Post on 06-Apr-2018
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
1/78
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
2/78
Executive Summary
Once every ten years, Minnesota legislators and - inevitably - the courts draw new
political boundaries for state legislature and Congress. These lines can have a
significant impact on who is elected to serve in Saint Paul and Washington DC.
Despite the importance of this process, the maps this year have largely been drawn
behind closed doors with little public debate. In fact, representatives from the
political parties have repeatedly rejected efforts to educate the public about how
the maps were drawn.
After analyzing the maps submitted by the political parties, it is clear why it is
difficult to explain these maps to the general public. As expected, the primary
interest of the parties maps was to protect their own interests at the ballot box for
the next ten years rather than to accurately and fairly reflect Minnesotas
communities. Our report shows a significant difference between these maps and the
maps submitted by groups not affiliated with a political party.
Key Findings
Nonpartisan maps drawn by the county auditors and the Draw the Line
Citizens Redistricting Commission are the most fair of all the maps submitted
to the court.
The party-drawn maps have an unusually low number of incumbent pairings,
indicating a high level of incumbent protection.
The Republican Party maps attempted to shore up competitive districts by
drawing more Republicans into those districts. In the ten districts that had
the greatest increases of Republican voters, eight of those districts were from
the most competitive House races.
The DFL Party map had the fewest number of competitive races in both the
Minnesota House and Senate maps.
The DFL maps attempts to protect the most senior DFL incumbents at the
expense of more junior legislators.
All the maps showed bias toward the Republican Party according to the seats
vote curve analysis. However, the GOP shows the most bias and the DFL
shows the least bias in that analysis.
www.commoncause.org/mn 2
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
3/78
Introduction
In Minnesota, in spite of the fact that the Constitution gives the power to draw
districts to the Legislature, the redistricting process has largely been the
responsibility of the state courts. In four out of the last five decades, a special
redistricting panel appointed by the Minnesota Supreme Court has drawn the mapsbecause the legislature and governor have been unable to agree on a final map.
Each time, the court has avoided drawing districts that benefit one party or the
other.
The courts have largely been successful at drawing fair maps because they have
been able to see through the partisan attempts to influence the map. However,
there is always the exception that proves the rule. After the 1970 election, 33
Conservatives and 33 Liberals and one Independent were elected to the Minnesota
Senate. Duluth newspaper publisher Dick Palmer was the one independent and
much pressure was placed on him to caucus with either the GOP or DFL caucus.
The district that he was elected to was a liberal district; however, Mr. Palmerdecided to caucus with the conservative caucus, thus creating some foes within the
DFL.1
Then, two years later, redistricting moved to the courts because the legislature and
governor were unable to agree upon a map. The process was turned over to
Federal Judge Gerald Heaney, who was a well connected with the DFL party.2 When
the new map was released, Senator Palmers new district did not include the Duluth
suburbs, where he had strong ties to the community. Instead it went all the way to
the Canadian border causing Senator Palmer not to run. Senator Palmer and others
argued that this was retribution for his caucus with the GOP.
This example serves to demonstrate that even gerrymandering can occur when the
courts handle the process. While Minnesota has not been subject to the partisan
gerrymander in the redistricting process that has plagued other states, our system
is far from perfect. What was once considered the fallback position having the
courts determine the new redistricting maps is now the norm. We need to
consider whether this best serves the interests of Minnesota.
This year, the courts are once again drawing the maps. The Minnesota redistricting
panel is currently considering three maps submitted to the redistricting court by the
Republican Party of Minnesota, the Democrat Farm Labor Party and activists from
the Democrat Farmer Labor Party. In addition to those groups, the court requested
that the public submit maps to the court. Two of the maps submitted during this
phase one by the League of Women Voters through the Draw the Line Citizens
Redistricting Commission map, and a second by the Minnesota County Auditors
1http://mcrecord.com/archives/498012/here%E2%80%99s-how-to-eliminate-politics-from-redistricting/2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Heaney
www.commoncause.org/mn 3
http://mcrecord.com/archives/498012/here%E2%80%99s-how-to-eliminate-politics-from-redistricting/http://mcrecord.com/archives/498012/here%E2%80%99s-how-to-eliminate-politics-from-redistricting/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Heaneyhttp://mcrecord.com/archives/498012/here%E2%80%99s-how-to-eliminate-politics-from-redistricting/http://mcrecord.com/archives/498012/here%E2%80%99s-how-to-eliminate-politics-from-redistricting/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Heaney8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
4/78
drawn by Ramsey County elections manager Joe Mansky receive our attention in
this report.
Unfortunately, the maps submitted by the political parties have the potential toskew the courts redistricting decision. The potential for partisan manipulation is
even a greater threat this redistricting cycle thanks to evolutions in technology.
However, new technology is influencing the process in both negative a positive
ways. While it is possible for citizens to play a significant role in drawing maps in a
manner that was not possible in the past, it is also possible for partisans to
manipulate the data and a partisan map look like a fair map. Technology allows
www.commoncause.org/mn 4
Table 1. Key Statistics for Competing House Redistricting Proposals
CRITERIA 2001
COURT
PLAN
2011
GOP
PLAN
2011 DFL
PLAN
2011
PROGRES
SIVE
PLAN
2011
DRAW
THE LINE
PLAN
2011
MANSKY
PLAN
Incumbents Paired: 34
Open: 17
Paired: 16
Open: 8
Paired: 35
Open: 18
Paired: 39
Open: 20
Paired: 54
Open: 24
Paired: 47
Open: 19
DFL vs. DFL 5 3 0 4 4 8
GOP vs. GOP 5 1 12 11 12 10
DFL vs. GOP 7 4 5 4 11 5
Competitive
Districts(Dif. Between DFL
& GOP not more
than 8%)
49 49 43 47 50 47
Districts with
plurality
D:73 R:61 D: 62 R:
72
D: 69 R: 65 D: 68 R: 66 D: 67 R:
67
D: 68 R: 66
Districts over
54%
D:48 R:37 D: 47 R:
38
D: 50 R: 41 D: 47 R: 40 D: 46 R:
38
D: 46 R: 41
Districts over
60%
D:34 R:8 D: 34 R: 8 D: 31 R: 9 D: 33 R: 11 D: 33 R:
11
D: 31 R: 9
Partisan Bias
Score(What percent of
seats with 50% of
the vote)
38.1% 36.6% 41.8% 41% 38.8% 40.3
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
5/78
mapmakers to closely follow criteria such as compactness and minimizing political
subdivisions while at the same time manipulating districts for partisan gain.
This is evident by examining the maps that were submitted by the GOP and DFL in
2011. These maps provide indicate partisan manipulation and incumbency
protection, particularly in marginal districts. Analysis of these five mapsthosesubmitted by the two parties, as well as maps submitted by outside groups--
demonstrates that the DFL and Republican maps focus on both incumbency
protection and partisan gains. In particular, the partisan maps appear to
aggressively manipulate the vote totals in marginal districts to pick up swing
districts from the other party, especially in districts won or lost by very close
margins in the previous elections. In addition, the DFL plan appears to place a
higher priority on incumbency protection, especially among senior members of the
caucus, than the other maps. The two independent plans, by contrast, do much
less to preserve the districts of incumbents and do not select marginal districts for
partisan manipulation.
The past has shown us just how valuable independent redistricting efforts can be in
developing a fair map. In 2000, former Governor Ventura created a tri-partisan
group to propose new congressional and legislative maps. The group adopted
criteria that the districts be drawn to increase competition. The maps proposed by
the group had two to three times more incumbent pairings than the ones proposed
by the GOP and DFL. It is clear that the independent redistricting maps had a
significant impact on the courts map. That is why it is so important that the court
consider the independent maps drawn by Draw the Line and Minnesota Association
of Counties. As we will show, those maps do a better job of drawing competitive
districts that will ensure that voters will have a real say in who is elected to the
Minnesota legislature in 2012 and beyond.
Report Methodology
We explore several outcomes of interest for each of the maps currently being
considered by the special redistricting court. Specifically, we consider three
outcomes of interest: pairing of incumbents in the same district, evidence of
manipulation of competitive districts for partisan advantage, and the level of
partisan bias built into each map. Each of these outcomes points to a different
aspect of partisan manipulationand true gerrymanderingin the redistricting
process.
Data
These analyses rely upon election results that appeared in the Census block file
maintained State of Minnesota Legislative Coordinating Commissions Geographic
Information System website ( http://www.gis.leg.mn/metadata/redist2010.htm).
These data contain block-level estimates of election results for the years 2002 to
www.commoncause.org/mn 5
http://www.gis.leg.mn/metadata/redist2010.htmhttp://www.gis.leg.mn/metadata/redist2010.htm8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
6/78
2010 derived from precinct-level data. (See Data Disclaimer in Appendix B for a
disclaimer on use of these data.)
