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
2010
- Congressional
- Original Plan – HF 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 Plan – HF 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 Plan – HF 2821
- Passed = April 27, 2012 (R-controlled)
- Vetoed = May 2, 2012 (D-controlled)
- Legislature’s 2nd Revised House Plan – HF 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)
- 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)
- 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
