Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Once every ten years, Minnesota legislators and - inevitably - the courts draw new political boundaries for state legislature and Congress. These lines can have a significant impact on who is elected to serve in Saint Paul and Washington DC. Despite the importance of this process, the maps this year have largely been drawn behind closed doors with little public debate. In fact, representatives from the political parties have repeatedly rejected efforts to educate the public about how the maps were drawn. After analyzing the maps submitted by the political parties, it is clear why it is difficult to explain these maps to the general public. As expected, the primary interest of the parties maps was to protect their own interests at the ballot box for the next ten years rather than to accurately and fairly reflect Minnesotas communities. Our report shows a significant difference between these maps and the maps submitted by groups not affiliated with a political party. Key Findings Nonpartisan maps drawn by the county auditors and the Draw the Line Citizens Redistricting Commission are the most fair of all the maps submitted to the court. The party-drawn maps have an unusually low number of incumbent pairings, indicating a high level of incumbent protection. The Republican Party maps attempted to shore up competitive districts by drawing more Republicans into those districts. In the ten districts that had the greatest increases of Republican voters, eight of those districts were from the most competitive House races. The DFL Party map had the fewest number of competitive races in both the Minnesota House and Senate maps. The DFL maps attempts to protect the most senior DFL incumbents at the expense of more junior legislators. All the maps showed bias toward the Republican Party according to the seats vote curve analysis. However, the GOP shows the most bias and the DFL shows the least bias in that analysis.
www.commoncause.org/mn
Introduction
In Minnesota, in spite of the fact that the Constitution gives the power to draw districts to the Legislature, the redistricting process has largely been the responsibility of the state courts. In four out of the last five decades, a special redistricting panel appointed by the Minnesota Supreme Court has drawn the maps because the legislature and governor have been unable to agree on a final map. Each time, the court has avoided drawing districts that benefit one party or the other. The courts have largely been successful at drawing fair maps because they have been able to see through the partisan attempts to influence the map. However, there is always the exception that proves the rule. After the 1970 election, 33 Conservatives and 33 Liberals and one Independent were elected to the Minnesota Senate. Duluth newspaper publisher Dick Palmer was the one independent and much pressure was placed on him to caucus with either the GOP or DFL caucus. The district that he was elected to was a liberal district; however, Mr. Palmer decided to caucus with the conservative caucus, thus creating some foes within the DFL.1 Then, two years later, redistricting moved to the courts because the legislature and governor were unable to agree upon a map. The process was turned over to Federal Judge Gerald Heaney, who was a well connected with the DFL party.2 When the new map was released, Senator Palmers new district did not include the Duluth suburbs, where he had strong ties to the community. Instead it went all the way to the Canadian border causing Senator Palmer not to run. Senator Palmer and others argued that this was retribution for his caucus with the GOP. This example serves to demonstrate that even gerrymandering can occur when the courts handle the process. While Minnesota has not been subject to the partisan gerrymander in the redistricting process that has plagued other states, our system is far from perfect. What was once considered the fallback position having the courts determine the new redistricting maps is now the norm. We need to consider whether this best serves the interests of Minnesota. This year, the courts are once again drawing the maps. The Minnesota redistricting panel is currently considering three maps submitted to the redistricting court by the Republican Party of Minnesota, the Democrat Farm Labor Party and activists from the Democrat Farmer Labor Party. In addition to those groups, the court requested that the public submit maps to the court. Two of the maps submitted during this phase one by the League of Women Voters through the Draw the Line Citizens Redistricting Commission map, and a second by the Minnesota County Auditors
1
http://mcrecord.com/archives/498012/here%E2%80%99s-how-to-eliminate-politics-fromredistricting/ 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Heaney
www.commoncause.org/mn
drawn by Ramsey County elections manager Joe Mansky receive our attention in this report.
Incumbents DFL vs. DFL GOP vs. GOP DFL vs. GOP Competitive Districts
(Dif. Between DFL & GOP not more than 8%)
Paired: 35 Open: 18 0 12 5 43
Districts with plurality Districts over 54% Districts over 60% Partisan Bias Score
(What percent of seats with 50% of the vote)
D: 62 R: 72 D: 47 R: 38 D: 34 R: 8 36.6%
D: 69 R: 65 D: 50 R: 41 D: 31 R: 9 41.8%
D: 68 R: 66 D: 47 R: 40 D: 33 R: 11 41%
D: 67 R: 67 D: 46 R: 38 D: 33 R: 11 38.8%
D: 68 R: 66 D: 46 R: 41 D: 31 R: 9 40.3
Unfortunately, the maps submitted by the political parties have the potential to skew the courts redistricting decision. The potential for partisan manipulation is even a greater threat this redistricting cycle thanks to evolutions in technology. However, new technology is influencing the process in both negative a positive ways. While it is possible for citizens to play a significant role in drawing maps in a manner that was not possible in the past, it is also possible for partisans to manipulate the data and a partisan map look like a fair map. Technology allows
www.commoncause.org/mn
mapmakers to closely follow criteria such as compactness and minimizing political subdivisions while at the same time manipulating districts for partisan gain. This is evident by examining the maps that were submitted by the GOP and DFL in 2011. These maps provide indicate partisan manipulation and incumbency protection, particularly in marginal districts. Analysis of these five mapsthose submitted by the two parties, as well as maps submitted by outside groups-demonstrates that the DFL and Republican maps focus on both incumbency protection and partisan gains. In particular, the partisan maps appear to aggressively manipulate the vote totals in marginal districts to pick up swing districts from the other party, especially in districts won or lost by very close margins in the previous elections. In addition, the DFL plan appears to place a higher priority on incumbency protection, especially among senior members of the caucus, than the other maps. The two independent plans, by contrast, do much less to preserve the districts of incumbents and do not select marginal districts for partisan manipulation. The past has shown us just how valuable independent redistricting efforts can be in developing a fair map. In 2000, former Governor Ventura created a tri-partisan group to propose new congressional and legislative maps. The group adopted criteria that the districts be drawn to increase competition. The maps proposed by the group had two to three times more incumbent pairings than the ones proposed by the GOP and DFL. It is clear that the independent redistricting maps had a significant impact on the courts map. That is why it is so important that the court consider the independent maps drawn by Draw the Line and Minnesota Association of Counties. As we will show, those maps do a better job of drawing competitive districts that will ensure that voters will have a real say in who is elected to the Minnesota legislature in 2012 and beyond.