To generate a district-level partisan index, the anticipated DFL share of the two-
party vote in each district, we begin by averaging the two-party vote total estimates
for each Census block for three statewide constitutional offices in 2010: AttorneyGeneral, State Auditor, and Secretary of State. By averaging across the three
offices, this measure captures the normal DFL and Republican vote totals in each
Census block. These three offices were selected because they appear to better
capture the usual party-line voting than the unusual 2010 gubernatorial election,
and we believe they will extrapolate better to the future DFL vote over the next
decade than measures based on older elections. To calculate the district-level
partisan index under each redistricting plan, these block-level two-party vote totals
are summed within each district. The district partisan index is the total DFL vote
divided by the sum of the total votes cast for the two parties across the three
offices.3
Using statewide elections to generate the partisan index is preferred to using the
legislative election outcomes themselves. The local vote in State House and State
Senate elections may be sensitive to local incumbency advantages and to the
friends and neighbors effects that may lead to deviation from usual party voting.
More importantly, candidates in safe districts will run unopposed or face only token
opposition from the other party. This will result in an erroneous summary of the
underlying (latent) partisanship of each district.
Outcomes
PairingsWhen new lines are drawn in redistricting, it is fairly common for incumbent
legislators to find themselves in the same district as another incumbent legislator. A
low number of incumbent pairings is an indication of the extent to which a map was
drawn to protect incumbents.
Shoring Up Competitive Districts
We also examine the extent to which plans appear to be manipulating marginal
races. Specifically, to what extent do plans appear to be bolstering the electoral
chances of marginal members in ones own party while undercutting similarly
marginal members in the other party. We answer this question by examining a set
of cases in which plans change the partisan index of districts that were narrowlywon by the present incumbent evil. Regulate
Partisan Bias Score
The most common analysis of redistricting plans focuses on thepartisan bias of a
3 Using results from other election cycles does change values of the partisan index, buttypically does little to change the rank ordering of the different redistricting plans in terms ofbias and treatment of incumbent districts.
www.commoncause.org/mn 6
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
7/78
district map. Partisan bias captures the extent to which a plan delivers more seats
to a party than its share of the popular vote would justify. This results most
commonly from plans that pack excessive numbers of voters from one party into a
subset of districts, while the other partys voters are distributed to yield a larger
number of seats for a given vote share. For example, the presence of Democratic
landslide districts under many state redistricting plans robs other districts ofDemocratic voters, reducing the number of districts in which the Democratic Party
can compete. As a result, under many redistricting plans Democrats receive fewer
than 50% of seats when they receive 50% of the total vote.
To calculate bias under a range of election scenarios, we construct a seats-votes
curve, which displays the anticipated number of legislative seats won by the DFL
party at a particular DFL share of the two-party vote. Under a perfect system of
proportional representation, the number of seats won in a legislature would
perfectly match the proportion of votes cast. In most legislatures, this relationship
will deviate at various vote shares for both parties. But as long as both parties
receive the same share of seats when they receive a given share of the vote, theplan is considered unbiased.
To generate these seats-votes curve, we adopt a multi-step process. To begin, we
calculate the district-level DFLpartisan index, as defined above using results from
three down-ticket state constitutional offices. A higher partisan index indicates
higher underlying DFL partisanship in the district. Then, we simulate a set of
counterfactual elections by adding (or subtracting) a uniform amount to the DFL
vote share in each district. At each vote level, we run a simulated an election and
calculate the proportion of seats that the DFL would win, using the simulated vote
share in each district. As redistricting expert and George Mason University
Professor Michael McDonald notes, we are most commonly interested in the
percentage of seats won by each party in a 50-50 election.
The methodology used to calculate the seats-votes curve has been widely used in
academic articles and in analyses presented by plaintiffs and academics in court
filings. Based on initial advice from Professor Michael McDonald, we adopted this
widely used approach to calculate the level of anti-DFL bias in the redistricting
plans. See Appendix A for a copy of Professor McDonalds advisory memo.
www.commoncause.org/mn 7
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
8/78
Analysis of Minnesota House of Representatives Maps
We now turn to an overall summary of key statistics on the House of
Representatives proposals.
The GOP House of Representatives map has only 16 incumbents paired, ten ofwhich are DFL House members. By contrast, in 2002 the court paired 34 legislators
and had an equal balance between the political parties in the number of pairings.
Using this benchmark it clearly shows how the GOP map violates one of the
principles set by the court, that districts should not be drawn for the purposes of
protecting or defeating an incumbent. The DFL map makes a similar error. Unlike
the GOP map, the DFL map has 35 pairings, similar to the 2002 court plan. The
problem is that the DFL has no DFL vs. DFL pairings and 12 GOP vs. GOP pairings.
Even with the fact that there are more GOP incumbents than DFL incumbents, it is
not coincidental that the map draws so many GOP pairings. The Britton map has
more incumbent pairings at 39, but is also guilty of pairing more GOP incumbents
than DFL: four DFL vs. DFL pairings and 11 GOP vs. GOP.
Compare that to the independent maps drawn by the county auditors and the Draw
the Line Commission, which have significantly more pairings. The Draw the Line
map has 54 incumbent pairings and the Auditor plan has 47 pairings.
Shoring up Competitive Districts
The DFL and GOP maps each treat competitive districts slightly differently. The GOP
map treats the competitive districts differently than non-competitive districts. The
GOP improves GOP party index vote in GOP won swing districts by 2.23 points while
in the non-competitive districts it actually improves the DFL party index by 0.44
points This patterns shows the GOP attempts to more efficiently spread out GOPvoters to improve their chances of keeping control of GOP swing districts. The DFL
maps attempt to spread their votes from non-competitive districts to competitive
districts. The DFL party index in swing districts increases by .66 points by
decreasing the DFL vote in non-competitive districts by 0.79 points. However, the
GOP map is more efficient at accomplishing this than the DFL map.
Under the five proposed maps evaluated in this report, the GOP map and the
County Auditors maps are the most biased. If the DFL received 50% of the
statewide vote under these two plans, they would only receive 36.6% of the seats in
the Minnesota House of Representatives. While the DFL map provides the least
partisan bias of the five proposed maps, it still yields only a 38.8% seat share when
the Democrats win 50% of the vote. All plans are, to varying degrees, biased
against the DFL, including the DFLs own map.
Partisan Bias
We estimated the seats-votes curves for the current House of Representatives map
and the five competing 2010 redistricting plans. These results appear in Figure 1.
www.commoncause.org/mn 8
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
9/78
This analysis shows that all of the proposals are biased against the DFL. This is
even true of the partys own plan, which retains anti-DFL bias by maintaining too
many incumbent landslide districts, notably in the Twin Cities. The nonpartisan
plans are almost as biased against the DFL as the GOP plan.
www.commoncause.org/mn 9
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
10/78
Effect of the GOP Map on Vulnerable Incumbents
The proposed map by the GOP has an abnormally low number of incumbent pairings
and has fewer competitive districts. By looking at the numbers, legislators that are
from the most competitive districts receive the most protection from the map.
Eight out the top ten incumbent Republicans that had the greatest increase ofRepublican voters to their district were from the most competitive House races. The
only legislators not in a competitive district were the Speaker of House Kurt Zellers
and Rep. Kelly. In fact, most of the races that GOP protects are first term members
of the legislature.
Protection List
LegislatorProtected
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
1. John Stensrud
(R-42A)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 9.16 points, movingit from 49.1% GOP district to58.2% GOP district.
Rep. Stensdrud won by107 votes in 2010; thischange will make his2012 election mucheasier.
2. John Kriesel(R-57A)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 7.13 points, movingit from 43.5% GOP district to50.6% GOP district.
Rep. Kriesel won by 452votes in 2010; thischange will make his2012 election mucheasier.
3. KelbyWoodard (R-
25B)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 4.68 points, moving
it from 47.0% GOP district to51.7% GOP district.
Rep. Woodard won by37 votes in 2010; this
change will make his2012 election mucheasier.
4. GlennGruenhagen(R-25A)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 3.53 points, movingit from 51.9% GOP district to55.5% GOP district.
Rep. Gruenhagen wonby 336 votes in 2010;this change will makehis 2012 election mucheasier.
5. Keith Downey(R-41A)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 2.89 points, moving
it from 48.7% GOP district to51.6% GOP district.
Rep. Downey won by587 votes in 2010; this
change will make his2012 election mucheasier.
6. BrandenPeterson (R-49B)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 2.67 points, movingit from 50.2% GOP district to
Rep. Peterson won by 57votes in 2010; thischange will make his2012 election much
www.commoncause.org/mn 10
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
11/78
52.9% GOP district. easier.
7. Rich Murray(R-27A)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 2.55 points, moving
it from 44.0% DFL district to46.6% DFL district.
