Members of Congress, state legislators, and many other local officials, such as school board or city council members, are elected into office from districts, which are re-drawn at least every decade after the decennial U.S. Census. The way in which these district lines are drawn effects the groups that are formed and represented and how the elected official responds to certain groups.

Minnesota’s current redistricting criteria
Most of these criteria are not further defined and may be difficult to enforce.

• Congressional and state legislative districts must be contiguous, and if possible, compact.
•  Must follow federal standard of equal population, currently Minnesota has a stricter standard of state legislative districts must also fall within +/- 2% the mean population versus the federally mandated +/- 10%
• Congressional districts and state legislative districts should preserve “whole political units” in the order of counties, cities, towns, when feasible.
• Districts should attempt to preserve communities of interest where possible
• Districts must increase the voting strength of populations of racial or language minority where possible.

Why does the current redistricting process need to be reformed?
Minnesota’s general assembly currently draws both the congressional and state legislative districts with few constraints and federal constitutional and statutory limitations. Most of the redistricting criteria is set by a concurrent resolution of the legislature, meaning they are able to be adjusted by the legislature.  

Problems arising from current system include:

• There is no independence from legislators, meaning they draw their districts, and essentially chose their voters instead of their voters choosing them
• There is no set partisan balance besides that of the current legislature and governor at the time of redistricting – meaning there can be one party control of the entire process
• After 2000 Census, Minnesota’s redistricting efforts stalled causing the court to take over
• The packing of partisans into districts to allow the other party to gain more districts, for example in Texas the Democrats and Republicans won roughly 49% of the vote each, but because of the districts packed by Democrats, they won 70% of the state’s Congressional races
• Can be used to eliminate incumbents or challengers by carving their houses out of the districts as there is no current criterion to prohibit those redistricting from considering the residences of incumbents.
• Communities of interest can be split to decrease their influence with elected officials

“The preoccupation with redistricting scenarios mucks up the Legislature’s business for more than a year and is ultimately an exercise in futility.”
-Former Senate Majority Leader Roger Moe

Reform components to ensure a fair and open redistricting process

Public input

• Hearings before the maps are made public to hear from constituents concerned with gaining better representation for their communities
• Hearings after drafts are produced to gain feedback and hear problems
• Public invited to submit full or partial maps

Transparency

• Public meetings when making decisions on redistricting
• Explanation of why the districts are drawn the way are by the redistricting body

Composition

•  Reasonable partisan balance of the redistricting body
•  Do the people who draw the lines run for office in the districts they create?

Reform models: a nonpartisan, independent commission
Across the country there are concerns with providing transparency and accountability with the redistricting process. Independent redistricting commissions have been created in six states for federal redistricting and approximately a dozen states for the drawing of state legislative districts.

An independent commission would:

• Restore legitimacy to redistricting by removing the inherent conflict of interest faced by legislators who draw the boundaries for their own districts
• Minimize political polarization by taking incremental steps toward accountability, fairness and healthy competition for legislative seats
• Help protect minorities by soliciting input from underrepresented groups and be guided by federal law and court rulings
• Be budget neutral by not exceeding the current cost of the legislative process
• Help protect existing communities by being guided by federal law and court rulings that preserve the boundaries of existing communities and non-compact districts

Legislation
SF 182 would establish a five-person commission of retired state judges, selected in bipartisan fashion, to draw both congressional and state legislative districts. Commission plans must be submitted to the legislature, which has two opportunities to vote plans up-or-down without modification, and may then modify as it pleases.  Overall, the commission must balance several concerns, including minority representation, the preservation of whole political units and communities of interest and, to a lesser extent, competition. It has passed in the Senate, but has not received hearings in the House.

Learn more about redistricting from the Brennan Center for Justice