►
From YouTube: November 12, 2021 Redistricting Group
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
Good
afternoon,
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast.
Our
virtual
meeting.
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statutes,
section
13d
0.021
due
to
the
local
health
pandemic.
The
city
will
be
recording
and
posting
this
meeting
to
the
city's
website
and
youtube
channel
as
a
means
of
increasing
public
access
and
transparency.
B
D
E
E
C
B
G
E
C
E
H
B
Next
is
the
chairs
report.
I
have
nothing
to
report
except
group.
Member
kim
asked
a
couple
of
questions
of
mr
munson
who
passed
them
along
to
assistant
city
attorney
bashoon,
and
she
submitted
answers
to
me
by
email.
She
is
not
with
us
tonight,
so
what
I'm
going
to
do
for
everyone's
benefit
is
to
read
group
member
kim's
questions
and
assistant
city
attorney,
bashun's
answers.
B
B
Hypothetically
suppose
we
have
two
wards
word:
a
is
4.9
over
the
target
population
in
ward
b
is
4.9
percent
under
the
target
population.
Suppose
we
propose
a
change
in
their
boundary
that
would
bring
ward
a
to
only
two
percent
over
and
ward
b
to
only
two
percent
under.
Would
this
be
defensible
as
making
words
closer
to
the
as
equal
as
practicable
provision?
Or
could
it
be
ruled
that
violating
the
minimized
change
in
existing
boundaries?
Provision,
since
both
were
within
five
percent?
To
begin
with
here
is
assistant
city
attorney.
B
B
I
believe
this
is
assistant
city
attorney
bashoon.
I
believe
the
second
sentence
gives
more
detail
on
the
requirements.
Minor
deviations
from
an
equal
population
are
allowed
a
plus
or
minus
five
percent
deviation
is
a
minor
deviation
under
case
law.
Ultimately,
the
warts
must
be
thirty,
one
thousand
four
hundred
and
twenty
two
thirty
four
thousand
seven
hundred
and
twenty
seven.
According
to
my
calculations,
continuing
on
she
says
the
limit
are
pl
plus
or
minus.
5
is
based
on
case
law
as
a
deviation
that
is
clearly
allowed.
B
A
larger
deviation
could
technically
be
used
if
there
is
a
proper
legal
foundation.
However,
the
ten
point
deviation,
plus
or
minus
five
percent
is
allowed
under
cases
fay
versus
st
louis
county
and
point
of
victory
quilter,
and
she
gives
the
sites
for
those
cases.
If
anybody
wants
them,
some
quotes
from
those
cases.
B
This
is
again
assistant
city
attorney,
bashun,
saying
the
equal
protection
clause
does
not
require
that
electoral
districts
be
of
nearly
equal
population
so
that
each
person's
vote
may
be
given
equal
weight
in
the
election
of
representatives,
but
the
requirement
is
not
an
inflexible.
One.
Minor
deviations
from
mathematical
equality
among
state
legislative
districts
are
insufficient
to
make
out
a
prime
official
case
of
invidious
discrimination
under
the
14th
amendment,
so
as
to
require
justification
by
the
state.
B
Our
decisions
have
established
as
a
general
matter
that
an
apportionment
plan
with
a
maximum
population
deviation
under
10
percent
falls
within
this
category
of
minor
deviations.
A
plan
with
a
larger
disparities
in
population,
however,
creates
a
primo
fascia
case
of
discrimination
and
therefore
must
be
justified
by
the
stage
group
member
kim's.
Second
question:
where
does
the
principle
of
maintaining
communities
of
interest
come
from
since
it's
not
in
the
charter?
Does
that
make
it
a
non-statutory
principle
of
this
redistricting
group
and,
if
so,
would
that
make
it
subordinate
to
the
minimized
change
in
existing
boundaries?
B
The
redistricting
commission's
decision
to
remove
the
green
party
incumbent
from
ward
6
was
reasonably
related
to
legitimate
government
interests.
Plaintiff's
claim
of
political
gerrymandering,
therefore
failed
and
summary
judgment
was
appropriate
and
that's
group,
member
kim's
questions
and
assistant
city
attorney
bashun's
answers,
and
that
concludes
the
chairs
report.
B
So
we'll
move
on
to
item
five
reviewing
submitted
draft
redistricting
maps
to
create
a
proposed
map
award
boundary
changes
on
behalf
of
the
redistricting
group.
B
Well,
I'm
going
to
call
on
group
member
carrie
first,
since
her
her
proposed
revisions
only
relate
wards.
Four
and
five.
The
others
report
relate
to
the
awards
in
south
minneapolis
that
we
haven't
addressed
yet
so
group
member
kerry.
Would
you
like
to
introduce
your
map.
J
Sure
I'd
be
happy
to
so
reading.
Some
of
the
comments
on
the
portal
it
looked
like
quite
a
few
people
had
expressed
some
concern
about
harrison,
so
I
wanted
to
take
a
look
at
that
and
and
just
try
adjusting
the
map
a
little
bit
to
reincorporate
harrison.
As
you
remember,
during
our
last
meeting,
I
believe
we
bisected
harrison
putting
some
of
it
into
ward
7,
I
believe,
and
then
some
of
it
in
ward
5..
J
The
comments
seem
to
indicate
a
preference
for
maintaining
harrison
in
ward
5,
essentially
speaking,
to
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
folks
who
live
there
and
the
the
cultural
connection
to
the
north
side
as
opposed
to
ward
7..
So
so
that's
all
I
did
is
I
made
that
minor
change.
I
left
everything
else
in
the
map.
The
same
with
the
exception
of
the
ward,
5
was
a
little
over
the
standard
deviation.
So
I
added,
I
think,
six
blocks
into
ward
4
at
the
top
in
jordan
to
compensate.
