Oberstar in the 2010 election.[16] The other scenario mentioned by Wasserman is that Democrats could target Cravacck's district and protest any effort to make it more Republican.[16] If Tim Walz's congressional district needed to expand, The Cook Report's House Editor mentioned the possibility of taking away Northfield from John Kline's district.[16]

House GOP releases Congressional maps

On May 9, 2011, Minnesota's House Republicans released proposed maps for the state's eight congressional seats. Most dramatically, the maps redrew Districts 7 and 8, exchanging Collin Peterson (D) for Chip Cravaack (R). Peterson, currently in District 7, would have been moved to a new, more Democratic District 8. Cravaack, who represented the swing 8th District, would be moved to a new, more Republican District 7. The maps also solidified Republican-leaning Districts 6 and 3, while preserving DFL-leaning districts 4, 5, 8. This left two districts, the 1st and 2nd, competitive.[18] At the time the Republican's held District 2, and with victory possible in the 1st, the GOP could have taken a 5-3 advantage in the state's Congressional delegation.[19]

Congressman Collin Peterson (DFL) sharply criticized the new maps in May 2011. He argued that changes to the 7th and 8th Districts did not make sense given regional differences. He also argued that the plan seemed aimed at solidifying Rep. 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.[20]

House passes congressional plan

On May 13, 2011, the Minnesota House of Representatives passed its congressional redistricting plan. The Republican-authored plan passed on a party line vote, 71-61.[21][22]

Senate passes congressional plan

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. Since the plan was approved along party lines, it seemed highly likely that Gov. Mark Dayton (D) would veto the maps. Dayton stated that bi-partisan support was a condition for his signing any plan.[22][23]

Dayton vetoes maps

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 again reiterated that he would not sign a map without bi-partisan support. Although it still seemed possible that Dayton and the legislature could reach a compromise early in the next session, the veto suggested that the state's maps would once again be headed for the courts.[24][25]

Legislative maps

Although the Republicans and Democrats controlled the legislature and governorship, respectively, census data suggested that the process would likely favor state Republicans. Of the 9 state senate districts which exceed their population target (79,163 residents) by more than 10,000 people, all 9 were controlled by the GOP. In addition, Republicans held 20 Minnesota House districts that exceed their target (39,582 residents) by over 5,000 people. Democrats, on the other hand, represented a large majority of the state's underpopulated districts. This meant that state lawmakers would likely have to move many conservative precincts to Democratic districts, weakening the re-election prospects of several DFL legislators.[26]

One of the biggest potential changes Minnesota faced in redistricting was exactly how state legislative districts would be redrawn.[27] On January 18, 2011, State Demographer Tom Gilaspy gave testimony in front of the House Redistricting Committee.[27] Gilapsy told the committee that some counties in western and southern Minnesota experienced some of the sharpest rates of population decline in the nation, and these declines were likely permanent.[27] Gilapsy compared the redistricting process to squeezing a balloon, meaning a push in one direction could change the configuration somewhere else.[27]

Most of the Minnesota's population growth was strongest in the state's metro areas. However, growth in these areas was predominantly suburban while some urban areas saw their populations decline.[28][29] Growth in Minneapolis and St. Paul stagnated in the first decade of the 21st century, while these cities' suburbs showed vibrant growth and an influx of young families. Of the state's 20 largest cities, 7 of these showed growth greater than 10 percent. Of those seven fast-growing cities, 6 were suburbs.[30]

Figure 2: This map shows the House Republican legislative redistricting plan.

