Redistricting in Minnesota

Minnesota
General Information
Process:	Legislative Authority
Deadline:	February 21, 2012-(25 weeks before 2012 Statewide Primary).
Total Seats to be Drawn
Congress:	8
State Senate:	67
State House:	94
Other States Redistricting Pages
Alabama · Alaska  · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Colorado  · Connecticut  · Delaware · Florida  · Georgia  · Hawaii  · Idaho  · Illinois  · Indiana  · Iowa  · Kansas  · Kentucky  · Louisiana  · Maine  · Maryland  · Massachusetts  · Michigan  · Minnesota  · Mississippi · Missouri  · Montana · Nebraska · Nevada  · New Hampshire  · New Jersey  · New Mexico  · New York  · North Carolina · North Dakota  · Ohio  · Oklahoma · Oregon · Pennsylvania  · Rhode Island  · South Carolina · South Dakota  · Tennessee · Texas  · Utah · Vermont  · Virginia  · Washington  · West Virginia · Wisconsin · Wyoming

Redistricting in Minnesota is handled by the State Legislature. Minnesota is one of 28 states in which lawmakers are wholly responsible for redrawing maps.

Process

The Minnesota Legislature proposes and passes redistricting plans as ordinary legislation. To this end, each chamber forms a committee responsible for redistricting. In addition, a joint committee is formed, composed of two Democrats and two Republicans from each chamber. The Governor can veto any redistricting plan at his discretion.

Leadership

2011

Chamber Committees

Each legislative chamber also has its own redistricting committees.

House committee

• Sarah Anderson (R) Chair
• Dan Fabian (R)
• Mary Murphy (D)
• Karen Clark (D)
• Kurt Daudt (R)
• Pat Garofalo (R)
• Joe Hoppe (R)
• Melissa Hortman (D)
• Jennifer Loon (R)
• Paul Marquart (D)
• Jeanne Poppe (D)
• Peggy Scott (R)

Senate Subcommittee

• Geoff Michel (R) Chair
• Thomas Bakk (D)
• Chris Gerlach (R)
• John Harrington (D)
• Amy Koch (R)
• Sean Nienow (R)
• Ann Rest (D)
• David Senjem (R)

Joint Subcommittee

There are four members of the Joint Subcommittee on Redistricting. Each is appointed by the Legislative Coordinating Commission. They are:

Senate

• Lawrence Pogemiller (D)
• Chris Gerlach (R)

House

• Steve Simon (D)
• Matt Dean (R)

Public hearings

On February 11, the House Redistricting Committee had its first in a series of public hearings. Committee Chair Sarah Anderson (R) said the goal of the hearings is to increase transparency. First term Representative Chris Swedzinski said of the meeting, “I look forward to working with committee members and local officials in examining how the redistricting process may affect our community, as well as how the timeframe impacts cities and counties as they redraw their local lines."

Note: Although the Redistricting Committee's public hearings are now finished, audio and video from those meetings can be found here.

Judicial redistricting panel

The following judges have been appointed to the Special Redistricting Panel:

• Wilhelmina Wright, Presiding
• Ivy Bernhardson
• James Florey
• Edward Lynch
• John Rodenberg

Judicial panel to hold public hearings

Appointed by Minnesota Supreme Court Cheif Justice Lorie Gildea, a special panel on redistricting has decided to host a series of public hearings designed to gather public input on the process. The meetings will begin in October, 2011. Friday, September 16, was the deadline to register to speak at the hearings. The full schedule can be found here. Live coverage of the hearings will be broadcast here.

Judicial panel to accept proposed maps

The judicial panel will be accepting map proposals from members of the public. Information on submitting maps can be found here (See #4) and here.

Census results

This three-minute video provides an introduction to redistricting in Minnesota.

Minnesota retained all eight of its congressional districts in the 2010 Census. However, two of the state's congressional districts will have to forfeit population to five other, less populous districts. Overall, Districts 2 and 6 will lose population and District's 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 will gain population. District 6 will have to shed about 96,000 residents, while District will have to give up about 70,000.