Rep. Murray won by 57votes in 2010; this
change will make his2012 election mucheasier.
Endangered List
Legislator onendangered list
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
1. Tina Liebling(DFL-30A)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 10.8 points, moving
it from 52.4% DFL district to41.6% DFL district.
Rep. Liebling won by10.4% in 2010; this
change will make her2012 reelection muchmore difficult.
2. John Benson(DFL-43B)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 5.43 points, movingit from 52.8% DFL district to47.4% DFL district.
Rep. Benson won by3.41% in 2010; thischange will make his2012 reelection muchmore difficult.
3. Denise Dittrich
(DFL-47A)
Increased the GOP partisan
index by 5.4 points, moving itfrom 46.8% DFL district to41.4% DFL district.
Rep. Dittrich won by 264
votes in 2010; thischange will make her2012 reelection muchmore difficult.
4. John Persell(DFL-43B)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 5.0 points, moving itfrom 51.9% DFL district to46.9% DFL district.
Rep. Persell won by6.4% in 2010; thischange will make his2012 reelection moredifficult.
Effect of the DFL Map on Vulnerable Incumbents
The proposed map by the DFL is an attempt to protect incumbent DFL House
members but not at the same level that the GOP does. The DFL map has a less-
than-expected number of incumbent pairings and has fewer competitive districts
than what the court proposed in 2002. By looking at the numbers, it is clear that
www.commoncause.org/mn 11
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
12/78
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
13/78
McElfatrick (R-03B)
index by 4.12 points, movingit from 54.1% DFL district to58.2% DFL district.
2.45% in 2010; thischange will make her2012 reelection moredifficult.
3. Linda Runbeck
(R-53A)
Increased the DFL partisan
index by 2.69 points, movingit from 47.5% DFL district to50.1% DFL district.
In 2010, Rep Runbeck
won election by amargin of 12%.However, in 2008 thisdistrict was won by aDFLer with a 4%advantage. Consideringthat this district is acompetitive district, thischange will make her2012 reelection moredifficult.
4. Kathy Lohmer(R-56A)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 2.31 points, movingit from 49.91% DFL district to52.2% DFL district.
Considering that Rep.Lohmer won by 4.91% in2010, this change willmake her 2012reelection more difficult.In addition, this districtwas carried by a DFL inthe 2008 election and isconsidered competitive.
5. Doug Wardlow(R-38B)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 1.15 points, moving
it from 51.1% DFL district to52.2% DFL district.
Considering that Rep.Wardlow won by 4.02%
in 2010, this change willmake his 2012reelection more difficult.In addition, this districtwas carried by a DFL inthe 2008 election and isconsidered competitive.
Effect of the Britton Map on Vulnerable Incumbents
Of the interveners, the proposed map by the Britton plaintiff does the best job of not
protecting incumbents because it has a respectable number of incumbent pairings
and competitive elections. By looking at the numbers, it is clear that there are
certain legislators that the map attempts to defeat and ones that it attempts to
protect. It is unclear whether legislators are being targeted on purpose or the
product of some other factors that are publicly unknown. In some cases, the Britton
www.commoncause.org/mn 13
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
14/78
map actually improves the chances of GOP legislators that faced tough elections in
2010 and worsens the chances of DFLers. It improves the chances of Republican
legislators: Rep. Woodard (GOP +12.79), Rep. Peterson (GOP +9.93), Rep.
Gruenhagen (GOP +7.37), Rep Kriesel (GOP +2.74), and Rep Mcelfatrick (GOP
+3.32). It hurts the chances of DFL legislators: Rep. Liebling (DFL -9.87), Rep.
Dittrich (DFL -2.85) and Rep. Hortman (DFL -2.25).
Below we highlight some of the districts that the Britton map manipulates:
Protection List
LegislatorsProtected
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
1. Lyle Koanen(DFL-20B)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 2.97 points, movingit from 53.2% DFL district to56.2% DFL district.
Rep. Koanen won by2.21% in 2010; thischange will make his2012 reelection much
easier.
2. Kate Knuth(DFL-50B)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 5.21 points, movingit from 53.0% DFL district to58.27% DFL district.
Rep. Knuth won by4.89% in 2010; thischange will make her2012 reelection mucheasier.
Endangered List
EndangeredLegislators
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
1. Larry Howes(R-04B)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 8.68 points, movingit from 43.4% DFL district to52.1% DFL district.
In 2010, Rep Howes wonelection by a margin of20%. However, in 2008this district was won byRep. Howes with a 4%advantage. Consideringthat this district is acompetitive district, thischange could make his2012 reelection moredifficult.
2. Paul Torkelson(R-21B)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 4.68 points, movingit from 43.8% DFL district to48.5% DFL district.
In 2010, Rep Torkelsonran unopposed forreelection. However, in2008 this district waswon by Rep. Torkelsonwith a 3% advantage.Considering that this
www.commoncause.org/mn 14
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
15/78
district is a competitivedistrict, this changecould make his 2012reelection more difficult.
3. Linda Runbeck
(R-53A)
Increased the DFL partisan
index by 3.22 points, movingit from 47.5% DFL district to50.7% DFL district.
In 2010, Rep Runbeck
won election by amargin of 12%.However, in 2008 thisdistrict was won by aDFLer with a 4%advantage. Consideringthat this district is acompetitive district, thischange will make her2012 reelection moredifficult.
4. Kathy Lohmer(R-56A)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 2.99 points, movingit from 49.9% DFL district to52.9% DFL district.
Considering that Rep.Lohmer won by 4.91% in2010, this change willmake her 2012reelection more difficult.In addition, this districtwas carried by a DFL inthe 2008 election and isconsidered competitive.
5. Keith Downey(R-41A)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 1.00 points, moving
it from 51.3% DFL district to52.3% DFL district.
Rep. Downey won by587 votes in 2010; this
change will make his2012 reelection muchmore difficult.
6. Doug Wardlow(R-38B)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 0.79 points, movingit from 51.1% DFL district to51.9% DFL district.
Considering that Rep.Wardlow won by 4.02%in 2010, this change willmake his 2012reelection more difficult.In addition, this districtwas carried by a DFL inthe 2008 election and isconsidered competitive.
Effect of the Draw the Line Map on Vulnerable Incumbents
www.commoncause.org/mn 15
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
16/78
The proposed map by Draw the Line clearly was not drawn to protect incumbent
politicians as the GOP and DFL maps were. This is demonstrated by the fact that
the Draw the Line map has the highest number of incumbent pairings of all five
maps, which is three times higher than the GOP map. By looking at the numbers,
there are certain legislators that benefit from the proposed map. However, there
does not appear to be an effort to benefit the chances of one political party overanother. In the 20 closest House races, the Draw the Line map improves the GOP
incumbents chances by 2.76 percent. While in those same districts, it improves DFL
incumbents chances by 1.40 percent.
Protection List
LegislatorsProtected
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
1. BrandenPeterson (R-
49B)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 11.3 points, movingit from 50.2% GOP district to61.5% GOP district.
Rep. Peterson won by 57votes in 2010; thischange will make his2012 election mucheasier.
2. John Kriesel(R-57A)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 9.2 points, moving itfrom 43.5% GOP district to52.6% GOP district.
Rep. Kriesel won by 452votes in 2010; thischange will make his2012 election mucheasier.
3. John Benson(DFL-43B)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 8.0 points, moving it
from 52.8% DFL district to60.8% DFL district.
Rep. Benson won by3.41% in 2010; this
change will make his2012 reelection muchmore difficult.
4. John Stensrud(R-42A)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 7.2 points, moving itfrom 49.1% GOP district to56.3% GOP district.
Rep. Stensdrud won by107 votes in 2010; thischange will make his2012 election mucheasier.
8. Kelby
Woodard (R-25B)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 6.8 points, moving itfrom 47.0% GOP district to53.8% GOP district.
Considering that Rep.Woodard won by 37votes in 2010; thischange will make his2012 election mucheasier.
6. CarolynMcElfatrick (R-03B)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 4.7 points, moving itfrom 45.9% GOP district to
Rep. McElfatrick won by2.45% in 2010; thischange will make her
www.commoncause.org/mn 16
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
17/78
50.6% GOP district. 2012 reelection moredifficult.
9. GlennGruenhagen(R-25A)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 3.2 points, moving itfrom 51.9% GOP district to
55.2% GOP district.
Rep. Gruenhagen wonby 336 votes in 2010;this change will make
his 2012 election mucheasier.
Endangered List
EndangeredLegislators
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
1. Debra Kiel (R-
01B)
Increased the DFL partisan
index by 2.3 points, moving it
from 51.7% DFL district to
54.0% DFL district.
Rep. Kiel won by 131
votes in 2010; this
change will make her
2012 election more
difficult.
2. David Hancock
(R-02B)
Increased the DFL partisan
index by 1.6 points, moving it
from 51.2% GOP district to
49.6% GOP district.
