Report Uncovers How Partisans Manipulate Redistricting Process

Executive Summary
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
drawn by Ramsey County elections manager Joe Mansky receive our attention in this report.
Table 1. Key Statistics for Competing House Redistricting Proposals

CRITERIA 2001 COURT PLAN Paired: 34 Open: 17 5 5 7 49 2011 GOP PLAN Paired: 16 Open: 8 3 1 4 49 2011 DFL PLAN 2011 PROGRES SIVE PLAN Paired: 39 Open: 20 4 11 4 47 2011 DRAW THE LINE PLAN Paired: 54 Open: 24 4 12 11 50 2011 MANSKY PLAN Paired: 47 Open: 19 8 10 5 47
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:73 R:61 D:48 R:37 D:34 R:8 38.1%
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
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.
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.
Analysis of Minnesota House of Representatives Maps

We now turn to an overall summary of key statistics on the House of Representatives proposals. The GOP House of Representatives map has only 16 incumbents paired, ten of which are DFL House members. By contrast, in 2002 the court paired 34 legislators and had an equal balance between the political parties in the number of pairings. Using this benchmark it clearly shows how the GOP map violates one of the principles set by the court, that districts should not be drawn for the purposes of protecting or defeating an incumbent. The DFL map makes a similar error. Unlike the GOP map, the DFL map has 35 pairings, similar to the 2002 court plan. The problem is that the DFL has no DFL vs. DFL pairings and 12 GOP vs. GOP pairings. Even with the fact that there are more GOP incumbents than DFL incumbents, it is not coincidental that the map draws so many GOP pairings. The Britton map has more incumbent pairings at 39, but is also guilty of pairing more GOP incumbents than DFL: four DFL vs. DFL pairings and 11 GOP vs. GOP. Compare that to the independent maps drawn by the county auditors and the Draw the Line Commission, which have significantly more pairings. The Draw the Line map has 54 incumbent pairings and the Auditor plan has 47 pairings. Shoring up Competitive Districts The DFL and GOP maps each treat competitive districts slightly differently. The GOP map treats the competitive districts differently than non-competitive districts. The GOP improves GOP party index vote in GOP won swing districts by 2.23 points while in the non-competitive districts it actually improves the DFL party index by 0.44 points This patterns shows the GOP attempts to more efficiently spread out GOP voters to improve their chances of keeping control of GOP swing districts. The DFL maps attempt to spread their votes from non-competitive districts to competitive districts. The DFL party index in swing districts increases by .66 points by decreasing the DFL vote in non-competitive districts by 0.79 points. However, the GOP map is more efficient at accomplishing this than the DFL map. Under the five proposed maps evaluated in this report, the GOP map and the County Auditors maps are the most biased. If the DFL received 50% of the statewide vote under these two plans, they would only receive 36.6% of the seats in the Minnesota House of Representatives. While the DFL map provides the least partisan bias of the five proposed maps, it still yields only a 38.8% seat share when the Democrats win 50% of the vote. All plans are, to varying degrees, biased against the DFL, including the DFLs own map. Partisan Bias We estimated the seats-votes curves for the current House of Representatives map and the five competing 2010 redistricting plans. These results appear in Figure 1. www.commoncause.org/mn 8
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.
Effect of the GOP Map on Vulnerable Incumbents

The proposed map by the GOP has an abnormally low number of incumbent pairings and has fewer competitive districts. By looking at the numbers, legislators that are from the most competitive districts receive the most protection from the map. Eight out the top ten incumbent Republicans that had the greatest increase of Republican voters to their district were from the most competitive House races. The only legislators not in a competitive district were the Speaker of House Kurt Zellers and Rep. Kelly. In fact, most of the races that GOP protects are first term members of the legislature.
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
52.9% GOP district.
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)
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)
Effect of the DFL Map on Vulnerable Incumbents

The proposed map by the DFL is an attempt to protect incumbent DFL House members but not at the same level that the GOP does. The DFL map has a lessthan-expected number of incumbent pairings and has fewer competitive districts than what the court proposed in 2002. By looking at the numbers, it is clear that www.commoncause.org/mn 11
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
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)
5. Doug Wardlow
(R-38B)
Effect of the Britton Map on Vulnerable Incumbents