Local data received

On March 15, 2011, Minnesota received its local 2010 census data. The data will guide the state as it redraws congressional, state, and local electoral districts. The results showed strong growth in suburban areas which will likely result in the redrawing of every congressional and legislative district. Scott, Wright, and Sherburne counties showed the largest grown, with 45%, 39%, and 37% growth, respectively. Given the controversies created by these changes and the fact that the courts have carried out redistricting in the past three cycles, this year's process may well result in the courts drawing the new state maps.

Minorities have also seen significant growth in the past decade. This growth made up 80% of Minnesota's 7.8% net growth. While minorities made up about 1 in 10 Minnesota residents in 2010, they now make up about 1 in every 7. Both black, Hispanic, and Asian populations saw strong expansion through 2010, growing by 61%, 74%, and 52% respectively. However, the state still remains 87% white.

Governor urges adoption of redistricting principles

Every ten years, the Minnesota legislature adopts a set of principles to guide redistricting. With only weeks remaining in the session, no set of principles has yet been adopted. On April 25, Governor Mark Dayton (D) sent a letter to House Redistricting Committee Chair Sarah Anderson, urging the legislature to adopt bipartisan guidelines for redistricting. Dayton criticized the Republican's proposed principles as inadequate since they only mandates that senate districts be formed from house districts and that districts should be compact and contiguous. Dayton, however, would like to see broader principles introduced, including achieving minimal deviations, protecting racial and language minorities, preserving communities of interest, and avoiding incumbent favoritism. In addition to these guidelines, legislative Democrat's have introduced their own proposal which also seeks to promote increased competition. While Daytons Democratic party is a minority in both chambers, the Governor has veto power over any map produced.

• Republican's proposed redistricting principles: HF1546, HF1547,
• Democrat's proposed redistricting principles: HF0406

Congressional maps

Figure 1: This map shows the Minnesota Congressional Districts after the 2000 census.

Figure 2: This map shows the House Republicans' proposed Congressional plan.

David Wasserman of The Cook Political Report outlined congressional redistricting scenarios for Minnesota in a December 17, 2010 blog post. Before the Census numbers were released, Wasserman mentioned if the state retained all of eight of its congressional seats, both parties would fight over how to redraw Michele Bachmann's (6th District) congressional seat. If Bachmann's district needs to reduce its size by 100,000 residents, as is likely, Wasserman suggested that most Republicans would want some of her GOP precincts moved to Chip Cravaack's district. Cravaack (8th District) unseated long-time Democrat Jim Oberstar in 2010. The other scenario mentioned by Wasserman is that Democrats could target Cravacck's district and protest any effort to make it more Republican. If Tim Walz's congressional district needs to expand, the possibility of taking away Northfield from John Kline's district was mentioned by The Cook Report's House Editor.

House GOP releases Congressional maps

On May 9, Minnesota's House Republicans released proposed maps for the state's eight congressional seats. Most dramatically, the maps redraws Districts 7 and 8, exchanging Collin Peterson (D) for Chip Cravaack (R). Peterson, currently in District 7, would be moved to new, more Democratic District 8. Cravaack, who currently represents the swing 8th District, would be be moved to a new, more Republican District 7. The maps also solidifies Republican District's 6 and 3, while preserving DFL districts 4, 5, 8. This leaves two districts, the 1st and 2nd, competitive. Currently, the Republican's hold District 2, and with victory possible in the 1st, the GOP could take a 5-3 advantage in the state's Congressional delegation.

Congressman Collin Peterson (DFL) has sharply criticized the new maps. He argued that changes to the 7th and 8th Districts do not make sense given regional differences. He also argued that the plan seems aimed at solidifying Rep. Cravaack's re-election and making Rep. Tim Walz (District 1) more vulnerable. Peterson also predicted that plan is headed for judicial intervention. The author of the plan, Sarah Anderson (R), defended the plan saying that it represented the recent demographic and economic changes in the state.

House passes congressional plan

On May 13, 2011, the Minnesota House of Representatives passed its congressional redistricting plan. The Republican-authored plan passed on a party line vote, 71-61.

