REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS

download REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS

of 78

Transcript of REPORT UNCOVERS HOW PARTISANS MANIPULATE REDISTRICTING PROCESS

  • 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_Heaney
  • 8/3/2019 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.htm
  • 8/3/2019 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 -