Report Methodology
We explore several outcomes of interest for each of the maps currently being considered by the special redistricting court. Specifically, we consider three outcomes of interest: pairing of incumbents in the same district, evidence of manipulation of competitive districts for partisan advantage, and the level of partisan bias built into each map. Each of these outcomes points to a different aspect of partisan manipulationand true gerrymanderingin the redistricting process. Data These analyses rely upon election results that appeared in the Census block file maintained State of Minnesota Legislative Coordinating Commissions Geographic Information System website ( http://www.gis.leg.mn/metadata/redist2010.htm). These data contain block-level estimates of election results for the years 2002 to www.commoncause.org/mn 5
2010 derived from precinct-level data. (See Data Disclaimer in Appendix B for a disclaimer on use of these data.) To generate a district-level partisan index, the anticipated DFL share of the twoparty vote in each district, we begin by averaging the two-party vote total estimates for each Census block for three statewide constitutional offices in 2010: Attorney General, State Auditor, and Secretary of State. By averaging across the three offices, this measure captures the normal DFL and Republican vote totals in each Census block. These three offices were selected because they appear to better capture the usual party-line voting than the unusual 2010 gubernatorial election, and we believe they will extrapolate better to the future DFL vote over the next decade than measures based on older elections. To calculate the district-level partisan index under each redistricting plan, these block-level two-party vote totals are summed within each district. The district partisan index is the total DFL vote divided by the sum of the total votes cast for the two parties across the three offices.3 Using statewide elections to generate the partisan index is preferred to using the legislative election outcomes themselves. The local vote in State House and State Senate elections may be sensitive to local incumbency advantages and to the friends and neighbors effects that may lead to deviation from usual party voting. More importantly, candidates in safe districts will run unopposed or face only token opposition from the other party. This will result in an erroneous summary of the underlying (latent) partisanship of each district. Outcomes Pairings When new lines are drawn in redistricting, it is fairly common for incumbent legislators to find themselves in the same district as another incumbent legislator. A low number of incumbent pairings is an indication of the extent to which a map was drawn to protect incumbents. Shoring Up Competitive Districts We also examine the extent to which plans appear to be manipulating marginal races. Specifically, to what extent do plans appear to be bolstering the electoral chances of marginal members in ones own party while undercutting similarly marginal members in the other party. We answer this question by examining a set of cases in which plans change the partisan index of districts that were narrowly won by the present incumbent evil. Regulate Partisan Bias Score The most common analysis of redistricting plans focuses on the partisan bias of a
3
Using results from other election cycles does change values of the partisan index, but typically does little to change the rank ordering of the different redistricting plans in terms of bias and treatment of incumbent districts.
www.commoncause.org/mn
district map. Partisan bias captures the extent to which a plan delivers more seats to a party than its share of the popular vote would justify. This results most commonly from plans that pack excessive numbers of voters from one party into a subset of districts, while the other partys voters are distributed to yield a larger number of seats for a given vote share. For example, the presence of Democratic landslide districts under many state redistricting plans robs other districts of Democratic voters, reducing the number of districts in which the Democratic Party can compete. As a result, under many redistricting plans Democrats receive fewer than 50% of seats when they receive 50% of the total vote. To calculate bias under a range of election scenarios, we construct a seats-votes curve, which displays the anticipated number of legislative seats won by the DFL party at a particular DFL share of the two-party vote. Under a perfect system of proportional representation, the number of seats won in a legislature would perfectly match the proportion of votes cast. In most legislatures, this relationship will deviate at various vote shares for both parties. But as long as both parties receive the same share of seats when they receive a given share of the vote, the plan is considered unbiased. To generate these seats-votes curve, we adopt a multi-step process. To begin, we calculate the district-level DFL partisan index, as defined above using results from three down-ticket state constitutional offices. A higher partisan index indicates higher underlying DFL partisanship in the district. Then, we simulate a set of counterfactual elections by adding (or subtracting) a uniform amount to the DFL vote share in each district. At each vote level, we run a simulated an election and calculate the proportion of seats that the DFL would win, using the simulated vote share in each district. As redistricting expert and George Mason University Professor Michael McDonald notes, we are most commonly interested in the percentage of seats won by each party in a 50-50 election. The methodology used to calculate the seats-votes curve has been widely used in academic articles and in analyses presented by plaintiffs and academics in court filings. Based on initial advice from Professor Michael McDonald, we adopted this widely used approach to calculate the level of anti-DFL bias in the redistricting plans. See Appendix A for a copy of Professor McDonalds advisory memo.
www.commoncause.org/mn
This analysis shows that all of the proposals are biased against the DFL. This is even true of the partys own plan, which retains anti-DFL bias by maintaining too many incumbent landslide districts, notably in the Twin Cities. The nonpartisan plans are almost as biased against the DFL as the GOP plan.
www.commoncause.org/mn
Protection List
Legislator Protected 1. John Stensrud Party Index Change Increased the GOP partisan index by 9.16 points, moving it from 49.1% GOP district to 58.2% GOP district. Increased the GOP partisan index by 7.13 points, moving it from 43.5% GOP district to 50.6% GOP district. Increased the GOP partisan index by 4.68 points, moving it from 47.0% GOP district to 51.7% GOP district. Increased the GOP partisan index by 3.53 points, moving it from 51.9% GOP district to 55.5% GOP district. Increased the GOP partisan index by 2.89 points, moving it from 48.7% GOP district to 51.6% GOP district. Difference in Last Election Rep. Stensdrud won by 107 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much easier. Rep. Kriesel won by 452 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much easier. Rep. Woodard won by 37 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much easier. Rep. Gruenhagen won by 336 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much easier. Rep. Downey won by 587 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much easier. Rep. Peterson won by 57 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much 10
(R-42A)
2. John Kriesel
(R-57A)
3. Kelby
Woodard (R25B)
4. Glenn
Gruenhagen (R-25A)
5. Keith Downey
(R-41A)
6. Branden
Peterson (R49B)
Increased the GOP partisan index by 2.67 points, moving it from 50.2% GOP district to
www.commoncause.org/mn
easier.
7. Rich Murray
(R-27A)
Increased the GOP partisan index by 2.55 points, moving it from 44.0% DFL district to 46.6% DFL district.
Rep. Murray won by 57 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much easier.
Endangered List
Legislator on endangered list 1. Tina Liebling Party Index Change Increased the GOP partisan index by 10.8 points, moving it from 52.4% DFL district to 41.6% DFL district. Difference in Last Election Rep. Liebling won by 10.4% in 2010; this change will make her 2012 reelection much more difficult. Rep. Benson won by 3.41% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection much more difficult. Rep. Dittrich won by 264 votes in 2010; this change will make her 2012 reelection much more difficult. Rep. Persell won by 6.4% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection more difficult.
(DFL-30A)
2. John Benson
(DFL-43B)
Increased the GOP partisan index by 5.43 points, moving it from 52.8% DFL district to 47.4% DFL district.
3. Denise Dittrich
(DFL-47A)
Increased the GOP partisan index by 5.4 points, moving it from 46.8% DFL district to 41.4% DFL district. Increased the GOP partisan index by 5.0 points, moving it from 51.9% DFL district to 46.9% DFL district.
4. John Persell
(DFL-43B)
there are GOP incumbent legislators whose reelection prospects are weakened by the may and DFL incumbent legislators that proposed map attempts to protect. However, the DFL House map lacks the clear pattern of manipulation evident in the GOP House map. This is demonstrated by the fact that the DFL map actually improves the chance of GOP legislators that faced tough elections in 2010. That list includes: Rep. Woodard, Rep. Hancock, Rep. Stensrud, Rep. Kriesel, and Rep. Mazorol. This is likely the result of where population increases occurred, rather than a desire to create a fair map. Curiously, the DFL map seeks to protect DFL incumbents that won their 2010 election by considerable margins. The two DFL incumbents with greatest increase in DFL voters, Rep. Eken and Rep. Hosch, both won their 2010 election by at least 10%. However, both of them are in districts with DFL party index number of 50%, which could make the district more competitive with a strong Republican challenger. Below we highlight some of the districts that the DFL map manipulates:
Protection List
Legislator Protected 1. John Benson Party Index Change Increased the DFL partisan index by 3.98 points, moving it from 52.8% DFL district to 56.7% DFL district. Difference in Last Election Rep. Benson won by 3.41% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection easier.
