The era of striking geographic polarization in Minnesota politics — in which Republicans control most of Greater Minnesota and Democrats have a grip on the Twin Cities metro area — was tempered at the Legislature over the last four years because the state House and Senate were split between the parties.
That meant both regions had a hand in budget and policy decisions, even as the political landscape shifted when Donald Trump was elected president in 2016.
Now, however, the DFL has full control at the State Capitol, leaving Greater Minnesota with substantially less clout over the levers of power in government when state lawmakers have a $17.6 billion budget surplus to allocate.
It may be an unprecedented situation, one that Democratic leaders have downplayed by arguing their priorities will help everyone in Minnesota. The few remaining DFLers from Greater Minnesota will also likely have significant sway because the party has such narrow majorities in the 2023 legislative session that began on Tuesday.
Still, the idea of one region holding the reins on most major decisions has raised concerns among some about the impact on the Legislature’s work and the lives of Greater Minnesota residents with different interests than people in the metro. And there is disagreement over whether Gov. Tim Walz, a longtime Mankato resident who has lived in the governor’s mansion in St. Paul for the past four years, will represent areas outside of the metro adequately.
“This session, maybe more than any, is going to be kind of a test of the ‘One Minnesota’ mantra,” said Bradley Peterson, executive director of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, referencing Walz’s campaign slogan. “It is going to be a test of the things that at least metro legislators and policy makers and the governor himself has said about wanting to legislate for the whole state.”
Parties ‘concentrated’ by geography
The severe partisan split between Greater Minnesota and the Twin Cities metro is a relatively new phenomenon.
[image_caption]Bradley Peterson[/image_caption]
But the change has been swift and significant.
Here’s the (brief) backstory: Amid the political transformation of the Trump era, Republicans have won nearly everywhere in Greater Minnesota, picking up seats in former DFL strongholds like Austin, Bemidji, East Grand Forks, Park Rapids, Grand Rapids, Cloquet, Hibbing, Cloquet and more. In turn, DFLers have turned once-red areas like Blaine, Coon Rapids, Burnsville and Eden Prairie into blue seats following suburban backlash against the former president.
Former Sen. Tom Bakk, the one-time DFL majority leader from Cook who became an independent in 2020, said the DFL had more than a dozen rural senators when the party won a majority in 2012. Now, DFLers hold six Senate seats in Greater Minnesota as part of their 34-33 majority. “They don’t have a lot else rurally to lose,” said Bakk.
There were 15 House Democrats last year from Greater Minnesota. But even as the DFL kept a 70-64 majority by winning big in the metro suburbs, the party lost five seats in Greater Minnesota, most in the northeastern part of the state. The party did win a district back in North Mankato/St. Peter, however.
At the Capitol, lawmakers from Greater Minnesota chaired 22 of 28 committees in the Republican-led Senate last year. Now Greater Minnesota legislators will chair three of 20 committees. In the House, the number of Greater Minnesota committee chairs dipped from eight to four.
Will Democrats keep Greater Minnesota in mind?
Peterson’s organization lobbies for increased subsidies from the state for local government operations in Greater Minnesota, and other issues like money for water infrastructure.
As a result of the geographic polarization, he said the Coalition will have fewer people in power they can ask to carry legislation, and fewer reliable and influential voices to ask questions about bills during committee hearings. The Coalition, he said, will have to try not to overburden the few rural DFL legislators in power as well. “At a very practical level, we have fewer go-to people,” he said.
“When you had Democrats from all around the state, I think you had a pretty good push and pull and balancing of interests that created either pretty good outcomes and, probably also at least from a Greater Minnesota perspective, prevented negative outcomes from happening,” Peterson said. “Without that or with many fewer Greater Minnesota voices, that balance and that kind of internal dialogue or that dialectic sort of push and pull doesn’t happen or it’s not as evenly balanced as it might have been in the past.”
[image_caption]State Sen. Bill Weber[/image_caption]
He said construction projects financed with public bonding could be one issue where the parties could find agreement. Another is availability of housing, a major issue in many rural areas, Weber said.
“The purpose of the minority isn’t just simply to throw sand in gears and slow everything down but it’s also to make legislation better for the entire state, and I think there will be people that we can reach out to on the other side and work with them in order to get that done,” Weber said. And he said DFLers can’t “cast aside rural issues” and ignore the few Greater Minnesota Democrats they have.
“So I think we’ll be able to reach across and just say ‘Hey, this something that really cannot be done, should not be done,’” Weber said.