Senate passes congressional plan

On May 17, the Minnesota State Senate passed the Congressional redistricting plan passed by the House. The plan now moves to the Governor's desk. Since the plan was approved along party lines, it seems highly likely that Gov. Mark Dayton (D) will veto the maps. Dayton has stated that bi-partisan support is a condition for his signing any plan.

Dayton vetoes maps

On May 19, Governor Mark Dayton vetoed the legislature's Congressional and legislative redistricting plans. In a letter accompanying his veto, Dayton cited two reasons for his veto. First, he argued that the maps were to designed for the purposes of "protecting or defeated incumbents," citing the disproportional number of Democrats displaced by the plans. Second, Dayton again reiterated that he would not sign a map without bi-partisan support. While it is still possible that Dayton and the legislature could reach a compromise early in the next session, the veto suggests that the state's maps may once again be headed for the courts.

Legislative maps

Although the Republicans and Democrats control the legislature and governorship, respectively, census data suggests that the process is likely to favor state Republicans. Of the 9 state senate districts which exceed their population target (79,163 residents) by more than 10,000 people, all 9 are controlled by the GOP. In addition, Republicans hold 20 house districts that exceed their target (39,582 residents) by over 5,000 people. Democrats, on the other hand, represent a large majority of the state's underpopulated districts. This means that state lawmakers will likely have to move many conservative precincts to Democratic districts, weakening the re-election prospects of several Democratic legislators.

One of the biggest changes Minnesota could face through redistricting is exactly how state legislative districts will be redrawn. On January 18, 2011, State Demographer Tom Gilaspy gave testimony in front of the House Redistricting Committee. Gilapsy told the committee that some counties in Western and Southern Minnesota have some of the highest rates in the nation for experiencing sharp and likely permanent declines. Gilapsy compared the redistricting process to squeezing a balloon meaning a push in one direction could change the configuration somewhere else.

Most of the Minnesota's population growth has been strongest in the state's metro areas. However, growth in these areas is predominantly suburban while some urban areas have seen their population decline. Minneapolis and St. Paul have shown stagnant growth over the past ten years, while the Twin Cities suburbs have shown vibrant growth and an influx of young families. Of the state's 20 largest cities, 7 of these showed growth greater than 10%. 6 of these 7 were suburbs.

Figure 2: This map shows the House Republican legislative redistricting plan.

Maps proposed

Representative Sarah Anderson (R) and fellow Republicans have proposed a state legislative redistricting plan. Under the plan, 20 incumbent representatives would be paired in 10 of the newly drawn districts. Six incumbent senators will be paired in three of these districts. Overall, the plan is seen as protecting Republican incumbents, especially newly elected members. In the house, the plan would pair 10 incumbent Democrats in five districts. Only two Republicans would be paired. The remaining four districts would contain bipartisan match-ups. In the senate, four Democrats would be paired in two districts, and one district would contain a bipartisan match-up. The Republican-controlled State Senate is also expected to craft a proposal. Either plan will ultimately require the approval of Governor of Minnesota Mark Dayton (D). If lawmakers fail to reach a compromise by then end of the session (May 23), they could approve plans in the next session (January 2012) just in time for the February deadline.

The map has drawn sharp criticism from state Democrats and spurred heating debate during a committee hearing on the plan. Each redistricting cycle the legislature adopts principles intended to guide the drawing of new maps. Opponents of the plan argue that neither the maps nor the principles have been drawn with an eye toward competitiveness. They further argue that proponents of the plan are rushing passage and avoiding public input. Anderson, however, defended the plans, arguing that the maps were intended to create compact districts that preserve communities and that mapmakers did not concentrate on political concerns. She also contends that Democrats have failed to offer a sufficient amount constructive input during the process.

House passes plan

On May 6, the Minnesota House of Representatives passed the proposed state redistricting plan along party lines. The Republican-controlled Senate will likely pass the bill, but see it vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton. Earlier in the year, Dayton indicated that he would only sign a map with significant bipartisan support. In a press conference on May 10, Dayton indicated that a veto was likely for the legislative plan. However, he declined to comment on the proposed Congressional plan.