(DFL-43B)
2. Kate Knuth
(DFL-50B)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 1.96 points, moving it from 53.1% DFL district to 55.0% DFL district.
Rep. Knuth won by 4.89% in 2010; this change will make her 2012 reelection easier.
Endangered List
Endangered Legislators 1. Keith Downey Party Index Change Increased the DFL partisan index by 13.23 points, moving it from 51.3% DFL district to 64.5% DFL district. Increased the DFL partisan Difference in Last Election Rep. Downey won by 587 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection much more difficult. Rep. McElfatrick won by 12
(R-41A)
2. Carolyn
www.commoncause.org/mn
McElfatrick (R03B)
index by 4.12 points, moving it from 54.1% DFL district to 58.2% DFL district. Increased the DFL partisan index by 2.69 points, moving it from 47.5% DFL district to 50.1% DFL district.
2.45% in 2010; this change will make her 2012 reelection more difficult. In 2010, Rep Runbeck won election by a margin of 12%. However, in 2008 this district was won by a DFLer with a 4% advantage. Considering that this district is a competitive district, this change will make her 2012 reelection more difficult. Considering that Rep. Lohmer won by 4.91% in 2010, this change will make her 2012 reelection more difficult. In addition, this district was carried by a DFL in the 2008 election and is considered competitive. Considering that Rep. Wardlow won by 4.02% in 2010, this change will make his 2012 reelection more difficult. In addition, this district was carried by a DFL in the 2008 election and is considered competitive.
3. Linda Runbeck
(R-53A)
4. Kathy Lohmer
(R-56A)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 2.31 points, moving it from 49.91% DFL district to 52.2% DFL district.
5. Doug Wardlow
(R-38B)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 1.15 points, moving it from 51.1% DFL district to 52.2% DFL district.
map actually improves the chances of GOP legislators that faced tough elections in 2010 and worsens the chances of DFLers. It improves the chances of Republican legislators: Rep. Woodard (GOP +12.79), Rep. Peterson (GOP +9.93), Rep. Gruenhagen (GOP +7.37), Rep Kriesel (GOP +2.74), and Rep Mcelfatrick (GOP +3.32). It hurts the chances of DFL legislators: Rep. Liebling (DFL -9.87), Rep. Dittrich (DFL -2.85) and Rep. Hortman (DFL -2.25). Below we highlight some of the districts that the Britton map manipulates:
Protection List
Legislators Protected 1. Lyle Koanen Party Index Change Increased the DFL partisan index by 2.97 points, moving it from 53.2% DFL district to 56.2% DFL district. Increased the DFL partisan index by 5.21 points, moving it from 53.0% DFL district to 58.27% DFL district. Difference in Last Election Rep. Koanen won by 2.21% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection much easier. Rep. Knuth won by 4.89% in 2010; this change will make her 2012 reelection much easier.
(DFL-20B)
2. Kate Knuth
(DFL-50B)
Endangered List
Endangered Legislators 1. Larry Howes Party Index Change Increased the DFL partisan index by 8.68 points, moving it from 43.4% DFL district to 52.1% DFL district. Difference in Last Election In 2010, Rep Howes won election by a margin of 20%. However, in 2008 this district was won by Rep. Howes with a 4% advantage. Considering that this district is a competitive district, this change could make his 2012 reelection more difficult. In 2010, Rep Torkelson ran unopposed for reelection. However, in 2008 this district was won by Rep. Torkelson with a 3% advantage. Considering that this 14
(R-04B)
2. Paul Torkelson
(R-21B)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 4.68 points, moving it from 43.8% DFL district to 48.5% DFL district.
www.commoncause.org/mn
district is a competitive district, this change could make his 2012 reelection more difficult. 3. Linda Runbeck
(R-53A)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 3.22 points, moving it from 47.5% DFL district to 50.7% DFL district.
In 2010, Rep Runbeck won election by a margin of 12%. However, in 2008 this district was won by a DFLer with a 4% advantage. Considering that this district is a competitive district, this change will make her 2012 reelection more difficult. Considering that Rep. Lohmer won by 4.91% in 2010, this change will make her 2012 reelection more difficult. In addition, this district was carried by a DFL in the 2008 election and is considered competitive. Rep. Downey won by 587 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection much more difficult. Considering that Rep. Wardlow won by 4.02% in 2010, this change will make his 2012 reelection more difficult. In addition, this district was carried by a DFL in the 2008 election and is considered competitive.
4. Kathy Lohmer
(R-56A)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 2.99 points, moving it from 49.9% DFL district to 52.9% DFL district.
5. Keith Downey
(R-41A)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 1.00 points, moving it from 51.3% DFL district to 52.3% DFL district.
6. Doug Wardlow
(R-38B)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 0.79 points, moving it from 51.1% DFL district to 51.9% DFL district.
The proposed map by Draw the Line clearly was not drawn to protect incumbent politicians as the GOP and DFL maps were. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Draw the Line map has the highest number of incumbent pairings of all five maps, which is three times higher than the GOP map. By looking at the numbers, there are certain legislators that benefit from the proposed map. However, there does not appear to be an effort to benefit the chances of one political party over another. In the 20 closest House races, the Draw the Line map improves the GOP incumbents chances by 2.76 percent. While in those same districts, it improves DFL incumbents chances by 1.40 percent.
Protection List
Legislators Protected 1. Branden Party Index Change Increased the GOP partisan index by 11.3 points, moving it from 50.2% GOP district to 61.5% GOP district. Difference in Last Election Rep. Peterson won by 57 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much easier. Rep. Kriesel won by 452 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much easier. Rep. Benson won by 3.41% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection much more difficult. Rep. Stensdrud won by 107 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much easier. Considering that Rep. Woodard won by 37 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much easier. Rep. McElfatrick won by 2.45% in 2010; this change will make her 16
Peterson (R49B)
2. John Kriesel
(R-57A)
Increased the GOP partisan index by 9.2 points, moving it from 43.5% GOP district to 52.6% GOP district. Increased the DFL partisan index by 8.0 points, moving it from 52.8% DFL district to 60.8% DFL district.
3. John Benson
(DFL-43B)
4. John Stensrud
(R-42A)
Increased the GOP partisan index by 7.2 points, moving it from 49.1% GOP district to 56.3% GOP district. Increased the GOP partisan index by 6.8 points, moving it from 47.0% GOP district to 53.8% GOP district.
8. Kelby
Woodard (R25B)
6. Carolyn
McElfatrick (R03B)
Increased the GOP partisan index by 4.7 points, moving it from 45.9% GOP district to
www.commoncause.org/mn
50.6% GOP district. 9. Glenn Increased the GOP partisan index by 3.2 points, moving it from 51.9% GOP district to 55.2% GOP district.