Rep. Hancock won by
452 votes in 2010; this
change will make his
2012 election much
easier.
Effect of the County Auditor Map on VulnerableIncumbents
The proposed map by Minnesota Association of County Auditors is likely the best
plan submitted to the court. Unlike the partisan plans, this map was not drawn to
protect incumbent politicians because it has reasonable number of incumbent
pairings. Just like every other plan, there are certain legislators that benefit or are
disadvantaged by the proposed map. However, there does not appear to be an
effort to benefit the chances of one political party over another. In the 20 closest
House races, the County Auditor map improves the GOP incumbents chances by
1.12 points. While it those same districts, it weakens DFL incumbents by increasingthe Republican Party index in those districts by 0.49 points.
Protection List
LegislatorsProtected
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
1. Kelby Increased the GOP partisanindex by 14.5 points, moving
Rep. Woodard won by37 votes in 2010; this
www.commoncause.org/mn 17
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
18/78
Woodard (R-25B)
it from 47.0% GOP district to61.5% GOP district.
change will make his2012 election mucheasier.
2. Glenn
Gruenhagen(R-25A)
Increased the GOP partisan
index by 7.6 points, moving itfrom 51.9% GOP district to59.6% GOP district.
Rep. Gruenhagen won
by 336 votes in 2010;this change will makehis 2012 election mucheasier.
3. BrandenPeterson (R-49B)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 7.5 points, moving itfrom 50.2% GOP district to57.8% GOP district.
Rep. Peterson won by 57votes in 2010; thischange will make his2012 election mucheasier.
4. John Stensrud(R-42A)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 7.1 points, moving itfrom 49.1% GOP district to56.2% GOP district.
Rep. Stensdrud won by107 votes in 2010; thischange will make his2012 election mucheasier.
5. Kate Knuth(DFL-50B)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 5.51 points, movingit from 53.0% DFL district to58.6% DFL district.
Rep. Knuth won by4.89% in 2010; thischange will make her2012 reelection mucheasier.
6. John Kriesel(R-57A)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 4.0 points, moving itfrom 43.5% GOP district to47.5 GOP district.
Rep. Kriesel won by 452votes in 2010; thischange will make his2012 election mucheasier.
Endangered List
EndangeredLegislators
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
1. Keith Downey(R-41A)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 14.1 points, movingit from 51.3% DFL district to65.4% DFL district.
Rep. Downey won by587 votes in 2010; thischange will make his2012 reelection muchmore difficult.
2. David Hancock(R-02B)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 7.2 points, moving it
Rep. Hancock won by452 votes in 2010; this
www.commoncause.org/mn 18
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
19/78
from 48.8% GOP district to56.0% GOP district.
change will make his2012 election muchdifficult.
3. Patti Fritz(DFL-26B)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 4.6 points, moving it
from 47.4% GOP district to52.0% GOP district.
Rep. Fritz won by 152votes in 2010; this
change will make his2012 election muchdifficult.
4. CarolynMcElfatrick (R-03B)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 4.7 points, moving itfrom 45.9% GOP district to41.4% GOP district.
Rep. McElfatrick won by2.45% in 2010; thischange will make her2012 reelection moredifficult.
www.commoncause.org/mn 19
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
20/78
Analysis of Minnesota Senate Maps
Introduction
The Minnesota redistricting panel is currently considering maps drawn for the
Minnesota House of Representatives and Senate. Not surprising, the Senate mapsdrawn by the political parties show a clear attempt to protect incumbent legislators,
while the maps drawn by the outside groups created more competitive races.
Incumbent Pairings
As was mentioned earlier, the number of incumbent pairings is a good indication of
whether a map was drawn with the intention of protecting incumbents. The Senate
GOP map has slightly fewer incumbent pairings than the 2002 court map. The GOP
map has 14 incumbent pairings compared to 18 incumbent pairings done by the
court. The main problem with the Senate GOP map is that it does not have any GOP
vs. GOP pairings. This is the clearest example of how this map was also drawn to
protect incumbents.
The DFL map for Senate has almost the exact same number of pairings as the GOP,
with 13. The problem is that the DFL has no DFL vs. DFL pairings and 3 GOP vs.
GOP pairings. Like the GOP plan, this demonstrates how the maps are designed to
protect incumbents. The Britton map does a better job because the number of
incumbent pairings matches what the court did in 2002 and also has at least two
DFL vs. DFL pairings. However, the Draw the Line map has a much higher number
of incumbent pairings (30) and there is balance between the party pairings. This
map was clearly not drawn to protect incumbents.
Shoring up competitive districtsThe GOP map treats the competitive districts differently than non-competitive
districts. It improves GOP party index vote in swing districts by 1.7 points
compared to 0.2 points in non-competitive districts. This pattern shows a slight
attempt by the GOP to more efficiently spread out GOP voters to improve their
chances of keeping swing districts. In looking at the DFL maps, they also attempt to
spread their votes from non-competitive districts to competitive districts. The DFL
party index in swing districts increases by .7% but then decreases in non-
competitive districts by .5%. The Britton map shows very small changes.
Reducing the number of competitive districts
Until 2010, the Minnesota Senate has been considered a lock for DFL control. Inthat election 16 Senate seats switched from DFL to GOP. Besides that election,
Senate seats have not been considered very competitive.
The maps being proposed by the political parties would have a similar number of
competitive districts compared to the map adopted by the court in 2002. In
examining the maps proposed by the courts in 2002, there are 25 competitive
Senate seats. The GOP map has 24 competitive seats and the DFL has 22. While
www.commoncause.org/mn 20
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
21/78
this is not a significant difference between the partisan plans, it is clear that the
partisan maps have fewer competitive seats that the map drawn by the County
Auditors, Draw the Line Coalition and the 2002 cdrawn plan.
Partisan Bias
Finally, we examine the partisan bias of the various maps. This analysis is
concerned less with the treatment of incumbents and marginal representatives, and
more with the overall performance of the two parties under each plan. Once again,
all of the plans are biased against the DFL, sometimes severely. The DFL map
allows the DFL only 37.3% of the seats when the party receives 50% of the
statewide two-party vote (anti-DFL bias of 12.7 points). Among the other plans, the
County Auditor plan delivers only 35.8% of the seats to the DFL at a 50% DFL vote
share. All other plans deliver even more anti-DFL bias. For graphs of the seats-
votes curves for these competing plans, see Figure 2.
www.commoncause.org/mn 21
Table 2. Senate Map Comparisons
CRITERIA 2001
COURT
PLAN
2011
GOP
PLAN
2011
DFL
PLAN
2011
BRTTON
PLAN
2011
DRAW
THE
LINE
PLAN
2011
MANSKY
PLAN
Incumbents Paired: 18
Open: 9
Paired: 14
Open: 7
Paired:
13
Open: 7
Paired: 18
Open: 9
Paired:
30
Open: 15
Paired: 28
Open: 14
DFL vs. DFL 2 3 0 2 6 5
GOP vs. GOP 3 0 3 5 6 7
DFL vs. GOP 4 4 3 2 3 2
Competitive
Districts
(Dif. Between DFL
& GOP not more
than 8%)
25 24 22 25 26 25
Districts with
plurality
D:32 R:35 D:31
R:36
D:32
R:35
D:34 R:33
I:0
D:32
R:35
D: 33 R:34
Districts over 54% D:24 R :17 D:22
R:21
D:24
R:21
D:22 R:20 D:21
R:20
D: 23 R:19
Districts over 60% D:15 R:2 D:14 R:3 D:15 R:3 D:14 R:3 D:16
R:3
D: 15 R:4
Partisan Bias Score
(What percent of
37.3% 32.8% 37.3% 32.8% 31.3% 35.8%
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
22/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 22
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
23/78
Effect of the GOP Map on Vulnerable Senate Incumbents
The proposed GOP map for Senate is a more surgical attempt to protect incumbent
Republican Senate members because control of the Senate rests in essentially 17
districts. By looking at the numbers, it is clear that there are GOP incumbent
legislators whose reelection prospects the map attempts to weaken and DFLincumbent legislators that the proposed map attempts to protect. Interestingly,
there are some districts where they are making reelection more difficult for
members of their own party, including Sen. Parry (DFL +1.3 points) and Sen. Dahms
(DFL +6.6 points). This may be a product of the changing demographics in these
areas. Or, in the case of Sen. Parry, who announced that he is seeking higher office,
it could be a way to take a swing district and concede it to the other party.
Protection List
Legislators
Protected
Party Index Change Difference in Last
Election1. Dan Hall (R-
40)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 5.9 points, moving itfrom 52.7% DFL district to46.8% DFL district.
Sen. Hall won by 2.09%in 2010; this change willmake his 2012reelection much easier.