Maps proposed

Representative 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. Overall, the plan was perceived as protecting Republican incumbents, especially newly elected members. 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 bipartisan match-ups. In the Senate, four Democrats would be paired in two districts, and one district would contain a bipartisan match-up. The Republican-controlled State Senate also began crafting a proposal. Either plan would ultimately require the approval of Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton (DFL). If lawmakers failed to reach a compromise by then end of the session (May 23, 2011), they had the option of approving plans in the next session (January 2012), just in time for the February deadline.[31][32][33]

The map drew sharp criticism from state Democrats and spurred heated debate during a committee hearing on the plan. Each redistricting cycle the legislature adopts principles intended to guide the drawing of new maps. Opponents of the plan argued that neither the maps nor the principles were drawn with an eye toward competitiveness. They further argued that proponents of the plan were rushing passage and avoiding public input. Anderson, however, defended the plans, arguing that the maps were intended to create compact districts that preserve communities and that mapmakers did not concentrate on political concerns. She also contended that Democrats failed to offer a sufficient amount constructive input during the process.[34][35]

House passes plan

On May 6, 2011, the Minnesota House of Representatives passed the proposed state redistricting plan along party lines. The Republican-controlled Senate seemed likely to pass the bill, but observers expected a veto from Gov. Mark Dayton (DFL). Earlier in the year, Dayton indicated that he would only sign a map with significant bipartisan support.[36][37] In a press conference on May 10, 2011, Dayton indicated that a veto was likely for the legislative plan. However, he declined to comment on the proposed Congressional plan.[38]

Senate passes plan

On May 17, 2011, the Minnesota State Senate passed the House-authored legislative redistricting plan along party lines. The new maps moved to Governor Mark Dayton (DFL). Dayton stated that bi-partisan support was a condition for his signing any plan.[22][39]

Dayton vetoes maps

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 disproportional number of Democrats displaced by the plans. Second, Dayton again reiterated that he would not sign a map without bi-partisan support. Although it was still possible that Dayton and the legislature could reach a compromise early in the next session, the veto suggested that the state's maps might once again be headed for the courts.[40][41]

Court redistricting process

Chief Justice names redistricting panel

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. The legislature technically had until February 2012 to pass a plan, but compromise did not seem likely. Court documents (submissions, orders, etc.) can be found here.[42]

Judicial panel to accept proposed maps

The judicial panel accepted map proposals from members of the public. Members of the public were able to submit their maps here (See #4) and here.[43]

Court sets date for oral arguments

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. Although the legislature technically had time to complete a plan, a compromise was perceived as unlikely.[44][45]

Court mulls redistricting principles

On October 26, 2011, the judicial redistricting panel heard from Republicans and Democrats concerning the principles that should guide redistricting efforts. Republicans emphasized 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, however, expressed concerns that overly subjective criteria could be used to justify virtually any map.[46][47]

Court settles on redistricting principles

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. This could lead to exurban counties being paired with more suburban, and even urban, counties. Republicans pushed for this move, and Democrats did not object.[48]

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

Major parties submit proposals

In late November 2011, both major parties submitted their proposals for Minnesota's congressional districts to the judicial redistricting panel. The DFL plan paired Congresswoman and former GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann with Democrat Betty McCollum. The GOP plan split the heavily Democratic Iron Range into separate congressional districts. Regardless of partisan posturing, several observers noted that state demographics seems to favor the GOP. The decline of rural and urban areas has given rise to rapidly expanding and Republican-leaning suburbs. The judicial panel was expected to settle on new maps by late February 2012.[49]

  • 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.

Oral arguments on map submissions

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.[50]

Judicial panel releases final maps

On Tuesday, February 21, 2012, the judicial panel in charge of drawing Minnesota's new legislative and congressional districts completed its work. In total, the legislative maps paired a staggering 46 incumbents. In the House, the plan paired 30 incumbents, or 1 in 5 state representatives--this left 15 open House seats. In the Senate, the plan paired 16 incumbents, or nearly 1 in 4 state senators--this left 8 open Senate seats.[51]

The congressional districts showed fewer significant changes. Most notably, the plan moved former presidential candidate and conservative U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (R) into District 4 with Rep. Betty McCollum (D). However, Bachmann had already announced that she would again run in the 6th District. No other incumbents were displaced. Partisan control in both Democratic District 4 and Republican District 2 had been somewhat weakened.[52]

  • 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

Democrats file suit

On January 12, 2011, four Democrats filed suit in federal court over Minnesota redistricting.[10][53] 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.[53] The lawsuit was initially postponed while legislators worked on a plan. However, following Gov. Dayton's veto of the legislature's proposed maps, the case was resumed. Republican attorneys argued that the case should first pass through the state courts before federal courts intervene.[54]

