House committee advances constitutional amendment to create bipartisan redistricting commission

The House Elections, Finance and Government Operations Committee on Monday voted 6-5 to recommend passage of House File 550, a constitutional amendment proposal to create a bipartisan, eight-member redistricting commission and refer the measure to the state government finance committee.

Representative Paul Torkelson, the bill’s author, told the committee the amendment “is a constitutional amendment, pretty simple in nature, and it sets up a redistricting commission that is bipartisan, evenly divided, and recognizes the political nature of the work of redistricting.” He said the change is intended to reduce the likelihood that the courts ultimately draw Minnesota’s legislative maps in future cycles.

The vote came after the committee approved an A1 author’s amendment that Rep. Torkelson said clarifies appointment language to account for unusual circumstances such as ties in party leadership. The committee adopted the A1 amendment by voice vote before taking the roll-call recommendation on the bill as amended.

Why it matters: The proposal would change Minnesota’s constitution to create a permanent, bipartisan commission to draw legislative districts, shifting the default from the existing legislative-driven process that in past decades has repeatedly ended up with court intervention. Supporters said the measure would improve transparency and public trust; opponents said HF550 leaves key conflicts of interest and design flaws unaddressed.

Supporters’ arguments and testimony Brian Cook, director of taxes, fiscal policy and elections at the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, testified the Chamber — which represents more than 6,300 businesses — supports HF550 because it “creates a transparent framework where political biases are exposed rather than hidden” and requires an evenly balanced commission that must reach bipartisan compromise.

A Brennan Center for Justice attorney, identified in testimony as Mr. Lee and introduced as senior counsel at the Brennan Center at NYU School of Law, said the center applauds the committee for taking up the issue but declined to endorse HF550 in its current form. He told members that while the bill “takes a step in the right direction by requiring 6 of 8 members of the bipartisan commission to approve a map,” the Brennan Center sees “structural weaknesses” including limited restrictions on who may serve and weak protections for communities of color.

Other nonprofit witnesses echoed concerns about structure and public participation. Mei Yang, senior manager of policy and partnerships with the Minnesota Council on Foundations, said the bill’s appointment process “proposes that commissioners be appointed by elected officials,” and urged an appointing authority not affiliated with a political party and more robust community input, including hearings scheduled evenings and weekends. A Common Cause Minnesota representative read Executive Director Anastasia Belladonna’s submitted remarks, saying HF550 “allows caucus leadership to handpick proxies” and lacks “meaningful transparency and critical checks and balance.”

Critics and public comment Tom Weason, identified as a resident, testified strongly against HF550’s partisan appointments, calling the bill’s model “a duopoly” that would embed party control and stressing that redistricting requires impartial members without party affiliations or party-selection influence.

Committee questions and points of contention Committee members pressed multiple structural questions. Representative Coulter asked what would happen if the commission deadlocked and could not reach the 6-of-8 threshold required under the proposal; Rep. Torkelson said the design aims to force agreement but acknowledged he was “not sure of the remedy” if the commission cannot agree.

Several members raised concerns about the limited list of people excluded from service under the bill (current federal, state or local elected officials and immediate family members and certain appointed officials). Representative Coulter noted that former elected officials, candidates, party officials and lobbyists appear eligible and said that raised conflict-of-interest concerns.

Brennan Center counsel Mr. Lee urged elevating communities of interest in the bill’s priorities and warned that criteria such as undefined compactness could harm communities of color. He recommended several changes: stronger eligibility restrictions for commissioners, elevating communities of interest in the criteria, and clarifying that total population (not voters or adults) be the basis for apportionment.

Author’s response and next steps Rep. Torkelson said his door is open to changes but emphasized urgency: he argued Minnesota may face a loss of a congressional seat after the next census and that the legislature should put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ensure a new commission would be in place when needed. He renewed his motion to recommend HF550 as amended to pass and be referred to the state government finance committee.

Formal action The committee approved the A1 author’s amendment (voice vote) and then approved the motion to recommend House File 550 as amended to pass and be referred to the state government finance committee in a roll call of 6 ayes and 5 nays.

Votes at a glance - Motion: Move that House File 550 as amended be recommended to pass and be referred to the state government finance committee. Mover: Chair Quam. Outcome: Approved by roll call, 6 ayes, 5 nays. - Amendment A1 (author’s amendment): Moved by Representative Paul Torkelson to clarify appointment language for tie scenarios. Outcome: Approved (voice vote).

What remains unresolved: Witnesses, legal experts and committee members requested stronger limits on who may serve (for example, banning lobbyists or recent candidates), clearer statutory vs. constitutional placement of redistricting criteria, a partisan-gerrymandering standard, explicit protections and definitions for communities of interest, and procedures for commission deadlock and staffing funding. Rep. Greenman indicated she would withdraw a separate DE amendment today but pursue her alternative proposal in later stops.

The measure will be considered next by the State Government Finance Committee.