2. Ben Kruse (R-47)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 4.1 points, moving itfrom 49.6% DFL district to45.5% DFL district.
Sen. Kruse won by5.06% in 2010; thischange will make his2012 reelection much
easier.
3. Al Dekruif (R-25)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 3.8 points, moving itfrom 50.6% DFL district to46.8% DFL district.
Sen. Dekruif won by2.59% in 2010; thischange will make his2012 reelection mucheasier.
4. Jeremy Miller(R-31)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 1.0 points, moving itfrom 49.2% DFL district to48.2% GOP district.
Sen. Miller won by1.58% in 2010; thischange will make his2012 reelection mucheasier.
Endangered List
EndangeredLegislators
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
www.commoncause.org/mn 23
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
24/78
1. Katie Sieben(DFL-57)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 2.6 points, moving itfrom 53.1% DFL district to50.6% DFL district.
Sen. Sieben won by1.96% in 2010; thischange will make her2012 reelection moredifficult.
2. Terri Bonoff(DFL-43)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 3.3 points, moving itfrom 50.3% DFL district to47.1% DFL district.
Sen. Bonoff won by3.55% in 2010; thischange will make her2012 reelection moredifficult.
3. Gary Kubly(DFL-20)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 3.4 points, moving itfrom 54.6% DFL district to51.2% DFL district.
Sen. Kubly is retiring atthe end of the legislativesession making this anopen seat. This changewill make the 2012reelection more difficult
for the DFL candidate.
4. Tom Saxhaug(DFL-3)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 5.9 points, moving itfrom 56.8% DFL district to50.9% DFL district.
Sen. Saxhaug won by15.65% in 2010, so thischange will is unlikely tohave an impact on the2012 election. However,the party index number
indicates that thisdistrict is competitive.
Effect of the DFL Map on Vulnerable Senate Incumbents
The proposed DFL Senate map weakens the election prospects of seven Senate
Republicans. However, in some cases the DFL map actually improves the chances of
GOP Senators that faced tough elections in 2010. That list includes Sen.
Chamberlain and Sen. Dekruif.
Below we highlight some of the districts that the DFL map manipulates:
Protection List
LegislatorsProtected
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
1. Terri Bonoff(DFL-43)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 2.7 points, moving it
Sen. Bonoff won by3.55% in 2010; this
www.commoncause.org/mn 24
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
25/78
from 50.3% DFL district to53.0% DFL district.
change will make her2012 reelection easier.
www.commoncause.org/mn 25
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
26/78
Endangered List
EndangeredLegislators
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
1. BenjaminKruse (R-47)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 12.8 points, movingit from 49.6% DFL district to62.4% DFL district.
Sen. Kruse won by5.06% in 2010; thischange will make his2012 reelection muchmore difficult.
2. John Carlson(R-04)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 8.1 points, moving itfrom 47.0% DFL district to55.1% DFL district.
Sen. Carlson won by9.22% in 2010; thischange will make his2012 reelection moredifficult.
3. Joe Gimse (R-13)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 5.8 points, moving it
from 46.8% DFL district to52.6% DFL district.
Sen. Gimse won electionby a margin of 9%.
However, in 2006 theelection was close.Considering that thisdistrict is a competitivedistrict, this change willmake his 2012reelection more difficult.
4. Carla Nelson(R-30)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 4.1 points, moving itfrom 45.2% DFL district to49.3% DFL district.
In 2010, Sen. Nelsonwon election by amargin of 9%. However,in 2006 the seat was
won by a DFLer.Considering that thisdistrict is a competitivedistrict, this change willmake her 2012reelection more difficult.
5. John Pederson(R-15)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 1.9 points, moving itfrom 49.5% DFL district to51.4% DFL district.
Sen. Pederson won by460 votes in 2010; thischange will make his2012 reelection moredifficult.
Effect of the Britton Map on Vulnerable Senate
Incumbents
Again, the proposed map by the Britton plaintiff does the best job of creating
competitive elections because it has a respectable number of incumbent pairings
www.commoncause.org/mn 26
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
27/78
and competitive elections. By looking at the numbers, it is clear that there are
certain legislators that the map attempts to defeat and ones that attempts to
protect. However, in some cases the Britton map actually improves the chances of
GOP legislators that faced tough elections in 2010 and worsens ones of DFLers. It
improves the chances of Republican legislators: Sen. Hall (GOP +5.5%), Sen. Michel
(GOP +4.5%), Sen. Wolf (GOP +3.7%), and Sen. Dekriuf (GOP +2.0%). While is hurtsthe chances of DFL legislators: Sen. Rest (DFL -10.2), Sen. Sieben (DFL -1.8%), Sen.
Bonoff (DFL -1.7%).
Below we highlight some of the districts that the Britton map manipulates:
Protection List
LegislatorsProtected
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
1. Keith Langseth(DFL-09)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 1.8 points, moving it
from 49.7% DFL district to51.5% DFL district.
Sen. Langseth won by5.13% in 2010; this
change will make his2012 reelection easier.
Endangered List
EndangeredLegislators
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
1. Joe Gimse (R-13)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 5.9 points, moving itfrom 46.8% DFL district to
52.7% DFL district.
In 2010, Sen. Gimse wonelection by a margin of9%. However, in 2006
the election was close.Considering that thisdistrict is a competitivedistrict, this change willmake his 2012reelection more difficult.
2. David Senjem(R-29)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 5.0 points, moving itfrom 43.7% DFL district to48.7% DFL district.
In 2010, Sen. Senjemwon election by amargin of 9%. However,in 2006 the seat waswon by a DFL.
Considering that thisdistrict is a competitivedistrict, this change willmake his 2012reelection more difficult.
3. BenjaminKruse (R-47)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 4.8 points, moving itfrom 48.3% DFL district to
Sen. Kruse won by5.06% in 2010; thischange will make his
www.commoncause.org/mn 27
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
28/78
54.4% DFL district. 2012 reelection muchmore difficult.
4. John Howe (R-28)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 4.3 points, moving itfrom 48.3% DFL district to
52.7% DFL district.
In 2010, Sen. Howe wonelection by a margin of9%. However, in 2006
the seat was won by aDFL. Considering thatthis district is acompetitive district, thischange will make his2012 reelection moredifficult.
5. John Carlson(R-4)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 3.5 points, moving itfrom 47.0% DFL district to52.7% DFL district.
In 2010, Sen. Carlsonwon election by amargin of 9%. However,in 2006 the DFLer won
this seat. Consideringthat this district is acompetitive district, thischange will make his2012 reelection moredifficult.
Effect of the Draw the Line Map on Vulnerable Senate
Incumbents
The proposed map by the Draw the Line coalition does not show any sign of
benefiting one party of the other. In fact, the map attempts to make the districts
more competitive. We examined how the map impacted the 15 districts with the
largest partisan score increase. When the partisan score increased in support of the
GOP, 12 out of the 15 districts were DFL incumbents, thus making the districts more
competitive. And, when the partisan score increased the number of Democrats in a
district, 11 out of the 15 were GOP incumbents.
In the end this map does benefit and weaken the election prospects of some
incumbents from competitive districts.
Protection List
LegislatorsProtected
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
1. Dan Hall (R-40)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 4.9 points, moving itfrom 52.7% DFL district to47.8% DFL district.
Sen. Hall won by 2.09%in 2010; this change willmake his 2012reelection much easier.
www.commoncause.org/mn 28
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
29/78
2. Terri Bonoff(DFL-43)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 13.8 points, movingit from 50.3% DFL district to64.1% DFL district.
Sen. Bonoff won by3.55% in 2010; thischange will make her2012 reelection more
difficult.
3. Katie Sieben(DFL-57)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 4.7 points, moving itfrom 53.1% DFL district to57.8% DFL district.
Sen. Sieben won by1.96% in 2010; thischange will make her2012 reelection moredifficult.
www.commoncause.org/mn 29
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
30/78
Endangered List
EndangeredLegislators
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
1. Al Dekruif (R-
25)
Increased the DFL partisan
index by 5.4 points, moving it
from 50.6% DFL district to
56.1% DFL district.
Sen. Dekruif won by
2.59% in 2010; this
change will make his
2012 reelection more
difficult.
2. Pam Wolf R-
(51)
Increased the DFL partisan
index by 3.1 points, moving it
from 52.5% DFL district to
55.6% DFL district.
Sen. Wolf won by 5.25%
in 2010; this change will
make her 2012
reelection more difficult.
Effect of the County Auditor Map on Vulnerable SenateIncumbents
The proposed map by the County Auditors Association does not show any sign of
benefiting one party or the other. This plan, like the Draw the Line plan, was clearly
drawn not to benefit incumbent legislators. Both plans have around the same
number of incumbent pairings as the court drawn plan from 2002. This shows how
a map should be drawn when political parties attempt to draw their own map. In the
end this map does benefit and weaken the election prospects of some incumbents
from competitive districts.