Republican file suit

Several Republicans filed a redistricting lawsuit on January 21, 2011 in state court. The GOP's lawsuit was the second legal challenge filed over redistricting. Republicans also sought to intervene as plaintiffs in the first lawsuit, filed by Democrats earlier in January 2011.[55]

Reform legislation

Shrinking the state legislature

Bills to reduce the size of the Minnesota Legislature have been introduced in both state chambers. The bills would reduce the size of the Minnesota State Senate from 67 to 56 seats and reduce the size of the Minnesota house from 134 seats to 114 seats.[56] The bills, HF0029 and SF 419, have received bi-partisan support.

Nonpartisan commission bills introduced

  • House File 406: Following public calls for an independent commission, Rep. Steve Simon (DFL) renewed his support for HF 406, introduced by Simon on February 7, 2011. The bill would allow the Senate and House majority and minority leaders to each select one member of the five member commission of retired judges. The four appointees would then select the fifth member of the commission. Simon said he was not optimistic about the bill chances, but contended that it could avoid yet another decade of court-drawn maps.[57]
  • Senate File 5: SF5 would create a nonpartisan commission of retired judges to re-draw district lines. The commission would prepare three plans to present to the legislature for review. The bill outlines several redistricting principles to guide the process. These principles include: districts must be within 2 percent of ideal populations, districts must be compact, the votes of racial and language minorities must not be diluted, lines should be drawn to favor the election of minorities, districts should foster competitiveness, and districts should keep communities of interest intact. The bill was proposed by Sen. Larry Pogemiller (DFL).[58]

Citizen activism

Push for a nonpartisan commission

Several former officeholders from Minnesota backed the creation of a nonpartisan redistricting commission made up of retired judges. Notable supporters of the plan included former Vice President Walter Mondale and (D) former Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz. Proponents contend that the plan would avoid the partisan redistricting fights which, for the last 40 years, have ultimately resulted in court-drawn maps. Lawmakers were quick to reject the proposal. Republican Rep. Sarah Anderson argued that legislators, as elected officials, are more accountable to voters than a nonpartisan commission. Rep. Mary Murphy (DFL) expressed confidence that the legislature can fairly draw the new maps. Gov. Mark Dayton (DFL), however, voiced support for the idea "in principle."[59]

Draw the Line Midwest

On March 15, 2011, the Draw the Line Midwest campaign was announced. Billing itself as "the nation's first regional redistricting reform campaign organization," Draw the Line Midwest was made up of 25 reform organizations from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. It was a collaboration between the Midwest Democracy Network and the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School.

The groups said the campaign was a coordinated effort to depoliticize the redistricting process by pushing for transparency, public participation, and protection of minority rights. They proposed alternatives to legislative plans and set up District Builder, free open-based software that allows anyone to draw the maps. The site was expected to have data for all states by April.[60]

Minnesota Citizens Redistricting Commission

Draw the Line Minnesota organized a group of citizens to prepare Congressional and legislative maps in order to illustrate fair and representative districts. The first of eight public meetings was held on August 10, 2011. The full schedule of meetings can be found here.

Redistricting contest

Draw Our Minnesota, sponsored by Minnesota Common Cause (dead link), sponsored a citizen redistricting contest. Details on the contest can be found here. (dead link)

Common Cause hosts redistricting tutorial

Common Cause and the Center for the Study of Politics hosted a training session on redistricting software. The purpose of the event was to give residents the skills to draw maps and submit them to the judicial redistricting panel. Details on the session can be found here. Information on submitting maps can be found here (See #4) and here.[61]


Minnesota 2010 Redistricting Timeline[62][63]
Date Action
January-March 2011 Block populations reported to state census liaisons.
February 21, 2012 Legislative and congressional redistricting complete.
April 3, 2012 Deadline for local precincts and wards.
May 3, 2012 Deadline for redistricting local offices, inc. county commissioner, school boards, etc...
May 6, 2012 Candidates must establish residence in legislative district.
June 5, 2012 Candidate filing deadline for 2012 elections.
August 14, 2012 State primary
November 6, 2012 General Election


Since it was first drafted in 1858, the Minnesota Constitution has always 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 mainly ignored redistricting during this time due to the rural/urban divide. Rural interests were well aware 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 ulterior or improper motives." In 1945 they ruled that, as long as a districting act had once been valid, it cannot be unconstitutional due to subsequent population changes.