Senate passes plan

On May 17, the Minnesota State Senate passed the House-authored legislative redistricting plan along party lines. The new maps now move to Governor Mark Dayton (D), who will likely veto the plan. Dayton has stated that bi-partisan support is a condition for his signing any plan.

Dayton vetoes maps

On May 19, Governor Mark Dayton vetoed the legislature's Congressional and legislative redistricting plans. In a letter accompanying his veto, Dayton cited two reasons for his veto. First, he argued that the maps were to designed for the purposes of "protecting or defeated incumbents," citing the disproportional number of Democrats displaced by the plans. Second, Dayton again reiterated that he would not sign a map without bi-partisan support. While it is still possible that Dayton and the legislature could reach a compromise early in the next session, the veto suggests that the state's maps may once again be headed for the courts.

Court redistricting process

Chief Justice names redistricting panel

In early June, Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Gildea selected a five-member panel of judges to hear lawsuits over the Minnesota redistricting process and complete the map-making process if necessary. The legislature technically has until February to pass a plan, but compromise does not seem likely. Court documents (submissions, orders, etc.) can be found here.

Judicial panel to accept proposed maps

The judicial panel will be accepting map proposals from members of the public. Information on submitting maps can be found here (See #4) and here.

Court sets date for oral arguments

Minnesota’s special judicial redistricting panel has scheduled oral arguments in the case for January 4, 2012. Parties in the case must submit their motions to adopt plans by November 19. The panel’s decision in the case is not expected until February. Meanwhile, House Redistricting Chair Sarah Anderson (R) renewed calls for a legislative compromise on redistricting plans. While the legislature technically has time to complete a plan, a compromise is been seen as unlikely.

Court mulls redistricting principles

On October 26, the judicial redistricting panel heard from Republicans and Democrats on which principles that should guide redistricting efforts. Republicans emphasized equal population and compact districts that respect city and county lines. Democrats argued that these considerations must be balanced with protection for communities of interests (racially, socially, or economically unique areas). Republicans, however, worried that overly subjective criteria could be used to justify virtually any map.

Court settles on redistricting principles

On November 4, Minnesota’s judicial redistricting panel released a list of principles to guide its redistricting efforts. For both congressional and legislative redistricting, the panel will attempt to draw districts that are very close to population targets, preserve minority voting rights, display compactness and contiguity, respect political subdivisions, protect communities of interest, and neither protect incumbents nor generate "excessive incumbent conflicts." For the purpose of legislative redistricting, the panel will expand the definition of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area to include 11 rather than seven counties. This could lead to urban and exurban counties being paired with more suburban counties. Republicans pushed for this move, but Democrats did not object.

• The court order detailing these principles can be found here.

Major parties submit proposals

In late November, both major parties submitted their proposals for Minnesota's congressional districts to the judicial redistricting panel. The DFL plan pairs Congresswoman and GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann with Democrat Betty McCollum. The GOP plan splits the Democrat-heavy Iron Range into separate congressional districts. Regardless of partisan posturing, several observers note that state demographics seems to favor the GOP. The decline of rural and urban areas has given rise to rapidly expanding and Republican-leaning suburbs. The judicial panel is expected to settle on new maps by late February.

• The Republican proposal can be found here.
• The Democratic proposal can be found here.

• A full list of all the maps submitted can be found here.

Oral arguments on map submissions

Minnesota's judicial redistricting panel heard oral arguments on Wednesday, January 4, concerning redistricting proposal made by both Republicans and Democrats. Both sides accused the other of drawing partisan maps. A decision on final maps is expected by February 21.

Judicial panel releases final maps

On Tuesday, February 21, the judicial panel in charge of drawing Minnesota's new legislative and congressional districts completed its work. In total, the legislative maps pair a staggering 46 incumbents. In the House, the plan pairs 30 incumbents or 1 in 5 state representatives--this leaves 15 open House seats. In the Senate, the plan pairs 16 incumbents or nearly 1 in 4 state senators--this leaves 8 open Senate seats.

