Minnesota

Overview

Minnesota Redistricting Process

Congressional and Legislative

Congressional and legislative maps are enacted by the State Legislature. The Governor can veto the plans.

The Legislature can override a veto with a two-thirds vote. No party currently has a veto-proof majority in either chamber.

Source: Minn. Const. art. IV, §§ 2, 3, 23, 24; Minn. Stat. § 204B.14


Previous Redistricting Cycles

2020

  • Congressional
    • State Judge Panel’s Plan
      • Adopted = February 15, 2022 (Minnesota Supreme Court)
    • Litigation History
      • Wattson v. Simon, No. A21-0243 (Minn. Feb. 15, 2022): On February 19, 2021, several Minnesota voters filed a lawsuit in state court challenging Minnesota's 2010-cycle congressional and legislative districts as unconstitutionally malapportioned in violation of Article I, § 2 and the 14th Amendment’s one person, one vote requirements. The Minnesota Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction over the case on March 22, 2021, and initially stayed the case to allow the state’s political branches an opportunity to pass new plans, but on June 30, 2021, it lifted the stay and appointed a special redistricting panel to handle the case. On February 15, 2022, the special redistricting panel issued orders enjoining Minnesota's existing congressional and legislative districts from being used in the 2022 elections and adopting the court's own-drawn congressional and legislative plans for use in future primary and general elections.
      • Sachs v. Simon, No. A21-0546 (Minn. Feb. 15, 2022): On April 26, 2021, a group of registered voters in Minnesota filed a lawsuit in state court challenging Minnesota's 2010-cycle congressional and legislative districts as unconstitutionally malapportioned in violation of Article I, § 2 and the 14th Amendment’s one person, one vote requirements. The Minnesota Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction over the case on March 22, 2021, and initially stayed the case to allow the state’s political branches an opportunity to pass new plans, but on June 30, 2021, it lifted the stay and appointed a special redistricting panel to handle the case. On February 15, 2022, the special redistricting panel issued orders enjoining Minnesota's existing congressional and legislative districts from being used in the 2022 elections and adopting the court's own-drawn congressional and legislative plans for use in future primary and general elections.
  • Legislative
    • State Judge Panel’s Plan
      • Adopted = February 15, 2022 (Minnesota Supreme Court)
    • Litigation History
      • Wattson v. Simon, No. A21-0243 (Minn. Feb. 15, 2022): On February 19, 2021, several Minnesota voters filed a lawsuit in state court challenging Minnesota's 2010-cycle congressional and legislative districts as unconstitutionally malapportioned in violation of Article I, § 2 and the 14th Amendment’s one person, one vote requirements. The Minnesota Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction over the case on March 22, 2021, and initially stayed the case to allow the state’s political branches an opportunity to pass new plans, but on June 30, 2021, it lifted the stay and appointed a special redistricting panel to handle the case. On February 15, 2022, the special redistricting panel issued orders enjoining Minnesota's existing congressional and legislative districts from being used in the 2022 elections and adopting the court's own-drawn congressional and legislative plans for use in future primary and general elections.
      • Sachs v. Simon, No. A21-0546 (Minn. Feb. 15, 2022): On April 26, 2021, a group of registered voters in Minnesota filed a lawsuit in state court challenging Minnesota's 2010-cycle congressional and legislative districts as unconstitutionally malapportioned in violation of Article I, § 2 and the 14th Amendment’s one person, one vote requirements. The Minnesota Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction over the case on March 22, 2021, and initially stayed the case to allow the state’s political branches an opportunity to pass new plans, but on June 30, 2021, it lifted the stay and appointed a special redistricting panel to handle the case. On February 15, 2022, the special redistricting panel issued orders enjoining Minnesota's existing congressional and legislative districts from being used in the 2022 elections and adopting the court's own-drawn congressional and legislative plans for use in future primary and general elections.

2010

  • Congressional
    • Original PlanHF 1426
      • Passed = May 17, 2011 (R-controlled)
      • Vetoed = May 19, 2011 (D-controlled)
    • State Judge Panel’s Plan
      • Adopted = February 21, 2012 (by Minn. Supreme Court)
    • Litigation History
      • Hippert v. Ritchie, 813 N.W.2d 391 (Minn. 2012): After the Democratic Governor vetoed the Republican Legislature’s enacted congressional plan, the Minnesota Supreme Court was petitioned alleging that the state’s congressional districts were now unconstitutional following the 2010 census and requesting the court to convene a special redistricting panel to order and implement a lawful plan in the event the Legislature and Governor failed to do so. On February 21, 2002, with no plan having been enacted, the court struck down the state’s existing congressional plan as unconstitutional and adopted the congressional plan set forth in Appendices A and H to their order.
  • Legislative
    • Original PlanHF 1425
      • Passed = May 17, 2011 (R-controlled)
      • Vetoed = May 19, 2011 (D-controlled)
    • State Judge Panel’s Plan
      • Adopted = February 21, 2012 (by Minn. Supreme Court)
    • Legislature’s 1st Revised House PlanHF 2821
      • Passed = April 27, 2012 (R-controlled)
      • Vetoed = May 2, 2012 (D-controlled)
    • Legislature’s 2nd Revised House PlanHF 894
      • Passed = May 22, 2013 (D-controlled)
      • Signed = May 23, 2013 (D-controlled)
    • Litigation History
      • Hippert v. Ritchie, 813 N.W.2d 374 (Minn. 2012): After the Democratic Governor vetoed the Republican Legislature’s enacted legislative plans, the Minnesota Supreme Court was petitioned alleging that the state’s legislative districts were now unconstitutional following the 2010 census and requesting the court to convene a special redistricting panel to order and implement lawful plans in the event the Legislature and Governor failed to do so. On February 21, 2002, with no plans having been enacted, the court struck down the state’s existing legislative plans as unconstitutional and adopted the legislative plans set forth in Appendices A and H to their order.

2000

  • Congressional
    • State Judge Panel’s Plan (State Supreme Court adopted after split-controlled Legislature failed to pass a plan)
      • Adopted = March 19, 2002
    • Litigation History
      • Zachman v. Kiffmeyer, No. C0-01-160 (Minn. Mar. 19, 2002): The Minnesota Supreme Court was petitioned alleging the state’s present congressional districts were now unconstitutional following the 2000 census and requesting that the court appoint a special redistricting panel to adopt a new plan if the Legislature failed to do so in a timely manner. On March 19, 2002, with no congressional plan having been enacted, the court ordered the adoption of its congressional plan detailed in Appendices A through F of their order.
  • Legislative
    • State Judge Panel’s Plans (State Supreme Court adopted after split-controlled Legislature failed to pass plans)
      • Adopted = March 19, 2002
    • Litigation History
      • Zachman v. Kiffmeyer, No. C0-01-160 (Minn. Mar. 19, 2002): The Minnesota Supreme Court was petitioned alleging the state’s present legislative districts were now unconstitutional following the 2000 census and requesting that the court appoint a special redistricting panel to adopt new plans if the Legislature failed to do so in a timely manner. On March 19, 2002, with no legislative plans having been enacted, the court ordered the adoption of its legislative plans detailed in Appendices A through F of their order.

Ballot Measure Process

Kinds of Ballot Measures
Only the Minnesota Legislature may refer amendments to the ballot. There is no initiative or referendum process.

Source: Minn. Const. art. XIV.


In The News


Privacy Policy    |     Terms of Service
Copyright ©2022