Wattson v. Simon (Congressional Redistricting Plan)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MINNESOTA February 15, 2022 SPECIAL REDISTRICTING PANEL A21-0243 A21-0546 Peter S. Wattson, Joseph Mansky, Nancy B. Greenwood, Mary E. Kupper, Douglas W. Backstrom, and James E. Hougas, III, individually and on behalf of all citizens and voting residents of Minnesota similarly situated, and League of Women Voters Minnesota, Plaintiffs, FINAL ORDER ADOPTING A CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING PLAN and Paul Anderson, Ida Lano, Chuck Brusven, Karen Lane, Joel Hineman, Carol Wegner, and Daniel Schonhardt, Plaintiff-Intervenors, vs. Steve Simon, Secretary of State of Minnesota; and Kendra Olson, Carver County Elections and Licensing Manager, individually and on behalf of all Minnesota county chief election officers, Defendants, and Frank Sachs, Dagny Heimisdottir, Michael Arulfo, Tanwi Prigge, Jennifer Guertin, Garrison O’Keith McMurtrey, Mara Lee Glubka, Jeffrey Strand, Danielle Main, and Wayne Grimmer, Plaintiffs, and Dr. Bruce Corrie, Shelly Diaz, Alberder Gillespie, Xiongpao Lee, Abdirazak Mahboub, Aida Simon, Beatriz Winters, Common Cause, OneMinnesota.org, and Voices for Racial Justice, Plaintiff-Intervenors, vs. Steve Simon, Secretary of State of Minnesota, Defendant. ORDER On February 19, 2021, plaintiffs Peter Wattson, et al. initiated an action in Carver County District Court alleging that the current congressional and legislative election districts are unconstitutionally malapportioned in light of the 2020 Census. The Wattson plaintiffs then petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction and appoint a special redistricting panel to hear and decide the issues raised in the action and any other redistricting cases if the Minnesota Legislature failed to address those issues. The chief justice granted the petition but stayed the action and appointment of a panel in deference to the legislature’s primacy in the redistricting process. Wattson v. Simon, No. A21-0243 (Minn. Mar. 22, 2021) (Order of Chief Justice). Plaintiffs Frank Sachs, et al. subsequently initiated an action in Ramsey County District Court alleging that the current congressional and legislative districts are unconstitutional. The chief justice consolidated the Sachs plaintiffs’ action with the Wattson plaintiffs’ stayed action. Wattson, No. A21-0243 (Minn. May 20, 2021) (Order 2 of Chief Justice). On June 30, 2021, the chief justice lifted the stay and appointed this panel to hear and decide the consolidated action and any other challenges to the congressional and legislative districts based on the 2020 Census. Wattson, No. A21-0243 (Minn. June 30, 2021) (Order of Chief Justice). The order directed the panel to implement redistricting plans “in the event that the Legislature and the Governor have not done so in a timely manner.” Id. We subsequently granted the motions of plaintiff-intervenors Paul Anderson, et al. and plaintiff-intervenors Dr. Bruce Corrie, et al. to intervene in this action. To afford counties and municipalities time to complete local redistricting, the statutory deadline for completing congressional and legislative redistricting is “25 weeks before the state primary election in the year ending in two.” Minn. Stat. § 204B.14, subd. 1a (2020). In this decennium, that date is February 15, 2022. That date has arrived, and the legislature has not yet enacted a congressional redistricting plan. To avoid delaying the electoral process, the panel must now act. We begin by addressing the constitutionality of Minnesota’s current congressional districts. I. Constitutionality of Current Districts The seats in the United States House of Representatives are apportioned among the states according to their respective populations. U.S. Const. art. I, § 2. Those seats are reapportioned every ten years following completion of the United States Census. Id.; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1964). Minnesota’s total resident population after the 2020 Census is 5,706,494 people. Minn. State Demographer, Minnesota’s Demographic and Census Overview for 2020 Redistricting (Aug. 18, 2021), https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/docs/C3TfSEuiGkWTnghCkp9IYg.pdf. 3 Minnesota achieved this total by growing at a rate of 7.6 percent—slightly higher than the nationwide growth rate. Hearings Before Minn. H.R. Redistricting Comm. (Aug. 18, 2021) (testimony of S. Brower, Minn. State Demographer). As a result, Minnesota narrowly retains the eight congressional seats it has been apportioned since the 1960 Census. U.S. Census Bureau, Apportionment Population & Number of Representatives by State: 2020 Census, https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/data/apportionment/ apportionment-2020-table01.pdf; see Hippert v. Ritchie, No. A11-0152 (Minn. Special Redistricting Panel Feb. 21, 2012) (Order Adopting a Cong. Redistricting Plan). Under the United States Constitution, congressional election districts must be as nearly equal in population as is practicable. U.S. Const. art. I, § 2; Wesberry, 376 U.S. at 7-8. Based on the statewide total, the ideal population of a Minnesota congressional district after the 2020 Census is 713,312. 1 Because Minnesota’s growth over the last decade was not uniform, none of the congressional districts matches this ideal. The five districts centered in the 11-county metropolitan area 2 all gained population at a higher rate than the statewide average, making them overpopulated, while Minnesota’s three rural-centered districts all gained population at a lower rate, making them underpopulated. Minn. Dep’t of Admin., State Demographic Center, Redistricting Data: Census 2020, Congressional Districts [hereinafter 2020 Congressional Data], https://mn.gov/admin/demography/data- 1 Because Minnesota’s total population is not evenly divisible by eight, the ideal result is six districts of 713,312 people and two districts of 713,311 people. 2 The metropolitan area includes the following counties: Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne, Washington, and Wright. Minn. Stat. § 200.02, subd. 24 (2020). 4 by-topic/population-data/2020-decennial-census/redistricting/ (select “Congressional Districts” data file for 2020). For example, the third congressional district is overpopulated by 24,586 people, or 3.4 percent, while the seventh district is underpopulated by 39,798 people, or 5.6 percent. Id. Accordingly, we hold that the population of Minnesota is unconstitutionally malapportioned among the state’s current congressional districts established following the 2010 Census in Hippert, No. A11-0152 (Minn. Special Redistricting Panel Feb. 21, 2012) (Order Adopting a Cong. Redistricting Plan). II. Judicial Redistricting To remedy this constitutional defect, the congressional districts must be rebalanced so that they all contain the same number of people; this ensures that each voter has equal power to select a representative. Wesberry, 376 U.S. at 7-8. Minnesota’s constitution empowers the legislature to perform this task. Minn. Const. art. IV, § 3 (“At its first session after each enumeration of the inhabitants of this state made by the authority of the United States, the legislature shall have the power to prescribe the bounds of congressional and legislative districts.”). This responsibility accords with the legislature’s position as “the institution that is by far the best situated to identify and then reconcile traditional state policies” regarding redistricting. Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 414-15 (1977); see also Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787, 808 (2015) (stating that “redistricting is a legislative function”). When the legislature fails to exercise its constitutional authority, it is the role of the state courts to develop a valid congressional plan and order its adoption. Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) (emphasizing that “state courts have a significant role in 5 redistricting”). In approaching this task, we are mindful that courts lack the “political authoritativeness” of the legislature and must perform redistricting in a restrained manner. Connor, 431 U.S. at 415. Simply put, we are not positioned to draw entirely new congressional districts, as the legislature could choose to do. Rather, we start with the existing districts, changing them as necessary to remedy the constitutional defect by applying politically neutral redistricting principles. Still, our restrained approach does not leave any congressional district unchanged. Nor does it mean that all Minnesotans will view the changes as insubstantial. As prior special redistricting panels have done, we sought input from the parties as to the appropriate redistricting principles. After considering the parties’ written submissions and oral arguments, we adopted seven principles to guide us in achieving the constitutional mandate of population equality. These redistricting principles include drawing districts: (1) in accordance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (2018), and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (2) that respect the reservation lands of federally recognized American Indian tribes; (3) that consist of convenient, contiguous territory; (4) that respect political subdivisions; (5) that preserve communities of interest 3; (6) without the purpose of protecting, promoting, or defeating any incumbent, candidate, or political party; and 3 We broadly defined communities of interest to include, but not be limited to, “groups of Minnesotans with clearly recognizable similarities of social, geographic, cultural, ethnic, economic, occupational, trade, transportation, or other interests.” Wattson, No. A21-0243 (Minn. Special Redistricting Panel Nov. 18, 2021) (Order Stating Preliminary Conclusions, Redistricting Principles, and Requirements for Plan Submissions). 6 (7) that are reasonably compact. We balanced these neutral principles in performing the task of redistricting. III. Redistricting Information To supplement the population data provided by the United States Census Bureau, the panel gathered information from many sources to aid it in the redistricting process. We held nine in-person public hearings and one virtual hearing. See Wattson, No. A21-0243 (Minn. Special Redistricting Panel Sept. 13, 2021) (Order Scheduling Public Hearings). As we drove around the state to hear directly from Minnesotans, 4 we had the honor and privilege to see the communities in which they live. We also invited and received written statements and redistricting plan proposals from members of the public. Id. The redistricting committees of the Minnesota House of Representatives and the Minnesota Senate undertook a similar process to elicit information from the public, each hosting multiple public hearings and accepting written statements. See generally Minn. H.R. Redistricting Comm., https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/committees/home/92030 (last visited Feb. 14, 2022); Minn. Sen. Redistricting Comm., https://www.senate.mn/ committees/committee_bio.html?cmte_id=3114&ls=92 (last visited Feb. 14, 2022). The house DFL majority and Republican minority and the senate Republican majority also put forth proposed congressional redistricting plans. Minn. Legis. Coordinating Comm’n, Geographic Info. Servs.: 2020 Redistricting Plans, https://www.gis.lcc.mn.gov/ 4 Over nine days, we travelled to Woodbury, Minneapolis, Shakopee, Waite Park, St. Paul, Moorhead, Duluth, Worthington, and Rochester. 7 redist2020/plans.html (last visited Feb. 14, 2022). We carefully reviewed the records of both legislative redistricting committees. The panel also received proposed congressional redistricting plans and written briefs from the four plaintiff groups in this action—the Wattson plaintiffs, Anderson plaintiffs, Sachs plaintiffs, and Corrie plaintiffs. And we heard oral arguments about the proposed redistricting plans. 5 The plaintiffs did not purport to be representative of all voters, but they provided valuable insight into how we should apply the redistricting principles. Although we did not adopt any party’s proposed redistricting plan in its entirety, some proposed elements are reflected in our congressional plan. The information we received from all sources was important to our work. Minnesotans from across the state urged the panel to recognize and respect the sovereignty and interests of federally recognized American Indian tribes, and to draw districts that enhance their voices and opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. See, e.g., Hearings Before Minn. Special Redistricting Panel 12-14 (Waite Park, Minn. Oct. 14, 2021); Hearings Before Minn. Sen. Redistricting Comm. (Bemidji, Minn. Aug. 9, 2021) (testimony of L. Fineday, W. LaDuke). We also learned that Minnesota’s population growth over the last decade is attributable entirely to increases among Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), making the BIPOC population nearly a quarter of the 5 The panel also received and considered information from amici curiae Karen Saxe, et al., a group of data scientists who propose the novel approach of creating new congressional districts by using data-driven computer algorithms to apply the redistricting principles. 8 population statewide. 6 Hearings Before Minn. H.R. Redistricting Comm. (Aug. 18, 2021) (testimony of S. Brower, Minn. State Demographer). In addition to the numerous BIPOC Minnesotans who spoke at public hearings, the Corrie plaintiffs brought the voices of many members of the BIPOC community to our attention through declarations detailing their experiences and redistricting preferences. 