B
Thank
you
now,
we'll
move
on
to
those
plans
that
were
presented.
G
B
B
The
next
one
going
in
alphabetical
order
is
group
member
kalanin
who
submitted
a
plan
for
the
remaining
awards
in
south
minneapolis.
B
K
K
Okay,
so
this
map
has
a
3.96
deviation
and
it
was
focusing
mostly
on
oh
gosh.
I
can't
remember
the
numbers
now,
the
orange
one,
just
one
two
three.
I
K
11
ends
up
up
there:
oh
it's
nine
yeah,
okay,
so
it
started
with
nine
and
then
eight
and
twelve
and
around
to
eleven
ten
and
thirteen
and
the
there
was
some
interest
in
keeping
the
george
floyd
square
all
in
one
ward
right
now,
it's
kind
of
on
the
border
between
a
couple
of
different
wards
and
to
me
it
made
more
sense
for
it
to
be
grouped
with
powderhorn
and
that
other
park
that's
right
below
the
number
eight,
and
then
that
gave
ward
10
the
boundary
along
35w
and
ward
11..
K
I
tried
to
keep
it
all
south
of
the
creek,
but
it
it
was
still
too
small,
so
I
added
in
tangle
town,
so
that
would
balance
out
on
ward
13.
K
I
moved
it
up
to
include
the
south
of
cedar
lake,
because
that
neighborhood
is
hugely
impacted
by
the
light
rail
and
all
the
development
going
on
around
that,
and
so
I
wanted
to
keep
that
together
with
bidet
mccoska,
but.
B
K
That's
okay,
but
if
we
were
to
incorporate
the
harrison
neighborhood
back
into
five,
we
might
have
to
tweak
that
seven
because
it
might
be
too
small.
But
this
maintains
the
three
districts.
Four
five
and
six
that
we
had
worked
on
before
to
make
sure
that
they're,
minority
majority,
neighborhoods
and.
K
I
also
was
looking
at
population
by
race
with
where
it
showed
on
the
map,
and
so
you
could
see
all
the
little
black
boxes
and
that
seemed
to
me
that
eight
was
more
people
of
color
and
eight
nine
had
more
people
of
color
but
yeah.
That's
the
weirdest
population
by.
I
Race
yeah,
so
I
can
turn
that
on
for
you.
Let's
see
you
want
population.
I
K
L
What
I
did
here
was,
I
was
guided
by
minimizing
the
the
changes
to
the
wards
and
staying
within
the
five
percent
number,
and
also
recognizing
natural
boundaries
and
neighborhoods,
and
so
what
I
did
to
reduce
the
population
in
that
we
had
for
ward
9,
was
to
extend
the
central
neighborhood
up
to
lake
street,
so
all
of
that
was
in
lake
street
and
that
reduced
the
population
of
nine.
So
it
was
within
nine
percent
five
percent
and
to
address
the
population
of
that
was
below
for
ward
11..
I
increased
coming.
L
L
I
stayed
away
from
making
any
other
changes
than
that,
especially
because
I
know
there's
another
map
that
has
changes
that
swing
over
lindale
avenue
and
lindale,
especially
south
of
54th
street,
is
a
commercial
strip
on
either
side
and
a
state
highway,
and
the
neighborhoods
are
very
distinct.
So
the
kenny
neighborhood
I
kept
in
ward,
13
and
windham
I
kept
in
ward
11..
So
those
are
the
changes
I
made
there.
If
you
want
to
put
up
the
evaluation
population
by
race,
you
can
see
that.
L
The
hispanic
population
decreases
a
little
bit
about
two
percent
for
number
nine,
but
I
think
the
other
numbers
stay
pretty
well
compared
to
where
we
were
before.
B
And
group
member
perry
you,
you
left
one
through
seven,
the
same
as
we
discussed
the
other
day,
correct.
L
Yes,
I
did
not
make
any
other
changes,
because
I
felt
they.
They
met
the
compactness
and
minimal
minimal
population
sizes.
So
I
did
not
change
any
of
those
just
just
nine.
Eight
and
11.
B
Thank
you
group
member
shaw.
I
believe
you
are
next.
C
M
I
don't
have
it
in
front
of
me
because
I'm
currently
in
a
vehicle,
but
I
think
in
the
notes
that
I
wrote,
I
said
that
I
really
focused
on,
like
the
southern,
the
south
west
districts
and
kind
of
just
moved
some
of
those
lines
along
there
to
create
more
of
a
equal
population,
taking
into
effect
some
of
those
trying
to
keep
the
lines
very
straight,
and
also
I
had
the
black
population
overlay
on
there
too.
B
We'll
move
on
what
I
would
like
to
suggest
is
that
we
start
with
a
minimum
change
plan
and
then
take
a
closer
look
at
it
and
group
member
calendar
and
yours,
yours
had
perhaps
more
change
than
the
others
and
group
member
shaw
and
perry
were
pretty
close
actually,
but
I
think
group
member
perry
had
the
fewest
changes.
So
what
I'd
like
to
do
with
your
permission
is
start
with
group
member
perry's
map
and
then
we
can
look
at
it
through
a
neighborhood
filter
through
racial
statistics
etcetera.
So
I.
G
B
G
B
B
B
That's
what's
up
here,
yes,
okay,
can
you
put
the
data
layers
over
it,
showing
the
existing
wards.
I
I
B
B
Group
member
perry,
would
you
like
to
talk
us
through
what
you
did
to
to
8
9,
11
and
12
there,
because
you
didn't
change
10
or
13.?
I.