Protection List
LegislatorsProtected
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
1. RogerChamberlain(R-53)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 5.4 points, moving itfrom 50.6% GOP district to56.0% GOP district.
Sen. Chamberlain wonby 5.47% in 2010; thischange will make his2012 reelection easier.
2. Dan Hall (R-40)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 3.5 points, moving it
from 52.7% DFL district to49.2% DFL district.
Sen. Hall won by 2.09%in 2010; this change will
make his 2012reelection much easier.
3. Rod Skoe(DFL-02)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 3.2 points, moving itfrom 49.8% DFL district to53.0% DFL district.
Sen. Skoe won by 6.0%in 2010; this change willmake his 2012reelection easier.
www.commoncause.org/mn 30
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
31/78
4. Keith Langseth(DFL-09)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 3.2 points, moving itfrom 49.7% DFL district to52.9% DFL district.
Sen. Langseth won by5.13% in 2010; thischange will make his2012 easier.
Endangered List
EndangeredLegislators
Party Index Change Difference in LastElection
1. Terri Bonoff(DFL-43)
Increased the GOP partisanindex by 3.1 points, moving itfrom 50.3% DFL district to47.2% DFL district.
Sen. Bonoff won by3.55% in 2010; thischange will make her2012 reelection moredifficult.
2. Pam Wolf (R-
51)
Increased the DFL partisan
index by 8.1 points, moving itfrom 52.5% DFL district to60.7% DFL district.
Sen. Wolf won by 5.25%
in 2010; this change willmake her 2012reelection more difficult.
3. BenjaminKruse (R-47)
Increased the DFL partisanindex by 2.9 points, moving itfrom 48.3% DFL district to52.5% DFL district.
Sen. Kruse won by5.06% in 2010; thischange will make his2012 reelection muchmore difficult.
www.commoncause.org/mn 31
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
32/78
Analysis of Swing House of Representative and Senate
Districts
In analyzing the maps, it is clear that there is a select set of battle ground seats
where the political parties were trying to strengthen their position. The battle will
be over ten key House districts: Downey (R), Kriesel (R), Stensrud (R), Fritz (DFL),Liebling (DFL), Dittrich (DFL), Woodard (R), Mcelfatrick(R), Wardlow (R), and
Howes(R). And, in the Senate, six swing seats are indicated: Kruse(R), Dekruif(R),
Sieben (DFL), Bonoff (DFL), Hall (R), Saxhaug (DFL), and Chamberlain (R).
Whoever wins the battle over the redistricting maps will have a significant
advantage heading into the 2012 election. The redistricting process has a profound
impact on electoral outcomes for the Minnesota Legislature because districts can be
drawn in a way that increases the number of base DFL or GOP voters in a district.
While it cannot ensure victory, bringing in more base voters to competitive districts
can dramatically improve a partys chances of flipping or protecting a key legislative
seat.
www.commoncause.org/mn 32
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
33/78
Representative Keith Downey (Republican - 41A)
In 2010, this was one of the closest races in Minnesota for the House of
Representatives with the margin of victory at 2.91%. This district has a GOP party
index of 51%, which is almost the exact percent that Rep. Downey received in the
2010 election. The three plans offer significant differences in the party indexnumbers. The GOP attempts to make the district lean slightly more republican and
the DFL tries to increase the DFL party index number significantly. The Britton map
make it slightly more friendly to the DFL.
By examining what percent of the new district is from the current district, it can
show how the map was manipulated. The GOP map keeps a large percent of the old
district at almost 80%. However, they clearly remove more DFL areas and retain
more GOP areas, while the DFL map keeps a little less than half of the old district
and shows a bias toward keeping DFL voters in the district. The Britton map keeps
most of the current district together and only shows a slight variation in the number
of GOP and DFL voters it retains.
GOP DFL Britton Draw
the Line
County
Auditors
Change in Party
Index
GOP +2.89
points
DFL
+13.23
points
DFL +1.0
points
DFL +0.43
points
DFL
+14.09
points
Core
Percent of
District that is innew district
77.9% 48.6% 86.4% 100.0% 11.6%
Core
Republican
84.0% 43.1% 87.7% 100.0% 10.7%
Core - DFL 74.8% 49.8% 87.0% 100.00% 12.5%
www.commoncause.org/mn 33
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
34/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 34
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
35/78
Representative John Kriesel (Republican - 57A)
In 2010, this was one of the closest races in Minnesota for the House of
Representatives with the margin of victory at 3.18%. This district has a DFL party
index of 54.6%, which means that Rep. Kriesel outperformed the party index in the
2010 election. The three plans offer differences in the party index numbers. TheGOP attempts to make the district lean more Republican. Though the DFL and
Britton maps allow the district to get more GOP friendly, both maps still keep this as
a competitive seat.
The core map score demonstrates how the GOP map makes the district almost two-
thirds new for Rep. Kriesel. In contrast, the DFL keeps more of the current district
intact at 57% and the Britton map keeps the highest percent of the old district at
75%.
The GOP map retains more GOP voters and picks up GOP voters in the new areas.
Conversely, the DFL and Britton map keeps more Republican voters in the newdistrict and picks up more DFL voters in the new areas of the district.
GOP DFL Britton Draw
the Line
County
Auditors
Change in Party
Index
GOP +7.13
points
GOP +3.60
points
GOP +2.74
points
GOP +9.16
points
GOP
+14.09
points
Core
Percent of
District that is in
new district
37.6% 57.0% 75.4% 9.5% 61.3%
Core
Republican
42.2% 60.1% 80.2% 11.5% 65.7%
Core - DFL 35.4% 56.3% 75.0% 7.3% 60.5%
www.commoncause.org/mn 35
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
36/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 36
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
37/78
Representative Kirk Stensrud (Republican - 42A)
In 2010, this was the third closest race in Minnesota for the House of
Representatives with the margin of victory at 107 votes. This district has a DFL
party index of 50.9%, which means that Rep. Stensrud performed at the party index
in the 2010 election. The three plans attempt to change the party index numbersfor their own self-interest. The GOP attempts to make the district lean more
republican and the DFL allows the district to get more GOP friendly, but still keeps
as a competitive seat. The Britton map is has the smallest change in party index
score.
The changes to the core map score show how the parties drew this district in a very
similar manner as Rep Kriesels district. The GOP map makes the district almost
two-thirds new for Rep. Stensrud. The DFL keeps more of the current district intact
at 66% and the Britton map keeps the highest percent of the old district at 72%.
The GOP map retains more GOP voters and picks up GOP voters in the new areas.The DFL map keeps more Republican voters in the new district and picks up more
DFL voters in the new areas of the district. The Britton map keeps slightly more GOP
voters than DFL voters.
GOP DFL Britton Draw
the Line
County
Auditors
Change in Party
Index
GOP +9.16
points
GOP +4.41
points
GOP +2.12
points
GOP +7.18
points
GOP +7.10
points
Core
Percent of
District that is in
new district
36.4% 66.3% 72.0% 36.4% 30.0%
Core
Republican
37.2% 67.4% 73.1% 37.2% 30.7%
Core - DFL 33.2% 61.4% 71.1% 33.2% 37.2%
www.commoncause.org/mn 37
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
38/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 38
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
39/78
Representative Patti Fritz (Democrat 26B)
In 2010, this was one of the closest races in Minnesota for the House of
Representatives with the margin of victory at 1.16%. This district has a DFL party
index of 52.56% which means that Rep. Fritz matched the party index in the 2010
election. The three plans break the conventional wisdom because the GOP makesthis district stronger for the DFL and the DFL maps make it stronger for the GOP.
The GOP significantly increases the number of DFL voters in the district, by 6.2%,
while the DFL and Britton maps slightly increase the number of GOP voters.
The core map score shows how the GOP map makes the district almost three-
quarters new for Rep. Fritz. The DFL and Britton maps keep more of the current
district largely intact at 77%.
The GOP map retains an equal number of GOP and DFL voters, but picks up DFL
voters in the new areas to make the district more DFL friendly. In contrast, the DFL
and Britton maps keep more DFL voters in the new district and picks up more GOPvoters in the new areas of the district.
GOP DFL Britton Draw
the Line
County
Auditors
Change in Party
Index
DFL +6.16
points
GOP +1.26
points
GOP +1.26
points
GOP +1.09
points
GOP +4.62
points
Core
Percent of
District that is in
new district
26.0% 77.4% 77.2% 79.6% 24.3%
Core
Republican
21.9% 72.0% 72.3% 74.3% 22.1%
Core - DFL 22.0% 73.7% 73.9% 75.9% 24.8%
www.commoncause.org/mn 39
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
40/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 40
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
41/78
Representative Tina Liebling (Democrat - 30A)
In 2010, this was not considered a close race for the Minnesota House of
Representatives because the margin of victory was 10.42%. This district has a DFL
party index of 52.4% which means that Rep. Liebling outperformed the party index
in the 2010 election. The GOP attempts to make the district more competitive andthe DFL makes it just slightly more competitive. However, the Britton map follows
the GOP and makes it more competitive.
