When it comes to drawing boundaries for congressional and legislative districts, Minnesota can hold its head high. Our competitive and representative congressional and legislative districts are the result of good governance, including a well-qualified and non-partisan judiciary, and a bit of good luck and good timing. Unfortunately, Minnesota risks getting pulled into the redistricting brouhaha, if not sooner, then almost certainly after the 2030 census.
Today, Minnesota’s 201 legislative districts (67 Senate seats and 134 House districts) are fairly drawn and competitive, so much so that the 2025 session of the legislature featured an evenly divided House of Representatives and a one-seat DFL majority in the Senate.
While chambers that are tied are unusual, the state’s balanced districts often produce a change in leadership. The last time the Minnesota House of Representatives was locked in a partisan tie was 1979. Starting with the 1980 election, at least one of the two chambers has flipped majorities 13 times. During that time, the longest run of control by a single party was the DFL which held a majority in the state Senate for 30 consecutive years. Even through those years of DFL dominance, overall balance mostly prevailed – a Republican or Reform Party governor was in office during 22 of the years.
Minnesota’s congressional districts also are balanced. Democrats and Republicans each hold four seats and those districts generally align with statewide votes for President. In 2024, Donald Trump won the four Republican congressional districts while Kamala Harris prevailed in the four Democratic districts. Six of the eight seats have changed parties at least once since the 1990s; the two urban districts have remained reliably Democratic for decades.
Why has Minnesota avoided the redistricting battles that have plagued many other states? Some is due to intentional avoidance. Even as early as the beginning of the 20th Century, rural conservatives saw the population shifting to the cities. The state was redistricted in 1913, and those boundaries stayed in place for 60 years as rural conservatives used their power to block any attempts to change.
By 1959, disparities in the populations of the districts made new boundaries inevitable. According to the Minnesota Historical Society, “the populations of House districts ranged from 7,290 residents to 107,246, and Senate districts from 16,878 to 153,455. It would take fourteen years, three federal lawsuits, three special sessions of the legislature, three governor’s vetoes, one trip to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and one to the US Supreme Court to fix the problem, and then temporarily.”
Under pressure from lawsuits brought by Twin Cities interests, the rural-dominated legislature drew new political lines in 1965. The map was vetoed by DFL Gov. Karl Rolvaag who called it a “blatant, calculated, political gerrymander.” Back-and-forth it went from legislators to governors to the courts until new districts finally were established in 1973.
Since then, Minnesota’s political boundaries have been drawn by the courts in every census year except one. After the 1990 census, a failed gubernatorial veto left in place the map drawn by the legislature.
Minnesota has avoided partisan districts for two reasons:
Balance: In every redistricting year since the 1980s, Minnesota has had divided state government. Either the legislative chambers have been controlled by different parties or the governor has been from a party different from legislative majorities. Those election results are a bit of good luck and Minnesotans’ tradition of splitting their ballots, voting for a DFLer here and a Republican there. That trend seems to be changing. In 2024, 75 of Minnesota’s 87 counties voted a straight party ticket for president and U.S. senator, a more than 30% increase from 2020.
Judicial excellence: Minnesota has a highly-regarded, non-partisan judiciary. When courts draw political maps, they default to the principles that less change is better, districts should be compact and logical and the populations should be approximately equal. While some have tried to make Minnesota judicial races more political and partisan, it remains rare for an incumbent to lose a race for the highest courts. Only one challenger has defeated a state Supreme Court candidate since 1946 and no Court of Appeals incumbent judge ever has lost.
Still even with these safeguards, the controversy playing out in Texas and California and spreading to other states eventually will find its way to Minnesota. What is happening this year is re-establishing the norms for drawing district lines, already a low bar. Both Democrats and Republicans have used majority control to gerrymander districts. While states mostly have redistricted only once every decade, the new norm is heading toward changing the boundaries of any district in any state in any year solely to serve national political goals.
Minnesota’s last redistricting in 2022 followed the state’s recent pattern. A politically divided legislature missed the deadline for drawing new boundaries and the issue went to the courts to draw a new map. But what would have been the result had redistricting occurred in the 2023-24 session when the DFL controlled both houses of the legislature and the governor’s office? How far would either political party go to leverage its advantage through redistricting given the chance?
Add into the mix the likelihood that Minnesota probably will lose a congressional seat after the 2030 census. What happens when lines are being drawn for seven congressional districts instead of the eight Minnesota now has? Fairness and respect for voters may be the first casualties as political stakes rise and traditional norms of good governance are tossed out the window.
In recent years, Minnesota Democrats and Republicans both have proposed independent redistricting committees to draw new political maps after each decennial census. Some plans call for committees drawn from partisan ranks with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, others propose independent committees with a balance of partisans and independents. Most important is that the best independent commissions shift the focus from legislators choosing their voters to voters choosing who represents them.
The national redistricting crisis is growing uglier. Partisan power takes precedence over democratic representation. Minnesota would do well to reform its redistricting process before the 2030 census. Creating an expert, balanced and independent commission should be the goal of whomever is elected governor in 2026 and whichever party controls the legislature.
The interests of Minnesota voters will not be well-served if the state becomes ensnared in a national crisis that is undermining the fundamental principle of one person, one vote.
Until recently I lived in state senate district 52 (Eagan). My state senator, Jim Carlson, is chair of the state senate elections committee. On several occasions, I suggested that he push for a constitutional amendment to be placed on the ballot in 2026 that would insure that a non-partisan commission be created for the purpose of legislative and congressional redistricting beginning in 2031. A bill to such an effect was introduced in the state house, but it made little progress. I expect that a ballot measure to that end would get at least a 60% favorable vote.
A fair redistricting bill would give Republicans a slight electoral edge because we Democrats love to pack ourselves into those districts where Democrats get elected. Nevertheless, as a small “d” democrat, I believe the party getting the most votes should be the party to govern.
Like that idea a lot!