L
L
I
extended
the
northrop,
the
ward
up
and
through
the
northern
boundary,
which
adds
an
additional
block
and
took
a
large
chunk
of
the
field
neighborhood
and
added
that
back
in
to
ward
11.,
so
that
entire
neighborhood
now
is
in
warden
lovin
and
not
splut,
and,
as
I
mentioned
in
the
southern
part
of
this
map,
where
others
have
made
changes
there,
there's
a
state
highway,
a
light
industrial
area
and
a
commercial
corridor
that
runs
down
through
glendale
avenue.
L
I
B
So
it
looks
like
the
only
neighborhood
split
I
can't
read.
The
name
from
here
is
in
11
and
12.
I
B
B
B
Well,
I'm
going
to
suggest
we
consider
this
as
a
starting
point
for
our
discussion,
because
again
it
is
the
the
most
minimum
change
of
the
submitted
maps
since
our
last
meeting
and
then
entertain
discussion
or
motions.
If,
if
you
want
to
change
anything
about
that
or
if
you
have
anything
to
point
out
about
racial
composition
of
those
wards,
communities
of
interest
or
any
other
factor
that
you
wish
to
point
out.
L
If
I
could
just
again
emphasize,
I
know,
there's
been
a
theme
on
some
of
our
group
members
to
have
a
southern
ward,
but
I
do
want
to
emphasize
that
I
think
that
glendale
avenue
boundary
that
barrier
is
so
strong
that
those
neighborhoods
really
it
creates
community
of
interests
on
each
side
of
glendale
avenue,
especially
in
the
southern
part.
B
G
B
N
Having
lived
in
the
11th
ward
for
many
many
years,
I
agree
with
commissioner
perry
that
that
that
boundary
line
is
very
important
in
the
13th
ward
and
there
is
really
very
little
communication
and
I
think,
by
putting
field
and
northup
together,
that's
kind
of
a
school
area
too,
and
so
therefore,
it
makes
sense
doing
those
two
things.
B
B
L
O
My
only
comments
on
this
is
a
little
more
broad
when
we
first
had
the
discussion
about
where
population
needed
to
move.
We
indicated
that
many
wards
would
have
to
have
changes,
because
the
population
growth
was
downtown
just
over
into
northeast
and
then
in
the
second
ward
by
the
university.
So
for
all
of
these
two
shifts
slightly
north
certainly
does
make
more
sense
than
sort
of
going
to
the
sides
in
in
my
book,
because
the
population
really
doesn't
need
to
move
that
direction
in
general.
So
I
think
it's
consistent
with
that.
O
B
Thank
you
now,
I'd
like
to
go
back
to
the
issue
we
discussed
the
other
day
concerning
residency,
because
I
didn't
know
the
answer
to
the
question.
I
did
the
logical
thing
I
went
and
asked
our
lawyer
and
assistant
city
attorney
bashoon,
pointed
me
to
a
case
called
lacombe
v
grow,
which
is
a
federal
court
case
in
1982,
which
was
very
much
on
point
with
this
particular
issue.
B
In
that
case,
the
city,
the
state's
legislative
districts,
had
been
established
by
a
three
panel
judge
when
the
three-judge
panel,
when
the
state
legislature
fails
to
redistrict
itself,
which
it
almost
always
does.
It's
turned
over
to
a
three-judge
panel
that
three-judge
panel
redistricted
the
legislature
and
it
was
challenged
as
it
almost
always
is
for
a
huge
variety
of
reasons.
B
But
one
of
the
reasons
was
because,
when
the
three-judge
panel,
after
they
had
drawn
preliminary
lines,
they
looked
at
a
map
showing
the
residences
of
individual
legislators
and
seeing
that
they
made
minor
adjustments
to
the
lines
to
six
districts,
to
eliminate
situations
where
there
might
be
two
incumbents
in
the
same
district
or
where
there
might
be
an
incumbent.
B
Accordingly,
six
such
minor
adjustments
were
made.
None
of
the
court's
criteria
was
sacrificed
to
make
such
adjustments
and,
on
balance,
the
adjustments
made
on
the
basis
of
incumbent's
residences
appear
to
be
neutral
in
their
impact,
and
they
also
cite
to
a
u.s
supreme
court
case,
burns
b,
richardson,
which
essentially
found
that
residency
identification
was
not
a
prohibited
factor.
B
B
Is
my
ruling
that
we
will
follow
this
procedure
sent
forth
in
lacombe
vegro
that
that
we
will
look
at
whether
blinds
unnecessarily
separated
an
incumbent
from
most
of
his
or
her
constituents
or
join
two
or
more
incumbents
in
the
same
district,
and
that
we
will
then
vote
on
whether
or
not
to
make
those
minor
modifications?
B
N
G
G
If
your
ruling
is
that
we
should
pay
attention
to
home,
addresses
in
making
the
decisions
as
to
boundaries
of
districts,
is,
that
is
your
ruling.
I
totally
in
concur,
and
I.
G
And
I'm
concerned
about
what
we're
doing
in
the
seventh
ward,
with
we
have
two
incumbents
running
for
the
same.
In
the
same
ward,
all.
B
F
F
This
is
group
member
sandberg,
yes,
okay,
just
to
be
clear
what
you're
saying
is
we
will
follow
what
was
done
in
that
court
case,
which
is,
I
thought
they
drew
the
lines
according
to
their
principles
in
the
law
and
then
once
they
had
a
set
of
lines,
then
they
considered
the
addresses
of
the
incumbents.
Was
that
what
you
said
or
are
you
saying.
B
You've
stated
the
basis
for
your
appeal.
The
way
roberts
rules
works
is
once
you've
stated
the
basis
for
your
appeal.
I
can
explain
as
chair
the
basis
for
my
ruling.
B
B
I
also
think
it
would
be
outrageous
for
this
group
to
draw
two
black
council
members
out
of
their
wards
less
than
two
weeks
after
they
were
elected
and
remember
the
map
we're
looking
at
right
now
was
created
by
discussion
and
consensus.