Of the interveners, the proposed map by the Britton plaintiff does the best job of not protecting incumbents because it has a respectable number of incumbent pairings 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 it attempts to protect. It is unclear whether legislators are being targeted on purpose or the product of some other factors that are publicly unknown. In some cases, the Britton www.commoncause.org/mn 13
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)
district is a competitive district, this change could make his 2012 reelection more difficult. 3. Linda Runbeck
(R-53A)
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)
5. Keith Downey
(R-41A)
6. Doug Wardlow
(R-38B)
Effect of the Draw the Line Map on Vulnerable Incumbents

www.commoncause.org/mn 15
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
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)
Effect of the County Auditor Map on Vulnerable Incumbents

The proposed map by Minnesota Association of County Auditors is likely the best plan submitted to the court. Unlike the partisan plans, this map was not drawn to protect incumbent politicians because it has reasonable number of incumbent pairings. Just like every other plan, there are certain legislators that benefit or are disadvantaged by 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 County Auditor map improves the GOP incumbents chances by 1.12 points. While it those same districts, it weakens DFL incumbents by increasing the Republican Party index in those districts by 0.49 points.
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
Woodard (R25B)
it from 47.0% GOP district to 61.5% GOP district.
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)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 7.2 points, moving it
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)
19
Analysis of Minnesota Senate Maps

Introduction The Minnesota redistricting panel is currently considering maps drawn for the Minnesota House of Representatives and Senate. Not surprising, the Senate maps drawn by the political parties show a clear attempt to protect incumbent legislators, while the maps drawn by the outside groups created more competitive races. Incumbent Pairings As was mentioned earlier, the number of incumbent pairings is a good indication of whether a map was drawn with the intention of protecting incumbents. The Senate GOP map has slightly fewer incumbent pairings than the 2002 court map. The GOP map has 14 incumbent pairings compared to 18 incumbent pairings done by the court. The main problem with the Senate GOP map is that it does not have any GOP vs. GOP pairings. This is the clearest example of how this map was also drawn to protect incumbents. The DFL map for Senate has almost the exact same number of pairings as the GOP, with 13. The problem is that the DFL has no DFL vs. DFL pairings and 3 GOP vs. GOP pairings. Like the GOP plan, this demonstrates how the maps are designed to protect incumbents. The Britton map does a better job because the number of incumbent pairings matches what the court did in 2002 and also has at least two DFL vs. DFL pairings. However, the Draw the Line map has a much higher number of incumbent pairings (30) and there is balance between the party pairings. This map was clearly not drawn to protect incumbents. Shoring up competitive districts The GOP map treats the competitive districts differently than non-competitive districts. It improves GOP party index vote in swing districts by 1.7 points compared to 0.2 points in non-competitive districts. This pattern shows a slight attempt by the GOP to more efficiently spread out GOP voters to improve their chances of keeping swing districts. In looking at the DFL maps, they also attempt to spread their votes from non-competitive districts to competitive districts. The DFL party index in swing districts increases by .7% but then decreases in noncompetitive districts by .5%. The Britton map shows very small changes. Reducing the number of competitive districts Until 2010, the Minnesota Senate has been considered a lock for DFL control. In that election 16 Senate seats switched from DFL to GOP. Besides that election, Senate seats have not been considered very competitive. The maps being proposed by the political parties would have a similar number of competitive districts compared to the map adopted by the court in 2002. In examining the maps proposed by the courts in 2002, there are 25 competitive Senate seats. The GOP map has 24 competitive seats and the DFL has 22. While www.commoncause.org/mn 20
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
2011 MANSKY PLAN
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:31 R:36 D:22 R:21 D:14 R:3
D:32 R:35 D:24 R:21 D:15 R:3
D:34 R:33 I:0 D:22 R:20
D:32 R:35 D:21 R:20 D:16 R:3 31.3%
D: 33 R:34
D:24 R:17
D: 23 R:19
Districts over 60%
D:15 R:2
D:14 R:3
D: 15 R:4
Partisan Bias Score (What percent Partisan Bias of
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.
21
22
Effect of the GOP Map on Vulnerable Senate Incumbents

The proposed GOP map for Senate is a more surgical attempt to protect incumbent Republican Senate members because control of the Senate rests in essentially 17 districts. By looking at the numbers, it is clear that there are GOP incumbent legislators whose reelection prospects the map attempts to weaken and DFL incumbent legislators that the proposed map attempts to protect. Interestingly, there are some districts where they are making reelection more difficult for members of their own party, including Sen. Parry (DFL +1.3 points) and Sen. Dahms (DFL +6.6 points). This may be a product of the changing demographics in these areas. Or, in the case of Sen. Parry, who announced that he is seeking higher office, it could be a way to take a swing district and concede it to the other party.
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)
2. Ben Kruse (R-
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
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)
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.
Effect of the DFL Map on Vulnerable Senate Incumbents