Still, Weber said elections have consequences and he expects DFLers to pass things he won’t be happy about. And he said the GOP would fight to eliminate the state tax on Social Security benefits supported by some DFLers, relax regulations on businesses in an effort to drive new investment to the state, and ward off restrictions on agriculture Republicans view as burdensome.
“They’re going to try to come after agriculture to a greater extent and we’re going to be on guard for that,” Weber said.
Weber said Walz, who has clashed with Republicans on things like feedlot regulations but has supported legislation like bonding bills, broadband spending and Local Government Aid, has not lived up to the notion of “One Minnesota.”
Peterson said Walz will be “the final backstop.”
“The governor obviously is a guy from Greater Minnesota,” Peterson said. “He’s been very good to our organization, he likes working with local government leaders. Certainly we expect that he and his office will play a role in shaping some of this as well.”
What Democrats say
For her part, Dziedzic, the new Senate Majority Leader, made the case that Democrats actually expanded their representation in Greater Minnesota by winning a seat in Rochester that became far more friendly to the DFL after redistricting. The DFL also won a seat previously held by Bakk, who ran in 2020 as a Democrat before leaving the party.
And Dziedzic said people across the state voiced similar priorities during the 2023 campaign that Democrats will pay attention to, like child care, schools and housing.
“It didn’t matter if you were in Moorhead or if you were in Minneapolis, we heard that people are concerned about kids’ mental health and kids’ school and where they are in school after two years of COVID,” Dziedzic said. “There’s a housing crisis across the state. That is impacting families but it’s also impacting local economies.”
Dziedzic said she wants to work with Republicans, and she has turned to the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities for their perspective in the past, along with other interest groups like the Association of Minnesota Counties. And she said she often talked with people around the state as the top DFLer on the Senate’s housing committee in the past to learn about rural issues.
That housing committee for a time also included agriculture issues, which meant Dziedzic — she said she was the only woman and urban lawmaker on the panel — had a window into farm policy and hopes to address policy like farmer mental health.
Dziedzic said Minnesota Department of Agriculture Commissioner Thom Petersen would visit the committee and ask lawmakers to talk to farmers in their districts about certain issues.
“I would raise my hand and say, ‘I just want to be clear, I have multiple farmers markets in my district and near my district — and I do talk to your farmers at both farmers markets.’”
[image_caption]State Sen. Liz Boldon[/image_caption]
Boldon said there are similarities and differences in the priorities of people in Rochester and the Twin Cities. Issues like health care and affordable housing are important in her district, Boldon said. And she said the Greater Minnesota senators have been talking about shared interests so far. Boldon was previously a member of the House but won the seat long held by Republican Sen. David Senjem that became more DFL-friendly after courts redrew district boundaries.
“I haven’t ever felt like because of my geographic location I’ve had any less voice at the table than anyone else,” Boldon said. “In fact, maybe the opposite. I think oftentimes because maybe there are fewer Greater Minnesota folks we get the question more often of ‘well, what do you think about this?’”
Simple reason DFL lost the Range, they are anti mining and logging. Bakk and other DFL’ers saw that coming years ago and tried to form a bridge to Rangers that was never connected. Lefties have abandoned blue collar folks and unfortunately believe everyone should reside in the Twin Cities. The divide between urban and rural folks will continue to grow with the Lefties in charge.
Define ‘leftie.’ I agree there are dems that are far left, but I am not seeing they are the majority. And what is a rightie? Both parties need to compromise. Another issue you rarely see talked about is the number of people who go to the metro for services such as housing, healthcare. I rarely hear of people flocking to small counties so they can have subsidized housing or a job.
Several of the far left, and very immature, “lefties” are serving in senate district and congressional district central committees. They have a lot of idealism and some have a lot of anger, but those who I have encountered haven’t learned how to either present their ideas or accept non-mainstream concerns which are common, but not reported by the mainstream due to journalists not wanting to step on some people’s toes to get the news through.
I was a leader in the DFL for forty-years and I have seen these things happen. Loudly outspoken people, regardless of rationality, are more frequently taking over the DFL. Attention to organizational and public speaking skills are not a priority for some who get involved with the Party. If you have ideas you would like to present, please find your senate district central committee meeting site and time, and get involved.
This note does not intend to disparage all DFL activists. Some are quite intelligent, organized and thoughtful. However, far left radicals are becoming involved in this party instead of going to the Socialist or Progressive parties. I take a midroad on the Progressive and Social Democratic policy sides, and differentiate Democrats from Progressives who have radical views which are often presented in an angry and hostile manner.
