Redistricting Discussion Guide

League of Women Voters Minneapolis

May 2017

NOTE: For extensive background material, use the resources links at the end of this guide.

Introduction – Why discuss this now?

It may seem premature to be talking about redistricting, since it happens once every ten years following the census, so won’t begin until 2021. However, movements are underway in many states including Minnesota to get ahead of the issue and establish principles and procedures that can result in fairer outcomes. In a recent panel discussion, Professor David Schulz of Hamline University said, “districting is about power.” Districts can be drawn to favor specific parties or interests, and thus influence the outcome of elections for ten years, until the next round of redistricting. This makes it especially important to assure that the process is open and transparent, and done in a non-partisan way.

Overview

The U.S. Constitution requires that members of the House of Representatives shall be “apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers…” It also specifies that each state shall have at least one member. So after each decennial census, the 435 House seats are allocated to the states. Each state receives one, then the remaining 385 are allocated based on population. Because of population shifts to southern and western states, Minnesota may lose one House seat after the 2020 census. Once the congressional districts are determined, state legislative districts are drawn, followed by local jurisdictions.

In Minnesota, as in 27 other states, thestate legislaturehas primary responsibility for creating a redistricting plan,subject to approval by thegovernor. However, the legislative plans have seldom been accepted, and final districts have been determined by the courts in most years. Other states attempt to remove redistricting from the political arena by giving the responsibility to independent or bipartisanredistricting commissions, with or without approval by the state legislature.

Minnesota's nonpartisanLegislative Coordinating Commissionis responsible for assisting the legislature in carrying out its redistricting responsibilities under Minnesota Statutes.

A bit about gerrymandering

In states where the legislature or another partisan body is in charge of redistricting, the possibility ofgerrymanderingcan make the process contentious. Gerrymandering is the deliberate manipulation of political boundaries for electoral advantage, usually ofincumbentsor a specificpolitical party.In order to assure election of specific parties or incumbents, districts with very awkward shapes have been drawn in many states. Some states are still in the courts because of gerrymandered districts established after the 2010 census. A Wisconsin gerrymandering case has recently been appealed to the Supreme Court. The resources list at the end of this document provides links to some very good materials on gerrymandering.

If you do nothing else in preparation for unit discussions, take 20 minutes to watch John Oliver’s explanation of gerrymandering, very clear and entertaining (with little bits of adult humor – don’t watch if this will offend you.)

Redistricting options and models

Several alternatives models for redistricting are in use or contemplated by other states. TheNational Conference of State Legislatureshas categorized redistricting commissions as either having primary responsibility for redistricting, serving in an advisory capacity, or operating as a back-up commission in cases where the legislature does not meet its deadline. The makeup of these commissions and methods for choosing commission members vary by state. The unique Iowa model uses nonpartisanlegislativesupportstaffchosenbythemajorityandminorityleaders.

Retired judges would take over the task of drawing up new political districts in Minnesota under a plan that aims to take the politics out of redistricting and produce more fair and competitive districts. This model is outlined in aproposal developed in 2008by a broad-based coalition led by former Vice President Walter Mondale and former Governor Arne Carlson.In May 2009, legislation based on the Mondale/Carlson proposal passed the Minnesota Senate, but did not advance in the Minnesota House. It was resurrected in the 2017 legislature, but again did not advance.

Minnesota bills in 2017

Two sets of companion bills on redistricting were introduced in the Minnesota Legislature this session. One (HF 314/SF 86) was authored by Republicans Rep. Sarah Anderson and Sen. Mary Kiffmeyer. The other (HF 246/SF 370) was sponsored by Democrats Rep. Jennifer Schultz and Sen. Jason Isaacson. Both bills enumerate principles to be used in redistricting, with only slight differences between the two lists.

The main difference in the bills lies in the delegation of authority for redistricting. The Anderson/Kiffmeyer bill states that the legislature may not delegate its duty to draw districts to any commission not comprised totally of legislators. The League opposes this provision. This bill received a hearing in the Government Operations and Elections Committee of the House, and was re-referred to the State Government Finance Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Anderson. At the time this guide is being written, the principles from HF 314/SF 86 have been made part of the Omnibus State Government Finance Bill, but without the provision prohibiting an independent commission.

The Schultz/Isaacson bill contains a similar list of redistricting principles, with one major addition, but also creates a nonpartisan redistricting commission comprised of five retired judges. It was heard in the same House committee, but was “laid over” rather than being referred. See links in the resources section at the end of this guide for links to discussions of the two bills and to LWVMN testimony at hearings, from the Capitol Letter.

Redistricting principles

In all discussions of redistricting and drawing boundaries, lists of principles are presented. For example, districts should be compact and contiguous, should not divide up government units unless necessary, and should take into account “communities of interest.” However, the number of these principles and the order in which they should be applied can vary.

Lists of principles generally begin with statementsabout apportioning districts by population. It is the law. Each government level must start with the number of seats to be filled and divide the total population from the new census equally among them. Then new lines must be drawn to create districts that contain relatively equal numbers of persons. The acceptable percentage of difference can be an issue. In HF 246/SF 370 the acceptable deviation is two percent plus or minus. In HF 314/SF 86, the percent is 0.5. Principles also contain statements about how the districts will be numbered. An interesting sidelight is that in the numbering scheme HF 246/SF 370 enumerates metro districts in the seven-county Metro Council area, while HF 314/SF 86 uses the 11-county federal definition of the metro area.