2012 reelection more difficult. Rep. Gruenhagen won by 336 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much easier.
Gruenhagen (R-25A)
Endangered List
Endangered Legislators 1. Debra Kiel (RParty Index Change Increased the DFL partisan index by 2.3 points, moving it from 51.7% DFL district to 54.0% DFL district. Increased the DFL partisan index by 1.6 points, moving it from 51.2% GOP district to 49.6% GOP district. Difference in Last Election Rep. Kiel won by 131 votes in 2010; this change will make her 2012 election more difficult. Rep. Hancock won by 452 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much easier.
01B)
2. David Hancock
(R-02B)
Protection List
Legislators Protected 1. Kelby Party Index Change Increased the GOP partisan index by 14.5 points, moving Difference in Last Election Rep. Woodard won by 37 votes in 2010; this 17
www.commoncause.org/mn
Woodard (R25B)
change will make his 2012 election much easier. Rep. Gruenhagen won by 336 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much easier. Rep. Peterson won by 57 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much easier. Rep. Stensdrud won by 107 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much easier. Rep. Knuth won by 4.89% in 2010; this change will make her 2012 reelection much easier. Rep. Kriesel won by 452 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much easier.
2. Glenn
Gruenhagen (R-25A)
Increased the GOP partisan index by 7.6 points, moving it from 51.9% GOP district to 59.6% GOP district. Increased the GOP partisan index by 7.5 points, moving it from 50.2% GOP district to 57.8% GOP district.
3. Branden
Peterson (R49B)
4. John Stensrud
(R-42A)
Increased the GOP partisan index by 7.1 points, moving it from 49.1% GOP district to 56.2% GOP district. Increased the DFL partisan index by 5.51 points, moving it from 53.0% DFL district to 58.6% DFL district. Increased the GOP partisan index by 4.0 points, moving it from 43.5% GOP district to 47.5 GOP district.
5. Kate Knuth
(DFL-50B)
6. John Kriesel
(R-57A)
Endangered List
Endangered Legislators 1. Keith Downey Party Index Change Increased the DFL partisan index by 14.1 points, moving it from 51.3% DFL district to 65.4% DFL district. Difference in Last Election Rep. Downey won by 587 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection much more difficult. Rep. Hancock won by 452 votes in 2010; this 18
(R-41A)
2. David Hancock
(R-02B)
www.commoncause.org/mn
from 48.8% GOP district to 56.0% GOP district. 3. Patti Fritz Increased the GOP partisan index by 4.6 points, moving it from 47.4% GOP district to 52.0% GOP district. Increased the GOP partisan index by 4.7 points, moving it from 45.9% GOP district to 41.4% GOP district.
change will make his 2012 election much difficult. Rep. Fritz won by 152 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 election much difficult. Rep. McElfatrick won by 2.45% in 2010; this change will make her 2012 reelection more difficult.
(DFL-26B)
4. Carolyn
McElfatrick (R03B)
www.commoncause.org/mn
19
this is not a significant difference between the partisan plans, it is clear that the partisan maps have fewer competitive seats that the map drawn by the County Auditors, Draw the Line Coalition and the 2002 cdrawn plan. Table 2. Senate Map Comparisons
CRITERIA 2001 COURT PLAN 2011 GOP PLAN 2011 DFL PLAN 2011 BRTTON PLAN 2011 DRAW THE LINE PLAN
Paired: 30 Open: 15 2 5 2 25 6 6 3 26 5 7 2 25
Incumbents
Paired: 18 Open: 9
Paired: 14 Open: 7
Paired: 13 Open: 7
Paired: 18 Open: 9
Paired: 28 Open: 14
DFL vs. DFL GOP vs. GOP DFL vs. GOP Competitive Districts (Dif. Between DFL & GOP not more than 8%) Districts with plurality Districts over 54%
2 3 4 25
3 0 4 24
0 3 3 22
D:32 R:35
D: 33 R:34
D:24 R:17
D: 23 R:19
D:15 R:2
D:14 R:3
D: 15 R:4
37.3%
32.8%
37.3%
32.8%
35.8%
Finally, we examine the partisan bias of the various maps. This analysis is concerned less with the treatment of incumbents and marginal representatives, and more with the overall performance of the two parties under each plan. Once again, all of the plans are biased against the DFL, sometimes severely. The DFL map allows the DFL only 37.3% of the seats when the party receives 50% of the statewide two-party vote (anti-DFL bias of 12.7 points). Among the other plans, the County Auditor plan delivers only 35.8% of the seats to the DFL at a 50% DFL vote share. All other plans deliver even more anti-DFL bias. For graphs of the seatsvotes curves for these competing plans, see Figure 2.
www.commoncause.org/mn
21
www.commoncause.org/mn
22
Protection List
Legislators Protected 1. Dan Hall (RParty Index Change Increased the GOP partisan index by 5.9 points, moving it from 52.7% DFL district to 46.8% DFL district. Difference in Last Election Sen. Hall won by 2.09% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection much easier.
40)
47)
Increased the GOP partisan index by 4.1 points, moving it from 49.6% DFL district to 45.5% DFL district. Increased the GOP partisan index by 3.8 points, moving it from 50.6% DFL district to 46.8% DFL district. Increased the GOP partisan index by 1.0 points, moving it from 49.2% DFL district to 48.2% GOP district.
Sen. Kruse won by 5.06% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection much easier. Sen. Dekruif won by 2.59% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection much easier. Sen. Miller won by 1.58% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection much easier.
3. Al Dekruif (R-
25)
4. Jeremy Miller
(R-31)
Endangered List
Endangered Legislators Party Index Change Difference in Last Election
www.commoncause.org/mn
23
1. Katie Sieben
(DFL-57)
Increased the GOP partisan index by 2.6 points, moving it from 53.1% DFL district to 50.6% DFL district. Increased the GOP partisan index by 3.3 points, moving it from 50.3% DFL district to 47.1% DFL district. Increased the GOP partisan index by 3.4 points, moving it from 54.6% DFL district to 51.2% DFL district.
Sen. Sieben won by 1.96% in 2010; this change will make her 2012 reelection more difficult. Sen. Bonoff won by 3.55% in 2010; this change will make her 2012 reelection more difficult. Sen. Kubly is retiring at the end of the legislative session making this an open seat. This change will make the 2012 reelection more difficult for the DFL candidate.
2. Terri Bonoff
(DFL-43)
3. Gary Kubly
(DFL-20)
4. Tom Saxhaug
(DFL-3)
Increased the GOP partisan index by 5.9 points, moving it from 56.8% DFL district to 50.9% DFL district.
Sen. Saxhaug won by 15.65% in 2010, so this change will is unlikely to have an impact on the 2012 election. However, the party index number indicates that this district is competitive.