The proposed DFL Senate map weakens the election prospects of seven Senate Republicans. However, in some cases the DFL map actually improves the chances of GOP Senators that faced tough elections in 2010. That list includes Sen. Chamberlain and Sen. Dekruif. Below we highlight some of the districts that the DFL map manipulates:
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)
from 50.3% DFL district to 53.0% DFL district.
change will make her 2012 reelection easier.
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)
3. Joe Gimse (R-
13)
4. Carla Nelson
(R-30)
5. John Pederson
(R-15)
Effect of the Britton Map on Vulnerable Senate Incumbents

Again, the proposed map by the Britton plaintiff does the best job of creating competitive elections because it has a respectable number of incumbent pairings www.commoncause.org/mn 26
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)
3. Benjamin
Kruse (R-47)
Increased the DFL partisan index by 4.8 points, moving it from 48.3% DFL district to
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)
Effect of the Draw the Line Map on Vulnerable Senate Incumbents

The proposed map by the Draw the Line coalition does not show any sign of benefiting one party of the other. In fact, the map attempts to make the districts more competitive. We examined how the map impacted the 15 districts with the largest partisan score increase. When the partisan score increased in support of the GOP, 12 out of the 15 districts were DFL incumbents, thus making the districts more competitive. And, when the partisan score increased the number of Democrats in a district, 11 out of the 15 were GOP incumbents. In the end this map does benefit and weaken the election prospects of some incumbents from competitive districts.
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)
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)
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)
Effect of the County Auditor Map on Vulnerable Senate Incumbents

The proposed map by the County Auditors Association does not show any sign of benefiting one party or the other. This plan, like the Draw the Line plan, was clearly drawn not to benefit incumbent legislators. Both plans have around the same number of incumbent pairings as the court drawn plan from 2002. This shows how a map should be drawn when political parties attempt to draw their own map. In the end this map does benefit and weaken the election prospects of some incumbents from competitive districts.
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)
Sen. Skoe won by 6.0% in 2010; this change will make his 2012 reelection easier. 30
4. Keith Langseth
(DFL-09)
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)
2. Pam Wolf (R-
51)
3. Benjamin
Kruse (R-47)
31
Analysis of Swing House of Representative and Senate Districts

In analyzing the maps, it is clear that there is a select set of battle ground seats where the political parties were trying to strengthen their position. The battle will be over ten key House districts: Downey (R), Kriesel (R), Stensrud (R), Fritz (DFL), Liebling (DFL), Dittrich (DFL), Woodard (R), Mcelfatrick(R), Wardlow (R), and Howes(R). And, in the Senate, six swing seats are indicated: Kruse(R), Dekruif(R), Sieben (DFL), Bonoff (DFL), Hall (R), Saxhaug (DFL), and Chamberlain (R). Whoever wins the battle over the redistricting maps will have a significant advantage heading into the 2012 election. The redistricting process has a profound impact on electoral outcomes for the Minnesota Legislature because districts can be drawn in a way that increases the number of base DFL or GOP voters in a district. While it cannot ensure victory, bringing in more base voters to competitive districts can dramatically improve a partys chances of flipping or protecting a key legislative seat.
32
Representative Keith Downey (Republican - 41A)

In 2010, this was one of the closest races in Minnesota for the House of Representatives with the margin of victory at 2.91%. This district has a GOP party index of 51%, which is almost the exact percent that Rep. Downey received in the 2010 election. The three plans offer significant differences in the party index numbers. The GOP attempts to make the district lean slightly more republican and the DFL tries to increase the DFL party index number significantly. The Britton map make it slightly more friendly to the DFL. By examining what percent of the new district is from the current district, it can show how the map was manipulated. The GOP map keeps a large percent of the old district at almost 80%. However, they clearly remove more DFL areas and retain more GOP areas, while the DFL map keeps a little less than half of the old district and shows a bias toward keeping DFL voters in the district. The Britton map keeps most of the current district together and only shows a slight variation in the number of GOP and DFL voters it retains.
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%
Draw the Line

DFL +0.43 points 100.0%
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%
33
34
Representative John Kriesel (Republican - 57A)

