Minnesota courts have released the new legislative and congressional districts to reflect changes to the state population since the previous census. This began as a partisan process, with representatives of the state DFL and GOP submitting plans that they hoped would give an edge to their party in the next elections. These partisan plans for the state’s congressional districts are represented below — the Martin and Britton plans came from the DFL and the Hippert plan from the Republicans — along with the final congressional districts released by the state court panel. The plans can be overlaid over three demographic dimensions — 2010 partisan voting record, median household income and population — to help show why the parties and the court might have drawn the districts the way they did.
Comments (2)
Hippert plan?
Unfortunately, due to population density, it doesn’t seem possible to district the state in a way that most represents like groups of people. It seems ridiculous to put the arrowhead into a district that stretches as far south as the northern ‘burbs. The people, the economy, and the jobs are all very different from those in the suburbs of the Twin Cities. Hippert’s plan seems far more reasonable as far as the northern area of MN goes. The rest..eh. Of course, I’m not seeing it in terms of whether the GOP or Dems gain or lose seats. /sarc That, of course, is FAR more important than actual representation of the people. /sarc
Redistricting maps
The story about Congressional redistricting contains lots of information, but one simple picture is missing – or obscured by all the other info.
I and maybe others would like to see a simple side by side comparison of the old and the new maps.