We
haven't
voted
on
anything
yet
except
the
downtown
award
issue,
and
now
we
can't
unknow
what
we
know
so
redrawing
these
lines
not
only
violates
the
principle
of
minimum
change.
B
B
Finally,
though,
well
intended,
I
don't
think
a
redistricting
group
that
is
blind
to
addresses
of
council
members
is
possible.
Most
of
their
addresses
are
public.
I
could
find
every
council
member
address
in
about
five
minutes
on
zaba's
search,
so
I
don't
think
a
system
blind
to
addresses
would
work.
B
G
Q
P
I
also
want
to
say
thank
you.
I
also
agree.
P
I
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you
and
I
concur
with
your
recommendation
as
well,
and
I
applaud
you
bringing
bringing
it
up
because
there
was
a
lot
of
concern
expressed
about
this
issue
over
over
the
night.
So
thank
you.
N
I
would
agree
with
you
with
the
chair
and
I
hope
that
we
can
pass.
You
know,
go
back
and
reconsider
these
certain
cases.
E
Thank
you
yeah.
You
know.
I
will
admit
that
on
wednesday,
when
we
this
was
initially
brought
up.
I
was
opposed
to
the
idea
of
bringing
addresses
into
the
discussion.
However,
I
will
admit
I
am
not
an
attorney
and
I
will
defer
to
people
who
do
have
law
degrees,
so
I
will
defer
to
your
judgment.
Thank
you
for
looking
into
this
chair
clay.
B
Thank
you
group
member
russell.
R
So
I
just
want
to
say
I
appreciate
and
supports
your
opinion
chair
clegg
on
this.
I
know
there
had
been
discussion
in
our
previous
meeting
about
whether
or
not
that
this
is
gerrymandering,
and
I
think
it's
important
to
know
gerrymandering
is
specifically
attempting
to
reconstruct
a
district
to
benefit
any
one.
Particular
political
party,
as
we
are
all
dealing
with
the
same
political
party
we
can
even
remove.
That,
is
that
we
also
have
this
idea
that
we're
supposed
to
be
operating
on
the
benefits
of
particular
groups
within
this
within
the
city.
R
Hence
the
reasons
why
we're
here
right,
some
districts
have
been
constructed
or
some
wars
have
been
constructed
that
allows
for
minority
representation,
and
I
think
it
sends
a
powerfully
disenfranchising
message
to
individuals
who
have
just
elected
and
unseated
a
an
incumbent
member
with
a
significant
vote.
R
It
sends
a
strong
message
to
that
individual
to
that
community
that
their
needs,
their
concerns
are
continuing
not
to
be
recognized
by
a
city
that
has
sworn
to
do
so,
and
I
would
also
say-
and
I
would
be
very,
very
conscientious
of
this-
the
fact
that
I'm
not
an
elected
person-
I've
not
been
elected
to
this.
R
B
Thank
you,
I
think
remember
johnson
is
next.
O
Thank
you
chuck.
I
think
my
biggest
concern
on
wednesday
when
this
came
up
was
the
idea
of
pandora's
box.
Once
we
had
home
mattresses
out
there
as
part
of
the
discussion
there's
no
way,
we
could
stop
doing
that.
So
I
appreciate
sort
of
the
pause
on
that
that
we
made
on
wednesday
just
to
make
sure
we
were
able
to
look
up
case
law
before
we
had
this
discussion
today.
I
guess
the
one
point
I
would
make,
though,
is
that
gerrymandering
what
might
be
about
political
parties?
O
One
of
the
other
big
concerns
is
also
that
you
would
draw
a
district
in
the
interest
of
a
particular
incumbent,
and
I
think
that's
something
that
we
still
want
to
keep
an
eye
out
for
just
to
make
sure
we're
not
creating
a
district.
Even
if
we're
not
talking
about
home
addresses
that
we
are
not
thinking
of
that
as
the
primary
purpose.
You
know
we
have
very
clear
guidance
within
the
charter
within
the
voter
rights
act
in
order
to
really
shape
what
we're
trying
to
do
for
communities
of
interest.
O
So
again,
I
have
no
real
complaints
about
you
know
doing
the
work
we
needed
to
based
upon
those
factors
and
then
just
start
going
back
and
saying
hey:
do
we
unintentionally
make
any
decisions
where
we
move
someone?
You
know
the
two
blocks
across
a
border,
those
kind
of
things.
I
have
no
concerns
about
that
as
a
final
check
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
causing
any
additional
problems
that
we
unintentionally
did,
and
I
think
that's
what
happened
on
wednesday.
That
was
not
an
intentional
shift,
but
it's
only
something
that
the
comments
were
overwhelmingly.
O
This
is
a
major
issue
per
what's
been
submitted,
so
I'm
glad
we
have
the
discussion
today.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you
group
member.
I
think
I
skipped
over
group
member
sandberg
you're
up
on
the
list
and
I
don't
think
you've
had
your
comment
yet.
F
Oh,
thank
you.
Actually,
I
have
the
comment
about
just
verifying
the
process
you
intend
to
follow,
which
I
agree
with.
We
draw
the
lines
blind
initially,
but
then,
once
we've
finished,
we
come
back
and
see
if
we
need
to
do
tweaks.
I
think
that
is
what
most
people
would
well,
maybe
with
a
few
exceptions,
would
agree
with.
I
have
another
question
later
about
it,
the
the
other
awards,
so.
B
All
right,
thank
you,
group
member
rubenstein,.
S
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
I
what
I
was
planning
to
say
has
probably
already
been
said.
I
agree
with
most
of
the
comments,
but
I
wanted
to
emphasize
as
group
member
sandberg
just
did
as
well,
that
we
can't
start
with
the
addresses
of
incumbents
or
do
our
mapping
with
respect
to
incumbents,
that
that
has
to
be
perhaps
the
last
thing
we
do.