In 2010, this was one of the closest races in Minnesota for the House of Representatives with the margin of victory at 3.18%. This district has a DFL party index of 54.6%, which means that Rep. Kriesel outperformed the party index in the 2010 election. The three plans offer differences in the party index numbers. The GOP attempts to make the district lean more Republican. Though the DFL and Britton maps allow the district to get more GOP friendly, both maps still keep this as a competitive seat. The core map score demonstrates how the GOP map makes the district almost twothirds new for Rep. Kriesel. In contrast, the DFL keeps more of the current district intact at 57% and the Britton map keeps the highest percent of the old district at 75%. The GOP map retains more GOP voters and picks up GOP voters in the new areas. Conversely, the DFL and Britton map keeps more Republican voters in the new district and picks up more DFL voters in the new areas of the district.
GOP
DFL
GOP +3.60 points 57.0%
Britton
Draw the Line

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%
35
36
Representative Kirk Stensrud (Republican - 42A)

In 2010, this was the third closest race in Minnesota for the House of Representatives with the margin of victory at 107 votes. This district has a DFL party index of 50.9%, which means that Rep. Stensrud performed at the party index in the 2010 election. The three plans attempt to change the party index numbers for their own self-interest. The GOP attempts to make the district lean more republican and the DFL allows the district to get more GOP friendly, but still keeps as a competitive seat. The Britton map is has the smallest change in party index score. The changes to the core map score show how the parties drew this district in a very similar manner as Rep Kriesels district. The GOP map makes the district almost two-thirds new for Rep. Stensrud. The DFL keeps more of the current district intact at 66% and the Britton map keeps the highest percent of the old district at 72%. The GOP map retains more GOP voters and picks up GOP voters in the new areas. The DFL map keeps more Republican voters in the new district and picks up more DFL voters in the new areas of the district. The Britton map keeps slightly more GOP voters than DFL voters.
GOP
DFL
Britton
Draw the Line

County Auditors
37.2% 33.2%
67.4% 61.4%
73.1% 71.1%
37.2% 33.2%
30.7% 37.2%
37
38
Representative Patti Fritz (Democrat 26B)

In 2010, this was one of the closest races in Minnesota for the House of Representatives with the margin of victory at 1.16%. This district has a DFL party index of 52.56% which means that Rep. Fritz matched the party index in the 2010 election. The three plans break the conventional wisdom because the GOP makes this district stronger for the DFL and the DFL maps make it stronger for the GOP. The GOP significantly increases the number of DFL voters in the district, by 6.2%, while the DFL and Britton maps slightly increase the number of GOP voters. The core map score shows how the GOP map makes the district almost threequarters new for Rep. Fritz. The DFL and Britton maps keep more of the current district largely intact at 77%. The GOP map retains an equal number of GOP and DFL voters, but picks up DFL voters in the new areas to make the district more DFL friendly. In contrast, the DFL and Britton maps keep more DFL voters in the new district and picks up more GOP voters in the new areas of the district.
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
Britton
Draw the Line

County Auditors
21.9% 22.0%
72.0% 73.7%
72.3% 73.9%
74.3% 75.9%
22.1% 24.8%
39
40
Representative Tina Liebling (Democrat - 30A)

In 2010, this was not considered a close race for the Minnesota House of Representatives because the margin of victory was 10.42%. This district has a DFL party index of 52.4% which means that Rep. Liebling outperformed the party index in the 2010 election. The GOP attempts to make the district more competitive and the DFL makes it just slightly more competitive. However, the Britton map follows the GOP and makes it more competitive. The core map score shows how the GOP and Britton maps make the district almost 80% new for Rep. Liebling. The DFL keeps more of the current district intact at 63%. The GOP and Britton maps retain more Republican voters, while the DFL map keeps slightly more Republican voters in the new district.
GOP
DFL
Britton
Draw the Line

County Auditors
32.5% 25.7%
69.5% 67.1%
31.1% 24.1%
87.5% 87.6%
76.8% 77.3%
41
42
Representative Denise Dittrich (Democrat - 47A)

In 2010, this was one of the closest races for the Minnesota House of Representatives with the margin of victory at 1.9%. This district has a DFL party index of 46.84%, which means that Rep. Dittrich outperformed the party index in the 2010 election. The GOP attempts to make the district more Republican and the DFL makes it just slightly more Democratic. The Britton map follows the GOP and makes it lean more Republican. The core map score shows how the GOP and Britton maps make the district onethird new for Rep. Dittrich. The DFL keeps more of the current district intact at almost 80%. The GOP and Britton maps retain more GOP voters, while the GOP picks up Republican voters in the new areas, the Britton map picks up more DFL voters. The DFL map keeps slightly more Republican voters in the new district, but picks up more DFL voters in the new areas.
GOP
DFL
Britton
Draw the Line