In 1957 a suit was brought to federal court arguing that redistricting was indeed justiciable. The justice in the case agreed, instructing the legislature to redistrict more equitably. This led to a new redistricting law in 1959, which brought districts closer in population, although many remained unequal. The act took effect in 1962 and moved 5 1/2 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 4 1/2 Senate and 9 House districts being transferred from rural to urban areas.

Compromise again proved difficult following the 1970 census, which ended in the federal district court redrawing the lines. Again additional seats in both chambers were transferred to metropolitan areas. 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.[64]

2001 redistricting

Deviation from "Ideal Districts"

2000 Population Deviation[65]
Office Percentage
Congressional Districts 0.00%
State House Districts 1.56%
State Senate Districts 1.35%
Under federal law, districts may vary from an 'Ideal District' by up to 10 percent, though the lowest number achievable is preferred. 'Ideal Districts' are computed through simple division of the number of seats for any office into the population at the time of the Census.

Lawsuits related to the 2000 Census

There were 7 lawsuits, not counting appeals, related to the Minnesota 2000 census redistricting process.[66]

  • 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 will appoint 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.

Constitutional explanation

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

See also

External links


  1. Minnesota Public Radio, "Sen. Geoff Michel on redistricting Minnesota," January 25, 2011
  2. Redistricting Subcommittee Page
  3. WQOQ, "Minn. lawmakers search out political map input," February 11, 2011
  4. :*MonteNews, "Redistricting Committee Announces Redistricting Tour," February 3, 2011
  5. Minnesota Public Radio, "Judges appointed to redistricting panel," June 2, 2011
  6. Crookston Times, "Minn. redistricting panel to hold public hearings," July 20, 2011
  7. Grand Forks Herald, "Deadline is today to register to address Minnesota's congressional redistricting panel," September 16, 2011 (dead link)
  8. Pine Journal, "Minnesota congressional redistricting hearings continue (with video)," October 5, 2011
  9. Spring Grove Herald, "OPINION: Court allows public to submit redistricting maps," October 4, 2011
  10. 10.0 10.1 10.2, "Minnesota political map lawsuit filed" 14 Jan. 2011
  11. MPR News,' "With Census data in, lawmakers can redraw political map," March 17, 2011
  12. US Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Ships Local 2010 Census Data to Minnesota," March 15, 2011
  13. 13.0 13.1 Minneapolis Star Tribune, "Minnesota's changing face," March 16, 2011
  14., "Despite good intentions, many at Capitol expect redistricting to end up in courts," March 16, 2011
  15. Twin Cities Daily Planet, "Dayton pressures GOP on redistricting plan," April 26, 2011
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 Cook Political Report, "Reapportionment Preview: Mapping Out States “On the Bubble”" 17 Dec. 2010
  17. SC Times, "6th District boundaries ripe for change," January 30, 2011
  18., "Redistricting analysis: Republicans aim for 4 safe seats and shot at a 5th," May 9, 2011
  19., "GOP's congressional redistricting plan reshapes northern districts," May 9, 2011
  20. Minnesota Public Radio, "Peterson says redistricting plan 'doesn't make any sense,'" May 9, 2011
  21. Minnesota Public Radio, "House OKs redesign for Minn. congressional lines," May 13, 2011
  22. 22.0 22.1 22.2, "House passes 'doomed' congressional redistricting plan," May 13 2011
  23. Daily Journal, "Minn. Senate sends redistricting bills to Dayton; guv not likely to support GOP proposals," May 17, 2011
  24. Minnesota Public Radio, "Dayton vetoes redistricting bill," May 19, 2011
  25. Office of the Governor, Letter to Speaker Zellers, May 19, 2011