Protection List
Legislators Protected 1. Terri Bonoff Party Index Change Increased the DFL partisan index by 2.7 points, moving it Difference in Last Election Sen. Bonoff won by 3.55% in 2010; this 24
(DFL-43)
www.commoncause.org/mn
www.commoncause.org/mn
25
Endangered List
Endangered Legislators 1. Benjamin Party Index Change Increased the DFL partisan index by 12.8 points, moving it from 49.6% DFL district to 62.4% DFL district. Increased the DFL partisan index by 8.1 points, moving it from 47.0% DFL district to 55.1% DFL district. Increased the DFL partisan index by 5.8 points, moving it from 46.8% DFL district to 52.6% DFL district. Difference in Last Election Sen. Kruse won by 5.06% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection much more difficult. Sen. Carlson won by 9.22% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection more difficult. Sen. Gimse won election by a margin of 9%. However, in 2006 the election was close. Considering that this district is a competitive district, this change will make his 2012 reelection more difficult. In 2010, Sen. Nelson won election by a margin of 9%. However, in 2006 the seat was won by a DFLer. Considering that this district is a competitive district, this change will make her 2012 reelection more difficult. Sen. Pederson won by 460 votes in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection more difficult.
Kruse (R-47)
2. John Carlson
(R-04)
13)
4. Carla Nelson
(R-30)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 4.1 points, moving it from 45.2% DFL district to 49.3% DFL district.
5. John Pederson
(R-15)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 1.9 points, moving it from 49.5% DFL district to 51.4% DFL district.
and competitive elections. By looking at the numbers, it is clear that there are certain legislators that the map attempts to defeat and ones that attempts to protect. However, in some cases the Britton map actually improves the chances of GOP legislators that faced tough elections in 2010 and worsens ones of DFLers. It improves the chances of Republican legislators: Sen. Hall (GOP +5.5%), Sen. Michel (GOP +4.5%), Sen. Wolf (GOP +3.7%), and Sen. Dekriuf (GOP +2.0%). While is hurts the chances of DFL legislators: Sen. Rest (DFL -10.2), Sen. Sieben (DFL -1.8%), Sen. Bonoff (DFL -1.7%). Below we highlight some of the districts that the Britton map manipulates:
Protection List
Legislators Protected 1. Keith Langseth Party Index Change Increased the DFL partisan index by 1.8 points, moving it from 49.7% DFL district to 51.5% DFL district. Difference in Last Election Sen. Langseth won by 5.13% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection easier.
(DFL-09)
Endangered List
Endangered Legislators 1. Joe Gimse (RParty Index Change Increased the DFL partisan index by 5.9 points, moving it from 46.8% DFL district to 52.7% DFL district. Difference in Last Election In 2010, Sen. Gimse won election by a margin of 9%. However, in 2006 the election was close. Considering that this district is a competitive district, this change will make his 2012 reelection more difficult. In 2010, Sen. Senjem won election by a margin of 9%. However, in 2006 the seat was won by a DFL. Considering that this district is a competitive district, this change will make his 2012 reelection more difficult. Sen. Kruse won by 5.06% in 2010; this change will make his 27
13)
2. David Senjem
(R-29)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 5.0 points, moving it from 43.7% DFL district to 48.7% DFL district.
3. Benjamin
Kruse (R-47)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 4.8 points, moving it from 48.3% DFL district to
www.commoncause.org/mn
54.4% DFL district. 4. John Howe (RIncreased the DFL partisan index by 4.3 points, moving it from 48.3% DFL district to 52.7% DFL district.
2012 reelection much more difficult. In 2010, Sen. Howe won election by a margin of 9%. However, in 2006 the seat was won by a DFL. Considering that this district is a competitive district, this change will make his 2012 reelection more difficult. In 2010, Sen. Carlson won election by a margin of 9%. However, in 2006 the DFLer won this seat. Considering that this district is a competitive district, this change will make his 2012 reelection more difficult.
28)
5. John Carlson
(R-4)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 3.5 points, moving it from 47.0% DFL district to 52.7% DFL district.
Protection List
Legislators Protected 1. Dan Hall (RParty Index Change Increased the GOP partisan index by 4.9 points, moving it from 52.7% DFL district to 47.8% DFL district. Difference in Last Election Sen. Hall won by 2.09% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection much easier. 28
40)
www.commoncause.org/mn
2. Terri Bonoff
(DFL-43)
Increased the GOP partisan index by 13.8 points, moving it from 50.3% DFL district to 64.1% DFL district. Increased the GOP partisan index by 4.7 points, moving it from 53.1% DFL district to 57.8% DFL district.
Sen. Bonoff won by 3.55% in 2010; this change will make her 2012 reelection more difficult. Sen. Sieben won by 1.96% in 2010; this change will make her 2012 reelection more difficult.
3. Katie Sieben
(DFL-57)
www.commoncause.org/mn
29
Endangered List
Endangered Legislators 1. Al Dekruif (RParty Index Change Increased the DFL partisan index by 5.4 points, moving it from 50.6% DFL district to 56.1% DFL district. Increased the DFL partisan index by 3.1 points, moving it from 52.5% DFL district to 55.6% DFL district. Difference in Last Election Sen. Dekruif won by 2.59% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection more difficult. Sen. Wolf won by 5.25% in 2010; this change will make her 2012 reelection more difficult.
25)
2. Pam Wolf R-
(51)
Protection List
Legislators Protected 1. Roger Party Index Change Increased the GOP partisan index by 5.4 points, moving it from 50.6% GOP district to 56.0% GOP district. Increased the GOP partisan index by 3.5 points, moving it from 52.7% DFL district to 49.2% DFL district. Difference in Last Election Sen. Chamberlain won by 5.47% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection easier. Sen. Hall won by 2.09% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection much easier.
Chamberlain (R-53)
2. Dan Hall (R-
40)
3. Rod Skoe
(DFL-02)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 3.2 points, moving it from 49.8% DFL district to 53.0% DFL district.
Sen. Skoe won by 6.0% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection easier. 30
www.commoncause.org/mn
4. Keith Langseth
(DFL-09)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 3.2 points, moving it from 49.7% DFL district to 52.9% DFL district.
Sen. Langseth won by 5.13% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 easier.
Endangered List Endangered Legislators 1. Terri Bonoff Party Index Change Increased the GOP partisan index by 3.1 points, moving it from 50.3% DFL district to 47.2% DFL district. Increased the DFL partisan index by 8.1 points, moving it from 52.5% DFL district to 60.7% DFL district. Increased the DFL partisan index by 2.9 points, moving it from 48.3% DFL district to 52.5% DFL district. Difference in Last Election Sen. Bonoff won by 3.55% in 2010; this change will make her 2012 reelection more difficult. Sen. Wolf won by 5.25% in 2010; this change will make her 2012 reelection more difficult. Sen. Kruse won by 5.06% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection much more difficult.