S
We
want
to
use
the
you
know,
well-established
principles
for
redistricting
to
do
it
in
the
most
equitable
manner
and
then
look
to
make
sure
that
we
haven't
caught
been
caught
in
a
way
that
we
don't
want
to
be
caught
by
pairing
incumbents
or
that
sort
of
thing.
But
I
think
it's
clear
that
from
the
language
of
the
court
opinion
that
we
need
to
do
that
after
we've
applied
the
other
principles.
B
Thank
you
group
member
group,
member
carrie.
J
You
know
I
said
comment,
and
then
I
heard
from
members
johnson,
sander
grubenstein,
and
I
I
think
I
think
what
they
said
sounds
really
good.
I
I
just
want
to
make
sure
as
we're
having
these
discussions,
that
we're
not
talking
about
like
political
campaigns
or
the
results
of
those
political
campaigns
as
part
of
how
we're
drawing
lines,
I
think
you
know,
there's
there's
been
discussion
about
about
how
elections
turned
out
and
the
results
of
elections.
J
As
we've
been
having
these
discussions,
I
don't
think
that
makes
sense
as
something
we
should
be
talking
about
when
we
talk
about
these
lines.
Notwithstanding
the
other
discussions
discussion
points
that
we've
had
today
about
where
these
lines
should
be
drawn
and
what
we
will
consider
as
we're
working
toward
a
final
map.
L
Yes,
thank
you.
I
was
with
the
group
member
rubenstein
co-chair
of
the
rules
committee
and
I
would
say
I
can't
speak
for
the
committee
because
we're
not
a
committee
anymore,
but
what
I'd
say
is
the
chair
co-chair
of
that?
L
If
we
had
had
this
information,
I
certainly
would
have
presented
the
lacombe
versus
grow
case
law
into
the
rules
so
that
we
were
applying
those
to
as
part
of
our
process.
You've
done
that
by
making
a
ruling.
So
I
think
we're
were
consistent
with
what,
where
we
probably
would
have
come
out
anyhow
as
in
making
the
rules.
I
also
think
that
what
we
should
be
doing
is
presenting
as
our
first
draft
map
to
the
public,
a
map
that
takes
into
account
lacombe
versus
grow
and
not
start
out
with
a
map,
that's
already
problematic.
Q
This
commissioner
hawkins,
I
just
want
to
say
I
want
to
just
agree
with
commissioner
perry,
because
I
don't
think
we
should
submit
something.
That's
problematic
already.
B
Thank
you,
group,
member
anyone
else
hearing
none.
We
will
proceed
to
a
vote.
I
have
no
further
comments.
The
question
is:
shall
the
ruling
of
the
chair
be
sustained?
A
yes
vote
supports
the
ruling
of
the
chair.
A
no
vote
seeks
to
overturn
the
ruling
of
the
chair.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
roll.
I
E
C
E
Q
H
B
The
ruling
of
the
chair
is
sustained,
so
let's
go
back
to
the
map.
B
The
the
perry
map
that
we
just
had
a
consensus
opinion
that
we
would
proceed
with,
and
I
think
we
are
to
the
point
under
the
lacombe
decision,
where
we
would
we
have
preliminary
lines
now
we
would
look
at
data
about
incumbent
addresses.
B
We
all
all
know
by
now.
Having
read
the
comments
that
there
is
one
council
member
who
lives,
who
formerly
lived
in
ward
4
and
under
this
redesigned
map
lives
in
ward
5..
There
is
also
one
council
member
who
lives
who
previously
lived
in
ward
5
and
under
the
new
map,
lives
in
ward
7.
That
is
the
half
of
the
harrison
neighborhood
south
of
glenwood.
F
Commissioner
clegg,
this
is
commissioner
sandberg.
I
I
have
a
point
of
clarification.
D
F
From
a
group
member
perry,
I
think
he
said,
did
he
say
in
the
beginning
of
his
discussion
that
he
had
left
the
boundaries
for
I?
Oh,
I
can't
move
that
map.
It's
still
my
screen.
They
left
the
boundaries
of
two
of
the
wards
unchanged.
Was
that
correct.
L
F
B
I
should
be
saying:
well
let's
please
direct
your
comments
through
the
chair,
so.
F
It's
not
to
you
remember
perry.
It
is
that
in
our
original
work,
the
other
day
we
made
changes
to
four
and
five
technically,
I
think
weren't
they
both
within
the
appropriate
number
of
population,
and
we
did
change
them,
whereas
you
did
not
make
changes
to
several
of
the
other
wars.
It's
not
what
you
did
it's
what
we
did.
I
I'm
sorry.
I
should
be
clear
on
that.
J
Chair
clegg,
I
have
some
some
ideas.
I've
been
playing
with
I've
got
the
map
up
on
my
other
screen
here.
J
Okay,
I
wasn't,
I
wasn't
sure
if
you
could
hear
me.
This
is
member
carrie,
so
I
I
pulled
up
this
particular
map,
but
then
I
made
some
changes
to
harrison
and
the
willard
haye
and
jordan
area.
I
I
what
I
did
was
included
all
of
harrison
in
back
in
ward
5,
and
then
I
followed
a
the
straight
line.
If
you
look
at
jordan,
it
looks
like
the
easternmost
edge
of
the
little
jet
out
into
ward
5
from
ward
4
is
at
penn.
J
I
followed
penn
down
to
the
current
boundary,
which
is
26th
avenue
north
and
then
followed
that
due
west,
until
robbinsdale
or
whatever
city
that
I
forget,
if
that's
robinsdale
or
whatnot,
but
then
once
I
did,
that
ward,
5
and
ward
4
are
still
in
compliance.
I
I'm
not
sure
where
these
city
councilors
live,
but
I
I
would
imagine
that
would
result
in
the
desired
change.