  26. TwinCities, "In the game of redistricting, GOP will hold all the cards," March 18, 2011
  27. 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 Shakopee Valley News, "Could Shakopee gain a state representative?" 21 Jan. 2011
  28. Spring Grove Herald, "PUBLISHER'S NOTEBOOK: redistricting means change, but big question is how much" 25 Jan. 2011
  29. Minnesota Legislature, "Map of Minnesota Metro Area"
  30. MPR News, "Census data confirms suburban growth, greater diversity in Minn," March 16, 2011
  31. MPR News, "House GOP releases redistricting plan," May 2, 2011
  32. Pioneer Press, "Democrats seem to be the losers in Minnesota's redistricting plan," May 2, 2011
  33. The Republic, "1st round arrives in fight over proposals to reconfigure lines on Minnesota's political maps," May 3, 2011
  34. West Central Tribune, "First redistricting plan draws DFL criticism," May 4, 2011
  35. The Uptake, "MN Redistricted For Political Reasons? GOP Author Won’t Say," May 4, 2011
  36., "House passes three apparently doomed bills: one on redistricting, two on abortion," May 6, 2011
  37. Grand Forks Herald, "Minnesota House passes plan to redraw political lines," May 06, 2011 (dead link)
  38. MPRnews, "Dayton talks Vikings, budget and redistricting," May 10, 2011
  39. Daily Journal, "Minn. Senate sends redistricting bills to Dayton; guv not likely to support GOP proposals," May 17, 2011
  40. Minnesota Public Radio, "Dayton vetoes redistricting bill," May 19, 2011
  41. Office of the Governor, Letter to Speaker Zellers, May 19, 2011
  42. Minnesota Public Radio, "Redistricting panel schedules public hearings," September 9, 2011
  43. Spring Grove Herald, "OPINION: Court allows public to submit redistricting maps," October 4, 2011
  44. Minnesota Public Radio, "MN House Redistricting Chair: There's still time to pass a map," October 6, 2011
  45. Minnesota Public Radio, "Mansky predicts latest redistricting fight will again end up in court," October 10, 2011
  46. St. Cloud Times, "Judges consider maps as parties weigh in on redistricting," October 26, 2011
  47. Daily Mail (Capitol Notebook, blog), "Mason/Putnam file petition to void House redistricting," October 24, 2011
  48. Minnesota Public Radio, "Court panel sets redistricting criteria," November 4, 2011
  49. Politics in Minnesota, "Minnesota redistricting panel gets GOP, DFL political maps," November 25, 2011
  50. South Washington County Bulletin, "Judicial panel on road to new MN congressional maps," January 4, 2011 (dead link)
  51. MPRnews, "Redistricting fallout continues," accessed February 23, 2012
  52. West Central Tribune, "Judges tweak Minnesota congressional districts," February 22, 2012
  53. 53.0 53.1 Roll Call, "Democrats Sue Over Congressional Boundaries" 14 Jan. 2011
  54. KTTC, "Minn. political map case returns to federal court," June 6, 2011
  55. WDIO "Republicans File in Minnesota Redistricting Case" 24 Jan. 2011
  56. Lacrosse Tribune, "Bills would shrink Minnesota's Legislature," January 18, 2011
  57. Hopkins Patch, "Simon Aims To De-Politicize Redistricting Process," March 21, 2011
  58. Shoreview Press, "Congressional redistricting on the way," March 1, 2011
  59., "Minnesota's former leaders call for a new redistricting system," March 8, 2011
  60. PR Newswire, "Midwest States Launch Campaign to Pull Back Curtain on 2011 Redistricting," March 15, 2011
  61. Spring Grove Herald, "OPINION: Court allows public to submit redistricting maps," October 4, 2011
  62. Official Minnesota Redistricting Timeline
  63., "New Census numbers will change Minnesota's political landscape," March 16, 2011
  64. Policy Archive, "Reapportionment Politics: The History of Redistricting in the 50 States," Rose Institute of State and Local Government, January 1981 (pg.168-171)
  65. National Conference of State Legislatures, “Redistricting 2000 Population Deviation Table”," accessed February 1, 2011
  66. Minnesota State Senate, "2000 Redistricting Case Summaries"