The Short Answer: Eight Districts, New Lines
First, the simple part: Minnesota has eight congressional districts. That number didn’t change after the 2020 U.S. Census, though it was a close call—the state narrowly held onto its eighth seat. But while
the total number of representatives Minnesota sends to Washington, D.C., remained the same, the boundaries of the districts they represent did, in fact, change. The process of redrawing these lines, known as redistricting, ensures that each district has a nearly equal population. Following the 2020 census, new maps were officially adopted on February 15, 2022, reshaping the political landscape for the decade to come.
A Tale of Two Chambers: Why the Courts Stepped In
In Minnesota, the state legislature is technically responsible for drawing new congressional maps. However, a divided government—with Democrats controlling the House and governor’s office and Republicans leading the Senate—led to a predictable stalemate. This isn't a new phenomenon; for the past several decades, Minnesota's legislature has failed to agree on new maps, kicking the decision to the judicial system. In 2021, anticipating this gridlock, the Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a five-judge Special Redistricting Panel to take over if the legislature missed its deadline. When lawmakers failed to pass a new map, the panel stepped in and released its own version, which became law.
The 'Least-Change' Approach
The court-appointed panel didn't start from scratch. Instead, it adopted what's often called a "least-change" approach. Rather than creating a radical new map, the judges made surgical adjustments to the existing districts to balance their populations. The core principle is to disrupt the lives of as few voters as possible while still adhering to legal requirements like equal population and protecting the voting power of minority communities. This method avoids the kind of aggressive partisan gerrymandering seen in states where one party has total control over the process. The result was a map that looked broadly familiar but contained subtle and important shifts.
What Actually Changed on the Map?
The new map reflects Minnesota's key demographic trend: population growth in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and slower growth or declines in Greater Minnesota. To balance the numbers, suburban districts tended to shrink geographically, while rural districts had to expand. For example, the largely rural Eighth District in northeastern Minnesota grew geographically to absorb more population. The metro area saw significant changes as well. The suburban Second and Third Districts were redrawn, shifting some communities between them. The urban cores of Minneapolis (Fifth District) and St. Paul (Fourth District) remained solidly Democratic strongholds, but their outer boundaries were adjusted to account for population shifts, affecting the suburban areas they border.
The Political Fallout: A Subtle But Stable Shift
Because the courts adopted a least-change map, the redistricting process didn't dramatically upend Minnesota's political balance. The new boundaries largely preserved the existing partisan breakdown of four districts that lean Democratic and four that lean Republican. The Second District, covering the southern Twin Cities suburbs, remained a highly competitive swing district. Some changes made the Republican-leaning First District in southern Minnesota slightly more conservative, while the Democratic-leaning Third District in the western suburbs became slightly safer for Democrats. Overall, the new map was seen as one that largely protects incumbents and maintains the state's political status quo, standing in stark contrast to more aggressively partisan maps drawn by legislatures in other states.