County Auditors
65.6% 60.9%
79.2% 77.9%
65.6% 60.9%
84.1% 83.5%
69.8% 65.9%
43
44
Representative Kelby Woodard (Republican 25B)

In 2010, this was the closest race for Minnesota for the House of Representatives with the margin of victory at 37 votes. This district has a DFL party index of 52.97%, which means that Rep. Woodard outperformed the party index in the 2010 election. The three plans all make this district friendlier to a GOP candidate. The GOP increases the number of GOP voters in the district by 4.68%. The DFL and Britton maps increase the number of GOP voters by a whopping 13%. This is a clear attempt to pack Republican voters into this district so that other surrounding districts can become more competitive. The core map score shows how the GOP and DFL map makes the district more than 80% new for Rep. Woodard. In contrast, the Britton map attempts to keep more of the current district intact at 37%. The GOP map retains more GOP voters and fewer DFL voters. The DFL and Britton maps keep an even higher percentage of GOP voters in the new district and fewer DFL voters.
GOP
DFL
GOP +12.50 points 20.2%
Britton
GOP +12.79 points 37.1%
Draw the Line

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%
45
46
Representative Carolyn McElpatrick (Republican 3B)

In 2010, this was one of the closest races for the Minnesota House of Representatives with the margin of victory at 2.45%. This district has a DFL party index of 54.03%, which means that Rep. McElpatrick outperformed the party index in the 2010 election. The GOP attempts to keep this district competitive and the DFL makes it more Democratic. The Britton map makes it lean more DFL. The core map score shows how the GOP keeps the district almost completely intact. The DFL and Britton map retain around 60% of the current district. The GOP map retains roughly the same number of GOP and DFL voters. In comparison, the DFL keeps more DFL voters from the current district and picks up more DFL voter in the new areas. The Britton map retains more GOP voters than DFL voters, but picks up more DFL voters to give DFL voters an advantage in the district.
GOP
DFL
Britton
Draw the Line

County Auditors
92.3% 91.8%
58.2% 58.2%
75.1% 70.6%
43.7% 39.9%
64.5% 64.9%
47
48
Representative Doug Wardlow (Republican 38B)

In 2010, this was one of closer races for the Minnesota House of Representatives with the margin of victory at 4.02%. This district has a GOP party index of 49.0%, which means that Rep. Wardlow outperformed the party index in the 2010 election. The three plans attempt to change the party index numbers for their own selfinterest. The GOP attempts to make the district lean just slightly more republican, while the DFL and Britton maps attempt to bring more DFL voters into the district. The changes to the core map score show how the parties changed the partisan make-up of the district. The GOP map retains most of the current district. In contrast, the DFL keeps less of the current district intact at 63% and the Britton map only retains half of the old districts population. The GOP map retains more GOP voters. Although the DFL and Britton maps keep more Republican voters in the new district, each map also picks up more DFL voters in the new areas of the district.
GOP
DFL
Britton
Draw the Line

County Auditors
77.9% 76.6%
59.9% 60.8%
53.9% 53.9%
52.0% 51.2%
75.8% 74.0%
49
50
Representative Larry Howes (Republican 4B)

In 2010, this district was not considered competitive for the House of Representatives. But, in 2008, it was considered competitive and the political parties believe that it will be competitive again in 2012. This district has a GOP party index of 56.61%, which means that Rep. Howes underperformed the party index in the 2010 election. The three plans attempt to increase the DFL party index in the district, but at different levels. The GOP keeps the district lean Republican, while the DFL and Britton maps attempt to make this district competitive by bringing in more DFL voters. In all three maps there are significant changes to the voters that Rep. Howes would represent. The GOP map retains a little under half of the current district. The DFL and Britton maps keep only 5% of the current district intact. That is a huge change. All three maps retain more DFL voters but the DFL and Britton maps pick up more DFL voters in the new areas of the district.
GOP
DFL
Britton
Draw the Line

County Auditors
47.4% 50.2%
6.1% 7.8%
6.1% 7.8%
24.2% 26.7%
33.3% 40.2%
51
52
Senator Ben Kruse (Republican 47)

In 2010, this was one of the closer races for the Minnesota Senate with the margin of victory at 5.06%. This district has a GOP party index of 50.4%, which means that Sen. Kruse outperformed the party index in the 2010 election. The three plans attempt to change the party index numbers for their own self-interest. The GOP attempts to make the district lean more republican. Both the DFL and Britton maps attempt to bring more DFL voters into the district. The changes to the core map score show how the parties changed the partisan make-up of the district. The GOP map retains almost two-thirds of the current district, while the DFL map keeps only 5% of the current district intact. This would be almost an entirely new district if Sen. Kruse has to run for reelection in it. The GOP map retains more GOP voters. The DFL map keeps more DFL voters in the new district and then picks up more DFL voters in the new areas of the district. The Britton map keeps more DFL voters in the district and then picks up some more in the new areas, but not to the extent of the DFL map.
GOP
DFL
Britton
Draw the Line