The congressional districts show fewer significant changes. Most notably, the plan moved conservative and former presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) into District 4 with Rep. Betty McCollum (D). However, Bachmann has already announced that she will again run in the 6th District. No other incumbents were displaced. However, partisan control in both Democratic District 4 and Republican District 2 has been somewhat weakened.

• Interactive versions of the new maps can be found here.

• The court order establishing the new maps can be found here.

• A breakdown of the pairings and open seats can be found here.

Legal issues

Democrats file suit

On January 12, 2011, four Democrats filed suit in federal court over Minnesota redistricting. Attorneys for the plaintiffs raised concerns over whether politicians can draw the lines in a fair manner. The lawsuit asks the court to invalidate the current political boundaries and require leaders to submit their redistricting plans to the court. The lawsuit was initially postponed while legislators worked on a plan. However, following Gov. Dayton's veto of the legislature's proposed maps, the case was resumed. Republican attorneys argue that the case should first pass through the state courts before federal courts intervene.

Republican file suit

Several Republicans filed a redistricting lawsuit on January 21, 2011 in state court. The GOP's lawsuit is the second legal challenge filed over redistricting. Republicans have also sought to intervene as plaintiffs in the first lawsuit, filed by Democrats earlier in January.

Reform legislation

Shrinking the state legislature

Bills to reduce the size of the Minnesota Legislature have been introduced in both state chambers. The bills would reduce the size of the Minnesota State Senate from 67 to 56 seats and reduce the size of the Minnesota house from 134 seats to 114 seats. The bills, HF0029 and SF 419, have received bi-partisan support.

Non-partisan commission bills introduced

• House File 406: Following public calls for an independent commission, Rep. Steve Simon (DFL) is renewing his support for HF 406, introduced by Simon on February 7. The bill would allow the senate and house majority and minority leaders to select one member each of the five member commission of retired judges. The four appointees would then select the fifth member of the commission. Simon says he is not optimistic about the bill chances, but contends that it could avoid yet another decade of court-drawn maps.

• Senate File 5: SF5 would create a non-partisan commission of retired judges to re-draw district lines. The commission would prepare three plans to present to the legislature for review. The bill outlines several redistricting principles to guide the process. These principles include: districts must be within 2% of ideal populations, districts must be compact, the votes of racial and language minorities must not be diluted, lines should be drawn to favor the election of minorities, districts should foster competitiveness, and districts should keep communities of interest intact. The bill was proposed by Sen. Larry Pogemiller (DFL).

Citizen activism

Push for a non-partisan commission

Several former officeholders from Minnesota are backing the creation of a non-partisan redistricting commission made up of retired judges. Notable supporters of the plan include Former Vice President Walter Mondale and former Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz. Proponents contend that the plan would avoid the partisan redistricting fights which, for the last 40 years, have ultimately resulted in court-drawn maps. Lawmakers were quick to reject the proposal. Republican Rep. Sarah Anderson argued that legislators, as elected officials, are more accountable to voters than a non-partisan commission. Rep. Mary Murphy (DFL) expressed confidence that the legislature can fairly draw the new maps. Gov. Mark Dayton (DFL), however, voiced support for the idea "in principle."

Draw the Line Midwest

On March 15, 2011, the Draw the Line Midwest campaign was announced. Billing itself as "the nation's first regional redistricting reform campaign organization," Draw the Line Midwest is made up of 25 reform organizations from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. It is a collaboration between the Midwest Democracy Network and the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School.

The groups say the campaign is a coordinated effort to depoliticize the redistricting process by pushing for transparency, public participation, and protection of minority rights. They will be proposing alternatives to legislative plans and setting up District Builder, free open-based software that will allow anyone to draw the maps. The site is expected to be up in all states by April.

Minnesota Citizens Redistricting Commission

Draw the Line Minnesota has organized a group of citizens to prepare Congressional and legislative maps in order to illustrate fair and representative districts. The first of eight public meetings will be held on August 10, 2011. The full schedule of meetings can be found here.