7 The panel also heard about communities of people joined together by common interests such as economic development, education, housing, transportation, broadband expansion, and geological preservation. See Hearings Before Minn. Special Redistricting Panel 14 (Woodbury, Minn. Oct. 11, 2021); 10-11 (Shakopee, Minn. Oct. 13, 2021); 30 (Worthington, Minn. Oct. 20, 2021); 12, 16 (Zoom Oct. 26, 2021); Hearings Before Minn. H.R. Redistricting Comm. (Dec. 2, 2021) (testimony of D. Fisher). Minnesotans described how these communities cross political-subdivision lines. Hearings Before Minn. Special Redistricting Panel 31, 40 (Shakopee, Minn. Oct. 13, 2021); 49 (Zoom Oct. 26, 2021). But they also repeatedly reminded us of the importance of counties, cities, and townships, especially for those who live in rural areas. Id. at 13-14 (Worthington, Minn. Oct. 20, 2021). Unnecessary splitting of political subdivisions can be burdensome to voters and to those who manage elections. Id. at 17; Hearings Before Minn. H.R. Redistricting Comm. (Sept. 20, 2021) (testimony of D. Anderson). 6 This includes those who self-identify on the decennial census as “Hispanic origin.” 7 These declarations and the Corrie plaintiffs’ redistricting proposals that incorporated them may also be a resource for the legislature in the future. 9 And we heard Minnesotans around the state voice the desire to keep partisan politics out of the redistricting process. Hearings Before Minn. Special Redistricting Panel 14-15, 33 (Woodbury, Minn. Oct. 11, 2021); 12-13, 19 (Shakopee, Minn. Oct. 13, 2021); 15 (St. Paul, Minn. Oct 15, 2021); 21 (Duluth, Minn. Oct. 19, 2021); 14 (Worthington, Minn. Oct. 20, 2021). We carefully considered all of this information in drawing the new congressional districts. We are grateful for the public’s participation in our hearing-and-comment process and that of the legislative redistricting committees. Despite the challenge of an ongoing pandemic, which delayed the release of the census data and required changes in court procedures, we witnessed the same robust civic engagement that spurred Minnesotans to the highest census self-response rate in the nation. U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census: Tracking Self-Response Rates Map (Jan. 28, 2021), https://www.census.gov/library/ visualizations/interactive/2020-census-self-response-rates-map.html; see Hearings Before Minn. Special Redistricting Panel 52 (Zoom Oct. 26, 2021). We are also grateful to the parties for diligently navigating a compressed redistricting timeline and providing us helpful and varied perspectives on how to best serve the interests of Minnesotans in this redistricting process. IV. New Districts Minnesota’s congressional districts must be redrawn to be as nearly equal in population as is practicable. U.S. Const. art. I, § 2; Wesberry, 376 U.S. at 7-8. This means that the three underpopulated districts must gain population through geographic expansion; the five overpopulated districts must lose population through geographic contraction. But 10 remedying the population imbalances requires more than simply adding or subtracting land. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 580 (1964) (stating that “people, not land or trees or pastures, vote”). Each congressional district is unique. Redrawing the district lines requires applying and weighing the redistricting principles in a manner that respects how people live in each district and the district’s evolving circumstances. We now discuss each new district in turn. A. First Congressional District Some cities in the first district grew substantially, and Rochester remains the district’s population center and the state’s third-largest city. Minn. Dep’t of Admin., State Demographic Center, Redistricting Data: Census 2020, County Subdivisions, https://mn.gov/admin/demography/data-by-topic/population-data/2020-decennial-census/ redistricting/ (select “County Subdivisions” data file for 2020). But this primarily rural district grew at a rate slower than the state as a whole, requiring the addition of 22,586 people to meet the ideal district population. See 2020 Congressional Data. As the panel heard consistently from the public, there are two natural additions—Wabasha and Goodhue Counties. Both have significant ties to Rochester and are predominantly rural. See Hearings Before Minn. Special Redistricting Panel 30-32, 35-37 (Rochester, Minn. Oct. 21, 2021). They border the Mississippi River and are part of the karst geological region, along with other counties in the first district. See id. at 16-17. And both Wabasha and Goodhue Counties have been part of the first district in the past. By adding Wabasha and Goodhue Counties, all of the populated tribal lands of the Prairie Island Indian Community 11 now lie within the first district. The Minnesota reservation lands of the Ho-Chunk Nation remain in the first district. The Interstate Highway 90 corridor connects many cities in the first district— Worthington, Albert Lea, Austin, and Rochester. This transportation corridor supports the district’s agricultural, agriculture-related processing and manufacturing, and medical industries and unites the district’s growing BIPOC population. See id. at 26 (Worthington, Minn. Oct. 20, 2021). The corridor also makes it convenient to travel across the district’s expansive southern border. B. Second Congressional District As part of the substantial suburban growth of the past decade, the population of the second district has increased and exceeds the ideal population by 18,646 people. See 2020 Congressional Data. Its population centers are the suburban cities located in Scott, Dakota, and southern Washington Counties. It is bounded by the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. While portions of the district retain a rural character, the population growth continues to reflect the district’s increasingly suburban and exurban character. The new second district loses population by moving Goodhue and Wabasha Counties to the first district. We make two more changes to the second district to balance population in a manner that reflects its character. First, because southern Woodbury increasingly associates with its neighbors in south Washington County—sharing schools and other services—we add that part of Woodbury to the second district. See Hearings Before Minn. Special Redistricting Panel 18, 20-21 (Woodbury, Minn. Oct. 11, 2021). In 12 doing so, we continue the three-way split of Washington County. 