(DFL-43)
51)
3. Benjamin
Kruse (R-47)
www.commoncause.org/mn
31
www.commoncause.org/mn
32
GOP
Change in Party Index Core Percent of District that is in new district Core Republican Core - DFL GOP +2.89 points 77.9%
DFL
DFL +13.23 points 48.6%
Britton
DFL +1.0 points 86.4%
County Auditors
DFL +14.09 points 11.6%
84.0% 74.8%
43.1% 49.8%
87.7% 87.0%
100.0% 100.00%
10.7% 12.5%
www.commoncause.org/mn
33
www.commoncause.org/mn
34
GOP
Change in Party Index Core Percent of District that is in new district Core Republican Core - DFL GOP +7.13 points 37.6%
DFL
GOP +3.60 points 57.0%
Britton
GOP +2.74 points 75.4%
County Auditors
GOP +14.09 points 61.3%
42.2% 35.4%
60.1% 56.3%
80.2% 75.0%
11.5% 7.3%
65.7% 60.5%
www.commoncause.org/mn
35
www.commoncause.org/mn
36
GOP
Change in Party Index Core Percent of District that is in new district Core Republican Core - DFL GOP +9.16 points 36.4%
DFL
GOP +4.41 points 66.3%
Britton
GOP +2.12 points 72.0%
County Auditors
GOP +7.10 points 30.0%
37.2% 33.2%
67.4% 61.4%
73.1% 71.1%
37.2% 33.2%
30.7% 37.2%
www.commoncause.org/mn
37
www.commoncause.org/mn
38
GOP
Change in Party Index Core Percent of District that is in new district Core Republican Core - DFL DFL +6.16 points 26.0%
DFL
GOP +1.26 points 77.4%
Britton
GOP +1.26 points 77.2%
County Auditors
GOP +4.62 points 24.3%
21.9% 22.0%
72.0% 73.7%
72.3% 73.9%
74.3% 75.9%
22.1% 24.8%
www.commoncause.org/mn
39
www.commoncause.org/mn
40
GOP
Change in Party Index Core Percent of District that is in new district Core Republican Core - DFL GOP +10.8 points 22.2%
DFL
GOP +3.20 points 63.5%
Britton
GOP +9.87 points 21.8%
County Auditors
GOP +2.21 points 76.8%
32.5% 25.7%
69.5% 67.1%
31.1% 24.1%
87.5% 87.6%
76.8% 77.3%
www.commoncause.org/mn
41
www.commoncause.org/mn
42
GOP
Change in Party Index Core Percent of District that is in new district Core Republican Core - DFL GOP +5.40 points 62.2%
DFL
DFL +1.24 points 78.1%
Britton
GOP +2.85 points 62.2%
County Auditors
GOP +0.29 points 67.5%
65.6% 60.9%
79.2% 77.9%
65.6% 60.9%
84.1% 83.5%
69.8% 65.9%
www.commoncause.org/mn
43
www.commoncause.org/mn
44
GOP
Change in Party Index Core Percent of District that is in new district Core Republican Core - DFL GOP +4.68 points 16.6%
DFL
GOP +12.50 points 20.2%
Britton
GOP +12.79 points 37.1%
County Auditors
GOP +14.45 points 26.3%
17.3% 12.1%
22.9% 14.9%
45.5% 25.6%
38.9% 24.2%
32.7% 19.2%
www.commoncause.org/mn
45
www.commoncause.org/mn
46
GOP
Change in Party Index Core Percent of District that is in new district Core Republican Core - DFL DFL +0.22 points 92.9%
DFL
DFL +4.12 points 60.4%
Britton
GOP +3.32 points 68.0%
County Auditors
DFL +4.58 points 66.0%
92.3% 91.8%
58.2% 58.2%
75.1% 70.6%
43.7% 39.9%
64.5% 64.9%
www.commoncause.org/mn
47
www.commoncause.org/mn
48
GOP
Change in Party Index Core Percent of District that is in new district Core Republican Core - DFL GOP +1.18 points 78.9%
DFL
DFL +1.15 points 63.1%
Britton
DFL +0.79 points 49.2%
County Auditors
DFL +0.64 points 69.5%
77.9% 76.6%
59.9% 60.8%
53.9% 53.9%
52.0% 51.2%
75.8% 74.0%
www.commoncause.org/mn
49
www.commoncause.org/mn
50
GOP
Change in Party Index Core Percent of District that is in new district Core Republican Core - DFL DFL +3.48 points 46.9%
DFL
DFL +8.32 points 5.9%
Britton
DFL +8.68 points 5.9%
County Auditors
DFL +1.07 points 34.0%
47.4% 50.2%
6.1% 7.8%
6.1% 7.8%
24.2% 26.7%
33.3% 40.2%
www.commoncause.org/mn
51
www.commoncause.org/mn
52
GOP
Change in Party Index Core Percent of District that is in new district Core Republican Core - DFL GOP +4.1 points 61.7%
DFL
DFL +12.8 points 4.6%
Britton
DFL +4.8 points 38.1%
County Auditors
DFL +2.9 points 28.9%
65.0% 60.7%
3.1% 4.9%
36.5% 39.5%
88.7% 87.4%
27.7% 28.6%
www.commoncause.org/mn
53
www.commoncause.org/mn
54
GOP
Change in Party Index Core Percent of District that is in new district Core Republican Core - DFL GOP +2.6 points 35.1%
DFL
DFL +0.3 points 65.6%
Britton
DFL +1.8 points 87.8%
County Auditors
GOP +0.7 points 55.5%
38.4% 35.9%
65.4% 65.3%
91.5% 87.8%
12.0% 16.4%
55.6% 55.2%
www.commoncause.org/mn
55
www.commoncause.org/mn
56
GOP
Change in Party Index Core Percent of District that is in new district Core Republican Core - DFL GOP +3.3 points 25.0%
DFL
DFL +2.7 points 63.9%
Britton
GOP +1.7 points 43.8%
County Auditors
GOP +3.1 points 42.5%
26.7% 29.7%
60.0% 67.0%
43.4% 48.8%
10.4% 14.3%
44.7% 43.8%
www.commoncause.org/mn
57
www.commoncause.org/mn
58
GOP
Change in Party Index Core Percent of District that is in new district Core Republican Core - DFL GOP +5.9 points 48.8%
DFL
No change 88.0%
Britton
GOP +5.5 points 55.3%
County Auditors
GOP +3.5 points 49.6%
44.9% 40.5%
87.4% 88.1%
53.66% 49.8%
46.6% 41.6%
46.6% 41.6%
www.commoncause.org/mn
59
www.commoncause.org/mn
60
GOP
Change in Party Index Core Percent of District that is in new district Core Republican Core - DFL GOP +5.9 points 55.8%
DFL
GOP+1.7 points 51.3%
Britton
GOP +1.2 points 93.9%
County Auditors
DFL +1.0 points 70.3%
60.2% 54.3%
50.1% 53.1%
91.9% 95.0%
75.2% 80.1%
70.6% 72.7%
www.commoncause.org/mn
61
www.commoncause.org/mn
62
GOP
Change in Party Index Core Percent of District that is in new district Core Republican Core - DFL DFL +1.0 points 88.9%
DFL
GOP +6.8 points 27.3%
Britton
GOP+0.6 points 44.8%
County Auditors
GOP+5.4 points 25.1%
90.0% 91.9%
32.9% 23.8%
51.7% 44.6%
15.6% 16.2%
26.4% 21.8%
www.commoncause.org/mn
63
www.commoncause.org/mn
64
Newest Districts
This redistricting process forces the district lines to shift. However, some districts change more than others. Below we analyzed which incumbents in the House and Senate will have the highest percentage of new constituents in their districts for each of the five proposed maps. The listing below shows which districts retained the fewest constituents.
