The 2010 census is coming, and with the continued exodus of people from the Midwest and Northeast to the South and West, it is possible that Minnesota will lose a seat in Congress by 2012. If this happens, the upcoming redrawing of districts will be incredibly contentious. The article I linked to seems to think the 2nd or 6th will lose voters to shrinking urban districts (4th and 5th). To me, it is probably high time to put Minneapolis and St. Paul in one district. I know there is a belief that Minneapolis and St. Paul should anchor separate districts amongst some, but frankly both Minneapolis and St. Paul are shrinking, and are very similar politically. But, I know that basically removes a "safe" seat from the Democrats, so that won't happen. Since we are likely not going the Iowa route (independent commission does redistricting with a mandate of competitive seats...Iowa may lose a district too), I know we are likely going to protect as many incumbents as possible. That means Minneapolis and St. Paul will likely remain in different districts. This also means that the odd person out will probably be either Michelle Bachmann or Erik Paulsen. I don't think the burbs should have to suffer for the inner cities and outstate Minnesota not growing, but I imagine they will.
This is going to be painful. I have a feeling a court will end up resolving this.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Because I am too old for most social networks and too young for letters to the editor.
- Captain Capitalism
- Shreds
- Badger Blog Alliance
- Truth v. The Machine
- Boots On
- KAR
- City Comforts Blog
- The Stencil
- Here in Time
- Memeopolis
- Blogger Beer
- Demographia
- The Antiplanner
- The Night Writer
- On the Borderline
- Sykes Writes
- Sports Guy
- Chicago Tribune
- Pioneer Press (St. Paul)
- Appleton Post-Crescent
- Madison WSJ/Cap Times
- Star Tribune (Minneapolis)
- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
- The Family Blog
- Anti-Strib
- Boots and Sabers
- Fraters Libertas
- Shot in the Dark
- Power Line
- Nihilist in Golf Pants
- 1999 Heuring Road (my sister-in-law)
- Mr. Dilettante (my brother)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(215)
-
▼
December
(24)
- I've got a new toy
- Happy Holidays
- Factoid heard on TV
- Directionally challenged party
- No Bluejays in the Bay
- If the Packers were the Union in the Civil War...
- Midwest collapse
- Midwest Swing
- Worth the heart attack that immediately follows
- I bet Helen Thomas is pissed....
- The opposite of taking a knee
- Pass the Christmas dutchie, Bryan Adams
- More links
- Express Lane Sports - 10 items or less...
- Just another day in Fibland
- 200
- Link update
- Taking a knee
- Not a lot of love here
- No supermajority for you!
- Everything is great in Neenah, WI 3
- Stinger rant #4
- Birthdays today
- Down to 7?
-
▼
December
(24)
About Me
- Mike
- I'm pushing 40, I live in suburban Minneapolis, I'm an unrepentant Sconnie, and I work in the legal services field, whatever that means. I could tell you more about my job, but then I would have to kill you. Not really, but saying that makes it sound more intriguing than it really is.
4 comments:
I think the 6th should suffer for electing Michelle Bachmann - twice.
According to the article, you aren't the only one to consider combining the Twin Cities, but is the population for this urban area going to shrink so significantly? (In 10 yrs, the population as a whole moved outward, but in the last couple years, the trend has been tempered.) Anyway, Democrats being absorbed into conservative St. Paul suburbs is just as unfair as the alternative. Either you're saying the suburbs will "suffer" or I'm saying the metro area will "suffer." What's the reason for deciding one way or the other?
Welcome back!
Interesting post - I'm not sure what will happen, but my guess is that the district that will get the axe is the 3rd. My own preference would be to combine the 4th and 5th, with my area (northern St. Paul suburbs) going to the 6th, which is a better fit.
And to Amanda's point, if the 6th had the St. Paul suburbs, you'd probably see a different sort of representative in the 6th. Probably still would be a Republican, but it wouldn't be an evangelical like Bachmann.
Having said that, my guess is that the conservative districts of the 3rd will be parceled between the 2nd and the 6th and the more liberal precincts (St. Louis Park, Robbinsdale, etc.) will be under the aegis of the lovely and talented Keith Ellison. The D's won't let St. Paul and Minneapolis get lumped together, even though that would be more logical.
And Amanda, trust me on this -- those of us who live in the suburban areas of the fighting 4th feel just as alienated by Betty McCollum as you feel about Bachmann.
Yeah, perhaps the 6th should be made to suffer for electing and re-electing Michelle Bachmann. That is highly questionable, although in their defense, the Dems put up less-than-stellar candidates.
Actually, Minneapolis and St. Paul grew in the 90s, but have resumed shrinking this decade.
I see Amanda's point, and I think the best way to resolve this is to redistrict like Iowa, which mandates that districts be at least somewhat competitive. Instead, Minnesota is like most states in that redistricting is an incumbent protection program.
Wisconsin almost had this situation when it went from 9 to 8 after 2000. But, Tom Barrett stepped aside (and became mayor of Milwaukee in the process). I don't see that happening here though.
It's a sad situation, but as a practical matter in most cases elected officials these days are more "at large" than advocates for the district that elects them. Given the people that Minnesota sends to Congress the shift may actually be a good thing for the country overall if the state that gains the seat elects a Conservative.
Michelle Bachmann rocks! And your brother is right on regarding "Air" Betty McCollum.
Post a Comment