County Auditors
65.0% 60.7%
3.1% 4.9%
36.5% 39.5%
88.7% 87.4%
27.7% 28.6%
53
54
Senator Katie Sieben (Democrat 57)

In 2010, this was one of the closer races for the Minnesota Senate with the margin of victory at 1.96%. This district has a DFL party index of 53.1%, which means that Sen. Sieben matched the party index in the 2010 election. The three plans increase the GOP party index in the district, but to different levels. The GOP attempts to make the district lean more republican, while the DFL and Britton maps attempt to bring in fewer Republican voters into the district. The changes to the core map score show how the parties changed the partisan make-up of the district. The GOP map splits this district apart by retaining only 35% the current district. Conversely, the DFL map keeps almost twice as many of the current voters at 65% and the Britton map keeps the current district almost completely intact at 87%. The GOP map retains more GOP voters while the Britton map keeps more DFL voters in the new district. The DFL map keeps an equal number of DFL and GOP voters in the new district.
GOP
DFL
Britton
Draw the Line

County Auditors
38.4% 35.9%
65.4% 65.3%
91.5% 87.8%
12.0% 16.4%
55.6% 55.2%
55
56
Senator Terri Bonoff (Democrat 43)

In 2010, this was one of the closer races for the Minnesota Senate with the margin of victory at 3.55%. This district has a DFL party index of 50.3%, which means that Sen. Bonoff outperformed the party index in the 2010 election. Just like Sen. Siebens new district, the three plans increase the GOP party index in the district, but to different levels. The GOP attempts to make the district lean more Republican, while the DFL and Britton maps attempt to bring fewer Republican voters into the district. The changes to the core map score show how the parties changed the partisan make-up of the district. The GOP map splits this district apart by retaining only 23% the current district. The DFL map keeps almost twice as much with 63% and the Britton map keep 44% of the current district intact. The GOP map retains more DFL voters, but picks up more Republicans in the new areas. The DFL and Britton maps keep more DFL voters in the new district.
GOP
DFL
Britton
Draw the Line

County Auditors
26.7% 29.7%
60.0% 67.0%
43.4% 48.8%
10.4% 14.3%
44.7% 43.8%
57
58
Senator Dan Hall (Republican 40)

In 2010, this was one of the closer races for the Minnesota Senate with the margin of victory at 2.09%. This district has a DFL party index of 52.7%, which means that Sen. Hall outperformed the party index in the 2010 election. Two of the plans attempt to increase the GOP party index in the district and the third keeps it the same. The GOP and Britton maps attempt to make the district lean more Republican, while the DFL map leaves the party index number the same. The changes to the core map score show how the GOP maps changed the partisan make-up of the district for their own self-interest. The GOP and Britton maps split this district apart by retaining half the current district, while the DFL map keeps district largely intact at 88% of the current voters in the new district. The GOP and Britton maps retain more GOP voters and picks up more Republicans in the new areas. The DFL map keeps more DFL voters in the new district.
GOP
DFL
No change 88.0%
Britton
Draw the Line

GOP+4.9 points 49.6%
County Auditors
44.9% 40.5%
87.4% 88.1%
53.66% 49.8%
46.6% 41.6%
46.6% 41.6%
59
60
Senator Tom Saxhaug (Democrat 3)

In 2010, this district was not considered competitive for the Minnesota Senate. However, this district has a DFL party index of 56.8%, which means that Sen. Saxhaug underperformed the party index in the 2010 election. The GOP attempts to make the district more competitive by making the party index numbers favor a Republican. The DFL and Britton maps bring a small number of new Republicans into the district, but not enough to weaken the party index advantage. The changes to the core map score show how the DFL and GOP maps changed the partisan make-up of the district for their own self-interest. The GOP and DFL maps split this district apart because those maps only retain about half of the voters in the current district. In contrast, the Britton map keeps district largely intact at 93% of the current voters in the new district. The GOP map retains more GOP voters and picks up more Republicans in the new areas, while the DFL and Britton maps keep more DFL voters in the new district.
GOP
DFL
Britton
Draw the Line