DFL
1. LARRY HOWES - 5.9% BRANDEN PETERSEN 6.7% TONY CORNISH 7.2% ERIE LEIDIGER 11.4% GLENN GRUENHAGE N - 13.0% JENIFER LOON - 13.5% MIKE BEARD - 14.1% TOM HACKBARTH - 18.7% KELBY WOODARD 20.2%
Britton
1. TOM HACKBARTH - 1.2% DEAN URDAHL 4.5% LARRY HOWES - 5.9% LINDA SLOCUM 8.4% PAUL TORKELSON 12.4% BRANDEN PETERSEN 14.9% PHYLLIS KAHN - 17.2% MIKE BENSON 18.5% SONDRA ERICKSON 18.6%
County Auditors
1. JOHN BENSON 4.9% BRANDEN PETERSEN 5.5% TARA MACK 10.4% LARRY HOSCH 10.6% PAT MAZOROL 10.8% KEITH DOWNEY 11.6% ERIN MURPHY 16.2% MELISSA HORTMAN 16.6% CHRIS SWEDZINSKI 17.9%
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
www.commoncause.org/mn
65
18.6%
N - 19.8%
www.commoncause.org/mn
66
Senate GOP
1. MIKE PARRY (R) - 15.6% 2. WARREN LIMMER (R) - 23.7% 3. TERRI BONOFF (DFL) 26.7% 4. GEN OLSON (R) - 27.9% 5. KEN KELASH (DFL) 26.2%
DFL
1. BENJAMIN KRUSE (R) 3.1% 2. MIKE JUNGBAUER (R) - 13.5% 3. MICHELLE BENSON (R) - 22.2% 4. GEOFF MICHEL (R) - 26.5% 5. MICHELLE FISCHBACH (R) - 27.8%
Britton
1. GEN OLSON (R) - 3.1% 2. GEOFF MICHEL (R) - 18.1% 3. AL DEKRUIF (R) - 18.8% 4. TED LILLIE (R) - 22.7% 5. MIKE JUNGBAUER (R) - 31.1%
County Auditors
1. SEAN NIENOW (R) - 15.5% 2. JOHN MARTY (DFL) 17.8% 3. PAM WOLF (R) - 16.6% 4. MICHELLE BENSON (R) - 22.2% 5. PATRICIA TORRES RAY (DFL) 11.1%
www.commoncause.org/mn
67
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible with generous support from The Bush Foundation. This report was developed by: Common Cause Minnesota 2323 E. Franklin Ave Minneapolis, MN 55406 We would also like to thank: Professor Clayton Nall of Stanford University Laura Fredrick Wang of the League of Women Voters Jim Slagle of Ohio Citizen Action
www.commoncause.org/mn
68
Appendix A:
To: From: University RE: Mike Dean, Common Cause Minnesota Laura Fredrick Wang, League of Women Voters Minnesota Dr. Michael McDonald, Associate Professor at George Mason Common Cause Minnesota Memo on Redistricting Plan L1101_0
An analysis of proposed redistricting plan L1101_0 by Dr. Michael McDonald at George Mason University for Common Cause Minnesota finds that the proposed redistricting plan is biased towards the Republican Party. Using a metric commonly used by practitioners, academics, and the courts to assess the partisan bias of redistricting plans, Dr. McDonald finds that the DFL would need to win 53.3% of the vote within the legislative districts to win a majority of the legislative seats. Dr. McDonald and his colleagues are leading the Public Mapping Project, designed to bring more public participation and transparency to the redistricting process. More information about the Project is available at www.publicmapping.org.
Methodology
The analysis used here is consistent with the approach used by practitioners, academics, and the courts. The approach has been used for the past 40 years by the tie-breakers appointed to the New Jersey Legislative Redistricting Commission by the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court.4 It has been used to assess partisan gerrymandering claims by Democratic and Republican expert witnesses in the 2003 Texas re-redistricting court case and a 2002 seminal partisan gerrymandering case in Pennsylvania.5 The methodology has been discussed extensively in peer-reviewed academic journals.6 The idea is to measure the underlying partisan strength of districts using statewide elections. The underlying partisan strength is one among many factors that determine election outcomes, including the power of incumbency, national and
Donald E. Stokes. 1993. Legislative Redistricting by the New Jersey Plan. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Fund for New Jersey. 5 Examples of expert witnesses representing Democrats, Republicans, and bipartisan commissions who have used principal components of the method include Keith Gaddie in LULAC v. Perry, 126 S. Ct. 2594 (2006); Gary King in Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146 (1993); Jonathan Katz in O'Lear v. Miller No. 222 F. Supp. 2d 850 - 2002; Allan Lichtman in Vieth v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 188 F. Supp. 2d 532 (MD Pa. 2002); and Michael McDonald in In Re 2001 Redistricting Cases (Case No. S-10504). 63 Bernard Grofman and Gary King. 2007. The Future of Partisan Symmetry as a Judicial Test for Partisan Gerrymandering after LULAC v. Perry. Election Law Journal 6(1): 10; J. Morgan Kousser. 1996. Estimating the Partisan Consequences of Redistricting PlansSimply, Legislative Studies Quarterly 21(4): 530; Janet Campagna and Bernard Grofman 1990. Party Control and Partisan Bias in 1980s Congressional Redistricting. The Journal of Politics 52(4): 1247.
www.commoncause.org/mn
69
state tides, and candidates campaign resources, among many other factors. The method is as follows:
1. Calculate the vote for a statewide office(s) within the proposed districts. I describe the methodology used to calculate these statistics in the appendix. 2. Calculate the DFL percentage of the DFL plus Republican vote, what is often referred to as the two-party vote. 3. Apply a uniform vote swing by adding and subtracting the same percentage increment to each district. For example, by adding and subtracting 1% to the two-party vote share in each district. 4. Note the percentage of districts that a party constitutes a majority for a given vote share. Of most interest is the percentage of seats a party is expected to win with 50% of the two-party vote.
In Figure 1, I plot the seats to votes relationship for the DFL two-party share of the 2008 presidential votes tabulated within the proposed L1101_0 districts. In a fair plan, a party should win 50% of the seats with 50% of the vote. This partisan fairness analysis indicates the DFL needs 53.3% of the two-party vote to win a majority of the House seats.
www.commoncause.org/mn
70
Figure 1. DFL Seats to Votes Relationship for Plan L1101_0 Using the 2008 Presidential Vote
www.commoncause.org/mn
71
1. I correspond the 2008 precincts obtained from LCC-GIS as best as possible to their equivalents in the 2010 census geography, what are known as voting tabulation districts. In a few instances for smallpopulation geographies, I did not make a correspondence. 2. I apportion the precinct level election results into the smaller-sized census blocks by the census blocks share of the precincts voting-age population. 3. Using what is known as a block assignment file, which lists the district assigned to each census block, I sum the election results into the proposed districts.
