A Look at the Affluent District 64 in St. Paul, Minnesota

Geographically, Minnesota's district 64 etches a figure out of suburban St. Paul roughly similar to the shape of the state as a whole: wide at the bottom, tapering slightly at the midsection before ballooning impressively along the east-west axis at the top.

Politically, the district is an exaggeration of some of the state's attributes. In a state known for its priorities on education, district 64 stands out for its colleges and the education of its constituents. In a state known for progressive politics where Democrats run both houses, district 64 elects Democratic leaders by wide margins.

Amid this progressive sanctuary, state Senator Richard (Dick) Cohen has established himself as the premier political heavyweight, winning the right to represent the people of district 64 in election after election for more than 20 years.

In such a Democratic district, competition in the general election has been less than cutthroat. In the 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2006 elections, Cohen has defeated a GOP Joe and three Republicans with the Christian name of Chris--Joe Zappa, Christopher Berg, Chris Johnson and Christine Van Tassel--by widening margins: 28 points, 44 points, 44 points and 53 points.

(Side note: It is interesting how difficult it is to obtain this information. An internet search yields results only for 2006 and a LexisNexis search only yields the results for 2002. To find the results for 2000 and 1996, it is necessary to look in the Microfilm records of the Pioneer Press where district election results are presented in a tabular format. This lack of easily ready information for public election results is an interesting malaise but a subject, perhaps, for another day.)

As far as the effect of the 2000 redistricting, the data point to two different interpretations. The general trend of increasingly lopsided victories for the Democratic candidate, Cohen, could point to a Democratic advantage from the redistricting. However, I do not think this is the only factor or even the predominant factor in the increasing Democratic success in the district. The margin of victory in 2000 and in 2002 was 44 points in both cases with Cohen receiving 72 percent of the vote, despite the fact that the redistricting was put into effect between the election of 2000 and that of 2002.

I think a more likely explanation for the jump in Democratic support is the rising power, and thus appeal, of Cohen. In the period between the election of 1996 and 2000, Cohen was appointed joint chair of the Finance Committee. This gave him the ability to wield more power in exercising the will of his constituents and also allowed garnered him more press. His appointment, in 2003, as sole chair of the Finance Committee would explain his even better performance in the 2006 election. Cohen's increased success in elections could be reflective of his personal promotion rather than the changes of redistricting.

However, this theory also lends credibility to the possibility that the 2000 redistricting was a boon to Cohen. It would explain how in 2002, even though the Republican take-over of the senate cost him his chairmanship of the Finance Committee, 72 percent of voters in district 64 still voted for Cohen.

Of course, it is rarely possible to pinpoint the vicissitudes of election returns. Each election includes unique challenges for Cohen, or any Democrat, from hot-button local issues such as the new Twins stadium to the continually shifting national political landscape. The variety of factors that go into how voters vote is the reason why charges of gerrymandering so often fall flat.

Minnesota State Legislature. Accessed 2/17/08. http://www.gis.leg.mn/html/l2002/pdf/64.pdf

District 64. Minnesota Legislature Senate Demographic Profiles.

November 8, 2006 St. Paul Pioneer Press; November 8, 2000 Pioneer Press; November 6, 1996 Pioneer Press; November 6, 2002 Minneapolis Star Tribune

November 8, 2000 Pioneer Press; November 6, 2002 Minneapolis Star Tribune

December 11, 2000 Star Tribune