Redistricting: A preview

New estimates on population from the U.S. Census give a sense of where we may be after the 2010 Census. One of the most important aspects of the Census every ten years is the congressional reapportionment. Apportionment is the distribution of congressional seats to states based on their population. Each state, regardless of whether they lose, gain, or maintain their seats, must go through redistricting: redrawing the congressional district lines to have equal populations in each district. This will all happen for the 2012 elections.

Generally, it appears congressional seats (and electoral college votes) will shift from the Midwest and rust belt to the West. Southern states like North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida may continue to gain seats too. California, for the first time in its history may not gain a single seat, or even lose a few. The shift to these states also corresponds to growing competitiveness. The next presidential election, and more likely in subsequent elections, will have new swing states in Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and maybe even Arizona. Florida will remain competitive and North Carolina and Virginia may be bona fide swing states within the next decade.

Minnesota may very well lose a congressional seat, going from 8 to 7. Because most of the population growth in Minnesota has been in the outer suburbs and exurbs, the district boundaries will most likely shift towards that large donut around the Twin Cities. The Greater Minnesota districts of 1, 7 and 8 will get geographically larger by taking territory out of the current 2nd and 6th (and possibly the 3rd). The urban 4th and 5th districts will have to be collapsed together or expanded outward dramatically.

• View map of current districts [pdf]
  

Option 1 would be to create a single urban district made of Minneapolis and St. Paul and a little slice of suburbs. The 2nd, 3rd, and 6th "inner" boundaries wouldn't shift dramatically in this scenario. Using the district numbers of the current districts (missing the 4th) would look as follows:

• 1st: Taking territory from the 2nd probably won't shift this district very dramatically from a political standpoint. It may become slightly more Republican. It will remain a competitive district.
• 2nd: Losing some Republican voters in the southern, more rural parts of the district will make this Republican-leaning district more competitive.
• 3rd: Losing some western or northern territory to the 6th will mean this Republican-leaning district will become slightly more competitive as well.
• 4th and 5th merged: The single urban district would be overwhelmingly Democrat. A district where the Green candidate would get more than the Republican. Still, highly unlikely for the Greens to make a real run at it.
• 6th: The conservative district may lose some more conservative areas to the 7th and/or 8th districts, replacing some of the voters with slightly less conservative voters in the current 3rd district and a few liberal voters from the current 4th. It will be more competitive as well, but still one that favors a conservative Republican.
• 7th: Will become more conservative and Republican and be a competitive district once the incumbent, conservative Democrat retires.
• 8th: Also will become more conservative and Republican, but will remain a Democratic-leaning district.

Option 2 would not merge the 4th and 5th districts, but instead have the two urban districts expand into the current 2nd, 3rd, and 6th. Both districts would have a majority of suburban voters. This might scare some Democrats, but the 5th would remain Democratic because it would be adding mostly Democratic suburbs from the 3rd. The 4th would be shifted more dramatically with more conservative voters from the 2nd and 6th districts, but would still be a strong Democratic district. In this scenario, the current 3rd is what would probably disappear, giving its territory to the 5th, 6th, and 2nd districts. The breakdown:

• 1st: Same as Option 1. Competitive.
• 2nd: Similar to Option 1. Will offset some voters lost to the 1st with voters in the southern part of the 3rd. Little change.
  
• 3rd: Eliminated
  
• 4th: As stated above, would be a majority-suburban district. More conservative depending on whether new voters from the 2nd or 6th. But still a Dem seat.
• 5th: Near parity between urban and suburban voters, but the most Dem seat in the state.
  
• 6th: Like in Option 1, the conservative district may lose some more conservative areas to the 7th and/or 8th districts, but would also shed more liberal voters to the 4th. New voters from the 3rd lean slightly Republican. The district would remain a Republican-leaning district.
• 7th: Same as Option 1. Competitive, Dem-leaning.
  
• 8th: Same as Option 1. Dem-leaning.

Of course, the maps can be drawn in a million ways. These are two ways that do the most to preserve the current boundaries. The big question is what will happen to the urban voters? Republicans may be inclined to "pack" the liberal, urban voters into a single urban district, but they face having liberal inner-ring suburban voters left over, making the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th competitive. Democrats may wish to keep the urban districts "cracked" into separate districts, giving them two certain seats, but giving the Republicans better chances with the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th.

The devil is in the details. In Option 1, the 6th could "pack" it's Dem-leaning voters around St. Cloud to the 8th, giving it freedom to give Rep voters to the 2nd to shore it up. In Option 2, if the 4th's new voters come from the Dem areas of the 2nd instead of the 6th, it would allow the 2nd to replace them with Republican voters from the 6th or possibly the 1st.

Politicians always want to hedge their bets. It's possible Republican and DFL legislators could agree on a compromise map that maintains the 4th and 5th districts, and eliminates the now competitive 3rd. This would be largely an incumbent-protection map (except for whoever then serves the 3rd, who would face stiff odds no mater who's district they were now drawn into).

Last time around, the courts decided the Minnesota districts because the Legislature failed to do their job. I am aware of only one state that passed a legislative compromise map. It was Wisconsin, who also lost a seat and ended up drawing an incumbent-protection map.