The core map score shows how the GOP and Britton maps make the district almost
80% new for Rep. Liebling. The DFL keeps more of the current district intact at
63%.
The GOP and Britton maps retain more Republican voters, while the DFL map keeps
slightly more Republican voters in the new district.
GOP DFL Britton Draw
the Line
County
Auditors
Change in Party
Index
GOP +10.8
points
GOP +3.20
points
GOP +9.87
points
GOP +1.61
points
GOP +2.21
points
Core
Percent of
District that is in
new district
22.2% 63.5% 21.8% 86.1% 76.8%
Core
Republican
32.5% 69.5% 31.1% 87.5% 76.8%
Core - DFL 25.7% 67.1% 24.1% 87.6% 77.3%
www.commoncause.org/mn 41
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
42/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 42
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
43/78
Representative Denise Dittrich (Democrat - 47A)
In 2010, this was one of the closest races for the Minnesota House of
Representatives with the margin of victory at 1.9%. This district has a DFL party
index of 46.84%, which means that Rep. Dittrich outperformed the party index in
the 2010 election. The GOP attempts to make the district more Republican and theDFL makes it just slightly more Democratic. The Britton map follows the GOP and
makes it lean more Republican.
The core map score shows how the GOP and Britton maps make the district one-
third new for Rep. Dittrich. The DFL keeps more of the current district intact at
almost 80%.
The GOP and Britton maps retain more GOP voters, while the GOP picks up
Republican voters in the new areas, the Britton map picks up more DFL voters. The
DFL map keeps slightly more Republican voters in the new district, but picks up
more DFL voters in the new areas.
GOP DFL Britton Draw
the Line
County
Auditors
Change in Party
Index
GOP +5.40
points
DFL +1.24
points
GOP +2.85
points
DFL +0.81
points
GOP +0.29
points
Core
Percent of
District that is in
new district
62.2% 78.1% 62.2% 83.3% 67.5%
Core
Republican
65.6% 79.2% 65.6% 84.1% 69.8%
Core - DFL 60.9% 77.9% 60.9% 83.5% 65.9%
www.commoncause.org/mn 43
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
44/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 44
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
45/78
Representative Kelby Woodard (Republican 25B)
In 2010, this was the closest race for Minnesota for the House of Representatives
with the margin of victory at 37 votes. This district has a DFL party index of
52.97%, which means that Rep. Woodard outperformed the party index in the 2010
election. The three plans all make this district friendlier to a GOP candidate. TheGOP increases the number of GOP voters in the district by 4.68%. The DFL and
Britton maps increase the number of GOP voters by a whopping 13%. This is a clear
attempt to pack Republican voters into this district so that other surrounding
districts can become more competitive.
The core map score shows how the GOP and DFL map makes the district more than
80% new for Rep. Woodard. In contrast, the Britton map attempts to keep more of
the current district intact at 37%.
The GOP map retains more GOP voters and fewer DFL voters. The DFL and Britton
maps keep an even higher percentage of GOP voters in the new district and fewerDFL voters.
GOP DFL Britton Draw
the Line
County
Auditors
Change in Party
Index
GOP +4.68
points
GOP
+12.50
points
GOP
+12.79
points
GOP +6.76
points
GOP
+14.45
points
CorePercent of
District that is in
new district
16.6% 20.2% 37.1% 33.5% 26.3%
Core
Republican
17.3% 22.9% 45.5% 38.9% 32.7%
Core - DFL 12.1% 14.9% 25.6% 24.2% 19.2%
www.commoncause.org/mn 45
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
46/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 46
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
47/78
Representative Carolyn McElpatrick (Republican 3B)
In 2010, this was one of the closest races for the Minnesota House of
Representatives with the margin of victory at 2.45%. This district has a DFL party
index of 54.03%, which means that Rep. McElpatrick outperformed the party index
in the 2010 election. The GOP attempts to keep this district competitive and theDFL makes it more Democratic. The Britton map makes it lean more DFL.
The core map score shows how the GOP keeps the district almost completely intact.
The DFL and Britton map retain around 60% of the current district.
The GOP map retains roughly the same number of GOP and DFL voters. In
comparison, the DFL keeps more DFL voters from the current district and picks up
more DFL voter in the new areas. The Britton map retains more GOP voters than
DFL voters, but picks up more DFL voters to give DFL voters an advantage in the
district.
GOP DFL Britton Draw
the Line
County
Auditors
Change in Party
Index
DFL +0.22
points
DFL +4.12
points
GOP +3.32
points
GOP +4.67
points
DFL +4.58
points
Core
Percent of
District that is in
new district
92.9% 60.4% 68.0% 38.2% 66.0%
Core Republican
92.3% 58.2% 75.1% 43.7% 64.5%
Core - DFL 91.8% 58.2% 70.6% 39.9% 64.9%
www.commoncause.org/mn 47
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
48/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 48
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
49/78
Representative Doug Wardlow (Republican 38B)
In 2010, this was one of closer races for the Minnesota House of Representatives
with the margin of victory at 4.02%. This district has a GOP party index of 49.0%,
which means that Rep. Wardlow outperformed the party index in the 2010 election.
The three plans attempt to change the party index numbers for their own self-interest. The GOP attempts to make the district lean just slightly more republican,
while the DFL and Britton maps attempt to bring more DFL voters into the district.
The changes to the core map score show how the parties changed the partisan
make-up of the district. The GOP map retains most of the current district. In
contrast, the DFL keeps less of the current district intact at 63% and the Britton
map only retains half of the old districts population.
The GOP map retains more GOP voters. Although the DFL and Britton maps keep
more Republican voters in the new district, each map also picks up more DFL voters
in the new areas of the district.
GOP DFL Britton Draw
the Line
County
Auditors
Change in Party
Index
GOP +1.18
points
DFL +1.15
points
DFL +0.79
points
GOP +0.28
points
DFL +0.64
points
Core
Percent of
District that is in
new district
78.9% 63.1% 49.2% 47.7% 69.5%
Core
Republican
77.9% 59.9% 53.9% 52.0% 75.8%
Core - DFL 76.6% 60.8% 53.9% 51.2% 74.0%
www.commoncause.org/mn 49
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
50/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 50
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
51/78
Representative Larry Howes (Republican 4B)
In 2010, this district was not considered competitive for the House of
Representatives. But, in 2008, it was considered competitive and the political
parties believe that it will be competitive again in 2012. This district has a GOP
party index of 56.61%, which means that Rep. Howes underperformed the partyindex in the 2010 election. The three plans attempt to increase the DFL party index
in the district, but at different levels. The GOP keeps the district lean Republican,
while the DFL and Britton maps attempt to make this district competitive by
bringing in more DFL voters.
In all three maps there are significant changes to the voters that Rep. Howes would
represent. The GOP map retains a little under half of the current district. The DFL
and Britton maps keep only 5% of the current district intact. That is a huge change.
All three maps retain more DFL voters but the DFL and Britton maps pick up more
DFL voters in the new areas of the district.
GOP DFL Britton Draw
the Line
County
Auditors
Change in Party
Index
DFL +3.48
points
DFL +8.32
points
DFL +8.68
points
DFL +5.97
points
DFL +1.07
points
Core
Percent of
District that is in
new district
46.9% 5.9% 5.9% 23.3% 34.0%
Core
Republican
47.4% 6.1% 6.1% 24.2% 33.3%
Core - DFL 50.2% 7.8% 7.8% 26.7% 40.2%
www.commoncause.org/mn 51
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
52/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 52
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
53/78
Senator Ben Kruse (Republican 47)
In 2010, this was one of the closer races for the Minnesota Senate with the margin
of victory at 5.06%. This district has a GOP party index of 50.4%, which means that
Sen. Kruse outperformed the party index in the 2010 election. The three plans
attempt to change the party index numbers for their own self-interest. The GOPattempts to make the district lean more republican. Both the DFL and Britton maps
attempt to bring more DFL voters into the district.
The changes to the core map score show how the parties changed the partisan
make-up of the district. The GOP map retains almost two-thirds of the current
district, while the DFL map keeps only 5% of the current district intact. This would
be almost an entirely new district if Sen. Kruse has to run for reelection in it.
The GOP map retains more GOP voters. The DFL map keeps more DFL voters in the
new district and then picks up more DFL voters in the new areas of the district. The
Britton map keeps more DFL voters in the district and then picks up some more inthe new areas, but not to the extent of the DFL map.