Redistricting contest

Draw Our Minnesota, sponsored by Minnesota Common Cause, is sponsoring a citizen redistricting contest. Details on the contest can be found here.

Common Cause hosts redistricting tutorial

Common Cause and the Center for the Study of Politics will host a training session on redistricting software. The purpose of the event is to give residents the skills to draw maps and submit them to the judicial redistricting panel. Details on the session can be found here. Information on submitting maps can be found here (See #4) and here.

Timeline

Minnesota 2010 Redistricting Timeline
Date	Action
January-March 2011	Block populations reported to state census liaisons.
February 21, 2012	Legislative and congressional redistricting complete.
April 3, 2012	Deadline for local precincts and wards.
May 3, 2012	Deadline for redistricting local offices, inc. county commissioner, school boards, etc...
May 6, 2012	Candidates must establish residence in legislative district.
June 5, 2012	Candidate filing deadline for 2012 elections.
August 14, 2012	State primary
November 6, 2012	General Election

History

Since it was first drafted in 1858, the Minnesota Constitution has always required districts to be drawn by population. Redistricting took place on schedule up until 1913. Following that year, districts were not changed until the late 1950s due to the courts stepping in.

The legislature mainly ignored redistricting during this time due to the rural/urban divide. Rural interests were well aware that if the legislature were redistricted by population, they would lose a great deal of power. The courts also played a role - in 1914 the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not require population uniformity so long as redistricting had been a good-faith effort and "without ulterior or improper motives." In 1945 they ruled that, as long as a districting act had once been valid, it cannot be unconstitutional due to subsequent population changes.

In 1957 a suit was brought to federal court arguing that redistricting was indeed justiciable. The justice in the case agreed, instructing the legislature to redistrict more equitably. This led to a new redistricting law in 1959, which brought districts closer in population, although many remained unequal. The act took effect in 1962 and moved 5 1/2 Senate districts and 11 House districts from rural areas to the Twin Cities area.

Following the United States Supreme Court 1962 decision in Baker v. Carr, Minnesota's governor convened a reapportionment commission in order to bring districts closer to population equality. The legislature ignored the commission's recommendations, but were forced to redraw districts in 1965 anyway, after the 1959 plan was ruled invalid. The legislature passed a new plan, only to have it vetoed by the governor. This led to a special session, where a compromise led to another 4 1/2 Senate and 9 House districts being transferred from rural to urban areas.

Compromise again proved difficult following the 1970 census, which ended in the federal district court redrawing the lines. Again additional seats in both chambers were transferred to metropolitan areas. In 1980 a constitutional amendment to create a special reapportionment commission was approved by 58% of voters, but fell short of the required majority by about 3,000.

2001 redistricting

Deviation from "Ideal Districts"

2000 Population Deviation
Office		Percentage
Congressional Districts		0.00%
State House Districts		1.56%
State Senate Districts		1.35%
Under federal law, districts may vary from an 'Ideal District' by up to 10%, though the lowest number achievable is preferred. 'Ideal Districts' are computed through simple division of the number of seats for any office into the population at the time of the Census.

Lawsuits related to the 2000 Census

There were 7 lawsuits, not counting appeals, related to the Minnesota 2000 census redistricting process.

• Zachman v. Kiffmeyer, No. CX-01-116 (10th Dist. Wright Co., complaint served Jan. 4, 2001) : The complaint alleged that legislative districts ordered by a state court in 1991, and congressional districts drawn by the state court in 1992, are out of population balance based on 1999 estimates by the State Demographer and 2000 census counts released December 28, 2000, and that the Legislature had failed and would fail to redraw them. It demanded an injunction against use of the old plans for the 2002 election and that the court draw new plans if the Legislature failed.

• Cotlow v. Kiffmeyer, No. C8-91-985 (Minn. Spec. Redis. Panel, motion served Jan. 12, 2001) : The motion asserted that the legislative districts approved by the court, and congressional districts drawn by the court, in 1992 were out of population balance. It moved the court to modify its previous orders and declare that the old plans may no longer be used and to notify the Legislature that the court would draw new plans unless the Legislature adopted constitutional plans in a timely manner.