County Auditors
60.2% 54.3%
50.1% 53.1%
91.9% 95.0%
75.2% 80.1%
70.6% 72.7%
61
62
Senator Roger Chamberlain (Republican 53)

In 2010, this was one of the closer races for the Minnesota Senate with the margin of victory at 5.47%. This district has a GOP party index of 50.6%, which means that Sen. Chamberlain has equaled the party index in the 2010 election. The parties take very different approaches to these districts. The GOP map attempts to make the district be more competitive by bringing in more DFL voters. The DFL does the opposite by bringing in more GOP voters into the district. The Britton map leaves the party index number the same. The changes to the core map score show how the DFL and GOP maps changed the partisan makeup of the district. The GOP map keeps the district largely intact at 88% of the current voters in the new district. The DFL map splits this district apart by retaining less than one-third of the current district. However, the Britton map does a better job than the DFL at keeping the current district together, with 45% of the current voters in the new district. The DFL and Britton maps retain more GOP voters. The GOP map keeps more DFL voters in the new district.
GOP
DFL
Britton
Draw the Line

DFL+0.5 points 17.5%
County Auditors
90.0% 91.9%
32.9% 23.8%
51.7% 44.6%
15.6% 16.2%
26.4% 21.8%
63
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.
House of Representatives GOP

1. TOM TILLBERRY 4.8% KURT ZELLERS 13.4% MARK BUESGENS 14.3% KELBY WOODARD 16.6% GLENN GRUENHAGE N - 19.8% TINA LIEBLING 22.2% STEVE SMITH - 22.7% PATTI FRITZ 26.0% NORA SLAWIK 29.2%
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%
Draw the Line

1. BRANDEN PETERSEN 0% KING BANAIAN 4.0% SUSAN ALLEN - 7.5% JOHN KRIESEL 9.5% MINDY GREILING 14.0% KAREN CLARK 14.2% DAVID HANCOCK 16.6% BRUCE ANDERSON 17.3% ERIN MURPHY 18.4%
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.
10. LEON M. LILLIE - 30.0%
10. ROGER CRAWFORD 21.4%
10. MARK MURDOCK 18.7%
10. TORREY WESTROM -
10. GLENN GRUENHAGE
65
18.6%
N - 19.8%
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%
Draw the Line

1. AL DEKRUIF (R) - 4.1% 2. JULIANNE ORTMAN (R) - 5.5% 3. MARY JO MCGUIRE (DFL) 13.0% 4. MICHELLE FISCHBACH (R) - 12.2% 5. TERRI BONOFF (DFL) 10.4%
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%
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
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.
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.
70
Figure 1. DFL Seats to Votes Relationship for Plan L1101_0 Using the 2008 Presidential Vote
71
Appendix: Methodology to Calculate 2008 Presidential Vote within Proposed Districts

These data are 2008 presidential election data obtained from The Minnesota Legislative Coordinating Commissions Geographic Information Services available at: http://www.gis.leg.mn/html/download.html. The LCC-GIS requests the following disclaimer accompany these data: LCC-GIS makes no representation or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the reuse of data provided herewith, regardless of its format or the means of its transmission. There is no guarantee or representation to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability, or reliability of this data for any purpose. The user accepts the data 'as is', and assumes all risks associated with its use. By accepting this data, the user agrees not to transmit this data or provide access to it or any part of it to another party unless the user shall include with the data a copy of this disclaimer. I perform further database work to merge these data with the 2010 census and to disaggregate these data to the census block level, so that they may be reaggregated into proposed redistricting plans, following these steps: 7
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
The census block level database is available at: http://www.publicmapping.org/resources/data
72
50%, by subtracting 5.3 percentage points from each districts two-party vote share.
73
Table 1. 2008 Presidential Vote within Proposed Plan L1101_0 Districts

DFL 08 Preside ntial Vote 9,368 9,856 9,780 9,844 12,256 14,056 14,793 15,291 10,167 9,444 11,227 8,872 13,508 10,244 16,888 15,393 10,944 10,509 9,615 8,972 11,098 8,904 9,959 10,087 9,313 9,296 11,266 9,278 10,074 10,583 11,160 8,947 9,054 Republic an 08 Preside ntial Vote 10,289 9,001 9,967 9,971 7,562 6,936 9,477 8,770 11,104 12,613 10,445 11,206 7,399 8,119 7,214 6,365 7,357 10,276 11,926 11,822 11,456 11,962 10,940 15,073 11,781 10,438 14,149 11,730 9,983 8,448 9,582 9,918 10,868 All Others 08 Preside ntial Vote 427 387 413 369 456 551 496 459 429 432 469 558 320 453 402 401 292 446 414 495 520 409 380 606 497 363 442 482 385 496 550 432 571 Normali zed TwoParty Vote 42.1% 46.7% 44.0% 44.2% 56.3% 61.4% 55.4% 58.0% 42.3% 37.3% 46.3% 38.7% 59.1% 50.3% 64.5% 65.2% 54.3% 45.0% 39.1% 37.6% 43.7% 37.1% 42.1% 34.6% 38.6% 41.6% 38.8% 38.6% 44.7% 50.1% 48.3% 41.9% 39.9% 74
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%
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
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
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%
77
Appendix B: Data Disclaimer