8 This is contrary to the requests of some members of the public but consistent with the distinct communities in different regions of the county. Id. at 17-19, 30 (Woodbury, Minn. Oct. 11, 2021); 25 (St. Paul, Minn. Oct. 15, 2021). Second, New Prague is now whole in the second district, along with the rest of Le Sueur County and its expanding communities along U.S. Route 169 and the Minnesota River. See id. at 11 (Worthington, Minn. Oct. 20, 2021) (discussing New Prague split). We also retain Northfield in the second district to preserve its connection with the Twin Cities and their suburbs, shifting the line through Rice County to include those areas around Northfield and adjacent to Le Sueur County. See id. at 42-43, 60-61 (Zoom Oct. 26, 2021). And the reservation lands of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community remain in the second district. C. Third Congressional District The third district comprises the suburbs west of Minneapolis and is centered in Hennepin County. It is overpopulated by 24,586 people. See 2020 Congressional Data. But it must also receive population from the overpopulated fifth district. The new third district both contracts and expands to meet the ideal district population. The third district loses population on its southern end, contracting so it no longer includes any part of Carver County. Hopkins and an additional portion of Edina move into the third district, joining those cities with communities to the west that share their suburban character. See Hearings Before Minn. Special Redistricting Panel 30 (St. Paul, Minn. Oct. 8 As discussed below, Washington County now lies in the second, fourth, and eighth congressional districts. 13 15, 2021), 67 (Zoom Oct. 26, 2021). To the north, the district expands farther into established Anoka County, joining the City of Anoka with neighboring Coon Rapids. See id. at 23-24 (Zoom Oct. 26, 2021). Through these balanced modifications, the third district achieves the ideal population while respecting political subdivisions and retaining its character as a suburban, Hennepin County-centered district. D. Fourth Congressional District The fourth district is the St. Paul-based metropolitan district that extends to Minnesota’s eastern border. The district includes all of Ramsey County and a substantial portion of Washington County, and its population exceeds the ideal district population by 13,164 people. See 2020 Congressional Data. To rebalance the district’s population, we shift the existing splits in Washington County. 9 Suburban central Washington County continues to have strong ties to St. Paul and therefore remains within the fourth district. See Hearings Before Minn. Special Redistricting Panel 25-26 (St. Paul, Minn. Oct. 15, 2021). But northern Washington County retains a rural character which, together with the nearby St. Croix River, tie it to northern Minnesota. See id. at 31-32 (Woodbury, Minn. Oct. 11, 2021). Accordingly, we modify the line dividing central and northern Washington County and continue to pair only the county’s central communities with Ramsey County in the fourth district. 9 We continue to respect the long-standing distinction between Minneapolis and St. Paul, which have anchored separate congressional districts since 1891. See Zachman v. Kiffmeyer, No. C0-01-160 (Minn. Special Redistricting Panel Mar. 19, 2002) (Order Adopting Cong. Redistricting Plan). None of the parties urged the panel to alter this separation and we have not received information from other sources that persuades us to do so. 14 E. Fifth Congressional District The fifth district is the Minneapolis-based metropolitan district that is primarily located in Hennepin County. It is overpopulated by 22,724 people. See 2020 Congressional Data. As noted above, we remedy this population excess by moving Hopkins and more of Edina into the third district with their suburban neighbors. In doing so, we decline more dramatic changes that are inconsistent with our restrained judicial approach. In particular, we note that several members of the public emphasized the similarities between Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park and urged us to place them into the same congressional district. See Hearings Before Minn. Special Redistricting Panel 65 (Zoom Oct. 26, 2021); Hearings Before Minn. H.R. Redistricting Comm. (Sept. 13, 2021) (testimony of R. Jennis). But the joined population of the two cities is too large to fit entirely within either the third district or the fifth district without drastically altering either district. Accordingly, we preserve each city whole in its existing district. 10 F. Sixth Congressional District The sixth district wraps around the western and northern metropolitan area to encompass expanding suburban and exurban areas and small towns and cities. And it follows Interstate Highway 94 out from the metropolitan core to include the St. Cloud area. The district exceeds the ideal district population by 20,645 people. See 2020 Congressional Data. 10 To honor the public comments about joining these cities, we draw legislative districts that unite Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center to the greatest extent practicable. See Wattson, No. A21-0243 (Minn. Special Redistricting Panel Feb. 15, 2022) (Order Adopting a Legis. Redistricting Plan). 15 We achieve population balance by respecting the district’s increasingly suburban character. In doing so, we move rural northern Washington County and additional areas of rural Stearns County into more rural neighboring districts. And we expand the district on the southern end, making rapidly developing Carver County whole. See Hearings Before Minn. Special Redistricting Panel 24, 37-38 (Shakopee, Minn. Oct. 13, 2021). St. Cloud continues to anchor the district’s northwest end, aligning the city and the nearby areas that share its school district and growing diversity with similar communities in the metropolitan area. See id. at 18-19, 24-26 (Waite Park, Minn. Oct. 14, 2021). G. Seventh Congressional District The sprawling seventh district retains its agricultural, rural character. Although certain of its cities gained significant population, the district as a whole did not and is underpopulated by 39,798 people. See 2020 Congressional Data. This significant population shortfall requires geographic expansion. We do so without altering the district’s orientation along the state’s western border, its inclusion of the reservation lands of the Lower Sioux Indian Community and the Upper Sioux Community, or its strong rural identity. The additions make Cottonwood County whole within the seventh district, bring in Morrison and Wadena Counties and more of rural Stearns County, and portions of Hubbard and Brown Counties. These areas share the district’s core communities of interest—agriculture, agriculture-related processing and manufacturing, other light industry, and educational and other services. See Hearings Before Minn. Special Redistricting Panel 22-23, (Moorhead, Minn. Oct. 18, 2021); 23-24 (Worthington, Minn. 16 Oct. 20, 2021). And the district’s expansion honors the well-recognized distinctions between northwest and northeast Minnesota. H. Eighth Congressional District Like its neighbor to the west, the eighth district is rural and is substantially underpopulated. It must expand geographically to include an additional 37,383 people. See 2020 Congressional Data. With an international border to the north and a state border to the east, the eighth district may only expand south or west. The new district does both. To the south, the district expands to include a portion of northern Washington County, an area that shares the eighth district’s rural character and aligns with its “woods and water” geography and economy. See Hearings Before Minn. Special Redistricting Panel 30-31 (Woodbury, Minn. Oct. 11, 2021). The district also expands as far west as Mahnomen County. This moderate expansion continues to respect the differences between the northwest, which is home to the Red River Valley and crop agriculture, and the northeast, which is home to the Iron Range, the timber industry, and outdoor recreation and tourism. 