B
For
the
group,
I
will
explain
where
the
council
members
live.
There
is
one
council
member
who
was
recently
elected
from
ward
4.
She
lives
to
the
south
of
broadway,
broadway,
runs
east
west
and
then
turns
northwest
and
runs
up
to
the
border
of
the
city.
There's
that
little
triangle
at
the
at
the
very
upper
left-hand
side
of
ward
5,
that
we
moved
from
ward
4
into
ward
5..
She
lives
in
that
triangle.
B
Q
B
T
G
B
I
Right,
I'm
just
I'm
just
looking
at
the
boundaries
here.
I
think
I
think
some
of
these
census
blocks
have
changed
slightly
since
the
last
census,
which
is
why
we
have
the
discrepancy
with
the
border.
B
So
that
turns
the
map
into
a
is
it
4.39
deviation,
which
was
the
same
deviation
before
so
these
were
not
the
outliers
and
they
don't
become
the
outliers.
B
K
So
if
we
go
back
to
ward
4,
I
believe
there
was
a
park.
I
don't
know
if
it's
called
cleveland
that
we
had
talked
about
adding
in
a
few
blocks
to
include
that
aim
for
because
the
park
ended
up
on
the
corner,
and
I
was
wondering
if
that
would
make
a
huge
difference.
If
we
put
that
part
back
so
maybe
two
blocks.
I
K
It
here
or
go
up
towards
you
see
the
park
on
the
on
the
corner
there
here
yeah,
and
so,
if
you
add
in
two
blocks
south
of
that,
these
two
blocks
no.
B
K
Yes,
just
to
include
the
considerations
that
we
discussed
about
the
neighborhoods
near
that
park
being
in
the
same
board
as
the
park,
because
that
was
a
me
gathering
place
for
people
in
that
neighborhood.
B
B
B
Those
are
the
two
blocks
you
were
referring
to
group
member
calendar
correct.
Yes,
that's
correct,
okay,
that
shows
so
ward
4
goes
down
to
or
goes
up
33
182
board
5
drops
to
34
344..
T
Mr
chairman,
this
is
commissioner
kozak.
As
the
maker
of
the
motion.
I
I
will
accept
that
as
a
friendly
amendment.
However,
I
I
won't
if
we
hear
from
people
from
the
ward
come
on
our
wednes
next
wednesday
meeting.
We
might
have
to
revisit
that.
But
for
the
moment
I
it's
it's
reasonable
and
I
would
I
would
accept
that
as
a
friendly
amendment.
B
Well,
there's
no
such
thing
as
friendly
amendments,
so
it's
we'll
call
you
a
speaker
in
favor
of
the
amendment.
Okay,
that'll,
be
fine!
Any
other
speakers
on
this
motion
on
this
amendment.
Rather.
S
In
reading
all
the
comments
that
were
submitted
to
us
before
today's
meeting
there,
it
was
clear
that
there
was
a
lot
of
consternation,
particularly
about
keeping
harrison
neighborhood
together,
all
the
customation
related
to
wards
four
and
five
and
the
changes
that
we
were
then
proposing,
and
so
I
think
that
what
we're
doing
today
is
a
good
thing
to
address
that
issue,
but
I
I
do
think
we
need
to
make
it
clear,
and
maybe
we
will,
as
we
go
along,
that
when
we
change
boundary
lines
of
award,
that's
been
around
for
10
years.
B
Thank
you,
crew,
member
carrie.
Did
you
have
a
comment
or
question.
J
I
do
just
really
quickly,
I'm
I'm
thinking
about
the
logistics
just
over
there
by
cleveland
park,
and
I
think
that's
that's
the
elementary
school
right
next
to
it
too.
Just
wondering
about
you
know:
we've
done
a
kind
of
a
jog
here,
I'm
seeing
where
it
goes
down
lowry,
and
then
it
jogs
down
a
street
and
then
it
goes
over
and
then
it
jogs
down
again.
Do
we
have
any
concerns
about
the
challenges
that
the
jogging
itself?
J
Might
you
know
that
little
stair
step
thing
might
do
for
the
folks
who
live
over
there
and
and
all
that
would
would
a
straight
line
say
you
know,
for
example,
a
straight
line.
Bisecting
pen,
like
you
see
with
the
you
know
the
thick
black
line
designating
the
neighborhood,
be
you
know
between
falwell
and
cleveland.
If
we
just
followed
penn
down,
would
that
be
any
easier
on
folks?
I
just
want
to
know
people's
thoughts
on
that.
J
B
I
would
just
say
that
I
don't
see
a
compelling
reason
to
change
from
the
existing
boundary
and
given
all
the
controversy
we
we
caused
in
the
consternation
we
caused
the
other
day.
I
would
leave
it
at
the
existing
boundary
line
for
this
draft
map.
Remember
this
is
a
draft
map
even
after
we
approve
it
tonight.
B
It's
we
have
two
rounds
of
public
hearings
and,
as
we've
seen
since
our
meeting
last
wednesday,
people
are
not
shy
to
comment
when
they
disagree
with
what
we've
done,
so
my
inclination
would
be
to
leave
it
as
existing
and
wait
and
see
what
we
hear
from
folks,
but
that
there
will
be
a
vote
on
the
amendment.
L
This
is
group
member
perry.
I
agree
with
your
comments.
I
thought
the
exercise
that
we
were
participating
in
now
was
to
address
the
look
home
versus
grow
case
law
and
make
adjustments
on
that,
and
we
seem
to
be
straying
from
that.
So
I'm
a
little
concerned
that
about
that
and
I'd
I'd.
Rather,
we
just
stick
to
making
the
the
change.
That
was
the
original
motion,
which
was
to
put
four
and
five
back
as
they
were.