The Party needs reasonable and intelligent people who are not extremists. It needs peolpe who are noble and thoughtful for both their particular policy notions as well as accepting of other people’s notions. I was kicked out of the Party for writing to my colleagues about being raped and molested by three women qwhen I was young. The radical feminists didn’t want men to ruin their message that women are not violent or criminal.
The Forward Party has entered Minnesota and it is a consortium of rational and moderate people from the Democratic and Republican parties who want to end gridlock and speak for the majority of races, sexualities, disabilities and economic backgrounds in a thoughtful and mature manner.
The Forward Party is interested in people throughout Minnesota, whether urban or rural.
Iron Rangers should realize by now that the glory days of labor-intensive mining & logging are over. Even where there is mining & logging, automation has dramatically reduced the number of blue collar jobs.
But here’s the good news: The $1.7 TRILLION package signed by President Biden is packed full of incentives to develop new domestic industries that will create blue collar jobs.
Can you tell us why the GOP lost the metro? That seems to me to be the bigger issue, given that the metro is where most of the people of Minnesota live, and where most of the economic activity takes place.
Mr. Holbrook,
One of the theories I have is that after Jimmy Carter led to farmers not being to sell their crops to the internatrional markets during his embargo in the 1970s (I worked for Carter as a young man), the rural community decided to start voting Republican. The emphasis in the Republican Party began to be focused on farmers and manufacturing businesses both in the rual and urban centers.
Their notion, before the crazies took over the Party with the entrance of the Man with the Orange Hair and Skin, was to focus on what they believed to be both fiscal and strong personal responsibility as individuals and cartels.
As much as I can see of the Democratic Party, it has focused, both moderately and to extremes, on social policies; though economies run better with Democratic, or at least moderate, parties in the seats of governance.
Well thanks Joe, at least they weren’t anti-recreational use of the boundary waters and anti snowmobiles, and anti tourists, and anti rural broadband, and anti fresh water for the rural areas. So you are saying they got some stuff OK but not the stuff you think they should have.
Ian, no meeting necessary, just look at their policies and taxes. Hard working folks can see it and is why they left the DFL.
Hard-working folks are concentrated on the Range?
Joe, they aren’t anti mining and anti logging. We are Minnesotans. We want prosperity in every burg. What really happened last session is that there were some really important bills on the table and the Majority Leadership pulled them from the floor. Essentially, this was a gamble that the Red Wave in November would establish big Republican majorities in both houses. That, as we all know, was a gamble that proved disastrous. They lost the gamble and the election.
The mission now and going forward for Iron Range city councils, regional planning commissions, and the State Legislature is to encourage small business creation all across this land we call Minnesota. A rising tide lifts all boats. The Range will not just survive, but prosper.
Here’s a great article about the parent company of Polymet, the mining operation that we “Lefties” oppose. I suggest you give it a read.
https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/01/18/take-it-from-me-minnesota-steer-clear-of-glencore/
As it should, people, not place, is what matters.
I am from a rural area, and have been on several state-wide boards and organizations. But I have never experienced this lack of concern for rural areas, from urbanites. Maybe a bit in the other direction, but not much there either.
Instead, the divisions I have seen are more suburban v. urban and regional center v. rural. These divisions actually show up the common interests between urban and rural, and between regional center and suburban.
Perhaps the dichotomy is not geographic, but more one of wealth and power shifts over the decades, pitting losers (in this sense) v. gainers.
So, do you think the differences are real, perceived or created by politicians to garner votes (good guys/bad guys)? Personally, I think the divisions are politically manufactured, with some religious seasoning.
Brian: When rural people and their legislators tell lies about metro dwellers and openly deny them fair funding when said legislators are in power, we do get upset since we generally foot all the bills with taxes paid in metro areas.
The best take away is “elections have consequences”. Try running electable candidates with actual policies and have respect for women and minorities – it’s really not that hard to figure out! Fear and loathing politics is dying with the white boomer population. Maybe ask your young people why they leave to live in cities – it’s not all economic.
“Try running electable candidates with actual policies and have respect for women and minorities”
Uh, the GOP leader is a woman and a minority. It was in all the papers.
It was also in all the papers that Jennifer Carnahan resigned in disgrace from leading the Republican Party. The current Chair is David Hann.
In any event, is Ms. Carnahan electable, on a statewide basis? She couldn’t even get elected to her late husband’s safe seat in Congress.
I was referring to House Minority Leader Lisa Demuth.
I stand corrected.
I agree that it’s vitally important that people who don’t live in the metro aren’t overlooked in policy matters. It would also be nice if the reverse were true when the Republicans were in charge.
“In DFL-controlled Legislature, Twin Cities metro has more clout than Greater Minnesota.”