Beyond those basic issues, redistricting proposals generally contain statements about the process and the principles that should be applied. Both process and principlesare important, and the League has positions on both. The League and other organizations support processes that include such things as openness and transparency, opportunities for citizen input, and prompt judicial review. The new LWVUS position supports a redistricting by “an independent special commission, with membership that reflects the diversity of the unit of government, including citizens at large, representatives of public interest groups, and members of minority groups.” In Minnesota, HF 246/SF 370 calls for a commission of five retired judges similar to the “Mondale/Carlson plan” from 2008.

Below is a brief summary of the principles in LWVUS and LWVMN positions, the priorities identified by the Minnesota court after the 2010 census, and those from the two 2017 bills. General provisions about process, numbers,and data sources are omitted here. The two Minnesota bills require that principles be considered in this order. Find the full text of these positions and documents in the Resources section at the end of this guide.

LWVUS

  1. Geographic contiguity
  2. Effective representation of racial and linguistic minorities
  3. Promotion of partisan fairness
  4. Preservation and protection of “communities of interest”
  5. Respect for boundaries of municipalities and counties
  6. Compactness and competitiveness
  7. Reject protection of incumbents
  8. Reject preferential treatment for a political party

LWVMN

  1. Compact, contiguous districts giving advantage to no particular person

or group

Minnesota Supreme Court Special Redistricting Panel 2011

  1. Districts shall not be drawn with the purpose or effect of denying or abridging voting rights on account of race, ethnicity, etc.
  2. Convenient, contiguous territory structured into compact units
  3. Political subdivisions shall not be divided more than necessary
  4. Communities of interest shall be preserved.
  5. Districts shall not be drawn for the purpose of protecting or defeating incumbents

HF 314/SF 86 AND HF 691, State Government Finance Omnibus

  1. Contiguity; compactness
  2. Minority representation
  3. Minor civil divisions not divided
  4. Preserving communities of interest
  5. Incumbents not protected

HF 246/SF 370

  1. Contiguity; compactness
  2. Minority representation
  3. Preserving political subdivisions
  4. Communities of interest
  5. Political competitiveness
  6. Incumbents not protected

Issues to discuss

Note that HF 246/SF 370 contains a principle that districts should encourage political competitiveness. This principle is more often mentioned these days, in hopes that competitiveness might help address increasing partisan polarization. Others say it is problematic because it requires consideration of possible electoral outcomes.

While gerrymandering generally means drawing districts that favor one party or incumbent, districts can also be drawn to assure that a certain racial or ethnic group can elect a representative. In fact, the Voting Rights Act requires that in some instances, states must draw majority-minority districts. The idea to ensure that minority voters get appropriate representation in Congress, particularly in areas where they've historically been discriminated against. But packing a state's minority voters into a small number of districts has the effect ofdiminishing their clout everywhere else.

How to assure representation of racial or other minority groups is problematic. Is it better for a minority group to have one or two representatives clearly elected by that group, or more representatives who have the group as part of their districts? Competing tactics of “cracking” (spreading minorities over many districts) and “packing” (concentrating minorities in one district so they have no impact in other districts) are discussed in the resource documents below.

Principles calling for preserving political subdivisions intact and recognizing communities of interest make it almost impossible to draw competitive districts. How could there be competitive districts in Minneapolis without combining it with some of its suburbs?

Census 2020

The 2020 census will reflect the continuing shift of population from the north and east to the south and west. It is very possible that Minnesota will lose a seat in Congress to a faster growing state. It will be especially important to work hard for a complete count. State and local groups are already mobilizing. Outreach to minority communities is especially important, to assure residents that census data is not shared with other agencies, and that the census should count all residents, not just citizens – everybody counts. There is no citizenship question in the census.

Suggested questions for discussion:

  • How might Minnesota draw lines for 7 districts instead of 8? How can districts be made more competitive, at all levels?
  • Do we agree with the order of the principles in the Minnesota bills? What changes would we make? Should the principle on competitiveness be included?
  • What is the fairest way to empower minority groups? Packing? Cracking? Other?
  • What other “communities of interest” should be taken into consideration?

Redistricting Resources Links

LWVMN

Summary with many useful links; find the LWVMN Redistricting Briefing Paper from 2009 here.

Summaries of 2017 bills and actions, with links to LWVMN testimony, in issues of the Capitol Letter

LWVUS

Statement and new principles for apportionment and redistricting

Minnesota Legislative Reference Library

Guide to information on redistricting 2010; see also guides for 1990 and 2000

Minnesota Legislative Coordinating Commission

Minnesota Redistricting 2020. See Redistricting Treatises for papers from Senate Counsel

Common Cause

National Conference of State Legislatures

Brennan Center for Justice

FairVote

The Redistricting Game

Learn about how redistricting works while playing an interactive game

Specific Minnesota Documents

Redistricting Reform Report, 2008 (the Mondale/Carlson plan)

Special Redistricting Panel Order, July 18, 2011

Helpful explanations of gerrymandering, with visuals:

“America’s most gerrymandered congressional districts,” Washington Post, May 14, 2014; includes short video

“This is the best explanation of gerrymandering you will ever see: How to steal an election: a visual guide,” Washington Post, March 1, 2015; simple graphic version of example in the video above.