Redistricting promises to be difficult again as lawmakers await 2010 census

Byline: Frank Jossi
Source: Saint Paul Legal Ledger Capitol Report
Date: December 8, 2008

View original story here.

The Minnesota Legislature faces the daunting twin challenge of dealing with losing a congressional seat while undergoing the sometimes bloody task of redistricting the state in 2010.

Meeting in early December at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs to discuss the redistricting process, legislative leaders from both parties spoke about ideas for a more "kumbaya" experience — instead of the contentious battles the state has experienced during the past two redistricting efforts.

Of course, anybody expecting fast movement on a redistricting plan should not hold their breath, says Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis. He believes budget talks in the context of the record $4.8 billion general fund deficit for the 2010-2011 biennium will crowd out any focused debate over the redistricting process this session.

In preparation for redistricting, Pogemiller introduced a bill last session that calls for an open, transparent and inclusive process involving a panel of retired judges that might save Minnesota from the court battles of the last two redistricting sessions, he says.

A veteran of two previous redistricting sessions, Pogemiller recalls the 1990 redistricting plan that led to a three-year court battle that ended with the U.S. Supreme Court certifying a redistricting plan first proposed by the DFL and later marginally changed by a state court. In 2000, the courts ended up redistricting the state after efforts by the DFL and Gov. Jesse Ventura failed to sway Republicans to participate in the process, Pogemiller says.

Redistricting has attracted several pervasive myths, according to Pogemiller. The first is that politics can be taken out of the process by using a panel of citizens, experts or judges. This is untrue, he argues, since members of panels, even judges, have political leanings — judges, after all, are appointed by politicians in part because of shared beliefs.

Secondly, the myth that a plan to gerrymander the state could create a one-party rule doesn’t work, at least not in Minnesota. The DFL plan in the1990s led to a Republican-led House that began in 1996 and lasted a decade. The 2000 plan, created by a panel of judges led by a Republican, resulted in a dominant DFL House by 2006.

There's no evidence the DFL or the Republican panel attempted to create districts favoring either party in the last two redistricting efforts, but if they had the result would have been a disappointment to partisans. "The idea that smart political calculations can overcome the will of the voter isn't true," he says.

Pogemiller's bill calls for creation of a panel of retired appellate judges that would redistrict the state and then submit it to the Legislature for an up-or-down vote. Despite backing from former Vice President Walter Mondale and former Gov. Arne Carlson, the bill failed to pass and produced a "backlash" against Pogemiller, says Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance and organizer of the event.

Other legislators had different opinions. Rep. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, called redistricting "the blood sport of politics" but believes the majority of the work should be done by an elected body in the form of the Legislature.

Sen. Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope, suggested the redistricting process should looking at how to improve the "competitiveness" of districts and whether House seats should be staggered — or given terms of four rather than two years.

Rep. Laura Brod, R-New Prague, assistant minority leader, has introduced a bill modeled on Iowa's redistricting process that creates "criteria" prohibiting the use of demographic information, previous election results or input from incumbents to produce a "map-driven, nonpartisan" approach.

The Iowa Legislature appoints a commission of citizens, two selected by each party and a third appointed by the commission itself, to oversee redistricting, Brod says.

The concept of creating nonpartisan "criteria" may seem attractive, but whatever standards are chosen are political, counters Michael McDonald, associate professor of government and politics at George Mason University in Virginia and a nationally known expert on redistricting.

Strict criteria might, in fact, cut a line directly through a small town to separate districts, a potential problem Brod raised in her presentation.

As a consultant to a redistricting effort in Arizona, McDonald saw that state's Legislature appoint a citizen's commission charged with developing new districts to produce more competitive races. The result? Races that were no more competitive than in the past.

House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, asked whether Minnesota had a redistricting problem since more than 50 percent of the seats changed parties in the last decade. The idea of an advisory panel "raises some interesting possibilities" but she wondered whether change is really needed.

"The Legislature has the most competitive districts we've seen in a long time," Anderson Kelliher says. On the other hand, she wants more "openness" and "transparency" in the next redistricting process.

Complicating the redistricting effort will be the potential loss of a U.S. House seat in Minnesota, according to state demographer Tom Gillaspy. Minnesota is roughly 2,000 residents short of the amount of residents required to hang on to the seat. "It's very close, at least as close as the race for the Minnesota Senate seat," Gillaspy says, noting a Census Bureau office opened in St. Paul in early December.

Minnesota could face the loss of a seat because its population growth — though higher than other Northern states — has failed to increase at the same rate as the rest of the country and less than it did in the 1990s, he says. Only the 2nd and 6th congressional districts have seen substantial population gains since 2000, Gillaspy says.

The boundaries will be redrawn, he adds, even if the state hangs on to all its seats because of population changes in different districts. The average congressional district in Minnesota should have 653,800 residents, but the 4th District, composed of St. Paul and Ramsey County, falls 31,200 short of that number. The 5th District, largely Minneapolis and a handful of suburbs, falls 35,800 short of the average.

Even where the redistricting of congressional districts begins presents a challenge. When drawing lines, do you begin the state’s corners, he asks, or in the metro area? What part of the rapidly growing districts will be sliced away to form a new district? Whoever leads the chore of redistricting will be burdened by all those decisions, according to Gillaspy.

Minnesota is not alone in possibly losing a seat. In fact, Gillaspy says, 13 seats will be "in play" in 2010 and likely will move from the Midwest and Northeast to the South and Southwest.

At risk are single seats in Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, according to Gillaspy. New York and Ohio could lose two seats. The states adding reapportioned seats are Florida, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Texas and Arizona.

The entire country is apportioned every decade, with 385 of the House's 435 seats at stake. By law every state gets one seat, and the rest are determined mainly based on population. Gillaspy's final bit of advice to his audience was to fill out their census forms, early and often.