• Cotlow v. Growe, No. C8-91-985 and Zachman v. Kiffmeyer, No. C0-01-160 (Minn. Mar. 2, 2001) : The Minnesota Supreme Court consolidated the two cases and found that the role of the three-judge special redistricting panel in Cotlow v. Growe was confined to cases based on the 1990 Census, a role that has ended. The Court will appoint a new special redistricting panel “to hear and decide the Zachman case and any other redistricting challenges that may be filed based on the 2000 Census.” In deference to the legislative process, the Court stayed appointment of the new panel until “it is determined that panel action must commence in order that the judicial branch can fulfill its proper role in assuring that valid redistricting plans are in place in time for the 2002 state legislative and congressional elections....”

• Zachman v. Kiffmeyer, No. C0-01-160 (Minn. Spec. Redis. Panel Mar. 19, 2002) : The 2001 session of the Minnesota Legislature adjourned without completed redistricting principles or plans. With the Legislature scheduled to begin its next regular session on January 29, 2002, plaintiffs moved the Court for an order appointing a three-judge panel to draw plans to be adopted before January 1. On July 12, 2001, the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a five-judge special redistricting panel and ordered them to release a redistricting plan “only in the event a legislative redistricting plan is not enacted in a timely manner.” On October 29, 2001, the panel issued a scheduling order setting December 28 as the deadline for the parties to submit proposed plans, and March 19, 2002 (the statutory deadline for the Legislature to complete action on redistricting plans) as the date when the panel would issue plans of its own, if necessary. The panel’s order stating redistricting principles and requirements for plan submissions was issued December 11, 2001. Following the January 16, 2002, oral argument on the plans submitted by the parties, the court issued an order setting a schedule for public hearings on how citizens preferred their communities to be viewed during redistricting. On March 19, 2002, the panel issued its orders adopting a legislative redistricting plan and a congressional redistricting plan. The panel awarded attorney’s fees and costs to all four groups of plaintiffs, subject to a limit of $100,000 each for attorney’s fees and $4,500 each for costs and disbursements.

• McGuire v. Windschitl, No. C0-02-1352 (Minn. Aug. 28, 2002) : On August 8, 2002, petitioner filed an original petition alleging that Senate District 26 candidate Jeremy W. Eller had not resided in the district for six months preceding the general election as required by Minnesota Constitution. The Supreme Court appointed a referee who issued findings that Eller had in fact established residence and the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

• Lundquist v. Leonard, No. C9-02-1351 (Minn. Oct. 17, 2002) : On August 8, 2002, petitioner filed an original petition alleging House District 38A candidate Margaret J. Tilley had not resided in the district for six months preceding the general election as required by Minnesota Constitution. The Supreme Court appointed a referee who issued findings that Tilley had in fact established residence and the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

• Olson v. Zuehlke, No. C2-02-1353 (Minn. Oct. 17, 2002) : On August 9, 2002, petitioner filed an original petition in the Supreme Court alleging House District 3B candidate Loren Solberg had not resided in the district for six months preceding the general election as required by the Minnesota Constitution. The Supreme Court appointed a referee who issued findings that Solberg had in fact established residence and the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

• Piepho v. Bruns, No. C4-02-1354 (Minn. Oct. 17, 2002) : On August 9, 2002, petitioner filed an original petition in the Supreme Court alleging Senate District 23 candidate John C. Hottinger had not resided in the district for six months preceding the general election as required by the Minnesota Constitution. The Supreme Court appointed a referee who issued findings that Hottinger had in fact established residence and the Supreme Court issued its order dismissing the petition.

Constitutional explanation

The Minnesota Constitution provides authority for redistricting to the Legislature in Section 3 of Article IV.

See also

• State Legislative and Congressional Redistricting after the 2010 Census
• State-by-state redistricting procedures

External links

• Minnesota Supreme Court, Special Redistricting Panel
• Subcommittee on Redistricting Page
• Sen. Geoff Michel discusses redistricting on public radio