Well, “Dog Bites Man.” The Minnesota population is 5.71 million. The population of the Mpls-St.Paul-Bloomington metropolitan area is 3.69 million. Should 64.6% of the state population not have more “clout” than 35.4% of the population?
That said, the article implicitly assumes the zero-sum civic ethos of the Republican party, which is to seek to advantage one’s own clan, while disadvantaging the “other.” Conversely, the DFL civic ethos is to seek to govern in the best interest of all of the state’s residents. The headline should not strike terror in outstate hearts.
“That said, the article implicitly assumes the zero-sum civic ethos of the Republican party, which is to seek to advantage one’s own clan, while disadvantaging the “other.” Conversely, the DFL civic ethos is to seek to govern in the best interest of all of the state’s residents.”
EXACTLY!
The two essential messages:
GOP: You have been screwed by “X” and we are going to even big time! Vote for us.
DFL: Kumbaya my friends, Kumbaya: Let’s find the common interest and work towards that. Vote for us.
And both have elements of truth: People are getting screwed and almost all of us have common interests. The Republican problem is that they are incapable of recognizing the second part as the solution for the first part. And grievance is a powerful motivator and easier to understand. Just listen to any GOP nominating speech this week on the House floor.
The politics of division have been successfully stoked and exploited by rural conservatives.
Minnesota has about 5.7 million residents. The Twin Cities metro area has nearly 3 million. A majority live in the metro. If you add in Rochester and Duluth, you add 200,000 to the metro total, raising the metro total to 3.2 million versus 2.5 million for the rest. This trend will continue. Had we not saved one US House seat by high census participation, there would be four seats metro, three Greater Minnesota.
Greater Minnesota should understand that Minnesota’s political power depends on both successful cities and a strong rural economy. That is why Walz, a outstate guy, talks and acts to support One Minnesota, while rural Republicans and their elected officials cannot help bash the metro.
Hey guys, the metro, Rochester Duluth and other cities educate and employ your children. I am a child of rural Minnesota and have family there. I support my hometown, but get sick of the attitudes of city bashers. I know your communities well enough to know you have your own issues. You don’t have solutions for ours, no more than we should make local decisions for you.
Joel, I was in the room during the 2021 session and listened to Nelson’s tax proposal. It was a permanent tax cut proposal for the top 10% and left almost nothing for the 90%. In the end, Leadership pulled all Committee proposals from the Omnibus, gambling that the Red Wave in November would result in a Republican majority in January. The voters saw it very differently, and now we have a House/Senate/Governor Majority Democratic Party Rule.
If the voters of Minnesota don’t like the fallout of the Legislation from 2023, they will vote differently in 2024. Trust the voters.
DFL lost the range because the people up there decided that anti-NAFTA, anti-corporation, anti-abortion, pro-labor, 16 term rep and Chisolm native Jim Oberstar wasn’t those things and West Virginian Tea Partier Chip Cravaack was what they wanted instead. He lasted 2 years and then fled to New Hampshire
Except for a few years on a farm, I was a life-long suburbanite until I moved to Minneapolis in ’09 from Colorado, it’s been interesting to watch the slow deterioration of ties between (some) rural political figures and (some) urban political figures since I arrived.
Chuck Holtman and Frank Phelan both make good points. As long as we’re at least paying lip service to representative government, no one should be surprised that the Twin Cities metro, plus Rochester and Duluth, have more clout in the legislature, and in state government in general, than residents of rural Minnesota. Logically and ethically, it’s not a good look to be all for democracy when you’re in the majority, then complain about democracy when you’re in the minority. When 2/3 of the state’s population is living in an urban area, it makes sense that urban areas would have more influence on state government. I’ve seen little evidence since I arrived in Minnesota that the DFL is ignoring the needs of rural Minnesota.
Society is changing, in Minnesota and elsewhere, and there’s a difference between trying to moderate or slow the rate of change – my dictionary’s definition of “conservative” – and flatly opposing change in most circumstances – which qualifies as “reactionary.” Mr. Phelan is on-point that much of the politics of division has been introduced and promoted by rural residents and political figures he charitably labels as “conservative,” but that appear to me to be more reactionary.
Districts are roughly equivalent population (they have to be per the Supreme Court). Everyone has roughly equal representation. The majority reflects the majority.
Walker, I fixed your headline for you:
There Are More People in the Metro Area Than Greater Minnesota, So Representation Works the Way It’s Supposed To.
Do you think it’s shifty journalism to say that’s a DFL thing? It’s how politics have functioned for a long, long time, sir.
