REDISTRICTING

The decade's task . . .
Slicing and dicing the state of Minnesota 

A new plan that may shape the face of Minnesota politics for the
1990s was unveiled May 15 by DFL lawmakers, and won approval the
same day from the Redistricting Committee. 

The proposal, which succeeds in staying within 2 percent of the
ideal 32,650 people per district in each of the 134 House
districts, substantially alters the state's current boundary
makeup.

Since 1980, the state's population has shifted dramatically, with
at least seven northeastern legislative districts losing more
than 10 percent of their constituents. Under the current
proposal, the decline of some rural populations has meant the
loss of four House seats in outstate Minnesota. Other losers
include Minneapolis and St. Paul, which would each lose a seat if
HF1699 becomes law.

But while the population in some areas of the state has dwindled,
the suburbs have boomed. They would stand to gain five more House
seats under the proposal. 

The plan also lumps two incumbents into the same district on 12
separate occasions, with five in the metro area, and seven
outstate. It also creates 12 "new" districts, where there is
currently no House member living within their boundaries.

This led Rep. Tom Osthoff (DFL-St. Paul) to call the plan
"anti-incumbent," although he praised committee Chair Rep. Peter
Rodosovich (DFL-Faribault) for his efforts to produce a timely
and "fair" plan, and one that benefits minority populations.

Rodosovich says he's particularly proud of the plan's efforts to
concentrate minority voting blocks "to enhance the election
chances of people of color." Three proposed Minneapolis districts
-- two in the north and one in the south -- hold minority
populations of 47, 48, and 65 percent respectively. Proposed St.
Paul Senate district 65 has a 42 percent minority population, and
proposed district 2B would find the White Earth and Red Lake
Indian reservations within the same boundaries. Today, the Red
Lake Reservation alone has two representatives and two senators.

"This is a great plus for the state," says Richard Tanner,
testifying on behalf of the Chippewa tribe. "This concentrates
the voting strength of the Indian people."

But while IR committee members also praised DFL achievements of
voting-block strength, they did not agree with Osthoff's
assessment that the plan was fair.

"We can't ask our members to vote for something that will
institutionalize the minority [party] for the next 10 years. And
by looking at this bill, that seems to be the case," says Rep.
Jerry Knickerbocker (IR-Minnetonka), the committee's vice-chair
who later called the meeting "a pointless exercise." 

The IR Caucus has not begun to fashion a redistricting proposal.
Its computer systems expert, who was to assist in creating such a
plan, was expected to begin work May 15.

"I have visited with members from both sides of the aisle. . .
this [plan] is my best faith effort to the people of Minnesota,"
says Rodosovich. "I have done as good a job as I can. If members
don't want to vote for the plan, don't vote for it."

IR members criticized the "12th hour" nature of the DFL plan,
unveiled only hours before the vote was taken on the measure.

"If it's a good plan today, it should hold up to public scrutiny,
and it should still be a good plan next week, in June, or in
1996," says Rep. Ron Abrams (IR-Minnetonka). He and several
colleagues say they can't support the plan because they don't
know what's in it. 

Knickerbocker says there is "no compelling reason to produce a
plan this early," and reminded the committee that earlier this
session members established a deadline of March 26, 1992, to
complete the redistricting task.

Looming in the background is the threat of a Carlson veto, a
power the governor says he will exercise without bipartisan
support for the proposal. Carlson has appointed a 10-member
special commission to study HF1699 over the next few days. The
Legislature intends to have the bill on the governor's desk by
May 20, the constitutional deadline for the Legislature to
adjourn. Knickerbocker says the IR caucus will not submit its own
plan to counter the DFL bill.

Rodosovich hasn't commented on the veto threat, but says, "the
more the governor examines the bill, the more he will recognize
its fairness."

The measure now goes to the Rules and Legislative Administration
Committee, and is expected to be voted on by the full House May
18.

-- John Tschida


Stirring the pot?


It's been called "the highest stakes political game the
legislature can play," and involves mathematics, the courts,
partisan hardball, high-tech equipment, and a number of
intangibles only the inner circle of mappers really knows for
sure. 

It's redistricting, and the decennial dance of the boundaries has
begun anew.

Some legislative staffers have worked around the clock in recent
weeks to devise a boundary plan before the scheduled May 20
adjournment of the Legislature. 

Their work could be for naught, however. The legislative track
record on redistricting is less than impressive.

The last time the Legislature fashioned a plan that wasn't thrown
out by the courts was 1913. Even that plan was taken all the way
to the state Supreme Court. Although it blatantly favored the
Republican majority of that era, the court ruled that "a
good-faith effort" was evident, since the plan was somewhat less
discriminatory than the existing district plan.

So how does the Legislature go about the business of drawing
boundaries? It starts with U.S. Census data, but also includes a
number of factors, including the racial and ethnic makeup of
communities and even the addresses of the incumbents.

The home block of each incumbent is entered into the computer's
data base. This is done to avoid lumping two or more current
legislators into the same district. But complete
"self-preservation" is impossible. 

Inevitably, in some instances, two or more current members will
find themselves in the same district. The last state
redistricting plan saw two Minneapolis senators vying for the
same seat. One of them decided to move. The other was defeated in
the next election.

This time around, a number of incumbents -- 28 to be exact --
have found themselves paired with one of their peers.

The House has 12 such pairs, with seven in outstate Minnesota and
five in the metro area. In the Senate, there are four incumbent
match-ups -- three outstate and one in the metro area.

-- John Tschida



Text originally printed in 1991 in the Session Weekly, a weekly
newsmagazine published by the Minnesota House Public Information
Office.

-------------------

Note: The 1991 legislative redistricting plan passed the
Legislature, and Gov. Arne Carlson attempted to veto it. However,
a judge later ruled that the governor had not vetoed the bill
within three days of its presentment, a time limit imposed by the
Minnesota Constitution. (Fourteen other bills passed by the 1991
Legislature became law in this same manner.) The redistricting
plan was challenged in court and altered slightly by a
three-judge panel, but the boundaries in effect today essentially
represent those passed by the 1991 Legislature.

--------------------

***Last Update 8/5/94 (jtt) Last Review 8/5/94 (jtt) ***