B
K
I
only
proposed
adding
a
few
more
blocks
close
to
that
cleveland
park,
because
that
reflected
our
discussion
before
we
got
into
addresses
and
we
were
trying
to
balance
out
the
population.
I
feel
strongly-
and
I
can't
remember
who
mentioned
this
before,
but
I
feel
strongly
about
having
the
populations
be
as
close
as
possible
to
one
another
so
that
everybody's
voice
is
heard.
K
You
know
to
give
an
extreme
example:
voters
in
wyoming
their
votes
matter
more
than
voters
in
california,
because
they
have
two
senators
and
california
has
two
senators,
but
their
populations
are
really
different,
but
back
to
our
city
council,
I
want
everybody
in
minneapolis
to
have
an
equal
vote,
and
so
I
don't
want
the
any
one
ward
to
have
their
vote
watered
down
by
having
a
greater
population,
and
so
it
concerns
me
to
have
black
heavily
black
districts
overpopulated
and
heavily
white
districts
underpopulated.
B
The
amendment
was
the
the
original
motion
was
to
restore
the
original
ward
lines
and
the
amendment
was
to
move
those
two
blocks
at
the
at
the
northern
part
of
ward
5
into
ward
4,
but
otherwise
to
restore
the
old
ward
lines.
So
it's
just.
The
amendment
keeps
the
original
motion
of
restoring
old
ward
lines,
with
the
exception
of
two
blocks.
B
Hearing
no
further
comments
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
role
on
the
amendment
and
the
amendment
again
is
just
those
two
blocks
from
ward
5
to
ward
4.
C
S
I
E
B
B
That
that
motion
carries
so
that
motion
as
amended,
was
to
restore
the
original
lines
of
four
and
five,
with
the
exception
of
those
two
blocks.
So
we
have
now
done
that.
So
we
now
have
a
draft
map
with
amended
lines
to
four
and
five,
and
the
next
thing
to
do
if
there
are
no
other
questions
or
comments,
is
to
vote
on
this
entire
map.
T
Mr
chairman,
this
is
member
kozak
begin
now
the
vote
we
just
had.
That
was
the
vote
on
the
I
thought
that
was
the
vote
on
the
amendment
to
the
amendment.
T
G
E
C
E
H
B
That
motion
carries
mr
munson.
Could
you
sort
of
zoom
in
on
south
minneapolis,
eight
nine?
B
Remember
calendar
did
you
have
something
specific
you
wanted
to
propose
or
just
well.
K
I
was,
I
was
hoping
that
we
could
look
at
the
map.
That's
called
minimal
changes
to
eight
and
nine
shift
ten
north
because
it
might
not
have
been
drawn
by
a
member
of
this
redistricting
group,
but
I
feel
like
just
like
we're
listening
to
the
comments
that
are
submitted.
K
It's
helpful
to
look
at
the
maps
that
are
submitted
from
the
community.
It's
called
minimal
changes,
so
it
might
be
back
on
page
three.
I
K
K
Of
those
words
that
have
grown
or
shrunk.
My
reading
of
the
charter
language
is
that
each
ward
should
be
changing
about
the
same
amount
as
any
other
ward,
and
we
should
not
be
completely
wiping
out
certain
words
while
at
the
same
time
preserving
others
unchanged.
Now.
If
we
look
at
this
in
district
r.
K
13
moves
south
and
maintains
the
boundaries
around
between
lindale
and
11..
Seven
moves
south
to
include
more
of
linden
hills.
Eight
moves
completely
over
to
which
is
similar
to
my
map
to
have
35
w
be
the
boundary
in
the
same
way
that
the
boundary
for
lindale
or
well.
No,
it's
not
mendel,
it's
it's
actually
35w
separates
13
and
and
11.,
and
then
9
becomes
more
compact
for
that
bipod
community.
K
It
maintains
the
the
integrity
of
six
as
a
bipod
community,
and
so
I
would
like
to
look
at
the
data
layers
and
evaluation
of
this
map,
because
I
think
it's
quite
well
done,
and
there
should
be
some
consideration
here.
I
mean
look
at
nine
and
how,
by
the
hispanic
population
is
weighted
there.
K
B
It
would
because
obviously,
six
bumps
up
against
two
and
three
so
changing
six
would
change
two
and
three.
It
would
basically
mean
we.
We
have
a
a
lot
of.
A
Yeah,
this
award
is
more
offensive
to
the
east
african
community
than
the
one
that
we
already
drafted,
because
this
reduces
the
population
black
population
to
41.6
percent
instead
of
the
46
percent
from
the
last
ward,
and
since
we
are
talking
about
council
members
residency,
this
also
moves
my
council
member
out
of
his
district.
B
B
So
you're
you're
suggesting
that
we
would
change
seven,
eight,
nine
and
ten.
Yes,
and
probably
again
that
would
mean
a
change
to
six.
B
B
F
Yes
and
no
offense
to
any
of
the
other
members,
but
I
think
if
we
do
have
changes
to
propose,
they
have
to
be
extremely
specific
and
not
general,
because
we
have
too
many
moving
parts
in
this
puzzle,
and
so
I
would
appreciate
if
there
is
a
change.
Let's
do
it
on
basis
of
specific
blocks
in
a
specific
board.
Please,
because
my
I
can't
get
my
head
around
mass
changes.
B
The
final
map
we
ended
up
with
10
years
ago
looked
very
little
like
the
preliminary
draft
map,
because
we
heard
from
so
many
members
of
the
public
who
who
weighed
in
on
what
they
wanted
their
city
to
look
like,
and
hopefully
I
think
that,
judging
from
the
comments
we've
had
in
the
last
couple
of
days,
people
are
paying
attention,
so
I
suspect,
if
we're
doing
it
wrong,
we'll
hear
about
it,
but
just
a
reminder
for
everyone.