While the Minnesota LCC-GIS block data used to construct the district-level partisan index appear to accurately capture the vote with precinct-level precision, they were designed primarily for internal use of the Legislative Coordinating Commission. Under the terms of use of those data, users are required to provide downstream users with the following statement: The Geographic Information System (GIS) Data to which this notice is attached are made available pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13). THE GIS DATA ARE PROVIDED TO YOU AS IS AND WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY AS TO THEIR PERFORMANCE, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The GIS Data were developed by the LCC GIS Office for its own internal business purposes. The LCC - GIS Office does not represent or warrant that the GIS Data or the data documentation are error-free, complete, current, or accurate. You are responsible for any consequences resulting from your use of the GIS Data or your reliance on the GIS Data. You should consult the data documentation for this particular GIS Data to determine the limitations of the GIS Data and the precision with which the GIS Data may depict distance, direction, location, or other geographic features. If you transmit or provide the GIS Data (or any portion of it) to another user, the GIS Data must include a copy of this disclaimer.
78

Report Uncovers How Partisans Manipulate Redistricting Process

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report Uncovers How Partisans Manipulate Redistricting Process

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Executive Summary

Table 1. Key Statistics for Competing House Redistricting Proposals

D:73 R:61 D:48 R:37 D:34 R:8 38.1%

Analysis of Minnesota House of Representatives Maps

Effect of the GOP Map on Vulnerable Incumbents

52.9% GOP district.

Effect of the DFL Map on Vulnerable Incumbents

Effect of the Britton Map on Vulnerable Incumbents

Effect of the Draw the Line Map on Vulnerable Incumbents

Effect of the County Auditor Map on Vulnerable Incumbents

it from 47.0% GOP district to 61.5% GOP district.

Increased the DFL partisan index by 7.2 points, moving it

Analysis of Minnesota Senate Maps

2011 MANSKY PLAN

D:31 R:36 D:22 R:21 D:14 R:3

D:32 R:35 D:24 R:21 D:15 R:3

D:34 R:33 I:0 D:22 R:20

D:32 R:35 D:21 R:20 D:16 R:3 31.3%

Districts over 60%

Partisan Bias Score (What percent Partisan Bias of

Effect of the GOP Map on Vulnerable Senate Incumbents

2. Ben Kruse (R-

Effect of the DFL Map on Vulnerable Senate Incumbents

from 50.3% DFL district to 53.0% DFL district.

change will make her 2012 reelection easier.

3. Joe Gimse (R-

Effect of the Britton Map on Vulnerable Senate Incumbents

Effect of the Draw the Line Map on Vulnerable Senate Incumbents

Effect of the County Auditor Map on Vulnerable Senate Incumbents

2. Pam Wolf (R-

Analysis of Swing House of Representative and Senate Districts

Representative Keith Downey (Republican - 41A)

Draw the Line

Representative John Kriesel (Republican - 57A)

Draw the Line

Representative Kirk Stensrud (Republican - 42A)

Draw the Line

Representative Patti Fritz (Democrat 26B)

Draw the Line

Representative Tina Liebling (Democrat - 30A)

Draw the Line

Representative Denise Dittrich (Democrat - 47A)

Draw the Line

Representative Kelby Woodard (Republican 25B)

Draw the Line

Representative Carolyn McElpatrick (Republican 3B)

Draw the Line

Representative Doug Wardlow (Republican 38B)

Draw the Line

Representative Larry Howes (Republican 4B)

Draw the Line

Senator Ben Kruse (Republican 47)

Draw the Line

Senator Katie Sieben (Democrat 57)

Draw the Line

Senator Terri Bonoff (Democrat 43)

Draw the Line

Senator Dan Hall (Republican 40)

Draw the Line

Senator Tom Saxhaug (Democrat 3)

Draw the Line

Senator Roger Chamberlain (Republican 53)