11 See id. at 11-12, 22 (Duluth, Minn. Oct. 19, 2021). The new eighth district also adds the reservation lands of the White Earth Band and Red Lake Nation, uniting all populated northern Minnesota tribal lands in one congressional district. This change respects the sovereignty of the American Indian tribes and the request of tribal leaders and Minnesotans across the state to afford those tribes an opportunity to join their voices. See Minn. Stat. § 10.65, subd. 1(a) (2020) (stating 11 This addition also eliminates the existing split in Bemidji and Beltrami County. 17 that Minnesota “acknowledges and supports” tribal nations’ “absolute right to existence, self-governance, and self-determination”); Hearings Before Minn. Special Redistricting Panel 14 (Woodbury, Minn. Oct. 11, 2021); 12-14 (Waite Park, Minn. Oct. 14, 2021); 3031 (Duluth, Minn. Oct. 19, 2021); Hearings Before Minn. Sen. Redistricting Comm. (Bemidji, Minn. Aug. 9, 2021) (testimony of L. Fineday, W. LaDuke); Hearings Before Minn. H.R. Redistricting Comm. (Sept. 20, 2021) (testimony of M. Fairbanks); (Dec. 2, 2021) (testimony of L. Fineday). I. Summary In the end, application of neutral redistricting principles results in new congressional districts that change as needed to equalize population but respect the core of existing communities. We have made changes that accord with all of the redistricting principles, while recognizing our need to balance among them. We recognize that the population growth that enabled Minnesota to retain its eight congressional districts was driven by our increased BIPOC population. This growth is reflected in the racial and ethnic composition of the new districts, which protect the equal opportunity of racial, ethnic, and language minorities to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice, whether alone or in alliance with others. See 52 U.S.C. § 10301. When possible, we have avoided splitting political subdivisions, especially small cities and rural townships. The new congressional districts are convenient and contiguous. They also are reasonably compact, as indicated by five compactness measures. See App’x H. 18 Finally, we have not drawn the districts with the purpose of protecting, promoting, or defeating any incumbent, candidate, or political party. Election districts do not exist for the benefit of any particular representative or political party. Rather, they exist for the people to select their representatives. And our role in this redistricting process is to establish congressional districts of equal population so that each Minnesotan has equal voting power. We have done so through application of neutral redistricting principles. V. Injunction Because the existing congressional districts are unconstitutional for purposes of the 2022 primary and general elections, we enjoin their use in these elections and adopt the congressional district boundaries as set forth in Appendices A and B to this order. Defendants shall conduct elections using the congressional districts adopted in this order or any constitutional congressional plan subsequently enacted by the Minnesota Legislature and the Governor of the State of Minnesota. 12 We provide Secretary of State Steve Simon with a block-equivalency file and a copy of this order to facilitate implementation of this congressional plan. Should any ambiguity arise regarding the plan set forth in this order, we direct the Secretary of State to act in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 2.91, subds. 2-3, 204B.146, subd. 3 (2020). 12 19 Dated: February 15, 2022 BY THE PANEL: _________________________ ___________________________ Louise Dovre Bjorkman Presiding Judge _____________________________ Diane B. Bratvold _____________________________ Jay D. Carlson _____________________________ Juanita C. Freeman _____________________________ Jodi L. Williamson 20 APPENDIX A 2022 Minnesota Special Redistricting Panel Minnesota Congressional Districts - Statewide February 15, 2022 Roseau Kittson Marshall Koochiching == ll----- ------_.. I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I\'= \ Beltrami _:-.1111 /JIIII :: Red Lake = = 1111111r Cook Polk =IIIIIIJ, ., learwate l-------,(1111---,1 8 1111 11·• , Norman St. Louis :! = Mahnomen ..., Bee er Clay Cass Wadena Crow Wing Aitk in Otter Tail Chippewa Lac qui Parle Renville Yellow Medicine Lincoln Lyon ipestone Murray Rock Nobles Watonwan Waseca Map layers Jackson Fill more Houston c::::J 2022 Congressional Districts Indian Reservation county -•- Interstate 1 1 : : ; 1 ©2021 CALIPER 2022 Minnesota Special Redistricting Panel Minnesota Congressional Districts - 2012 Statewide Comparison February 15, 2022 Kittson Roseau Marshall St. Louis Polk learwate Norman Ir Mahnomen '{i,sca = '= 't_"i111\rHubbard Clay Cook 8 ='IIIIIL! ,. ..... ,.,,,,,,," \!',: \/ Cass Wadena Crow Wing Aitkin Otter Tail Grant Stevens Yellow Medicine Lincoln ipestone Lyon Murray Map layers Fillmore ©2021 CALIPER Houston c::::12012 Congressional Districts Indian Reservation county -•- Interstate '.','.'F 2022 Minnesota Special Redistricting Panel Minnesota Congressional Districts - Metropolitan Area February 15, 2022 Nowthen East Bethel Oak Grove Andover Monticello Ham Lake A oka Buffalo Columbus Forest Lake Scandia - Coon Rapids &i '!s Blaine Hugo May Corcoran Medina Ply Franklin Lake Elmo Watertown Sai Woodbury facius Waconia Ca Cottage Grove Laketown Map layers C 2022 Congressional Districts '.'.'