T
You
I
I
quite
agree,
I
I
I
know
it's
it
without
without
having
working
on
our
own
to
see
what
what
how
changes
will
cascade
into
other
wards.
T
I
realize
that
this
is
not
the
time
to
to
be
fiddling
around,
but
I
will
say
there
are
several
pieces
of
the
map
that
that
I
have
some
issues
with
in
the
in
the
12th
ward,
the
ninth
ward,
all
the
way
to
the
river,
the
sixth
ward,
going
all
the
way
to
river,
which
bisects
the
river,
the
riverfront
area,
which
is
one
of
the
places
where
it
goes
all
the
way
up
to
well
as
far
up
as
the
third
ward
goes.
T
But
I
I'm
willing
to
to
go
along
with
what
we've
got
now
and
with
with
the
admonition
that
we're
going
to
have
to
make
a
lot
of
changes.
As
you
suggest,
and
when
we
hear
from
the
public-
and
I
expect
we're
going
to
hear
from
the
public
in
pretty
large
numbers
beginning
next
week.
B
E
Does
someone
who's
looked
into
the
addresses
of
other
incumbents?
Have
they
considered
any
others.
B
B
An
issue
with
the
incumbent
in
ward
9,
but
I've
also
heard-
and
this
is
just
what
I've
heard-
that
that
council
member
is
moving
anyway
to
so
it
would
be
within
the
ward
boundary,
but
I'm
sure
we'll
hear
about
it.
Between
now
and
our
final
maps.
E
N
J
Sorry
I
was
a
member
carrie.
I
just
have
a
question
of
clarification
here,
just
based
on
what
I
just
heard
from
member
kim
and
just
questions.
I
I
was,
I
guess
thinking.
I
was
under
the
impression
that
we
were
having
the
discussion
about
wards
four
and
five,
because
we
had
already
roughly
decided
those
at
least
on
a
rough
draft
basis
at
our
last
meeting.
J
G
B
G
E
D
E
H
B
B
N
I
B
B
The
time
of
the
one
in
december
to
be
a
little
bit
later
for
people
who
have
work,
conflicts
at
four
o'clock,
so
maybe
started
at
6,
30
or
7..
We
you
and
I
can
talk
about
the
details
related
to
that.
I
I
B
I
I
would
suggest
we
allow
the
clerk's
office
to
assign
those
unassigned
portions
and
subject
subject
to
I'll
work
with
them
to
do
that,
and
if
we
can
have
everyone's
authorization
we'll
get
it
cleaned
up
great,
and
I
don't.
I
don't
think
we
need
a
vote
on
that.
It's
so
it's
without
objection.
That's
what
we'll
do
and
there
being
no
further
business
to
come
before.
A
This
is
yes,.
A
So
you
already
mentioned
addressed
one
of
the
questions
that
I
was
going
to
have
tonight,
which
was
to
move
at
least
one
of
these
public
hearings
back
so
that
it
people
who
are
working
normal
jobs
can
participate.
The
other
thing
I
was
going
to
mention
is:
if
one
of
these
four
public
meetings
could
be
held
on
a
weekend,
so
that
we
can
get
more
participation.
A
One
of
I
mean
this
is
a
in
a
10-year
process.
I
don't
want
people
to
be
disenfranchised.
It
seems
like.
B
O
Click
one
one
clarification,
maybe
a
request
just
to
see
if
it
would
be
useful
for
the
group.
One
thing
that
I
did
hear
back
from
some
people
in
my
network
was
that
they
were
trying
to
use
the
district
process.
You
know
to
submit
maps
to
make
comments
even
just
to
review
maps
and,
unfortunately
on
mobile.
It
doesn't
work
particularly
well.
So
there
was
a
question
if
there's
any
workarounds
to
that,
as
many
people
may
only
have
a
smartphone
as
a
way
to
access
the
internet.
O
Very
appreciate
it
then
a
quick
follow-up.
One
too.
I
know
this
has
come
up
again
in
some
people's
comments.
Also,
just
I
think
it's
very
difficult
to
sort
of
get
a
broader
perspective,
a
group
member,
because
I
brought
this
up
on
wednesday.
You
know
it's
great,
that's
like
one
person
in
a
group
or
maybe
a
few
people,
know
the
history
of
redistricting
and
what's
happened
in
prior
times
around.
O
I
found
it
especially
challenging
to
know
what
maps
look
like
in
say
the
2000s
in
the
1990s
again
fairly
recent
history,
but
I
think
there
also
might
be
some
information
that
could
be
useful
for
this
group,
because
between
1990
and
2010,
so
for
two
cycles
of
redistricting,
the
population
of
the
city
didn't
change.
I
mean
there
was
change
within
the
city,
but
there
was
no
broader,
like
we
did
this
time
gaining.
You
know
45
000
people
in
a
ten
year
span
and
having
to
redistrict
off
of
that.
O
Just
from
the
the
clarity
of
when
we
talk
about
minimal
changes.
When
the
population
of
the
city
didn't
change,
it
seems
like
there
probably
were
still
pretty
substantial
changes
to
districts
that
were
made.
The
last
couple
cycles,
so
my
request
basically
is
also
if
the
clerk's
office
could
provide
the
maps
from
as
far
back
as
reasonable,
but
perhaps
from
you
know
the
2001
process
and
2011
process.
You
know
just
we
get
those
those
touch
points.
B
B
Before
2010
redistricting
was
a
partisan
process,
so
there
were
members
of
every
political
party
appointed
by
the
charter.
Commission
could
appoint
members,
but
they
had
to
be
from
lists
of
names
that
were
submitted
by
political
parties.
So
there
was
a
lot
more
wheeling
and
dealing
with
council
members
driving
around
to
redistricting
commissioners
houses
with
proposed
plans.