GOP DFL Britton Draw
the Line
County
Auditors
Change in Party
Index
GOP +4.1
points
DFL +12.8
points
DFL +4.8
points
GOP +0.2
points
DFL +2.9
points
Core
Percent of
District that is in
new district
61.7% 4.6% 38.1% 87.4% 28.9%
Core
Republican
65.0% 3.1% 36.5% 88.7% 27.7%
Core - DFL 60.7% 4.9% 39.5% 87.4% 28.6%
www.commoncause.org/mn 53
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
54/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 54
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
55/78
Senator Katie Sieben (Democrat 57)
In 2010, this was one of the closer races for the Minnesota Senate with the margin
of victory at 1.96%. This district has a DFL party index of 53.1%, which means that
Sen. Sieben matched the party index in the 2010 election. The three plans increase
the GOP party index in the district, but to different levels. The GOP attempts tomake the district lean more republican, while the DFL and Britton maps attempt to
bring in fewer Republican voters into the district.
The changes to the core map score show how the parties changed the partisan
make-up of the district. The GOP map splits this district apart by retaining only 35%
the current district. Conversely, the DFL map keeps almost twice as many of the
current voters at 65% and the Britton map keeps the current district almost
completely intact at 87%.
The GOP map retains more GOP voters while the Britton map keeps more DFL
voters in the new district. The DFL map keeps an equal number of DFL and GOPvoters in the new district.
GOP DFL Britton Draw
the Line
County
Auditors
Change in Party
Index
GOP +2.6
points
DFL +0.3
points
DFL +1.8
points
DFL +4.7
points
GOP +0.7
points
Core
Percent of
District that is in
new district
35.1% 65.6% 87.8% 16.4% 55.5%
Core
Republican
38.4% 65.4% 91.5% 12.0% 55.6%
Core - DFL 35.9% 65.3% 87.8% 16.4% 55.2%
www.commoncause.org/mn 55
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
56/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 56
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
57/78
Senator Terri Bonoff (Democrat 43)
In 2010, this was one of the closer races for the Minnesota Senate with the margin
of victory at 3.55%. This district has a DFL party index of 50.3%, which means that
Sen. Bonoff outperformed the party index in the 2010 election. Just like Sen.
Siebens new district, the three plans increase the GOP party index in the district,but to different levels. The GOP attempts to make the district lean more
Republican, while the DFL and Britton maps attempt to bring fewer Republican
voters into the district.
The changes to the core map score show how the parties changed the partisan
make-up of the district. The GOP map splits this district apart by retaining only 23%
the current district. The DFL map keeps almost twice as much with 63% and the
Britton map keep 44% of the current district intact.
The GOP map retains more DFL voters, but picks up more Republicans in the new
areas. The DFL and Britton maps keep more DFL voters in the new district.
GOP DFL Britton Draw
the Line
County
Auditors
Change in Party
Index
GOP +3.3
points
DFL +2.7
points
GOP +1.7
points
DFL +13.8
points
GOP +3.1
points
Core
Percent of
District that is in
new district
25.0% 63.9% 43.8% 13.0% 42.5%
Core
Republican
26.7% 60.0% 43.4% 10.4% 44.7%
Core - DFL 29.7% 67.0% 48.8% 14.3% 43.8%
www.commoncause.org/mn 57
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
58/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 58
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
59/78
Senator Dan Hall (Republican 40)
In 2010, this was one of the closer races for the Minnesota Senate with the margin
of victory at 2.09%. This district has a DFL party index of 52.7%, which means that
Sen. Hall outperformed the party index in the 2010 election. Two of the plans
attempt to increase the GOP party index in the district and the third keeps it thesame. The GOP and Britton maps attempt to make the district lean more
Republican, while the DFL map leaves the party index number the same.
The changes to the core map score show how the GOP maps changed the partisan
make-up of the district for their own self-interest. The GOP and Britton maps split
this district apart by retaining half the current district, while the DFL map keeps
district largely intact at 88% of the current voters in the new district.
The GOP and Britton maps retain more GOP voters and picks up more Republicans
in the new areas. The DFL map keeps more DFL voters in the new district.
GOP DFL Britton Draw
the Line
County
Auditors
Change in Party
Index
GOP +5.9
points
No change GOP +5.5
points
GOP+4.9
points
GOP +3.5
points
Core
Percent of
District that is in
new district
48.8% 88.0% 55.3% 49.6% 49.6%
Core Republican
44.9% 87.4% 53.66% 46.6% 46.6%
Core - DFL 40.5% 88.1% 49.8% 41.6% 41.6%
www.commoncause.org/mn 59
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
60/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 60
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
61/78
Senator Tom Saxhaug (Democrat 3)
In 2010, this district was not considered competitive for the Minnesota Senate.
However, this district has a DFL party index of 56.8%, which means that Sen.
Saxhaug underperformed the party index in the 2010 election. The GOP attempts
to make the district more competitive by making the party index numbers favor aRepublican. The DFL and Britton maps bring a small number of new Republicans
into the district, but not enough to weaken the party index advantage.
The changes to the core map score show how the DFL and GOP maps changed the
partisan make-up of the district for their own self-interest. The GOP and DFL maps
split this district apart because those maps only retain about half of the voters in
the current district. In contrast, the Britton map keeps district largely intact at 93%
of the current voters in the new district.
The GOP map retains more GOP voters and picks up more Republicans in the new
areas, while the DFL and Britton maps keep more DFL voters in the new district.
GOP DFL Britton Draw
the Line
County
Auditors
Change in Party
Index
GOP +5.9
points
GOP+1.7
points
GOP +1.2
points
GOP+1.5
points
DFL +1.0
points
Core
Percent of
District that is in
new district
55.8% 51.3% 93.9% 79.0% 70.3%
Core
Republican
60.2% 50.1% 91.9% 75.2% 70.6%
Core - DFL 54.3% 53.1% 95.0% 80.1% 72.7%
www.commoncause.org/mn 61
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
62/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 62
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
63/78
Senator Roger Chamberlain (Republican 53)
In 2010, this was one of the closer races for the Minnesota Senate with the margin
of victory at 5.47%. This district has a GOP party index of 50.6%, which means that
Sen. Chamberlain has equaled the party index in the 2010 election. The parties take
very different approaches to these districts. The GOP map attempts to make thedistrict be more competitive by bringing in more DFL voters. The DFL does the
opposite by bringing in more GOP voters into the district. The Britton map leaves
the party index number the same.
The changes to the core map score show how the DFL and GOP maps changed the
partisan makeup of the district. The GOP map keeps the district largely intact at
88% of the current voters in the new district. The DFL map splits this district apart
by retaining less than one-third of the current district. However, the Britton map
does a better job than the DFL at keeping the current district together, with 45% of
the current voters in the new district.
The DFL and Britton maps retain more GOP voters. The GOP map keeps more DFL
voters in the new district.
GOP DFL Britton Draw
the Line
County
Auditors
Change in Party
Index
DFL +1.0
points
GOP +6.8
points
GOP+0.6
points
DFL+0.5
points
GOP+5.4
points
Core
Percent of
District that is in
new district
88.9% 27.3% 44.8% 17.5% 25.1%
Core
Republican
90.0% 32.9% 51.7% 15.6% 26.4%
Core - DFL 91.9% 23.8% 44.6% 16.2% 21.8%
www.commoncause.org/mn 63
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
64/78
www.commoncause.org/mn 64
8/3/2019 REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS
65/78
Newest DistrictsThis redistricting process forces the district lines to shift. However, some districts
change more than others. Below we analyzed which incumbents in the House and
Senate will have the highest percentage of new constituents in their districts for
each of the five proposed maps. The listing below shows which districts retained
the fewest constituents.
House of Representatives
GOP DFL Britton Draw the
Line
County
Auditors
1. TOM
TILLBERRY -
4.8%
2. KURT
ZELLERS -
13.4%
3. MARK
BUESGENS -
14.3%
4. KELBY
WOODARD -
16.6%
5. GLENN
GRUENHAGE
N - 19.8%
6. TINA
LIEBLING -
22.2%
7. STEVE SMITH
- 22.7%
8. PATTI FRITZ -
26.0%
9. NORA
SLAWIK -
29.2%
10. LEON M.
LILLIE - 30.0%
1. LARRY
HOWES - 5.9%
2. BRANDEN
PETERSEN -
6.7%
3. TONY
CORNISH -
7.2%
4. ERIE
LEIDIGER -
11.4%
5. GLENN
GRUENHAGE
N - 13.0%
6. JENIFER
LOON - 13.5%
7. MIKE BEARD
- 14.1%
8. TOM
HACKBARTH
- 18.7%
9. KELBY
WOODARD -
20.2%
10. ROGER
CRAWFORD -
21.4%
1. TOM
HACKBARTH
- 1.2%
2. DEAN
URDAHL -
4.5%
3. LARRY
HOWES - 5.9%
4. LINDA
SLOCUM -