.'F Indian Reservation D County Subdivision Benton Dahlgren Apple Valley ©2021 CAL PER Rosemount county -w- Interstate 2022 Minnesota Special Redistricting Panel Minnesota Congressional Districts 2022 and 2012 Greater Metro Area Comparison February 15, 2022 Morrison 2022 Benton Kandiyohi Meeker Mcleod Renville Map layers 2022 Congressional Districts Indian Reservation county Interstate Waseca Morrison Todd Kanabec 2012 Stearns Kandiyohi Meeker Mcleod Renville 7 Sibley Map layers 2012 Congressional Districts Indian Reservation Watonwan Waseca Dodge C - • - Interstate APPENDIX B Plan Components (Short) - Congressional* District 1 County Blue Earth County Brown MCD Albin Township MCD Cottonwood Township MCD Eden Township MCD Evan City MCD Hanska City MCD Home Township MCD Lake Hanska Township MCD Linden Township MCD Milford Township MCD New Ulm City MCD Prairieville Township VTD: Prairieville Twp 2033 2034 2035 2046 2049 2055 2078 2079 2080 MCD Sigel Township MCD Sleepy Eye City MCD Stark Township County Dodge County Faribault County Fillmore County Freeborn County Goodhue County Houston County Jackson County Martin County Mower County Nicollet County Nobles County Olmsted County Rice MCD Cannon City Township MCD Dennison City MCD Faribault City MCD Nerstrand City MCD Northfield Township VTD: Northfield Twp 2003 2004 3019 3020 3021 3055 3056 3057 MCD Richland Township 2037 2056 2165 2038 2057 2039 2058 2040 2059 2041 2060 2042 2068 2043 2075 2044 2076 2045 2077 3022 3058 3025 3059 3026 3060 3027 3034 3048 3049 3053 3054 *This report was generated in Maptitude for Redistricting (Version 2021 Build 4960) using boundary adjustments made by the Minnesota Legislature's Legislative Coordinating Commission Geospatial Information Office. Page 1 of 13 Plan Components (Short) District 1 County Rice MCD Walcott Township MCD Warsaw Township MCD Wells Township MCD Wheeling Township County Rock County Steele County Wabasha County Waseca County Watonwan County Winona District 2 County Dakota County Le Sueur County Rice MCD Bridgewater Township MCD Dundas City MCD Erin Township MCD Forest Township MCD Lonsdale City MCD Morristown City MCD Morristown Township MCD Northfield City MCD Northfield Township VTD: Northfield Twp 1000 1027 2015 2007 3000 3000 3001 3002 3003 3031 3035 3036 3037 3046 3047 3050 3051 MCD Shieldsville Township MCD Webster Township MCD Wheatland Township County Scott County Washington MCD Cottage Grove City MCD Denmark Township MCD Grey Cloud Island Township MCD Hastings City MCD Newport City MCD Saint Paul Park City MCD Woodbury City VTD: Woodbury P-14 1000 1001 1002 1003 4009 4010 4011 4012 VTD: Woodbury P-15 3007 3038 3052 3009 3039 3010 3040 3011 3041 3012 3042 3028 3043 3029 3044 3030 3045 4000 4013 4002 4014 4003 5006 4004 5007 4005 5008 4006 5009 4007 4008 Page 2 of 13 Plan Components (Short) District 2 County Washington MCD Woodbury City VTD: Woodbury P-15 5000 5001 5002 6008 6009 6010 6022 VTD: Woodbury P-16 6000 6001 6012 District 3 County Anoka MCD Anoka City MCD Coon Rapids City MCD Ramsey City VTD: Ramsey W-3 P-1 1015 1016 5000 5001 5002 5019 5021 5022 VTD: Ramsey W-3 P-2 1014 3024 3025 3026 County Hennepin MCD Bloomington City MCD Brooklyn Park City MCD Champlin City MCD Chanhassen City MCD Corcoran City MCD Dayton City MCD Deephaven City MCD Eden Prairie City MCD Edina City VTD: Edina P-10C VTD: Edina P-11 VTD: Edina P-12 VTD: Edina P-13 VTD: Edina P-14 2009 2015 2017 VTD: Edina P-15C VTD: Edina P-16 VTD: Edina P-17 VTD: Edina P-18 VTD: Edina P-19C VTD: Edina P-1A VTD: Edina P-1B VTD: Edina P-2 VTD: Edina P-3 1000 1001 1002 2005 5003 6011 5004 6014 5005 6015 6002 6016 6003 6017 6004 6018 6005 6019 6006 6020 6007 6021 5004 5025 5005 5006 5007 5010 5011 5013 5014 6013 5003 5024 3027 2018 1003 1009 Page 3 of 13 Plan Components (Short) District 3 County Hennepin MCD Edina City VTD: Edina P-3 2005 VTD: Edina P-5 VTD: Edina P-6 VTD: Edina P-7 VTD: Edina P-8 2005 2006 2007 VTD: Edina P-9 MCD Excelsior City MCD Greenfield City MCD Greenwood City MCD Hopkins City MCD Independence City MCD Long Lake City MCD Loretto City MCD Maple Grove City MCD Maple Plain City MCD Medicine Lake City MCD Medina City MCD Minnetonka Beach City MCD Minnetonka City MCD Minnetrista City MCD Mound City MCD Orono City MCD Osseo City MCD Plymouth City MCD Rogers City MCD Saint Bonifacius City MCD Shorewood City MCD Spring Park City MCD Tonka Bay City MCD Wayzata City MCD Woodland City District 4 County Ramsey MCD Arden Hills City MCD Blaine City MCD Falcon Heights City MCD Gem Lake City MCD Lauderdale City MCD Little Canada City MCD Maplewood City MCD Mounds View City MCD New Brighton City MCD North Oaks City 4000 4001 4002 4003 5021 5022 5023 Page 4 of 13 Plan Components (Short) District 4 County Ramsey MCD North Saint Paul City MCD Roseville City MCD Saint Paul City MCD Shoreview City MCD Spring Lake Park City MCD Vadnais Heights City MCD White Bear Lake City MCD White Bear Township County Washington MCD Afton City MCD Bayport City MCD Baytown Township MCD Birchwood Village City MCD Dellwood City MCD Grant City MCD Lake Elmo City MCD Lake Saint Croix Beach City MCD Lakeland City MCD Lakeland Shores City MCD Landfall City MCD Mahtomedi City MCD Oak Park Heights City MCD Oakdale City MCD Pine Springs City MCD Saint Marys Point City MCD Stillwater City MCD Stillwater Township VTD: Stillwater Twp 1019 1020 3006 MCD West Lakeland Township MCD White Bear Lake City MCD Willernie City MCD Woodbury City VTD: Woodbury P-1 VTD: Woodbury P-10 VTD: Woodbury P-11 VTD: Woodbury P-12 VTD: Woodbury P-13A VTD: Woodbury P-14 2008 2009 2010 2011 VTD: Woodbury P-15 1000 1001 1002 1003 VTD: Woodbury P-16 1000 1001 1002 1003 1012 1013 1014 1015 2012 2013 2014 2015 3007 3008 3009 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1004 1016 1005 1017 1006 2000 1007 2001 1008 2002 1009 2003 1010 2004 1011 2005 Page 5 of 13 Plan Components (Short) District 4 County Washington MCD Woodbury City VTD: Woodbury P-16 2006 2007 2008 2009 2018 2019 2020 2021 3019 3020 3021 3022 VTD: Woodbury P-2 VTD: Woodbury P-3 VTD: Woodbury P-4 VTD: Woodbury P-5 VTD: Woodbury P-6 VTD: Woodbury P-7 VTD: Woodbury P-8 VTD: Woodbury P-9A District 5 County Anoka MCD Columbia Heights City MCD Fridley City MCD Hilltop City MCD Spring Lake Park City County Hennepin MCD Brooklyn Center City MCD Crystal City MCD Edina City VTD: Edina P-14 1000 1001 1002 1003 1012 1013 1014 1015 2006 2007 2008 2010 3003 3004 3005 3006 3015 3016 3017 VTD: Edina P-3 1003 1004 1005 1006 2002 2003 2004 2006 2017 2018 2019 2020 2030 2031 2032 2033 3000 3001 3002 3003 3012 3013 3014 3015 VTD: Edina P-4 VTD: Edina P-8 1000 1001 1002 1003 1012 1013 1014 1015 1024 5000 5001 5002 5012 5013 5014 5015 MCD Fort Snelling Unorganized MCD Golden Valley City MCD Minneapolis City MCD New Hope City 2010 2022 3023 2011 2023 3029 2012 2024 3030 2013 2025 2014 3015 2015 3016 2016 3017 3018 1004 1016 2011 3007 1005 1017 2012 3008 1006 1018 2013 3009 1007 2000 2014 3010 1008 2002 2016 3011 1009 2003 3000 3012 1010 2004 3001 3013 1011 2005 3002 3014 1007 2007 2021 2034 3004 3016 1008 2008 2022 2035 3005 3017 1009 2009 2023 2036 3006 3018 1010 2010 2024 2037 3007 3019 1011 2011 2025 2038 3008 1012 2012 2026 2039 3009 2000 2015 2027 2040 3010 2001 2016 2028 2042 3011 1004 1016 5003 5016 1005 1017 5004 5017 1006 1018 5006 5018 1007 1019 5007 5019 1008 1020 5008 5020 1009 1021 5009 5024 1010 1022 5010 1011 1023 5011 Page 6 of 13 Plan Components (Short) District 5 County Hennepin MCD Richfield City MCD Robbinsdale City MCD Saint Anthony City MCD Saint Louis Park City County Ramsey MCD Saint Anthony City District 6 County Anoka MCD Andover City MCD Bethel City MCD Blaine City MCD Centerville City MCD Circle Pines City MCD Columbus City MCD