The 2008 presidential vote tabulated within the proposed L1101_0 districts is presented in Table 1. I calculate the DFL percent of the two-party vote, which is the DFL vote divided by the DFL vote plus the Republican vote. The average DFL vote share among these districts is 55.3%. I calculate a normalized two-party vote to simulate a toss-up election, where the political parties have equal vote shares at
www.commoncause.org/mn
72
50%, by subtracting 5.3 percentage points from each districts two-party vote share.
www.commoncause.org/mn
73
Distri ct 01A 01B 02A 02B 03A 03B 04A 04B 05A 05B 06A 06B 07A 07B 08A 08B 09A 09B 10A 10B 11A 11B 12A 12B 13A 13B 14A 14B 15A 15B 16A 16B 17A
Two-Party Vote 47.7% 52.3% 49.5% 49.7% 61.8% 67.0% 61.0% 63.6% 47.8% 42.8% 51.8% 44.2% 64.6% 55.8% 70.1% 70.7% 59.8% 50.6% 44.6% 43.1% 49.2% 42.7% 47.7% 40.1% 44.1% 47.1% 44.3% 44.2% 50.2% 55.6% 53.8% 47.4% 45.4%
www.commoncause.org/mn
17B 18A 18B 19A 19B 20A 20B 21A 21B 22A 22B 23A 23B 24A 24B 25A 25B 26A 26B 27A 27B 28A 28B 29A 29B 30A 30B 31A 31B 32A 32B 33A 33B 34A 34B 35A 35B 36A 36B 37A 37B 38A 38B
9,442 9,193 8,753 8,376 8,610 13,034 10,851 10,336 12,015 11,932 9,680 9,394 11,060 10,484 10,649 10,371 13,113 11,675 11,756 7,342 8,227 9,062 8,515 8,770 9,564 8,961 10,957 9,527 11,124 10,180 6,146 10,196 11,743 8,175 9,566 12,096 12,795 14,083 14,130 11,186 11,528 11,449 12,497
13,673 10,774 9,429 10,689 11,579 9,480 7,208 11,674 9,343 7,522 10,633 11,609 8,082 9,017 11,320 10,550 8,334 7,137 9,674 12,433 11,479 11,216 11,095 13,101 11,065 13,634 12,327 11,562 13,408 12,893 9,594 13,029 10,675 12,434 12,929 11,523 12,018 9,770 8,396 5,264 5,905 9,567 7,620
584 510 353 512 512 432 437 561 463 352 519 460 363 350 298 477 422 438 461 333 322 542 461 424 390 376 371 322 444 466 213 346 269 382 224 258 313 340 453 226 296 420 439
40.8% 46.0% 48.1% 43.9% 42.6% 57.9% 60.1% 47.0% 56.3% 61.3% 47.7% 44.7% 57.8% 53.8% 48.5% 49.6% 61.1% 62.1% 54.9% 37.1% 41.7% 44.7% 43.4% 40.1% 46.4% 39.7% 47.1% 45.2% 45.3% 44.1% 39.0% 43.9% 52.4% 39.7% 42.5% 51.2% 51.6% 59.0% 62.7% 68.0% 66.1% 54.5% 62.1%
35.3% 40.5% 42.6% 38.4% 37.1% 52.4% 54.6% 41.4% 50.7% 55.8% 42.1% 39.2% 52.3% 48.2% 42.9% 44.0% 55.6% 56.5% 49.3% 31.6% 36.2% 39.2% 37.9% 34.6% 40.8% 34.1% 41.5% 39.7% 39.8% 38.6% 33.5% 38.4% 46.9% 34.1% 37.0% 45.7% 46.0% 53.5% 57.2% 62.5% 60.6% 49.0% 56.6% 75
www.commoncause.org/mn
39A 39B 40A 40B 41A 41B 42A 42B 43A 43B 44A 44B 45A 45B 46A 46B 47A 47B 48A 48B 49A 49B 50A 50B 51A 51B 52A 52B 53A 53B 54A 54B 55A 55B 56A 56B 57A 57B 58A 58B 59A 59B 60A
10,028 11,964 13,003 12,941 13,500 14,479 13,093 12,660 12,322 10,964 7,753 9,215 11,130 11,748 13,716 13,705 15,532 17,889 14,374 14,285 13,398 11,936 13,898 13,071 12,293 11,125 9,606 8,384 8,862 9,359 9,197 8,895 10,478 11,149 13,030 12,003 11,399 11,455 11,530 10,837 14,873 16,845 16,885
10,397 9,561 11,882 11,820 10,547 9,447 9,478 9,229 12,132 10,640 12,607 11,274 12,632 10,752 12,487 12,421 7,045 7,854 12,263 11,819 9,891 6,248 10,456 7,973 10,138 10,035 11,030 10,840 9,008 12,324 12,067 11,393 10,959 9,751 10,128 10,600 10,465 10,950 10,697 10,637 2,988 3,037 4,509
360 428 370 375 406 392 365 381 302 293 453 280 285 248 407 284 369 352 308 241 428 294 423 465 277 338 457 425 261 315 266 355 262 301 345 338 322 313 447 430 276 248 541
49.1% 55.6% 52.3% 52.3% 56.1% 60.5% 58.0% 57.8% 50.4% 50.8% 38.1% 45.0% 46.8% 52.2% 52.3% 52.5% 68.8% 69.5% 54.0% 54.7% 57.5% 65.6% 57.1% 62.1% 54.8% 52.6% 46.5% 43.6% 49.6% 43.2% 43.3% 43.8% 48.9% 53.3% 56.3% 53.1% 52.1% 51.1% 51.9% 50.5% 83.3% 84.7% 78.9%
43.6% 50.1% 46.7% 46.7% 50.6% 55.0% 52.5% 52.3% 44.9% 45.2% 32.6% 39.4% 41.3% 46.7% 46.8% 46.9% 63.3% 64.0% 48.4% 49.2% 52.0% 60.1% 51.5% 56.6% 49.3% 47.0% 41.0% 38.1% 44.1% 37.6% 37.7% 38.3% 43.4% 47.8% 50.7% 47.6% 46.6% 45.6% 46.3% 44.9% 77.7% 79.2% 73.4% 76
www.commoncause.org/mn
60B 61A 61B 62A 62B 63A 63B 64A 64B 65A 65B 66A 66B 67A 67B
14,930 23,352 17,992 14,183 16,653 20,032 19,378 16,015 14,819 17,561 20,494 14,019 9,978 11,886 12,660
4,057 4,358 6,709 1,658 1,895 5,436 3,648 4,925 2,923 7,209 4,509 4,108 2,756 5,057 6,505
411 425 278 325 361 394 461 339 307 382 416 357 256 320 373
78.6% 84.3% 72.8% 89.5% 89.8% 78.7% 84.2% 76.5% 83.5% 70.9% 82.0% 77.3% 78.4% 70.2% 66.1%
73.1% 78.7% 67.3% 84.0% 84.3% 73.1% 78.6% 71.0% 78.0% 65.4% 76.4% 71.8% 72.8% 64.6% 60.5%
www.commoncause.org/mn
77
www.commoncause.org/mn
78