2002_0325_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

additional proposed plans, from a number of citizens, election officials, and community leaders. Zachman v Kiffineyer, No. CO-01-160, at 3-4 Spec.'Redistricting Panel, Jan. 17, 2002) (Order Setting Public Hearing Schedule). We considered all of these contributions and reviewed different options, knowing that no plan would please everyone. Some political subdivisions — even small ones or cities that specifically requested to be left intact within a district -- would have to. be split. Additionally, while communities of interest could frequently be maintained within a district, the diverse interests of the state might result in multiple communities of interest lying within any one district. Having considered these issues, we now set forth a plan different from any submitted by the parties, but ultimately balanced, "fundamentally fair and based primarily on the state's population and secondarily on neutral districting principles." Zachman v. Iii;f76Dmr, No. CO-01- 160, at 11 (Minn. Spec. Redistricting Panel Dec. 11, 200 1) (Order Stating Redistricting Principles and Requirements for Plan Submissions). �I. As previously noted, Minnesota's demographics did not remain static even though the state retained its eight congressional seats. Rather, following a trend of past decades, the state continued to experience its greatest growth in the eleven-county metropolitan statistical area, which includes the Minnesota counties of Anoka, Carver, Chisago,Dakota, Hennepin,Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Sherbume (including a piece of St. Cloud), Washington, and Wright. Hearings Before Minn. H.R. Comm. on Redistricting 16-1 7 (Feb. 6, 2001) (testimony of Tom Gillaspy, Minnesota State Demographer); see also Jacob J. Levi, Office of Management and Budget, 0M3 Bulletin No. 99-04, List r, at 29 (June 30, 1990, available at hto://www.whitehouse.v,ov/omb/inforep,/msa-bu1199-04.htnl (defining Minneapolis-St. Paul -4-