We’re about 40 years behind, but it’s time we libs start working the refs, too. Lord knows it’s worked very well for the conservatives.
If you look at revenue collected…the majority comes from the metro areas…BUT it’s the rural areas that receive the majority of funding.
So…why do these rural areas claim they’re not represented?
And…why do these repub rural areas complain about not enough funding when they’re the main drivers of tax cuts…that generally benefits the top 10%?
Todays repubs are kind of like the person who kicks the dog and then whines when the dog bites them.
Here’s my take on the rural-urban divide having represented a rural area in the Legislature in 07-08.
Social issues like abortion and transgenderism have been and remain a really hard, unbending dividing line for many rural residents.
Ignorance or misinformation about state government spending is rampant in out-state MN and is easily used by conservatives for political advantage.
In 07-08 we passed a very good transportation funding bill, with various taxes including an increase in the gas tax, which was supported by our local governments and trucking groups, many of whom voting for me because I campaigned on passing it. In 08, I was attacked successfully for “voting for tax increases” by the incumbent I defeated in 06. It was a complete disconnect even though rural areas benefited just as much from this legislation as urban areas.
The same thing happens with k-12 funding and local government aid funding. Rural voters do not understand how much money comes from the State to make life possible in rural areas. It is not easy to try to explain this and sometimes not real productive to keep pointing this out.
Same thing with healthcare. Spending money on healthcare creates a lot of good paying jobs. Mayo Clinic send several buses all over Fillmore County every day to transport people to Rochester who are employed in healthcare. Same in Houston County where a large number of people travel on their own to La Crosse, WI to work in healthcare. Yet Republicans can constantly gain traction with voters by attacking healthcare spending.
I try to tell people that farmers and rural voters are really”low density suburbanites”. They want the same thing that urban people do; good schools. good jobs, good healthcare, a good retirement. It’s our job as Democrats to convince them that we have the better approaches and methods for achieving those things.
Back in the days when I used to hang out a lot with DFL legislators, a question I would ask them in various forms was, why do we run so badly in rural areas, area outside the cities and the suburbs? I received a number of different answers, all of them good, but none of them completely satisfactory. What I always wondered was whether there was someone like me, my doppelganger, to put it pretentiously, asking the mirror image of the questions I askebd of the legislators they were hanging out with. Do Republican legislators get asked by their friends and supporters, about why they run so poorly in the cities and suburbs. If they do, I wonder what the answers are that they get.
When looking for a good wedge issue, something that can be used to divide the opposition for political advantage, one quality people look for is intractability. One doesn’t want to invest a lot of money effort in divisiveness only to have someone come along and solve the problem which generates it. Think of all that was invested in the gay marriage issue, only to find that once the issue is definitively decided, the world fails to come to an end.
The essential problem an analysis like this is that it assumes rural folks have lost their “clout” simply because Republicans lost elections. The fact is that rural residents relinquish their “clout” precisely because they vote Republicans who don’t believe in democracy. Even when Republican’s “win” rural voters get no representation or “clout” out of the deal because too many of their “representatives” don’t believe in representing anything or anyone other than own power and influence. You simply don’t get “representation” from Fascists… the run for election so they can participate in governing, they’re here to capture the government and take over… and yes, more than a few million people throughout history have made the mistake of thinking Fascist would “represent” them once in office. Republican politicians have their own agenda’s, and their own priorities that have little or nothing to do with their constituents. It’s funny when people think putting Howard Roard (Ayn Rand’s Libertarian hero) in charge of representing them, as the “second handers” get to control superior individual? Whatever.
So to whatever extent cities have more influence that rural areas it’s not simply a Republican vs. Democrat calculation. Even if or when Republicans win more elections, rural folk don’t really an “clout” out of it.
Something to keep in mind is that in closely divided legislative bodies, everyone has “clout” if they choose to exercise it. Consider what just recently happened in the U.S House of Representatives. A handful of congressmen far short in number of a majority of the body as a whole or even of their own caucus, were able to extract multiple concessions from Kevin McCarthy who needed their support to get elected speaker. No doubt, all of those members, will continue to have outsize influence on and it’s policies for the next two years.
On some levels, although not on others, this is absurd to me. Minnesota’s Republican congressmen and women, are almost continually complaining about this or that issue on which they differ from Democrats and the Biden White House. Often, the issues they choose are the one America is most bitterly divided on. But the fact is, if they put together a reasonable political agenda, one not entirely unacceptable to Democrats, they could generate enormous power, “Clout” if you will to be used for the benefit of Minnesotans. Why they don’t do that is a question which largely goes unasked.