East Bethel City MCD Ham Lake City MCD Lexington City MCD Lino Lakes City MCD Linwood Township MCD Nowthen City MCD Oak Grove City MCD Ramsey City VTD: Ramsey W-1 P-1 VTD: Ramsey W-1 P-2 VTD: Ramsey W-2 P-1 VTD: Ramsey W-2 P-2 VTD: Ramsey W-3 P-1 1000 1001 1002 1012 1013 1014 1024 1025 1026 1036 1037 4000 2006 2007 2008 2018 2019 2020 2040 4010 4011 4012 5015 5016 5017 VTD: Ramsey W-3 P-2 1000 1001 1002 1012 1013 1017 3000 3001 3002 3012 3013 3014 VTD: Ramsey W-4 P-1 VTD: Ramsey W-4 P-2 MCD Saint Francis City County Benton County Carver 1003 1015 1027 4001 2009 2021 1004 1016 1028 4002 2010 2022 1005 1017 1029 4003 2011 2023 1006 1018 1030 4004 2012 2024 1007 1019 1031 4005 2013 2025 1008 1020 1032 4006 2014 1009 1021 1033 4007 2015 1010 1022 1034 4008 2016 1011 1023 1035 4009 2017 4013 5020 4014 5023 4015 5026 4016 4017 4018 5008 5009 5012 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 3003 3015 3004 3016 3005 3017 3006 3018 3007 3019 3008 3020 3009 3021 3010 3022 3011 3023 Page 7 of 13 Plan Components (Short) District 6 County Hennepin MCD Hanover City MCD Rockford City County Sherburne County Stearns MCD Clearwater City MCD Collegeville Township MCD Fair Haven Township MCD Le Sauk Township MCD Lynden Township MCD Rockville City MCD Saint Augusta City MCD Saint Cloud City MCD Saint Joseph City MCD Saint Joseph Township MCD Saint Wendel Township VTD: Saint Wendel Twp 2004 2005 2006 2044 3008 3025 3041 3042 3043 3044 3054 3055 3056 3057 3068 3071 3072 3073 3084 3085 3086 3087 3097 3101 MCD Sartell City MCD Waite Park City County Wright District 7 County Becker MCD Atlanta Township MCD Audubon City MCD Audubon Township MCD Burlington Township MCD Carsonville Township MCD Cormorant Township MCD Cuba Township MCD Detroit Lakes City MCD Detroit Township MCD Erie Township MCD Evergreen Township MCD Frazee City MCD Green Valley Township MCD Hamden Township MCD Height of Land Township MCD Holmesville Township 3045 3060 3074 3088 3046 3061 3075 3089 3047 3062 3077 3091 3048 3063 3078 3092 3049 3064 3079 3093 3050 3065 3080 3094 3052 3066 3081 3095 3053 3067 3082 3096 Page 8 of 13 Plan Components (Short) District 7 County Becker MCD Lake Eunice Township MCD Lake Park City MCD Lake Park Township MCD Lake View Township MCD Osage Township MCD Richwood Township MCD Runeberg Township MCD Shell Lake Township MCD Silver Leaf Township MCD Spruce Grove Township MCD Toad Lake Township MCD Walworth Township MCD Wolf Lake City MCD Wolf Lake Township County Big Stone County Brown MCD Bashaw Township MCD Burnstown Township MCD Cobden City MCD Comfrey City MCD Leavenworth Township MCD Mulligan Township MCD North Star Township MCD Prairieville Township VTD: Prairieville Twp 2069 2070 2071 2072 2087 2088 2089 2090 2110 2111 2112 2113 MCD Springfield City MCD Stately Township County Chippewa County Clay County Cottonwood County Douglas County Grant County Hubbard MCD Akeley City MCD Akeley Township VTD: Akeley Twp 2102 2105 3000 3001 3003 3004 3046 3061 3064 3065 3101 MCD Badoura Township MCD Crow Wing Lake Township MCD Henrietta Township 2073 2091 2114 2074 2092 2081 2093 2082 2094 2083 2095 2084 2096 2085 2099 2086 2109 3005 3066 3026 3068 3027 3070 3028 3074 3029 3075 3030 3076 3034 3086 3035 3099 Page 9 of 13 Plan Components (Short) District 7 County Hubbard MCD Hubbard Township MCD Mantrap Township MCD Nevis City MCD Nevis Township MCD Park Rapids City MCD Straight River Township MCD Todd Township MCD White Oak Township County Kandiyohi County Kittson County Lac qui Parle County Lincoln County Lyon County Marshall County McLeod County Meeker County Morrison County Murray County Norman County Otter Tail County Pennington County Pipestone County Polk County Pope County Red Lake County Redwood County Renville County Roseau County Sibley County Stearns MCD Albany City MCD Albany Township MCD Ashley Township MCD Avon City MCD Avon Township MCD Belgrade City MCD Brockway Township MCD Brooten City MCD Cold Spring City MCD Crow Lake Township MCD Crow River Township MCD Eden Lake Township MCD Eden Valley City MCD Elrosa City MCD Farming Township MCD Freeport City Page 10 of 13 Plan Components (Short) District 7 County Stearns MCD Getty Township MCD Greenwald City MCD Grove Township MCD Holding Township MCD Holdingford City MCD Kimball City MCD Krain Township MCD Lake George Township MCD Lake Henry City MCD Lake Henry Township MCD Luxemburg Township MCD Maine Prairie Township MCD Meire Grove City MCD Melrose City MCD Melrose Township MCD Millwood Township MCD Munson Township MCD New Munich City MCD North Fork Township MCD Oak Township MCD Paynesville City MCD Paynesville Township MCD Raymond Township MCD Richmond City MCD Roscoe City MCD Saint Anthony City MCD Saint Martin City MCD Saint Martin Township MCD Saint Rosa City MCD Saint Stephen City MCD Saint Wendel Township VTD: Saint Wendel Twp 1048 3002 3003 3013 3014 3015 3025 3026 3027 3037 3038 3039 MCD Sauk Centre City MCD Sauk Centre Township MCD Spring Hill City MCD Spring Hill Township MCD Wakefield Township MCD Zion Township County Stevens County Swift County Todd County Traverse 3004 3016 3028 3040 3005 3017 3029 3051 3006 3018 3030 3069 3007 3019 3031 3070 3008 3020 3032 3076 3009 3021 3033 3010 3022 3034 3011 3023 3035 3012 3024 3036 Page 11 of 13 Plan Components (Short) District 7 County Wadena County Wilkin County Yellow Medicine District 8 County Aitkin County Becker MCD Callaway City MCD Callaway Township MCD Eagle View Township MCD Forest Township MCD Maple Grove Township MCD Ogema City MCD Pine Point Township MCD Riceville Township MCD Round Lake Township MCD Savannah Township MCD Spring Creek Township MCD Sugar Bush Township MCD Two Inlets Township MCD White Earth Township County Beltrami County Carlton County Cass County Chisago County Clearwater County Cook County Crow Wing County Hubbard MCD Akeley Township VTD: Akeley Twp 2067 3002 3006 2090 2091 2092 MCD Arago Township MCD Clay Township MCD Clover Township MCD Farden Township MCD Fern Township MCD Guthrie Township MCD Hart Lake Township MCD Helga Township MCD Hendrickson Township MCD Lake Alice Township MCD Lake Emma Township MCD Lake George Township MCD Lake Hattie Township MCD Lakeport Township MCD Laporte City 3007 2093 3008 2097 3069 2098 3071 2099 3072 2100 3073 2101 2103 2104 2142 Page 12 of 13 Plan Components (Short) District 8 County Hubbard MCD Rockwood Township MCD Schoolcraft Township MCD Steamboat River Township MCD Thorpe Township County Isanti County Itasca County Kanabec County Koochiching County Lake County Lake of the Woods County Mahnomen County Mille Lacs County Pine County St. Louis County Washington MCD Forest Lake City MCD Hugo City MCD Marine on Saint Croix City MCD May Township MCD Scandia City MCD Stillwater Township VTD: Stillwater Twp 1000 1001 1002 1003 1000 1001 1002 1003 1012 1013 1014 1015 2000 3005 3007 3008 3010 1004 1021 1016 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1017 1018 3000 3001 3002 3003 3004 Page 13 of 13 APPENDIX C Population Summary - Congressional* District Population Deviation % Devn. 1 713,311 -1 0.00% 2 713,312 0 0.00% 3 713,311 -1 0.00% 4 713,312 0 0.00% 5 713,312 0 0.00% 6 713,312 0 0.00% 7 713,312 0 0.00% 8 713,312 0 0.00% Total Population: 5,706,494 Ideal District Population: 713,312 Summary Statistics: Population Range: 713,311 to 713,312 Ratio Range: 0.00 Absolute Range: -1 to Absolute Overall Range: 1 Relative Range: 0.00% to 0.00% Relative Overall Range: 0.00% Absolute Mean Deviation: 0.25 Relative Mean Deviation: 0.00% Standard Deviation: 0.43 *This report was generated in Maptitude for Redistricting (Version 2021 Build 4960). Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX D Contiguity Report - Congressional* District Number of Distinct Areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 *This report was generated in Maptitude for Redistricting (Version 2021 Build 4960). Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX E 2022 Minnesota Special Redistricting Panel Political Subdivision Splits Comparison Congressional Split Political Subdivisions Counties (N = 87) Cities/ Townships* (N = 2,741) 2022 Districts 9 8 2012 Districts 9 7 Wattson 12 10 Anderson 7 7 Sachs 11 13 Corrie 16 27 *When a city or township is split on a county boundary, that split is not counted. This report was produced from data generated by Maptitude for Redistricting (Version 2021 Build 4960) using boundary adjustments made by the Minnesota Legislature’s Legislative Coordinating Commission Geospatial Information Office. The parties are listed in the order in which they appear in the case caption. APPENDIX F Political Subdivison Splits Between Districts - Congressional* Number of subdivisions not split: County 78 County Subdivision 2,733 Voting District 4099 Number of subdivisions split into more than one district: County 9 County Subdivision 8 Voting District 13 Number of splits involving no population: County 0 County Subdivision 0 Voting District 0 Split Counts County Cases where an area is split among 2 Districts: 6 Cases where an area is split among 3 Districts: 3 County Subdivision Cases where an area is split among 2 Districts: 8 Voting District Cases where an area is split among 2 Districts: 13 County County Subdivision Voting District Split Counties: Anoka Anoka Anoka Becker Becker Brown Brown Hennepin Hennepin Hennepin Hubbard Hubbard Ramsey Ramsey Rice Rice Stearns Stearns Washington Washington Washington *This report was generated in Maptitude for Redistricting (Version 2021 Build 4960) using boundary adjustments made by the Minnesota Legislature's Legislative Coordinating Commission Geospatial Information Office. District Population 3 5 6 7 8 1 7 3 5 6 7 8 4 5 1 2 6 7 2 4 8 83,030 59,504 221,353 31,188 3,995 21,999 3,913 630,281 650,163 1,121 12,372 8,972 548,707 3,645 30,841 36,256 104,017 54,275 57,572 164,605 45,391 Page 1 of 2 Political Subdivison Splits Between Districts County County Subdivision Split MCDs: Anoka Anoka Brown Brown Hennepin Hennepin Hubbard Hubbard Rice Rice Stearns Stearns Washington Washington Washington Washington Ramsey City Ramsey City Prairieville Township Prairieville Township Edina City Edina City Akeley Township Akeley Township Northfield Township Northfield Township Saint Wendel Township Saint Wendel Township Stillwater Township Stillwater Township Woodbury City Woodbury City Split VTDs: Anoka Anoka Anoka Anoka Brown Brown Hennepin Hennepin Hennepin Hennepin Hennepin Hennepin Hubbard Hubbard Rice Rice Stearns Stearns Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Ramsey City Ramsey City Ramsey City Ramsey City Prairieville Township Prairieville Township Edina City Edina City Edina City Edina City Edina City Edina City Akeley Township Akeley Township Northfield Township Northfield Township Saint Wendel Township Saint Wendel Township Stillwater Township Stillwater Township Woodbury City Woodbury City Woodbury City Woodbury City Woodbury City Woodbury City Voting District Ramsey W-3 P-1 Ramsey W-3 P-1 Ramsey W-3 P-2 Ramsey W-3 P-2 Prairieville Twp Prairieville Twp Edina P-14 Edina P-14 Edina P-3 Edina P-3 Edina P-8 Edina P-8 Akeley Twp Akeley Twp Northfield Twp Northfield Twp Saint Wendel Twp Saint Wendel Twp Stillwater Twp Stillwater Twp Woodbury P-14 Woodbury P-14 Woodbury P-15 Woodbury P-15 Woodbury P-16 Woodbury P-16 District Population 3 6 1 7 3 5 7 8 1 2 6 7 4 8 2 4 1,510 26,136 132 96 42,637 10,857 252 307 224 633 1,139 976 163 1,696 7,306 67,776 3 6 3 6 1 7 3 5 3 5 3 5 7 8 1 2 6 7 4 8 2 4 2 4 2 4 1,379 4,150 131 2,242 132 96 175 2,889 124 3,128 612 2,125 252 307 224 633 1,139 976 163 1,696 2,798 1,114 4,403 1,672 105 6,414 Page 2 of 2 APPENDIX G 2022 Minnesota Special Redistricting Panel Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Population Statistics* Congressional District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2022 14% 21% 24% 32% 35% 13% 9% 11% Voting Age Population 2012 Wattson Anderson 9% 15% 14% 13% 21% 21% 16% 24% 24% 24% 32% 32% 29% 35% 35% 7% 13% 13% 7% 10% 11% 6% 10% 9% Sachs 13% 24% 22% 31% 35% 13% 11% 10% Corrie 14% 23% 26% 32% 33% 11% 11% 11% 2022 18% 25% 29% 38% 40% 16% 12% 13% Total Population Wattson Anderson 18% 18% 25% 25% 28% 29% 38% 38% 40% 40% 15% 16% 12% 14% 13% 11% Sachs 16% 28% 26% 36% 41% 16% 14% 12% Corrie 17% 27% 31% 37% 38% 13% 14% 13% 2012 12% 16% 19% 29% 35% 9% 9% 7% *This includes those who self-identify on the decennial census as “Hispanic origin.” This report was produced from data generated by Maptitude for Redistricting (Version 2021 Build 4960). The parties are listed in the order in which they appear in the case caption. APPENDIX H Measures of Compactness Report - Congressional* Reock PolsbyPopper Area/Convex Hull Population Polygon Population Circle Mean 0.42 0.23 0.57 0.33 0.18 0.55 0.77 0.64 0.89 0.71 0.36 0.92 0.35 Min Max Std. Dev. 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.20 0.17 Area/Convex Hull Population Polygon Population Circle 0.15 0.59 Sum District Reock PolsbyPopper 1 0.23 0.29 0.77 0.81 0.16 2 0.41 0.37 0.85 0.78 0.27 3 0.57 0.29 0.73 0.49 0.38 4 0.51 0.55 0.89 0.92 0.56 5 0.50 0.43 0.86 0.88 0.59 6 0.43 0.23 0.64 0.36 0.27 7 0.29 0.18 0.70 0.60 0.15 8 0.42 0.26 0.69 0.81 0.38 *This report was generated in Maptitude for Redistricting (Version 2021 Build 4960). A key explaining each measure is at the end of the report. Page 1 of 2 Measures of Compactness Report Measures of Compactness Summary Reock Polsby-Popper Area / Convex Hull Population Polygon Population Circle The measure is always between 0 and 1, with 1 being the most compact. The measure is always between 0 and 1, with 1 being the most compact. The measure is always between 0 and 1, with 1 being the most compact. The measure is always between 0 and 1, with 1 being the most compact. The measure is always between 0 and 1, with 1 being the most compact. Page 2 of 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
